# 50 Greatest Composers by 174 Composers



## Lisztian

BBC music magazine asked 174 contemporary composers to vote for 5 composers as the 'greatest' of all time, then they tallied up the results to come up with a list of 50. Here are the results:

1. Bach
2. Stravinsky
3. Beethoven
4. Mozart
5. Debussy
6. Ligeti
7. Mahler
8. Wagner
9. Ravel
10. Monteverdi
11. Britten
12. Sibelius
13. Messiaen
14. Bartók
15. Shostakovich
16. Haydn
17. Saariaho
18. Brahms
19. Reich
20. Chopin
21. Vaughan Williams
22. Schoenberg
23. Gesualdo
24. Janáček
25. Schubert
26. Gershwin
27. Glass
28. Ives
29. Prokofiev
30. Lutoslawski
31. Cage
32. Tchaikovsky
33. Berg
34. Feldman
35. Varèse
36. Webern
37. Byrd
38. R.Strauss
39. Verdi
40. Elgar
41. Birtwistle
42. Knussen
43. Sondheim
44. Stockhausen
45. Satie
46. Tallis
47. Hildegard von Bingen
48. Boulez
49. Schumann
50. Rachmaninov

Thoughts?


----------



## Open Book

Is this in order of greatness? Obviously nationalism influences lists quite a bit, I'd like to know where these composers are from.


----------



## Lisztian

Open Book said:


> Is this in order of greatness? Obviously nationalism influences lists quite a bit, I'd like to know where these composers are from.


Greatness seems to be the prompt. I don't have the magazine myself so I'm not sure about particulars.


----------



## joen_cph

Stephen Sondheim is on the list, but no Nielsen or Nørgård, Murail, Dutilleux, Xenakis, Nono or Penderecki, for example ... they have been quite influential, though.


----------



## KenOC

Lisztian said:


> ...Thoughts?


 So where did the BBC find "174 contemporary composers"?

As for the list, it seems an odd mixture of the obvious and the peculiar.


----------



## Lisztian

KenOC said:


> So where did the BBC find "174 contemporary composers"?
> 
> As for the list, it seems an odd mixture of the obvious and the peculiar.


If anyone does have the magazine and can give more details on the particulars, it would be appreciated. I made this thread after seeing a thread on this topic on another forum. Some composers who were reported to have voted are: Kalevi Aho, Unsuk Chin, Ola Gjeilo, Jennifer Higdon, Stephen Hough, Lowell Liebermann, Magnus Lindberg, Roxanna Panufnik, Steve Reich, Bent Sørensen, John Williams, Eric Whitacre, Thea Musgrave, and John Luther Adams.

Edit: apparently they were asked to vote based on: originality, impact, craftsmanship and enjoyability.


----------



## Bulldog

Given that living composers made the list, I'm surprised that Gubaidulina didn't make it. Overall, the list looks as good as most others I've seen.


----------



## Larkenfield

I would have found the list more interesting if each composer had listed more of their favorites without restrictions. Evidently, today’s composer still listen to a lot of the traditional ones, which I find rather surprising but hopeful. I would have expected more new names higher up on the list.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I agree with this list in general, much more than with the usual sort of critics' consensus, which I feel is much more dogmatic.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

What an absolute joke


----------



## starthrower

All white composers list. Sondheim and Glass, but no Duke Ellington. Some conservative English composers, but no Takemitsu.


----------



## pjang23

The oddness of the results is due to the composers only being allowed to vote for 5 composers. They probably made room for personal favorites as a result, and the rankings are pretty meaningless when you go further down the list.


----------



## Lisztian

starthrower said:


> All white composers list. Sondheim and Glass, but no Duke Ellington. Some conservative English composers, but no Takemitsu.


Indeed, and I did read that they were allowed to vote for 'non-classical' composers and some did vote for the likes of Bjork, John Coltrane, Kate Bush, Bill Evans, and Duke Ellington. I wonder if they were told they could or it just wasn't specified. It's surprising to me that guys like Coltrane or Miles didn't make it.


----------



## Ethereality

I love these BBC lists. They're monumental and well-chosen, especially because statistics on 'favorites' data is more reliable than the more questionable 'ratings/score'. See the two they did on world critics' favorite movies (of all-time, and 21st century.) Vastly different result from HorribleTomatoes, due to favoriting polling.


----------



## DeepR

No Handel, Liszt, Bruckner, Scriabin and others... yeahhhh, no.


----------



## 1996D

Lisztian said:


> BBC music magazine asked 174 *contemporary* composers to vote for 5 composers as the 'greatest' of all time, then they tallied up the results to come up with a list of 50. Here are the results:


It was over before it began. The bias in this list is obvious, with a heavy focus on modern unimportant composers, because those who voted are just that. It's like they're promoting themselves...can't blame them.


----------



## Lisztian

DeepR said:


> No Handel, Liszt, Bruckner, Scriabin and others... yeahhhh, no.


And no Berlioz  (and a few others, especially pre-19th century composers) But I do find a few of the other selections/placings refreshing.


----------



## janxharris

Stravinsky at no.2 is unusual. I'd infer that is based on the merits of the Rite of Spring.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I read it the other way - as a recognition that Stravinsky was far more than the Rite.


----------



## Ethereality

1996D said:


> It was over before it began. The bias in this list is obvious, with a heavy focus on modern unimportant composers, because those who voted are just that. It's like they're promoting themselves...can't blame them.


There's another reason people don't want to compose classical music, not just 'it's been done.' You said these composers are unimportant, yet you ask a lot of composers like the ones making this list, and they are important.

I like this list because it's *not* biased. It's very balanced between periods. It's not a giant collection of every name born around Beethoven's time, and it's definitely not a collection of people who are still alive. To even hint at period bias is silly. As mentioned in my previous post, BBC is known for their intelligent polls that are based on a sound mechanism.

Of course I'd like to see who the representative sample are, but knowing BBC, there are probably some big names on here. The success and professionalism of modern composers is the best likeness we have to critic opinion. If you're a professional then I guess share your top 5. Otherwise yours is an opinion of someone already belonging to a predictable and safe grouping, early-classical fandom.

BBC lists seek to be more objective about all the modern data we have now.


----------



## Guest

'Contemporary' composers? Ha! Biased before we even start. They should have made some effort to ask composers from all periods of history. This would have been much more representative.


----------



## Ethereality

So half of the poll sample would be asked who the best composer before Bach was? Not knowing Bach yet? Doesn't make sense.

This list is not that biased, it's pretty balanced with all periods. Tell me how many composers on this list are alive?

I think _classical fans_ might be the ones biased toward their favored music, hence the name. To see people responding negatively to a not-that-controversial BBC poll, probably one of the most accurate lists you will find, is unfortunate. Someone mentioned, 'they don't have x favorite composer, the list is garbage.' Well, it's a top 50 list not a top 200.



pjang23 said:


> The oddness of the results is due to the composers only being allowed to vote for 5 composers. They probably made room for personal favorites as a result,


That's... the point.

It's not the reason for the oddness, the oddness is from you not seeing this data before until now.


----------



## Guest

http://m.classical-music.com/news/j...-today-s-leading-composers-bbc-music-magazine


----------



## starthrower

Lisztian said:


> Indeed, and I did read that they were allowed to vote for 'non-classical' composers and some did vote for the likes of Bjork, John Coltrane, Kate Bush, Bill Evans, and Duke Ellington. I wonder if they were told they could or it just wasn't specified. It's surprising to me that guys like Coltrane or Miles didn't make it.


Did Birtwistle or Knussen have a larger impact than Ellington? Miles didn't really write that much music. And Coltrane I view more as an improviser. Ellington was a hugely influential composer and songwriter but they chose Gershwin instead.


----------



## Ethereality

Composer lists are never about influence, that is because Stravinsky's famous words 'Great composers don't borrow, they steal' holds true to most of those who just want the most elevated-possible music. The sample forming this list believe that Stravinsky, Bach, Debussy, etc. have elevated music better than most, making them the definition of a better composer.

As I hinted at pjang23, is it not of greatest priority to list your favorite composers? meaning, the composers who simply sound the best? That's the least-problematic quality to measure. If lists were about influence, then the likes of Machaut and Josquin (and unknown composers, perhaps even drum-beat cavemen) would be at the top. Doesn't mean everybody wants to listen to them. People are being honest with themselves and allowing the best music to advance.

Even now, BBC making this poll and it being discussed by various groups, is changing history, whether you can measure it or not. Humanity is a constant evolution, and this list represents some aspect of it. People mocking at Debussy and Ligeti holding spots #5 and #6, while the majority of composers on the list are older/classic, is more of a sign of denial than anything else.


----------



## Lisztian

starthrower said:


> Did Birtwistle or Knussen have a larger impact than Ellington? Miles didn't really write that much music. And Coltrane I view more as an improviser. Ellington was a hugely influential composer and songwriter but they chose Gershwin instead.


Definitely not!

Well, I've heard that some these days consider improvisation to be a compositional tool, and the poll seems to have been regarding 'composers', not 'classical composers.'


----------



## DavidA

174 mainly untalented unknowns assessing genius. The fact that there is no Handel on the list shows what a bunch of losers they are.


----------



## Duncan

Ethereality said:


> As mentioned in my previous post, BBC is known for their intelligent polls that are based on a sound mechanism.
> 
> BBC lists seek to be more objective about all the modern data we have now.


No one agreed with these polls either -

*The 20 Greatest Violinists of All Time -*

http://www.classical-music.com/article/20-greatest-violinists-all-time

http://www.classical-music.com/article/20-greatest-violinistshow-musicians-voted

*The 20 Greatest Conductors of All Time -*

http://m.classical-music.com/article/20-greatest-conductors-all-time

http://www.classical-music.com/article/who-are-maestros-who-inspired-todays-greatest-conductors

All that we can agree upon is that we can't agree upon anything...


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

They should have required each these composers to define the word, greatest.


----------



## Ethereality

DavidA said:


> *The fact that there is no Handel on the list shows what a bunch of losers they are.*


Baroque isn't as widely appealing or imaginative to composers nowadays, and music is always evolving whether we notice it or not. There are at least 1,000 major composers to chose from, the fact of them coming up with Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Monteverdi, Haydn, Tallis, Hindegard von Bingen, Brahms, in a limited list of only 50 spots with great variety in most of the defining periods, is quite acceptable. Most of the composers on this list are also on your typical classical list, so if you were Beethoven living in 1810, choosing Handel would be common, but it's 2019 now. Your opinion on Handel is more popular, not necessarily the best critical choice, and so are opinions on Kanye West more 'popular.' The difference is, Handel or any composer making spot 60, is definitely an honor, so I don't _really_ see your point.


----------



## Ethereality

Mollie John said:


> All that we can agree upon is that we can't agree upon anything...


Music isn't a hard science, that is because it's based in biology and psychology and these sciences inherently change through the years, unlike physics and math which aren't dependent on the subjective.

To say Bach is objectively the best, is something that is bound to change, and not based on any objective criteria of music as a science: It's based on the already diverse evolution of humans breaking into new branches of taste and qualities. Humanity can never be united in opinions about art, and nor was it meant to be. But tastes are changing, mostly because we're coming out with more composers. More music, more to like. Simple. But to stubborn traditionalists, nothing can ever change. They don't analyze history.


----------



## Fabulin

And then everyone was like "Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and two agenda votes".

Stravinsky being voted second greatest would be a good first slide to an "everything wrong with modern classical music" documentary.

I second that the lack of Mendelssohn, Liszt, Haendel, Brueckner, and Dvorak is a 10% deviation from common sense even before we go into "who was greater than who".

And then... just look at that sarabande of second-raters above Tchaikovsky. Yeah.

The problem is that if 173 voters came up with 49 unique choices, and 1 wacko voted another wacko into the TOP 5, that person would be higher than _anyone _who most, or even all voters would agree deserves a 6th-50th spot.


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> 174 mainly untalented unknowns assessing genius. The fact that there is no Handel on the list shows what a bunch of losers they are.


Higdon isn't an unknown - her Blue Cathedral is very successful.

So, implicitly, I am a loser?


----------



## Fabulin

Maybe we should make a list with the exact same criteria. Let's see if Talk Classical users are more sensible judges than "174 modern composers"


----------



## Ethereality

Fabulin said:


> I second that the lack of Mendelssohn, Liszt, Haendel, Brueckner, and Dvorak is a 10% deviation from common sense even before we go into "who was greater than who".
> 
> And then... just look at that sarabande of second-raters above Tchaikovsky. Yeah.


This is more a failure to accept the ever-progressing evolution in music and taste, the new powerhouses coming into music, as they always will, compared to the more safe traditional group that is rooted in this agreed-upon past agenda. It's easy to defend the side you're on. What music did in the past 200 years is an easier history to fondly grasp than what it did in the past 50 years and the digital age. That is because the latter hasn't been discussed and theorized enough, nor music embraced by the larger, louder, and less-learned side of opinions from a forum such as this, nor would I expect it to be. Even if something sounds bad, if it's popular or traditional, it will win a more-likely vote. That's the lesson, a general lack of understanding for the things we haven't had time yet to collectively understand. Evolution always happens but it takes time, and time to notice.

I think we forget that these lists are always subjective, but BBC with their particular lists aims to be academically honest and open to a lot of musical wisdom we have now--not the loud and common traditionalist's picks you hear everywhere, that are often less transformative in their learning.

As far as Handel and Liszt, with such a representative list, somewhere between 50 and 75th place for them is an honor, and fairly honest to this academic populace. There are a lot of composers now and we're not necessarily measuring 'influence' here, just overall quality. Liszt a pianist with a certain sound and inventive temperament, isn't a requirement for everyone, as much as any composer is.



Fabulin said:


> The problem is that if 173 voters came up with 49 unique choices, and 1 wacko voted another wacko into the TOP 5, that person would be higher than _anyone _who most, or even all voters would agree deserves a 6th-50th spot.


If the sample of composers being polled are a good quality, as BBC usually does a studied job at contacting, then a few potentials like this don't matter to the whole of what should be a practical list of this period, not a scientific conclusion. It is more just an unwillingness to understand that changes in music taste happen all the time and in the past 50 to 100 years, within academia and further spreading to the common listener, the fact that we have new composers a majority of people don't closely study enough, and this general repulsion to an honest and interesting poll should enlighten one more than anything else. It goes to show the types of people we're dealing with on this forum.


----------



## Larkenfield

DavidA said:


> 174 mainly untalented unknowns assessing genius. The fact that there is no Handel on the list shows what a bunch of losers they are.


They evidently had some kind of standing or reputation or they never would have been asked to participate in the first place. No one has any idea whether they were untalented or not, certainly not whether they were a bunch of "losers". They were certainly aware of many of the traditional greats and that wouldn't classify them to be condemned for their choices.


----------



## norman bates

Lisztian said:


> Indeed, and I did read that they were allowed to vote for 'non-classical' composers and some did vote for the likes of Bjork, John Coltrane, Kate Bush, Bill Evans, and Duke Ellington. I wonder if they were told they could or it just wasn't specified. It's surprising to me that guys like Coltrane or Miles didn't make it.


I don't think Miles Davis wasn't a particularly great writer (altough I love some of the tunes he wrote). And considering his compositional abilities Coltrane was better but still not as Ellington, Monk, Wayne Shorter, Herbie Nichols, Andrew Hill, Charles Mingus, Horace Silver or others.


----------



## norman bates

1996D said:


> It was over before it began. The bias in this list is obvious, with a heavy focus on modern unimportant composers, because those who voted are just that. It's like they're promoting themselves...can't blame them.


 talking of bias I wonder how much you like modern classical music after this comment.


----------



## norman bates

Fabulin said:


> Maybe we should make a list with the exact same criteria. Let's see if Talk Classical users are more sensible judges than "174 modern composers"


spoiler alert: we're not.
At least in the sense that every list that is like a sum of votes will have very popular composers high because of their popularity.
Probably here it would just be a much more conservative list.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> 174 mainly untalented unknowns assessing genius. The fact that there is no Handel on the list shows what a bunch of losers they are.


Ah, you've read the article and can tell us who voted....


----------



## Bigbang

DeepR said:


> No Handel, Liszt, Bruckner, Scriabin and others... yeahhhh, no.


But would these composers you named above be on your Top 5? I would say not for me. I think either I am not understanding the polling or the replies seem to be directed at the list as a whole which I think would be a mistake.


----------



## Ethereality

It may also be a mistake to presume anything too negative about the list of polled contemporaries in their respective studies without taking a look at oneself first. Even if we don't have their details yet. BBC tends to be on the high-end of quality.


----------



## Duncan

The single issue is available at zinio.com and a glimple of the first page is available -

One thing that I did notice is a statement on the contents page which reads - 

"Editorial- Plus the composers we think should have made our top 50..."

which leads me to think that not even they agreed with the results and may have actually been sorry that they even asked...


----------



## Guest

So, who should have been polled if the 174 were losers? I think some readers here just jumped straight to the list (as is their right), didn't bother to read the information given about the exercise (as is their right) and rushed to criticise the list because it was so obviously WRONG! (it's neither right nor wrong).

Bother. I've just been into town and forgotten to bring back a copy.

Mind you, what's the point? The last time I posted further information about a BBC Music poll (greatest conductor), members were still outraged that their personal favourite was not number one and criticised the poll for being WRONG!


----------



## mmsbls

I downloaded the issue. They list all the 174 composers queried and their responses. I recognized many of the composers, but many were unknown to me as well. Here are some results listed in alphabetical order (the way it's listed in the magazine).

Gerald Barry:
Feldman, Mozart, Obrecht, Satie, Webern

Neil Brand:
Beethoven, Bennett, Debussy, Mahler, Stravinsky

Steve Reich:
Bach, Bartok, John Coltrane, Perotin, Stravinsky

Unsuk Chin:
Bach, CHopin, Mozart, Stravinsky, Webern

Eric Whitacre:
Bach, Debussy, Monteverdi, Prokofiev, Stravinsky


----------



## starthrower

Ethereality said:


> People mocking at Debussy and Ligeti holding spots #5 and #6, while the majority of composers on the list are older/classic, is more of a sign of denial than anything else.


Two of the most original sounding composers to my ears whether they're on some list or not.


----------



## mmsbls

The magazine lists each of the chosen 50 along with a comment from one of the 174 composers. For example, Gavin Byars says of Cage, "...Cage was one of the two major artists of the 20th century - the other being Marcel Duchamp. ... Cage's music is constantly surprising, often baffling, and always liberating."

I think the nice aspect of this list is that it comes from a group of people who spend their life composing and are, at a minimum, rather accomplished (i.e. they are acknowledged as some of the finest living composers by the world's best selling classical magazine). This group gives us a sense of what those who devote their life to classical music as composers think of all those composers who have ever lived. 

They don't agree with each other, and certainly many here may disagree with the overall choices. Nevertheless, the list is interesting and maybe gives a sense of how contemporary composers view the world of composing a bit differently from the average classical music listener.


----------



## Ethereality

Hopefully someone will add this useful information to the OP.


----------



## pjang23

Ethereality said:


> That's... the point.
> 
> It's not the reason for the oddness, the oddness is from you not seeing this data before until now.


Not quite. I meant if the number of votes was extended from top 5 to say top 25 there would be a lot less deviation from the usual names, and the rankings would be more statistically meaningful. With votes of top 5's you can't infer much beyond the top ranks, and the bottom of the list is mostly noise.

That said, the top 10 is not very surprising considering it is a poll of contemporary composers.


----------



## Simon Moon

I see nothing wrong with the list overall.

First of all, they polled living composers, many of whom are going to list the composers _they_ were directly influenced by.

The fact that many here, that go into this with an existing prejudice against anything composed after 1910, disagree with much of the list, is pretty predictable.

So, why are 'untalented unknown' incapable of assessing genius? Mediocre and unknown: actors, directors, artists, authors, chefs, athletes, are certainly capable of assessing genius in those creative fields.

Not to mention, that the assessment of these 174 contemporary composers as 'untalented', is also suspect. I would guess that I probably know of many of these composers, since I am a fan of contemporary classical, and don't consider them untalented.


----------



## Guest

pjang23 said:


> Not quite. I meant if the number of votes was extended from top 5 to say top 25 there would be a lot less deviation from the usual names, and the rankings would be more statistically meaningful. With votes of top 5's you can't infer much beyond the top ranks, and the bottom of the list is mostly noise.
> 
> That said, the top 10 is not very surprising considering it is a poll of contemporary composers.


What's to infer? It is what it is. A list compiled based on responses from a relevant group, on the basis of given criteria. It doesn't claim to be the last, definitive word on the subject of "the greatest".


----------



## Ethereality

pjang23 said:


> Not quite. I meant if the number of votes was extended from top 5 to say top 25 there would be a lot less deviation from the usual names, and the rankings would be more statistically meaningful. With votes of top 5's you can't infer much beyond the top ranks, and the bottom of the list is mostly noise.
> 
> That said, the top 10 is not very surprising considering it is a poll of contemporary composers.


Polling Top 5 is due to the phenomenon of favorites. There is much more personal value and statistical use for top favorites, than assuming one could extract accurate value in 25 choices for each. Even if they rank them accordingly, the totaling simply might not be as accurate to the psyche as top favorites are. The phenomenon of favorites is something you will find true in any corner of academia.

I agree with one aspect of what you said: This falling-off towards the bottom is how lists are. They're practical, not scientific, as are all music opinions. BBC decided to end the list at 50 I'm sure for a good reason, and could've gone only 25, sure.


----------



## Open Book

Ethereality said:


> I like this list because it's *not* biased. It's very balanced between periods. It's not a giant collection of every name born around Beethoven's time, and it's definitely not a collection of people who are still alive. To even hint at period bias is silly. As mentioned in my previous post, BBC is known for their intelligent polls that are based on a sound mechanism.
> 
> .


How do you know it's not biased? The very fact that it achieves a kind of balance could mean there was a deliberate (though maybe unconscious) attempt to foster diversity in the list. Instead choosing whom they really like, which could be not much different from what the average listener likes, maybe these composers felt a bit pressured to make their lists contain variety so that they look like well-rounded people with the expertise to understand and appreciate a wide diversity of music. An anonymous list of these same composers might have produced different results.


----------



## Ethereality

I don't really see how such a bias would seep in with everyone. In the movie industry, sure. With your argument you can say anyone could be biased in their opinion--and that is more or less true. But if these contemporaries are clearly appreciating the eras of classical, romantic, medieval, why don't you and this forum appreciate contemporary? It could be an issue of learning/understanding, not what you're pretending it is. So why trust the BBC poll you ask? An easier reason:

I think there is loads of bias in the classical community, for example, the community has firm tastes for that era, less-learned experience on average for unveiling the depths of contemporary and others, much more ignorance than a professional, on average. So I am moreso being general to my experience on this, I am pretty sure that BBC polled a more quality-controlled selection of experts than this forum. Biased? As always, but moreso? People sometimes have a hard time being honest with their real tastes in light of appeasing their knowledge to others, I agree with you that could be a possibility. Or maybe they're being honest. The real issue is _Classical fan_ lists are guaranteed to be biased, based on traditional stuckedness and lack of learning. Asking a forum of even greater nobodies to assume the objectively best composers, means by default they don't give the correct answers. A group of people so pinned to one genre of music, they have a hard time interpreting newer music or finding quality in it. Why even worry about the imaginary shortcomings of a BBC poll? Polls aren't objective, they're just for practicality.


----------



## mmsbls

pjang23 said:


> Not quite. I meant if the number of votes was extended from top 5 to say top 25 there would be a lot less deviation from the usual names, and the rankings would be more statistically meaningful. With votes of top 5's you can't infer much beyond the top ranks, and the bottom of the list is mostly noise.
> 
> That said, the top 10 is not very surprising considering it is a poll of contemporary composers.


I counted the votes (hopefully accurately), and they do fall off rather rapidly. It looks like the bottom, at least, 30 could be ordered rather differently with a couple of differing votes.

1 Bach 99
10 Monteverdi 18
20 Chopin 6
30 Lutoslawski 5
40 Elgar 4
50 Rachmaninov 1


----------



## Open Book

Ethereality said:


> With that argument you can say anything or anyone could be biased in their opinion--and that is more or less true. I think there is loads of bias in the classical community, for example, because the community has subjective tastes for that era and less for contemporary and others. With that post I was moreso being general to my experience on this, I am pretty sure that _classical fan_ lists are biased in favor of classical and romantic music, based on personal taste and lack of openness, where as I don't really see a well-chosen list of music experts as _as likely_ to be biased or lie about it than a forum would. The potential is still there, sure, but based on their high level of expertise and job description I see less potential.


A group of composers is very conscious of their status and how their choices look to both classical listeners and their own critical peers. That could influence how they choose. It might make them choose a more diverse list. If they're from a country that is not one of the "big" ones like Germany, Austria, Italy, they may want to promote their own. They're not supposed to go with their hearts, but their heads, I get that. In that case they could be showing off to their peers by being more unconventional than they would be if their choices were not under scrutiny.

I just can't makes sense of the positions of some on that list. Why is Stravinsky all the way up at number 2? Why are there some very obscure names? The composers questioned are contemporary, yet they should still have an appreciation of the past and not automatically favor composers closer to their own era, which I think they are doing.


----------



## Ethereality

Can you reread my edited post above. I explained why I would chose a safer list like this over most of the particular opinions on this forum.



Open Book said:


> *Why is Stravinsky all the way up at number 2?* They should still have an appreciation of the past and not automatically favor composers closer to their own era.


Why not? I'm pretty familiar with Stravinsky's greatness in the public arena and online as one of the highest-rated composers. I think this list shows these composers do have an appreciation of the past, is that what you mean? See here. If they appreciate these eras, why wouldn't you and this forum appreciate contemporary? It could simply be an issue of understanding/learning.

My friend below would probably like to put Handel over Stravinsky for instance. Why, because he finds even just that era more tasteful, perhaps simpler to take in. In order for everyone to love contemporary, they would have to invest in it and study it more.


----------



## DavidA

Ethereality said:


> Baroque isn't as widely appealing or imaginative to composers nowadays, and music is always evolving whether we notice it or not. There are at least 1,000 major composers to chose from, the fact of them coming up with Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Monteverdi, Haydn, Tallis, Hindegard von Bingen, Brahms, in a limited list of only 50 spots with great variety in most of the defining periods, is quite acceptable. Most of the composers on this list are also on your typical classical list, so if you were Beethoven living in 1810, choosing Handel would be common, but it's 2019 now. Your opinion on Handel is more popular, not necessarily the best critical choice, and so are opinions on Kanye West more 'popular.' The difference is, Handel or any composer making spot 60, is definitely an honor, so I don't _really_ see your point.


Sorry mate, but as Beethoven reckoned Handel was the greatest, I do see my point! I'd sooner take Beethoven's word rater than the never wases who were voting! :lol:


----------



## Ethereality

Beethoven wasn't a favorite of Bach, Mozart, or Haydn. So your exact method of picking Handel also fails by the same logic, pal 

Should we just skip all Romantic composers because they weren't a favorite of Beethoven? For that matter would you like to skip over all Contemporary and Modern composers? Let's do it, make your list.

I don't see why every great composer needs to be in a Top 50. Isn't this list including _most _of the usual suspects good enough for you traditionalists?

1. Bach
2. Stravinsky
3. Beethoven
4. Mozart
5. Debussy
7. Mahler
8. Wagner
9. Ravel
10. Monteverdi
11. Britten
14. Bartók
15. Shostakovich
16. Haydn
18. Brahms
20. Chopin
21. Vaughan Williams
24. Janáček
25. Schubert
28. Ives
29. Prokofiev
32. Tchaikovsky
38. R.Strauss
39. Verdi
40. Elgar
45. Satie
46. Tallis
47. Hildegard
49. Schumann
50. Rachmaninov


----------



## DavidA

Ethereality said:


> Beethoven wasn't even a favorite of Bach, so your method fails there pal


Sorry but do you know any history? :lol:


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Simon Moon said:


> I see nothing wrong with the list overall.
> 
> First of all, they polled living composers, many of whom are going to list the composers _they_ were directly influenced by.
> 
> The fact that many here, that go into this with an existing prejudice against anything composed after 1910, disagree with much of the list, is pretty predictable.
> 
> So, why are 'untalented unknown' incapable of assessing genius? Mediocre and unknown: actors, directors, artists, authors, chefs, athletes, are certainly capable of assessing genius in those creative fields.
> 
> Not to mention, that the assessment of these 174 contemporary composers as 'untalented', is also suspect. I would guess that I probably know of many of these composers, since I am a fan of contemporary classical, and don't consider them untalented.


By stating that if you do not like modern music does make you prejudiced against it. But by stating I am prejudiced for not wanting to hear causes me to just ignoring that person.


----------



## Fabulin

mmsbls said:


> I downloaded the issue. They list all the 174 composers queried and their responses. I recognized many of the composers, but many were unknown to me as well. Here are some results listed in alphabetical order (the way it's listed in the magazine).
> 
> Gerald Barry:
> Feldman, Mozart, Obrecht, Satie, Webern
> 
> Neil Brand:
> Beethoven, Bennett, Debussy, Mahler, Stravinsky
> 
> Steve Reich:
> Bach, Bartok, John Coltrane, Perotin, Stravinsky
> 
> Unsuk Chin:
> Bach, CHopin, Mozart, Stravinsky, Webern
> 
> Eric Whitacre:
> Bach, Debussy, Monteverdi, Prokofiev, Stravinsky


Could you tell me if my guess is correct, that John Williams chose Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, and either Stravinsky, Ligeti, or Debussy?


----------



## DavidA

To be honest I wonder the BBC even published the results of the poll s all it does is make everyone concerned look very stupid by some its omissions and certain inclusions. But then the BBC is an organisation which tends to insult the intelligence of its audience on a regular basis


----------



## Ethereality

I wonder the BBC even published the results of the poll?

(A) They actually care about empirical data 
(B) They obviously want to p**s this forum off 
(C) People often appreciate the opinions of critics and professionals 
(D) They're "WRROOONGG and I want to express how much I know that" 
(E) People want to open their minds to possibly more advanced composers

Take your pick


----------



## regenmusic

No Schnittke or Rautavaara. Which goes along with my thought that modern dissonant composers really don't know good music.


----------



## Ethereality

This list isn't controversial enough! 

:lol:


----------



## DavidA

Ethereality said:


> I wonder the BBC even published the results of the poll?
> 
> (A) They actually care about empirical data
> (B) They obviously want to p**s this forum off
> (C) People often appreciate the opinions of critics and professionals
> (D) They're "WRROOONGG and I want to express how much I know that"
> (E) People want to open their minds to possibly more advanced composers
> 
> Take your pick


None of these. Just a pointless exercise which insulted the intelligence of anyone who knows anything about music. But as I say, the BBC sometimes makes a speciality of that sort of thing. I was scanning the awful magazine in a newsagents the other day and wondering why on earth anyone ever bought the rag.


----------



## Bulldog

It's funny how the folks who dump on this BBC list make such ignorant/stupid remarks.


----------



## mmsbls

Fabulin said:


> Could you tell me if my guess is correct, that John Williams chose Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, and either Stravinsky, Ligeti, or Debussy?


You are very close. He chose Brahms as the 5th.


----------



## DavidA

Bulldog said:


> It's funny how the folks who dump on this BBC list make such ignorant/stupid remarks.


I don't see anything either ignorant/ stupid in saying how ridiculous it is that Handel - one of the greatest composers ever - is not on a list of the top 50 composers. Seems to me an eminently sensible thing to say. Something that anyone of any knowledge of classical music would agree with.


----------



## Ethereality

Handel is a very popular name that hasn't had to share the spotlight in his era and wake, has been around a long time, and formed a foundation of music theory. If the romantic and contemporary eras are really as prolific and profound as many believe they are, it makes sense that some popular composers wouldn't make top 50 while a few of the tens of _thousands_ of contemporary composers would be on this list. You really think it's all just classical when modernism has been so prolific? That doesn't make sense. I advise you to step back a bit and understand the deep professional investigative process of music history. It doesn't end. We can list everybody who didn't make the list for days, not sure one is more relevant than another... since lists are collected opinions.


----------



## mmsbls

DavidA said:


> To be honest I wonder the BBC even published the results of the poll s all it does is make everyone concerned look very stupid by some its omissions and certain inclusions. But then the BBC is an organisation which tends to insult the intelligence of its audience on a regular basis


I don't see how it makes anyone look stupid. The BBC asked a group of composers, many of whom have many recorded works, for their views on composers. One of the 4 criteria was their personal enjoyment. That one criterion can change a list of conventional greats to one with significant modifications.

Why do you so thoroughly discount a group of people that would seem to have vastly more knowledge of composition than you or likely almost everyone on TC has?


----------



## Bulldog

DavidA said:


> I don't see anything either ignorant/ stupid in saying how ridiculous it is that Handel - one of the greatest composers ever - is not on a list of the top 50 composers. Seems to me an eminently sensible thing to say. Something that anyone of any knowledge of classical music would agree with.


There are plenty of classical music enthusiasts who do not consider Handel one of the greatest, although I'm not one of them.

I realize that you don't think well of the BBC list but saying that anyone with classical music knowledge would agree with you makes no sense and is insulting to those who do not agree. Your personal preferences do not apply to others.


----------



## KenOC

I think its safe to say that any such list, no matter who prepares it or how, or even who's on it, will generate a certain amount of righteous outrage.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

mmsbls said:


> I don't see how it makes anyone look stupid. The BBC asked a group of composers, many of whom have many recorded works, for their views on composers. One of the 4 criteria was their personal enjoyment. That one criterion can change a list of conventional greats to one with significant modifications.
> 
> Why do you so thoroughly discount a group of people that would seem to have vastly more knowledge of composition than you or likely almost everyone on TC has?


Even so called experts can make mistakes. So are saying no one can criticize contemporary compsers?


----------



## Ethereality

mmsbls said:


> I counted the votes (hopefully accurately), and they do fall off rather rapidly. It looks like the bottom, at least, 30 could be ordered rather differently with a couple of differing votes.
> 
> 1 Bach 99
> 10 Monteverdi 18
> 20 Chopin 6
> 30 Lutoslawski 5
> 40 Elgar 4
> 50 Rachmaninov 1


This is inaccurate. Chopin has 9 votes, Rachmaninov has 3 votes.

It's a magnificent article to read and take in.


----------



## Fabulin

To criticize contemporary composers is to be in league with tonal oldboys, Overture 1812, and Andre Rieu.


----------



## mmsbls

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Even so called experts can make mistakes. So are saying no one can criticize contemporary compsers?


No. And incidentally, not only so-called experts, but also real experts, can make mistakes.


----------



## mmsbls

Ethereality said:


> This is inaccurate. Rachmaninov has 3 votes.
> 
> It's a magnificent article to read and take in.


Thank you. I hope I didn't make a mistake on the others.


----------



## Ethereality

Err yes just Chopin.


----------



## DavidA

Bulldog said:


> There are plenty of classical music enthusiasts who do not consider Handel one of the greatest, although I'm not one of them.
> 
> I realize that you don't think well of the BBC list but saying that anyone with classical music knowledge would agree with you makes no sense and is insulting to those who do not agree. Your personal preferences do not apply to others.


I certainly think that the poll or the way it was done produces the most fat headed results with the omission of some of the greatest composers of all time and the inclusion of some people I at least have never never heard of. This is not a matter just of personal preference this is a matter of fact. Are we to take seriously a poll which reckons that Satie or Feldman was a greater composer than Handel? But this is what comes when you have rather silly polls conducted in a foolish fashion. But then it is typical of this magazine.


----------



## Bulldog

DavidA said:


> I certainly think that the poll or the way it was done produces the most fat headed results with the omission of some of the greatest composers of all time and the inclusion of some people I at least have never never heard of. This is not a matter just of personal preference this is a matter of fact. Are we to take seriously a poll which reckons that Satie or Feldman was a greater composer than Handel?


You can take a poll seriously without agreeing with all the outcomes.

That you have never heard of some of the composers on the list is rather odd - especially since you are member of TC.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Bulldog said:


> You can take a poll seriously without agreeing with all the outcomes.
> 
> That you have never heard of some of the composers on the list is rather odd - especially since you are member of TC.


Or you can choose to ignore a poll. Unless that freedom is gone?


----------



## Bulldog

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Or you can choose to ignore a poll. Unless that freedom is gone?


Are you ignoring the poll?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Bulldog said:


> Are you ignoring the poll?


Any poll without Handel in has the value of a Hillary Clinton poll from 2016 showing that she would be the 45th President.


----------



## Portamento

DavidA said:


> I certainly think that the poll or the way it was done produces the most fat headed results with the omission of some of the greatest composers of all time and the inclusion of some people I at least have never never heard of. This is not a matter just of personal preference this is a matter of fact. Are we to take seriously a poll which reckons that Satie or Feldman was a greater composer than Handel? But this is what comes when you have rather silly polls conducted in a foolish fashion. But then it is typical of this magazine.


This is a joke, right? Utter nonsense.


----------



## Ethereality

DavidA said:


> produces the most fat headed results with the omission of some of the greatest composers of all time *and the inclusion of some people I at least have never never heard of. *


Ah okay. Now it makes sense.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DavidA said:


> Sorry mate, but as Beethoven reckoned Handel was the greatest, I do see my point! I'd sooner take Beethoven's word rater than the never wases who were voting! :lol:


I don't think it was just Beethoven. https://books.google.ca/books?id=9iUxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT232 _"It is doubtful, however, that Haydn admired Bach more than Handel, many of whose works were also in Haydn's library, and who is known to have specifically praised by Haydn."_ Mozart: _"Handel understands effect better than any of us -- when he chooses, he strikes like a thunderbolt."_ 
Ethereality's attempt to pass off Handel as a mere popular composer of the 18th century strikes me as ridiculous. In reality Handel wasn't any less important than Bach through history and I consider Handel's Messiah just as great as Bach's B minor Mass artistry-wise.


----------



## Xisten267

I like these lists because they are useful to me as listening recommendation tools. Ligeti at #6 is certainly an interesting result to me, and I should be listening to some of his works in the next weeks because he's the only composer in this top ten whose works I almost completely ignore by now.


----------



## Ethereality

@Hammeredklavier. You have to understand the concept of retrospection in order to understand the balance that pre-exists in modern polls. Buxtehude isn't on the top of this list even though he's Bach's very favorite, and it's because if we simply go by favorites of favorites, we're left with the very earliest composers and no modern composer can be considered 'great' anymore. Maybe not even Handel. That's not the mechanism that works in honest academia. This list is much more balanced than most, I just don't think you understand the logic of polling. Is Handel an overall favorite throughout the 19th and 20th centuries? By logic of retrospection, influence, the clear answer is no he's not a 'favorite' to most composers, even though he may have been several big composers' influences, similar to Handel too having his biggest influences. Haydn and Beethoven are just 2 composers out of 50 on this list. I appreciate your personal opinion on Handel tremendously, though for an objective poll, you're being short-sighted to how things really work throughout time. Please reconsider this fundamental framework of music history, the process of cause-and-effect. This is the very mindset that traditionalists lack, as a rule, a mental barrier to actually grasping relevance. Or perhaps we can agree to disagree.


----------



## Lisztian

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I read it the other way - as a recognition that Stravinsky was far more than the Rite.


Agreed. Personally when I think of Stravinsky these days it's the great neo-classical works that come to mind.


----------



## PeterFromLA

I thought the list was super interesting. I would love it if this survey was sent out every ten years or so, offering us a kind of musical census. It would be of value to future music historians in understanding who composers at any given point were using as their frame of musical reference, that is, who it was that inhabited their sensibilities as totems, as exemplars of musical craft and expression.


----------



## DavidA

Portamento said:


> This is a joke, right? Utter nonsense.


No a joke is a poll of 50 greatest composers without Handel. A bigger joke is people taking this poll seriously. :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Allerius said:


> I like these lists because they are useful to me as listening recommendation tools. Ligeti at #6 is certainly an interesting result to me, and I should be listening to some of his works in the next weeks because he's the only composer in this top ten whose works I almost completely ignore by now.


As I find most of Ligeti unlistenable I don't find I should be subjecting my ears to his music whatever these guys might say. As for people like Stockhausen and Birtwhistle, I refer you to Sir Thomas Beecham!


----------



## DavidA

Ethereality said:


> @Hammeredklavier. You have to understand the concept of retrospection in order to understand the balance that pre-exists in modern polls. Buxtehude isn't on the top of this list even though he's Bach's very favorite, and it's because if we simply go by favorites of favorites, we're left with the very earliest composers and no modern composer can be considered 'great' anymore. Maybe not even Handel. *That's not the mechanism that works in honest academia.* This list is much more balanced than most, I just don't think you understand the logic of polling. Is Handel an overall favorite throughout the 19th and 20th centuries? By logic of retrospection, influence, the clear answer is no he's not a 'favorite' to most composers, even though he may have been several big composers' influences, similar to Handel too having his biggest influences. Haydn and Beethoven are just 2 composers out of 50 on this list. I appreciate your personal opinion on Handel tremendously, though for an objective poll, you're being short-sighted to how things really work throughout time. Please reconsider this fundamental framework of music history, the process of cause-and-effect. *This is the very mindset that traditionalists lack, as a rule, a mental barrier to actually grasping relevance.* Or perhaps we can agree to disagree.


Ah grasping relevance! I see. We have that annoying trait in that we believe music should be enjoyed by millions like Handel's has (and still is btw!) :lol: Oh boy! I am really sad I am not among the mindset in academia who lie on a musical bed of nails listening to some of the stuff they voted for! :tiphat:


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> No a joke is a poll of 50 greatest composers without Handel. A bigger joke is people taking this poll seriously. :lol:


Can you explain how the poll should have been conducted so that you might have taken it more seriously? It is, after all, only a poll of opinions, not a poll of facts.



DavidA said:


> As I find most of Ligeti unlistenable I don't find I should be subjecting my ears to his music whatever these guys might say.


It's OK David, no one is suggesting you should be "subjecting your ears" to anything. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a poll of opinions is about. It's not an instruction to anyone to do anything, so rest easy while you listen to Handel. I'm surprised you seem to be taking it so seriously, despite your trademark laughing emoji.


----------



## joen_cph

DavidA said:


> As I find most of Ligeti unlistenable I don't find I should be subjecting my ears to his music whatever these guys might say. As for people like Stockhausen and Birtwhistle, I refer you to Sir Thomas Beecham!


A lot of Ligeti is quite easily approachable. A good place to start is the 1st String Quartet or the Piano Etudes.


----------



## Larkenfield

Ligeti's music worked just fine in Kubrick's_ 2001 Space Odessey_. Where were the complainers of his music then who probably saw the movie and gladly sat through it? It worked perfectly within the space context because of its ethereal nature, and even the general public accepted it as part of this highly awarded masterpiece of a movie. Ligeti's music was a great part of its success.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> Haydn and Beethoven are just 2 composers out of 50 on this list.


As I said, it's not just Haydn and Beethoven. - Mozart: _"Handel understands effect better than any of us -- when he chooses, he strikes like a thunderbolt."_ 
I certainly find a lot more Handelian influence than Bachian in Mozart's choral works.

15:23 Salus Infirmorum (strongly reminds me of He Has Borne Our Griefs from Handel's Messiah)





4:49 Magnificat





2:00 Gloria
11:55 Hosanna in excelsis















https://books.google.ca/books?id=-Faikq3F8VYC&pg=PA268
_"According to Hiittenbrenner, Handel's Messiah was one of Schubert's favourite works. The Handel interest strengthened in 1828, when he acquired scores of the oratorios,"_

https://books.google.ca/books?id=weVU_y5_hQMC&pg=PA408
_"Brahms's interest in Handel's music is evidenced by his letters"_

https://books.google.ca/books?id=UTS_OQxucPcC&pg=PP41
_Schumann occasionally attended performances of works that Thibaut prepared and conducted. The compositions selected included little-known works by Durante, Leo, Marcello, Palestrina, and Vittoria, among others. Handel was a particular favorite; Bach - as might be expected given Thibaut's criticism of him - was performed infrequently._

https://books.google.ca/books?id=AOmXt2vLe94C&pg=PA149
_Mendelssohn's admiration for Handel was surpassed only by his esteem for Bach. His earliest encounters with Handel occurred at roughly the same time that he became acquainted with J. S. Bach, and both composers played a major role in his musical career. Indeed Hellmuth Christan Wolff has even suggested that "Handel's influence on Mendelssohn's creative work was at least as strong as Bach's [and that] perhaps Handel's personality . . . was closer to Mendelssohn's than that of Bach." Whatever the case, there is little question that Mendelssohn was a strong, lifelong advocate of Handel's music, particularly of his choral music._

https://books.google.ca/books?id=Jv-A9t9gGxIC&pg=PA44
_"It is reported that Bach said of Handel, "He is the only person I would wish to see before I die, and the only person I would wish to be, were I not Bach.""_


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> Is Handel an overall favorite throughout the 19th and 20th centuries?


But then JS Bach wasn't every renowned composer's absolute favorite in the 19th and 20th centuries either.

Berlioz
https://www.bartleby.com/library/prose/692.html

_"YOU will not, my dear Demarest, expect an analysis from me of Bach's great work: such a task would quite exceed my prescribed limits. Indeed, the movement performed at the Conservatoire three years ago may be considered the type of the author's style throughout the work. The Germans profess an unlimited admiration for Bach's recitatives; but their peculiar characteristic necessarily escaped me, as I did not understand the language and was unable to appreciate their expression. Whoever is familiar with our musical customs in Paris must witness, in order to believe, the attention, respect, and even reverence with which a German public listens to such a composition. Every one follows the words on the book with his eyes; not a movement among the audience, not a murmur of praise or blame, not a sound of applause; they are listening to a solemn discourse, they are hearing the gospel sung, they are attending divine service rather than a concert. And really such music ought to be thus listened to. They adore Bach, and believe in him, without supposing for a moment that his divinity could ever be called into question. A heretic would horrify them, he is forbidden even to speak of him. God is God and Bach is Bach. 
Some days after the performance of Bach's chef d'œuvre, the Singing Academy announced Graun's 'Tod Jesu.' This is another sacred work, a holy book; the worshipers of which are, however, mainly to be found in Berlin, whereas the religion of Bach is professed throughout the north of Germany."_
---

Tchaikovsky
http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Johann_Sebastian_Bach

For although (as he told me himself) he would every now and then play piano fugues by Bach when he was alone, he always felt that the latter's cantatas and major vocal works were "real classical bores".

Diary entry for 20 September/2 October 1886, in which Tchaikovsky reflects mainly on his contrasting feelings for Mozart and Beethoven:
_"As for the predecessors of these two, what I would say is that I like playing Bach because it is entertaining to play a good fugue, but I do not acknowledge in him (as others do) a great genius..."_

---

Arnold Bax
https://books.google.ca/books?id=8wZe04WQRlUC&pg=PA81

_"'All Bach's last movements are like the running of a sewing machine."_


----------



## janxharris

Larkenfield said:


> Ligeti's music worked just fine in Kubrick's_ 2001 Space Odessey_. Where were the complainers of the music then who probably saw the movie and gladly sat through it? It worked perfectly within the space context because of its ethereal nature, and even the general public accepted it as part of this highly awarded masterpiece of a movie. The music was a great part of its success, including the Ligeti.


Do you consider that this kind of work is difficult to imitate? I must admit I remain sceptical.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Can you explain how the poll should have been conducted so that you might have taken it more seriously? It is, after all, only a poll of opinions, not a poll of facts.
> 
> It's OK David, no one is suggesting you should be "subjecting your ears" to anything. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a poll of opinions is about. It's not an instruction to anyone to do anything, so rest easy while you listen to Handel.* I'm surprised you seem to be taking it so seriously*, despite your trademark laughing emoji.


That's the point! I'm not taking it seriously at all. Just astonished anyone else it!


----------



## DavidA

Larkenfield said:


> Ligeti's music worked just fine in Kubrick's_ 2001 Space Odessey_. Where were the complainers of the music then who probably saw the movie and gladly sat through it? It worked perfectly within the space context because of its ethereal nature, and even the general public accepted it as part of this highly awarded masterpiece of a movie. The music was a great part of its success, including the Ligeti.


As I found 2001 one of the most boring, overrated and pointless movies ever, I doubt whether Ligeti's music struck a chord with me as I slumbered through it.


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> That's the point! I'm not taking it seriously at all. Just astonished anyone else it!


The composers are just voicing their opinions.


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> The composers are just voicing their opinions.


And I'm voicing mine!


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> And I'm voicing mine!


Indeed...........................


----------



## DavidA

Fabulin said:


> To criticize contemporary composers is be in league with tonal oldboys, Overture 1812, and Andre Rieu.


Oh so to prefer Handel to Stockhausen is to be in league with Andre Rieu? You are joking of course? :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Bulldog said:


> You can take a poll seriously without agreeing with all the outcomes.
> 
> *That you have never heard of some of the composers on the list is rather odd *- especially since you are member of TC.


I will admit the only composer I had never heard of is Saariaho. She appears before Brahms and Schubert in the list of great composers which, having just listened in to some of her music on YouTube, confirms my opinion of the poll.


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> I will admit the only composer I had never heard of is Saariaho. She appears before Brahms and Schubert in the list of great composers which, having just listened in to some of her music on YouTube, confirms my opinion of the poll.


Have you heard V (Praise to the eternity of Jesus) from Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time?


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> That's the point! I'm not taking it seriously at all. Just astonished anyone else it!


Firstly, why would you be astonished? You've been here long enough to know that polls generate a full range of opinions and reactions. It's astonishing that your capacity for astonishment hasn't mellowed.

Secondly, I don't think anyone is taking it 'seriously', if, by seriously, you mean that anyone here regards the poll as a definitive factual statement of the greatest composers. What most are doing is giving fair consideration to the responses of 174 composers whose opinions might at least be regarded as well-informed - at least as well informed and legitimate as yours.

By all means disagree with their opinions, but your scathing response to the poll ("fat-headed"?) is an unworthy approach to critical analysis.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Firstly, why would you be astonished? You've been here long enough to know that polls generate a full range of opinions and reactions. It's astonishing that your capacity for astonishment hasn't mellowed.
> 
> Secondly, I don't think anyone is taking it 'seriously', if, by seriously, you mean that anyone here regards the poll as a definitive factual statement of the greatest composers. What most are doing is giving fair consideration to the responses of 174 composers whose opinions might at least be regarded as well-informed - at least as well informed and legitimate as yours.
> 
> By all means disagree with their opinions, but your *scathing response to the poll ("fat-headed"?) is un unworthy approach to fair criticism*.


Not at all. When you have a man who is by common consensus one of the greatest composers who has ever lived not even included in the top 50 then I think the word 'fat headed' is not unworthy at all. In fact I could think of more scathing phrases.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Not at all. When you have a man who is by common consensus


Obviously not the common consensus of 174 living composers.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Obviously not the common consensus of *174 living composers*.


Of infinitely less talent than the man they have ignored!


----------



## elgar's ghost

DavidA said:


> I will admit the only composer I had never heard of is Saariaho. She appears before Brahms and Schubert in the list of great composers which, having just listened in to some of her music on YouTube, confirms my opinion of the poll.


Polls are perennially unreliable but in Saariaho's case I think this is more a present-day reflection of how highly-regarded she is not just amongst her peers but also the generation below. Thirty years from now she may not feature at all.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Of infinitely less talent than the man they have ignored!


He hasn't been "ignored". He just didn't feature strongly in enough top 5s. The rest is maths, not opinion.

Who would be your top 5, given the same criteria to make your choices? Doubtless Handel would be there, but would that mean you'd exclude someone else who, by common consensus, is regarded as a 'great' composer?


----------



## Bulldog

DavidA said:


> And I'm voicing mine!


Yes, with a barrage of insults.


----------



## Guest

Lisztian said:


> Edit: apparently they were asked to vote based on: originality, impact, craftsmanship and enjoyability.


Four criteria that seem to be quite difficult to balance, but at least criteria are offered instead of just the nebulous 'greatest'. For each of the composers ranked, it would be interesting to consider to what extent the criteria apply. The problem with 'enjoyability', I would argue, is that it is the most subjective of the four. So IMO, Bach might score well on the first three, but I wouldn't put him in my top 5 for enjoyability (not, of course, that my choices would be as well informed as the composers', or that anyone would want to publish my opinion in _BBC Music!_)


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> He hasn't been "ignored". He just didn't feature strongly in enough top 5s. *The rest is maths, not opinion.*
> 
> Who would be your top 5, given the same criteria to make your choices? Doubtless Handel would be there, but would that mean you'd exclude someone else who, by common consensus, is regarded as a 'great' composer?


You are, of course, correct and it is an indication of the way the poll was carried out. Why I say the BBC magazine was foolish to publish it. It just makes everyone look pretty stupid imo


----------



## DavidA

Bulldog said:


> Yes, with a barrage of insults.


Not anyone here.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> It just makes everyone look pretty stupid imo


I thought you said you didn't insult anyone here?

Besides, insulting the composers is still an ad hom. It wasn't enough to disagree with their opinions, you had to insult their talent.

And how does a worthless poll make anyone look stupid?


----------



## juliante

I need to explore ligeti...


----------



## janxharris

juliante said:


> I need to explore ligeti...


You might try his Chamber Concerto.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

I'm late to this thread, but no Berlioz? Really? Such an original voice and he didn't even make the top 50? I had to read the list several times to make sure my eyes hadn't deceived me. Who are these 174 contemporary composers?


----------



## DeepR

A composer like Cage might score high in certain circles when it comes to the criteria originality and impact. Then again, composers like Bruckner, Liszt and Scriabin all did original things as well and were not without impact (especially Liszt). Craftmanship? Surely all three of them score far higher than Cage in that regard. Some of his pieces barely have any "craft" to them at all. And finally, enjoyability is just utterly subjective, but I know who'd do better if you'd ask the general public...


----------



## DaveM

Let's refresh: the OP is '_174 contemporary composers to vote for 5 composers as the 'greatest' of all time'_. Do some posters here not see just a smidge of lack of objectivity in these results? If not, then I question not only the objectivity of said posters, but also, their understanding of the meaning of 'greatest of all time'. Then, of course, there is the questionable objectivity of the contemporary composers.

It's really just an exercise in silliness. I give it the same level of credibility as a poll from Chevrolet dealers as to what the greatest cars of all time are.


----------



## Ethereality

This is definitely the greatest objective list I've seen on classical music, by 'objective,' referring to the _type_ of list being a survey. Most lists have a general ignorance of the prolificacy of music that forms a more-learned portion of classical excellence. This list of expert opinions, whether lists can ever be perfect or not, is terrifically balanced in comparison in discerning the depth and greatness of classical music, compared to the limited and biased feelings of traditionalist opinions. Contemporary classical is certainly the most prolific era of composition, and it just goes to show the darkness in which traditionalists live to not be privy to this masterful balance throughout all ages, whether they even have the knowledge to realize it. BBC has come to produce one of the most misunderstood milestones by casual classical enthusiasts, as well as one of the most valueable keys--because I have all the nomination data in the article, I can extend this list to 100 composers and ponder more the full extent of this vast framework of knowledge and experience by some of the richest and most-learned perspectives in music. As I also explained in this post, polling only seems to work if you start with today's educated perspectives. Whether one could form a better objective list, is completely up in the air at this point.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Do some posters here not see just a smidge of lack of objectivity in these results?


Possibly. Which posters do you have in mind? I've not seen any poster affirm that the results of the poll are an objective assessment of greatness*. Quite the opposite, in fact, as 'some posters' have taken great pains to point out that it is entirely a collection of subjective opinion.

Anyone vexed by the 'wrong' choices - composers present or absent - needs to be reminded of the poll's subjectivity, and, perhaps, to calm down.

What is of interest is not so much the list, but the choices and the comments of individual composers, though these are not available unless you get the magazine.

[add]*I now see one poster has in fact claimed that the poll is 'the most objective'. I would disagree.


----------



## Ethereality

MacLeod said:


> [add]*I now see one poster has in fact claimed that the poll is 'the most objective'. I would disagree.


Reread the sentence.


----------



## Simon Moon

I am surprised Elliott Carter is not on the list.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I just got a mail from BBC Music asking to take part in voting based on this list. It's on Twitter! I decided to drop it...


----------



## Guest

Ethereality said:


> Reread the sentence.


Why?



> This is definitely the greatest objective list I've seen on classical music, by 'objective,' referring to the _type_ of list being a survey.


Is this what you originally wrote?


----------



## Simon Moon

So, would the traditionalists on TC have a problem with any list of the greatest composers that included ANYONE that does not follow common practice?


----------



## DaveM

Ethereality said:


> This is definitely the greatest objective list I've seen on classical music, by 'objective,' referring to the _type_ of list being a survey.


What does that even mean? Objective means objective. Does calling it a survey change the definition of 'objectivity'? Since each contemporary composer was asked to provide 5 greatest of all time and you claim they were objective -which means they were basing their picks on objective information- why are the results all over the map? Maybe they were just being as subjective as your posts have been on the subject.

Okay, so you love contemporary music, but all the gushing over how prolific it is or something to do with 'balance through the ages' or the alleged 'darkness in which traditionalists live in' has absolutely nothing to do with the judgment of the objectivity of this list.



> This list of expert opinions, whether lists can ever be perfect or not, is terrifically balanced in comparison in discerning the depth and greatness of classical music, compared to the limited and biased feelings of traditionalist opinions.


What makes these composers 'experts'? Do they have some special credentials that make them experts? From this and your other posts, your issue seems to be 'traditionalists'. An objective list of the greatest composers has nothing to do with traditionalists. Objectivity would involve evaluating the over-all history of the composition of classical music which involves starting with the baroque era (or earlier if one prefers) and going forward. You apparently think that objectivity means starting with recent history and going backward.


----------



## DaveM

Simon Moon said:


> So, would the traditionalists on TC have a problem with any list of the greatest composers that included ANYONE that does not follow common practice?


The OP is about the top 5 greatest composers. If you're suggesting that a contemporary composer objectively deserves to be in the top 5, you'll have to come up with some pretty convincing evidence. But then, you have frequently mentioned that you only listen to contemporary CM so....


----------



## Ethereality

DaveM said:


> What does that even mean? Objective means objective. Does calling it a survey change the definition of 'objectivity'? Since each contemporary composer was asked to provide 5 greatest of all time and you claim they were objective *-which means they were basing their picks on objective information- why are the results all over the map?* Maybe they were just being as subjective as your posts have been on the subject.
> 
> Okay, so you love contemporary music, but all the gushing over how prolific it is or something to do with 'balance through the ages' or the alleged 'darkness in which traditionalists live in' has absolutely nothing to do with the judgment of the objectivity of this list.
> 
> What makes these composers 'experts'? Do they have some special credentials that make them experts? From this and your other posts, your issue seems to be 'traditionalists'. An objective list of the greatest composers has nothing to do with traditionalists. *Objectivity would involve evaluating the over-all history of the composition of classical music which involves starting with the baroque era (or earlier if one prefers) and going forward. You apparently think that objectivity means starting with recent history and going backward.*


Your reading comprehension hasn't been all too impressive... Why on earth would Monteverdi and Stravinsky be in the Top 10, Ligeti within the Top 20, if it clearly wasn't as objective a survey as any survey has been up to this point? You haven't grasped what I wrote if you believe I said to 'begin with the most recent history.' When you read something, do you automatically_ fill in words _that you want to hear that were never there? If that's your response, I have nothing to say to such a wild response, moreover you redefining the word objectivity as some fantasy ideal in your mind that you haven't proven.

Objectivity in art is defined as the knowledge of _all experts_ within a field, not the personal opinions of a majority, as most people are fundamentally unlearned: conservatism is a response to a lack of information. If you want to point to a better set of experts than some of the most learned and accomplished composers today, then as the phrase goes, put up or shut up. My post very much explains why Beethoven, for instance, isn't the best expert on classical music, if you click on the link, due to him being mostly 'out of the loop' of the majority of musical innovation. This has no bearing on him being one of the greatest composers of all time. I expect you to come back to something I can respond to, this is all nonsense.


----------



## DaveM

Ethereality said:


> Your reading comprehension hasn't been all too impressive... Why on earth would Monteverdi and Stravinsky be in the Top 10, Ligeti within the Top 20, if it clearly wasn't as objective a survey as any survey has been up to this point?


Speaking of 'reading comprehension' who said anything about Monteverdi? You're confusing the setting of the parameters of what people consider to be the beginning of western CM with the suggestion of a given composer.



> That's your entire response, I have nothing to say to such a wild response..


Apparently, you do.



> Objectivity in art is defined as the knowledge of _all experts_ within a field, not your own personal opinions on taste. If you want to point to a better set of experts than some of the most learned and accomplished composers today, then as the phrase goes, put up or shut up.


This coming from someone who says '_This is definitely the greatest objective list I've seen on classical music, by 'objective' referring to to the type of list being a survey.'_ This is perhaps the silliest comment I've ever seen on the subject. It particularly calls into question what your experience is on the subject given that you call it 'definitely the greatest'. Btw, what's _your_ evidence that these are some of the most learned and accomplished composers today when it comes to opinions on the 5 greatest composers? Put up or shut up yourself. You're the one making the outlandish claims.



> I'm baffled.


Clearly!


----------



## Ethereality

This is the best objective survey out of all I have seen on classical music: your motive is to twist it into it needing to meet some 'fantasy requirement' for a survey you haven't proven you can strategize. Put up or shut up, if you have _a better list_ that doesn't appeal to just your subjective understanding of art. You wanting to analyze the opinions of old composers like Beethoven, a brilliant composer, who doesn't know about modern music... on what basis do you? *The basis of your own subjectivity* for choosing that particular composer. You don't know what objective means. You ask for me to prove the expertise of the most critically acclaimed composers of this day and age, you clearly don't understand the term *objectivity*, nor the underlying phenomenon which occurs in this type of polling. Prove where have I made outlandish claims. Go for it.



> It calls into question what your experience is on the subject given that you call it 'definitely the greatest'.


This is a fundamentally flawed claim, since you're now claiming to have a personal edge to knowledge over me: That I have never done. If you can prove your subjective taste in art is "objective," a basis to chose the 'list of the best composers', I'll be astonished. Nowhere did I say this is the list of the best composers.

You don't understand the word objective from greatest. That's your whole problem, that you want a list to conform to your own tastes. This is an objective list. I hate arguing with people who have their own agenda.

I mentioned Monteverdi, Stravinsky, Bach, because any survey which has this particular group of composers in its top 10, is inherently a better list than others I've seen. And yet you wonder why I loathe traditionalist lists, people who are conservative in their knowledge, and have generally small tastes. You have the audacity to ask why this list is all over the board? From_ what_ perspective? Define what you're even saying.

The fact that you can't comprehend my posts demonstrates to me I don't need to say anything more


----------



## DaveM

Ethereality said:


> .. I don't need to say anything more.


Is that a promise?


----------



## PlaySalieri

DavidA said:


> 174 mainly untalented unknowns assessing genius. The fact that there is no Handel on the list shows what a bunch of losers they are.


LOL and Brahms no 18 ROFL

Its good to see the big 3 more or less n their rightful place - stravinsky in the top 3 will raise some eyebrows

handel nowhere - good - at last


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I think it's a nice list, and honest in regarding the contemporary composers who spent a moment giving their answers. I think it's interesting to know what are their inspirations, but would be more so if I knew whom was on whose list...


----------



## Simon Moon

DaveM said:


> The OP is about the top 5 greatest composers. If you're suggesting that a contemporary composer objectively deserves to be in the top 5, you'll have to come up with some pretty convincing evidence. But then, you have frequently mentioned that you only listen to contemporary CM so....


Of course, _my_ list of the greatest classical composers would be something like: Bartok, Webern, Stravinsky, Carter, Schoenberg, Ligeti, Penderecki, Berg. etc.

But the list was compiled by 174 composers. I am making the assumption, that at least a high percentage of these composers have had formal training, and understand theory much better than I do. They would probably have good reasons for their choices.

But remember, even among these 174 *contemporary* composers, the vast majority of them also picked: Beethoven Bach, Mozart, Mahler, Hayden, etc. So, they are not opposed to tonal, common practice composers. They just find reasons to _also_ include Ligeti, Webern, Berg, Birtwistle, and other modernists in their list of greatest.


----------



## Ethereality

Survey lists are always objective and practical, and this is the most objective and practical one so far. People don't know what objective in art means though. They want lists to be subjective to their own tastes and yet define some kind of "scientific end-all be-all to music." It's a pain listening to them and their personal tastes and complaints. There's no compulsion that anyone has to agree with this list, but you can appreciate the list as being the most objective we currently have. The traditionalists on this forum have really shown they don't understand some of these most basic structures of academics in music appreciation, the precise foundation of all the knowledge we have gained.


----------



## Dimace

DeepR said:


> No Handel, Liszt, Bruckner, Scriabin and others... yeahhhh, no.


This is Schindlers Liste and no music list. An effortless music extermination atrocity from people they have NOTHING to do with music. If only I could laugh with this joke...

*I'm waiting the FFFFn pianists list, where the LL will be the greatest pianist in the history of music, to start listening Japan Rock...


----------



## Bulldog

It's reasonable that a list from contemporary composers would have quite a few modernist composers on a top 50 list that you wouldn't see on a typical list. . From that point it's clear that a few traditionalist "greats" would have to not be included. Makes sense to me. Although folks like Handel and Liszt are not included in this particular survey, I trust we will see them in future polls.


----------



## Larkenfield

How about a list of the world's greatest objective rater-voters? Names, addresses, rated talent, and listening experience of a lifetime. I'd like to vote on THAT. In the meantime, everyone is under the deepest of suspicion not to make the top five of any list.


----------



## norman bates

DavidA said:


> No a joke is a poll of 50 greatest composers without Handel. A bigger joke is people taking this poll seriously. :lol:


it seems you don't realize how a poll works.
Let's say I ask you to mention your 5 greatest composers, and you'd go like with a super traditional safe list

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

you will find immediately someone saying "hey, where's Wagner?" or "where's Brahms?" "no Chopin? Seriously?" or "no modern composers?" or "no ancient composers?" etc. It's simple as that. If you're choosing, you have to exclude someone. And when you're making a sum of votes you will find popular names not appearing.
The fact that Handel is on this list it's not interesting, because it doesn't say something about Handel's value, but just that for as a poll with a certain rules works, it can happen that an important composer is not on this list. Because it's just a sum of personal preferences.
I think that a better way to see this kind of list (that is interesting because it's made by people who have a deep love for music and have dedicated their lives exactly to the art of composing) is to see who are the composers that I don't know on this list, not the ones who are missing.


----------



## Dimace

You (if you have a small idea on music) can make this> Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Tschaikowsky, Chopin, Wagner, etc... You can make also this> Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Schubert, Berlioz, Liszt etc... But also this is not bad> Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Bruckner, Mahler, Schumann, Brahms etc... 

I believe I gave you an idea how is working this thing, IF you have a small idea about the musical sport. All the other inventions are coming from nowhere and from nobody. I like Schnittke to death, but I have NO RIGHT to vote him above Beethoven or Chopin... This should be an act of musical insanity, with which I will humiliate my self. The guys who voted for this list they made this perfectly.


----------



## Bulldog

Dimace said:


> I like Schnittke to death, but I have NO RIGHT to vote him above Beethoven or Chopin... This should be an act of musical insanity, with which I will humiliate my self. The guys who voted for this list they made this perfectly.


As time goes on, I appreciate Schnittke's music more and more; there could come a time when I would rank him above Beethoven or Chopin.

I have the right to rank Schnittke or any other composer wherever I want. It's a shame that you don't feel you have the same freedom.


----------



## norman bates

Dimace said:


> I like Schnittke to death, but I have NO RIGHT to vote him above Beethoven or Chopin...


If you like him more than them and you're honest with yourself you should vote him above them.
If there's a thing I don't need, is another list that goes "1. Bach 2. Beethoven 3. Mozart". I know that already. I don't like religion and I don't need a repetition of the rosary (and I'm saying this while I'm learning a Bach piece because I really like it). I want to find interesting music that I don't know. That's the reason for these lists. The things I don't know, not the confirmation that classical music is dead and everything good was made centuries ago.


----------



## Agamenon

Unbelievable, my personal list is almost the same! (exception: Ravel).


----------



## DaveM

Apparently, the meaning of the word ‘objective’ is lost on a surprising number of posters above. Those who think the OP list has credibility and go yet a step further by labeling those who call the list what it is as ‘traditionalists’ are only proving their confusion by trying to make the subject one of ‘traditionalists’ vs. whatever. 

A history spanning at least 3 centuries provides plenty of evidence as to who deserves a ranking in the top 5 and it certainly isn’t Ligeti, Saariaho, Reich, Schoenberg, Cage, Stockhausen or, gulp, Feldman. At least, these 174 composers in their delusional fog left out Ferneyhough.


----------



## Phil loves classical

DaveM said:


> Apparently, the meaning of the word 'objective' is lost on a surprising number of posters above. Those who think the OP list has credibility and go yet a step further by labeling those who call the list what it is as 'traditionalists' are only proving their confusion by trying to make the subject one of 'traditionalists' vs. whatever.
> 
> A history spanning at least 3 centuries provides plenty of evidence as to who deserves a ranking in the top 5 and it certainly isn't Ligeti, Saariaho, Reich, Schoenberg, Cage, Stockhausen or, gulp, Feldman. At least, these 174 composers in their delusional fog left out Ferneyhough.


The thing is that those you listed haven't been around for 3 centuries. And how to compare atonal as those you listed, except for Reich, with tonal composers. I have a strong preference for tonality, but my perception of an 'objective' stance has shifted the more I studied the works of all composers. There is criteria to determine who is a great tonal composer objectively, and who is a great atonal composer objectively, but not who is objectively better overall, since their objectives are different. It all becomes a personal preference of objectivity (not the same as saying it is all subjective as some suggest).


----------



## DaveM

Phil loves classical said:


> The thing is that those you listed haven't been around for 3 centuries.


Is there any evidence that those that I listed, regardless of how long they've been around or not, are going to eventually catapult into the top 5 greatest list?



> And how to compare atonal as those you listed, except for Reich, with tonal composers. I have a strong preference for tonality, but my perception of an 'objective' stance has shifted the more I studied the works of all composers. There is criteria to determine who is a great tonal composer objectively, and who is a great atonal composer objectively, but not who is objectively better overall, since their objectives are different.


So, for over 3 centuries, CM composers had one objective and now, atonal composers have another objective. If that means that the criteria to determine the greatest 5 composers are different for tonal composers vs atonal composers then the OP list is totally flawed and the 174 contemporary composers should have known better than to combine tonal and atonal composers in their preferences. Someone didn't get your message.



> It all becomes a personal preference of objectivity (not the same as saying it is all subjective as some suggest).


I don't think I've ever come across the premise or concept of a credible 'personal preference of objectivity'.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Then, of course, there is the questionable objectivity of the contemporary composers.


There was no objectivity - they were asked their opinion. 'Opinion' and 'objectivity' don't belong in the same sentence (except this one of course!).



DaveM said:


> Maybe they were just being as subjective as your posts have been on the subject.


Never mind 'maybe'. Certainly. Their opinion is as subjective as DavidA's



DaveM said:


> What makes these composers 'experts'?


The same thing that makes anyone an 'expert', presumably. A level of understanding and knowledge about their subject that goes well beyond the level of the average, ordinary woman-in-the-street.



DaveM said:


> I don't think I've ever come across the premise or concept of a credible 'personal preference of objectivity'.


Nor have I. I don't think there is such a thing.

The reaction to this poll has been bizarre. On the one hand, one or two write about it as if some kind of heresy has been committed ("no one should put A above B"); others, that the composers must be 'biased'; and on the other hand, one at least that this is objective proof that Bach is indeed the greatest (and, it follows, that the rest of the list must be 'true' as well). One response even seemed to suggest that asking 'contemporary' composers instantly introduced bias in favour of contemporary composers (as if they could have polled the dead to obtain a more balanced view!)

I wonder how many posters here have actually read the whole article. Had they done so, they might have understood the context, found some of the detail more interesting than the poll list, discovered that among the 'contemporary' composers surveyed, some are composers of a more traditional style, and their choices and reasoning worth understanding.

But then, reason is in short supply here.


----------



## Ethereality

MacLeod said:


> There was no objectivity - they were asked their opinion. 'Opinion' and 'objectivity' don't belong in the same sentence (except this one of course!).


Very true, to the main definition. Though often in art, philosophy, and ethics, when people use the term objective, referring to the second definition "a critical consensus/survey on what's democratically best or agreed upon," like how can we objectively define rules to agree upon, people try to twist the argument implying there is a _universally_ objective quality to music, whereby what they're really implying is "my own opinion on music, as long as I can find some people to agree, is factual." Which not only makes no sense, but is ignorant to how this poll and academia works, where we can set up a system of scholarly workers fully in the field to assess _objectives_, such as a government. To see people pigeonhole all 174 composers into one demographic that is against them, is utterly _insane._ Artistic taste depends entirely on the ethnological evolution of humans and the various offshoots we have now, it isn't based in the hard sciences. This poll represents where Classical academia is now, and reflects its possible future. You don't have to _agree_ with this kind of objectivity at all: it has nothing to do with fact. You can feel assured that your subjective opinion matters, and if you want to direct and influence your own opinions, you're free to. It's ridiculous to see such overly-critical opinions about this list, when it's just an objective poll that is for practicality purposes only. As I've said, it's the best objective list I've seen, based on (a) the mechanisms in the article that were used to compile it, and (b) the utter faultiness of other polls, like the mostly amateur surveys on this forum. Not at any time have I held my own amateur opinions on music to be so superior; do you think these contemporaries act brazenly this way towards their peers' opinions, insulting their favorite composers? or are they open-minded and respectful towards these perspectives? I find myself constantly learning from the combined knowledge of great contemporary experts like these, not pretending that an old 17th century ideology of music is some end-all be-all because it's the safe thing we grew up learning first. People on this forum have a bit of work to do, because if they can't take these childhood biases out of their investigations, they surely can't know classical as much as they tout or pretend to.


----------



## janxharris

Really encouraged to see Vaughan Williams at 21 - such a unique composer imo. For anyone not familiar with his work:





 (sy3 1st mov.)




 (sy5 3rd mov. - Romanza)


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> the most objective and practical one so far.


It is not. I've seen contemporary composers who don't really care for the common practice canon composers. To be specific, I know that davethecomposer, who runs a youtube channel, is one of them. How do we know how biased the 174 composers are towards contemporary music in taste?

And as others have said, not having Handel is a big flaw of the list you can't just ignore.
At least this list places Handel at 3rd place: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-015-0039-z/tables/1
(Topology and evolution of the network of western classical music composers
Doheum Park, Arram Bae, Maximilian Schich & Juyong Park)


----------



## Ethereality

I can simplify one example of that link. Last.fm sources these similar composer relationships in "similar artists" that are attributed accurately, based on expert/label associations. I counted how many in every composers' "Top 10 similar composers" each related composer also has them in_ their_ Top 10. Forming a dependency relationship and showing the all-time taste convergence. With more computer-time I can extract more precise data, like go past 10 for each and total the exact ranks they give one another, for example, Scarlatti's map ranks Bach as #1, while Bach's map ranks Scarlatti as #10. All these numbers are accurate in their associations:

I tallied and ranked 20 composers:

1. Schubert - 10 (The most depended-on composer relationship. The peak of convergence)
2. Schumann - 10 (2nd most)
3. Brahms - 10
4. Beethoven - 10
5. Mendelssohn - 10
6. Dvorak - 10
7. Bach - 8
8. Handel - 8
9. Mahler - 8 (converges ie. with Schumann and Brahms)
10. Monteverdi - 8
11. Mozart - 7
12. Haydn - 7
13. Ravel - 7 (converges ie. with Schumann and Schubert)
14. Stravinsky - 7 (starts to converge with its own smaller branch)
15. Debussy - 6
16. Vivaldi - 5
17. Chopin - 4
18. Tchaikovsky - 4
19. Wagner - 3
20. Josquin - 3
....
21. Copland - 2 (just added these guys to disprove the article in your link)
22. Bernstein - 0 (took the first 10 _composers_)
... and so on

*Remember: *This isn't ranking the influence of these composers, like Dvorak is way less influential than Mozart, it's ranking the association of _highest quality_ converging at one spot.

The question then becomes, *does public popularity really matter here, *if the big label affiliations are presumed with these composers. *Does it matter if a bunch of people here don't agree with this list, when it's mathematically perfect in mechanism? converging at one spot.* Of course a few ranks will shift here-and-there when you do a full math, like I think Beethoven and Mozart will be slightly higher. But what really is _public popularity_ a measure of, if a composer seems to be so appreciated for their close relation to other composers.


----------



## norman bates

DaveM said:


> Those who think the OP list has credibility and go yet a step further by labeling those who call the list what it is as 'traditionalists' are only proving their confusion by trying to make the subject one of 'traditionalists' vs. whatever.


well, if a person is so scandalized by a sum of opinions to the point of finding outrageous the presence of any modern composer it's hard not to think that that person is not a fan of modern music... and therefore a traditionalist.


----------



## norman bates

MacLeod said:


> as if they could have polled the dead to obtain a more balanced view!)


yes, I don't even know what to say about this incredible argument. "How dare they! They just asked to contemporary composers!" Sorry, we tried to ask Mozart but he died centuries ago and we don't know where his ashes were so...


----------



## Phil loves classical

DaveM said:


> Is there any evidence that those that I listed, regardless of how long they've been around or not, are going to eventually catapult into the top 5 greatest list?
> 
> So, for over 3 centuries, CM composers had one objective and now, atonal composers have another objective. If that means that the criteria to determine the greatest 5 composers are different for tonal composers vs atonal composers then the OP list is totally flawed and the 174 contemporary composers should have known better than to combine tonal and atonal composers in their preferences. Someone didn't get your message.
> 
> I don't think I've ever come across the premise or concept of a credible '*personal preference of objectivity*'.


I think people project it all the time. You implying Ligeti shouldn't be in the top 10, just as those who voted for him in their top 5. It's more obvious to say Schoenberg is greater at atonal music than Yanni is in tonal music, but comparing those at the top of their respective crafts becomes less objective and obvious.


----------



## larold

_Thoughts?_

Any list of the greatest composers that lists Stravinsky ahead of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart should be taken with at least a few grains of salt.

To go on and list Ligeti as the sixth-greatest composer in history, Britten the 11th, Saariaho the 17th and Steve Reich the 19th (ahead of Chopin, Schoenberg and Schubert -- who came in a remarkable 27th) is just silly.

Gesauldo ranked higher than many other greater composers, too. How many of you agree with this assessment? How many of you even know his music?

This is among the reasons I ended my subscription to BBC Music Magazine: they use platforms like this to show certain expertise but continually confuse popularity with greatness.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> How do we know how biased the 174 composers are towards contemporary music in taste?


All 174 are 'biased' - that's the point of the poll. They were asked their opinions, so giving their personal preference. You do understand what 'bias' is? Oxford says,



> Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.


https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/bias

The notion of 'unfair' can't apply here, as there is no obligation to be 'fair' in selecting one's top five composers, so 'bias' is not relevant.

Having now purchased a copy of the magazine, I can peruse the poll at my leisure. At the risk of repeating myself, the more interesting part of the poll is what 50 of the living composers said about each of the 50 in the list. For example, Steve Reich, Erkki-Sven-Tuur and Unsuk Chin wrote about Bach; Mark-Anthony Turnage about Stravinsky; Jennifer Higdon about Debussy, Danny Elfman about Shostakovich...and so on.

Amusingly, John Corigiliano voted for Beethoven 5 times, Robin Holloway 5 times for Bruckner and Nicola LeFanu twice for Mozart. Pop musicians, jazz musicians, Mother Nature, the blackbird also got votes.

Scanning the list of the 174 to find out how each voted, I can only see Handel once, voted for by Elena Langer. She also voted for Bach, Gesualdo, Rossini and Wagner. Clearly biased towards the contemporary! :lol:

I'd be interested to know which composers were approached who refused to vote.

I'd also like to know which living composers TC members think should have been polled.


----------



## janxharris

larold said:


> _Thoughts?_
> 
> Any list of the greatest composers that lists Stravinsky ahead of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart should be taken with at least a few grains of salt.
> 
> To go on and list Ligeti as the sixth-greatest composer in history, Britten the 11th, Saariaho the 17th and Steve Reich the 19th (ahead of Chopin, Schoenberg and Schubert -- who came in a remarkable 27th) is just silly.
> 
> Gesauldo ranked higher than many other greater composers, too. How many of you agree with this assessment? How many of you even know his music?
> 
> This is among the reasons I ended my subscription to BBC Music Magazine: they use platforms like this to show certain expertise but continually confuse popularity with greatness.


Could you clarify your 'continually confuse popularity with greatness'?


----------



## larold

_Could you clarify your 'continually confuse popularity with greatness'? _

Toward the end of the 20th century and into the 21st century one composer ascended more than any other: Mahler. In 1950 Mahler was not considered among the greatest composers even though, as a conductor and music director, he had held important posts in Vienna and New York (Philharmonic) and continually played his own symphonies to, at best, lackluster reviews and fanfare.

Today he is played by orchestras everywhere. Where I live the Grand Rapids (Mich.) Symphony, Lansing Symphony Orchestra and the Michigan State University Philharmonic all schedule performances of his symphonies -- every year. He is a hit with conductors, orchestras and attenders.

But is he great? Arturo Toscanini, one of the greatest and most revered conductors in history said his music was not only not great it wasn't good. Furtwangler never played it before or after the war. It took Leonard Bernstein and Maurice Abravanel in USA to make it popular here, thanks to the advent of the long played record.

No one considered him great less than a lifetime ago yet he has skyrocketed in popularity to a point where his symphonies are now played in concert all over the world as much as Beethoven's. Would anyone say he is Beethoven's peer as a composer? Then why does he get as much air time? Because he is popular.

To me this is popularity, not greatness. This popularity is just as great with conductors and orchestra managers as record buyers and fans, too. This is what I mean to confuse popularity with greatness.

I agree there is a certain cache to hearing music less familiar and perhaps more contemporary than the greatest music of history. But to confuse that with greatness I cannot accept. And the title here is "50 Greatest Composers by 174 Composers."


----------



## norman bates

larold said:


> _Could you clarify your 'continually confuse popularity with greatness'? _
> 
> Toward the end of the 20th century and into the 21st century one composer ascended more than any other: Mahler. In 1950 Mahler was not considered among the greatest composers even though, as a conductor and music director, he had held important posts in Vienna and New York (Philharmonic) and continually played his own symphonies to, at best, lackluster reviews and fanfare.
> 
> Today he is played by orchestras everywhere. Where I live the Grand Rapids (Mich.) Symphony, Lansing Symphony Orchestra and the Michigan State University Philharmonic all schedule performances of his symphonies -- every year. He is a hit with conductors, orchestras and attenders.
> 
> But is he great? Arturo Toscanini, one of the greatest and most revered conductors in history said his music was not only not great it wasn't good. Furtwangler never played it before or after the war. It took Leonard Bernstein and Maurice Abravanel in USA to make it popular here, thanks to the advent of the long played record.
> 
> No one considered him great less than a lifetime ago yet he has skyrocketed in popularity to a point where his symphonies are now played in concert all over the world as much as Beethoven's. Would anyone say he is Beethoven's peer as a composer?
> 
> To me this is popularity, not greatness.


so Mahler is not great because he wasn't appreciated in his time? This happened to Bach too. So would you say that Bach is not great? According to your argument, it seems that you want to say exactly this.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

MacLeod said:


> All 174 are 'biased' - that's the point of the poll. They were asked their opinions, so giving their personal preference. You do understand what 'bias' is? Oxford says,
> 
> https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/bias
> 
> The notion of 'unfair' can't apply here, as there is no obligation to be 'fair' in selecting one's top five composers, so 'bias' is not relevant.
> 
> Having now purchased a copy of the magazine, I can peruse the poll at my leisure. At the risk of repeating myself, the more interesting part of the poll is what 50 of the living composers said about each of the 50 in the list. For example, Steve Reich, Erkki-Sven-Tuur and Unsuk Chin wrote about Bach; Mark-Anthony Turnage about Stravinsky; Jennifer Higdon about Debussy, Danny Elfman about Shostakovich...and so on.
> 
> Amusingly, John Corigiliano voted for Beethoven 5 times, Robin Holloway 5 times for Bruckner and Nicola LeFanu twice for Mozart. Pop musicians, jazz musicians, Mother Nature, the blackbird also got votes.
> 
> Scanning the list of the 174 to find out how each voted, I can only see Handel once, voted for by Elena Langer. She also voted for Bach, Gesualdo, Rossini and Wagner. Clearly biased towards the contemporary! :lol:
> 
> I'd be interested to know which composers were approached who refused to vote.
> 
> I'd also like to know which living composers TC members think should have been polled.


The examples of people picking the same composer 5 times show the poll is not to be taken serious.


----------



## larold

_so Mahler is not great because he wasn't appreciated in his time? This happened to Bach too. So would you say that Bach is not great? According to your argument, it seems that you want to say exactly this. _

Much of Bach's greatest music wasn't known in his time. His St. Matthew Passion was never performed until Mendelssohn did so 100 years after Bach died. Much of Bach's greatest work wasn't known in his time. It had to be uncovered by later composers and musicians. No one knew of the Art of Fugue.

His cantatas were played for church service, generally not in concert. He didn't write opera and lived in parochial German cities far from the European music centers of London, Berlin, Rome, Vienna and Paris.

No such thing happened to Mahler; he was known in his day. Here is what David Ewen wrote about him in 1947, about 35 years after he died: "Like Bruckner Mahler has been a controversial figure in music. There are those who feel (his) symphonies represent the apotheosis of the form, that his was a prophetic voice in music...a worthy successor to Beethoven and Brahms. Others condemn Mahler for his garrulousness, his habit of using paragraph to do the work of a sentence, his tendency to yield to hysteria, bombast and pompousness."

In their 1951 book "The Record Guide" Sackville West and Desmond Taylor wrote, "That Mahler was a great musician -- conductor, opera house director -- is not disputed...in his greatest works he achieved a final precision in the expression of nostalgia for the low ceilings of childhood, the wavering nightlight, the fields and woods, the unambiguous affections, the stilled terrors and sharp, fleeting raptures." However..."the movements of his symphonies are sometimes constructed on too large a scale for the material to bear." They also question his "taste."

I fail to see how such a composer, questioned by many in his day and whose music was fairly ignored at the time though he himself was considered a great musician, can suddenly become great a lifetime later...when there isn't a single composer in the world of his talent. When the above writers were active composers like Richard Strauss, Elgar, Sibelius, Rachmaninoff and other greats were either alive or recently departed. They lived through their compositions unlike us today with Mahler, to many seen as a latter-day prophet of our time.

Finally, in comparison to Bach, there has never been question about the quality of Bach's music. It simply wasn't known and was just a matter of time before the world knew of it that it grasped its greatness.


----------



## Guest

Johnnie Burgess said:


> The examples of people picking the same composer 5 times show the poll is not to be taken serious.


One example...out of 174.

What exactly do you mean by 'taking seriously'?


----------



## norman bates

larold said:


> _so Mahler is not great because he wasn't appreciated in his time? This happened to Bach too. So would you say that Bach is not great? According to your argument, it seems that you want to say exactly this. _
> 
> Much of Bach's greatest music wasn't known in his time. His St. Matthew Passion was never performed until Mendelssohn did so 100 years after Bach died. Much of Bach's greatest work wasn't known in his time. It had to be uncovered by later composers and musicians. No one knew of the Art of Fugue.
> 
> His cantatas were played for church service, generally not in concert. He didn't write opera and lived in parochial German cities far from the European music centers of London, Berlin, Rome, Vienna and Paris.
> 
> No such thing happened to Mahler; he was known in his day. Here is what David Ewen wrote about him in 1947, about 35 years after he died: "Like Bruckner Mahler has been a controversial figure in music. There are those who feel (his) symphonies represent the apotheosis of the form, that his was a prophetic voice in music...a worthy successor to Beethoven and Brahms. Others condemn Mahler for his garrulousness, his habit of using paragraph to do the work of a sentence, his tendency to yield to hysteria, bombast and pompousness."
> 
> In their 1951 book "The Record Guide" Sackville West and Desmond Taylor wrote, "That Mahler was a great musician -- conductor, opera house director -- is not disputed...in his greatest works he achieved a final precision in the expression of nostalgia for the low ceilings of childhood, the wavering nightlight, the fields and woods, the unambiguous affections, the stilled terrors and sharp, fleeting raptures." However..."the movements of his symphonies are sometimes constructed on too large a scale for the material to bear." They also question his "taste."
> 
> I fail to see how such a composer, questioned by many in his day and whose music was fairly ignored at the time though he himself was considered a great musician, can suddenly become great a lifetime later...when there isn't a single composer in the world of his talent. When the above writers were active composers like Richard Strauss, Elgar, Sibelius, Rachmaninoff and other greats were either alive or recently departed. They lived through their compositions unlike us today with Mahler, to many seen as a latter-day prophet of our time.
> 
> Finally, in comparison to Bach, there has never been question about the quality of Bach's music. It simply wasn't known and was just a matter of time before the world knew of it that it grasped its greatness.


"Finally, in comparison to Bach, there has never been question about the quality of Bach's music"

actually this was said about Bach in his time, when Telemann and Cristoph Graupner had to decline the work he obtained: "since the best man cannot be obtained, mediocre ones will have to be accepted". 
And you can find a lot of criticism for a lot of composers. You should check out what Delius or Glenn Gould said about Mozart for instance. Or what Stravinsky said about the Ode to joy. Or Rossini about Wagner. I'm sure it could be possible to find great authorities (and composers about other composers) saying bad things about basically every composer in history.

And talking of works not heard, it's not absolutely true for tons of modern composers?


----------



## Nereffid

larold said:


> Any list of the greatest composers that lists Stravinsky ahead of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart should be taken with at least a few grains of salt.


Given that the list is based on the opinion of composers and that it was compiled in 2019 and not, say, 1919, it would be a much bigger surprise if Stravinsky _weren't_ up there with BB&M.

As usual, the arguments over the list boil down to conflicting ideas of what classical music is allowed to be.


----------



## Guest

larold said:


> But is he great? Arturo Toscanini, one of the greatest and most revered conductors in history said his music was not only not great it wasn't good. Furtwangler never played it before or after the war.


So what makes the opinions of these two particular individuals of greater value than any number of other conductors who take a different view?

We're all lumbered with this problem. Put forward a 'great' figure to give us an opinion and we can knock him/her down and put forward a counter. Stokowski, Boult, Copland, Walter, Klemperer are all noted as figures who promoted Mahler in the early and mid 20th C.


----------



## DaveM

Ethereality said:


> This poll represents where Classical academia is now, and reflects its possible future. *You don't have to agree with this kind of objectivity at all: it has nothing to do with fact.* You can feel assured that your subjective opinion matters, and if you want to direct and influence your own opinions, you're free to. *It's ridiculous to see such overly-critical opinions about this list, when it's just an objective poll that is for practicality purposes only. *As I've said, it's the best objective list I've seen[/B], based on (a) the mechanisms in the article that were used to compile it, and (b) the utter faultiness of other polls, like the mostly amateur surveys on this forum. Not at any time have I held my own amateur opinions on music to be so superior; do you think these contemporaries act brazenly this way towards their peers' opinions, insulting their favorite composers? or are they open-minded and respectful towards these perspectives?


Oxymoron: An objective poll that 'has nothing to do with fact'.

Cambridge English Dictionary: objectivity meaning: 1. the fact of being based on facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings.


----------



## DaveM

norman bates said:


> well, if a person is so scandalized by a sum of opinions to the point of finding outrageous the presence of any modern composer it's hard not to think that that person is not a fan of modern music... and therefore a traditionalist.


Need I remind you that the subject was 'the 5 greatest composers of all time'. That's a pretty high bar! I am willing to bet you that there is far more objective evidence supporting non-contemporary composers being on the list than any contemporary composer. Being a traditionalist has nothing to do with anything if the opinions are as objective as possible.

The premise touted by more than one poster above that those who find the OP list to be nothing short of bizarre are simply biased traditionalists are putting up a smoke-screeen and trying to divert the real subject which is that it is a number of these contemporary composers who are the ones who have no objectivity.


----------



## Nereffid

But isn't it fair to say that while (for example) Steve Reich's choices of Bach, Bartok, Coltrane, Perotin and Stravinsky are entirely subjective, the actual list of composers itself is based on the objective fact that those are Reich's choices, and the 173 other composers had other choices? It's an objective fact that when you look at the subjective opinions of these 174 contemporary composers, Bach is the one chosen the most. As a snapshot of current opinion, it's perfectly valid.


----------



## Ethereality

I think I asked a great question in the last post "does public opinion matter to a list of 'greatest composers' if the list is based on sound mathematical mechanism?" In my thesis, popularity or agreement doesn't seem to have as much say as algorithmic composer-data on _influence_ and _convergence_, as it's more objective.

*Here are the Mathematical Top Composers,* which simply takes taste-convergence from this data and combines it with the year/era of the composer, calculating *influence*. No public or forum _popularity bias_ was ever induced into this result, it is strictly mathematical. Peaking highest at the Baroque Era but well-balanced across eras of mass composer convergence. This is highly useful because it follows the strict math, *the whole process explained here*. This list does not yet include all composers:



Ethereality said:


> 1. Beethoven - 258
> 2. Rameau - 244
> 3. Schubert - 239
> 4. Mendelssohn - 231
> 5. Brahms - 222
> 6. Dvorak - 214
> 7. Bach - 207
> 8. Schumann - 202
> 9. Monteverdi - 197
> 10. John Williams - 184
> 11. Machaut - 175
> 12. Handel - 171
> 14. Haydn - 168
> 15. Mahler - 160
> 16. Mozart - 155
> 17. Ravel - 132
> 18. Stravinsky - 110
> 19. Vivaldi - 103
> 20. Debussy - 96
> 21. Josquin - 90
> 22. Chopin - 82
> 23. Tchaikovsky - 76
> 24. Wagner - 63
> ... and so on
> *Names way further down, for comparison*
> 25. Copland - 28
> 26. Bernstein - appx 19
> 27. Justin Bieber - 3


*So is public opinion accurate, or is math actually the true accuracy even though we're blind to it? Can we rely on math for objectivism, since it is self-consistent in producing great results instead of dependent on popularity polls. I think with greater study, the answer is becoming very clear!*

Here is the original source list when combined equally with *popularity*. It forms closer to the public norm. Note how it looks almost like forum lists, until you bring in outside opinions. This type of list is actually the *superficial  one,* to the real influential truth within the composers' spheres, due to popularity bias. We can even see *Mozart has been overrated all along by this popularity bias that we haven't caught onto:*



Ethereality said:


> 1. Beethoven - 18698180
> 2. Bach - 12501456
> 3. John Williams - 12317010
> 4. Mozart - 11283062
> 5. Schubert - 9021280
> 6. Brahms - 8459700
> 7. Justin Bieber - 8397850 (this shows how the forum's _popularity vote _is flawed / biased as an overall mechanism, since it is also flawed within any public sphere. So the polling method used on this forum is objectively flawed and biased in favor of its tastes)
> 8. Dvorak - 7138470
> 9. Mendelssohn - 6655900
> 10. Schumann - 6038830
> 11. Handel - 6494288
> 12. Debussy - 5946762
> 13. Chopin - 5074592
> 14. Haydn - 4515763
> 15. Ravel - 4324019
> 16. Tchaikovsky - 4052428
> 17. Mahler - 3942448
> 18. Stravinsky - 2954308
> 19. Wagner - 1913154
> 20. Monteverdi - 1584152
> ...
> 21. Copland - 201688 (added just for comparison)
> 22. Bernstein - 0
> ... and so on


Therefore while a popularity approach fits best with the _majority_ opinion on this forum, one can actually reason that a mathematical approach to composer _influences and pairings_ is far more objective, and trumps popular individual opinions. *The first list *above, is the best objective measure to use. It only includes these composers thus far, and I'm sure I could mathematically complete the list if anyone is interested.

Here is * the original source list*, which calculates the highest converging *taste similarities*:



> *Source and explanation of these results*
> 
> 1. Schubert - 10 (The most depended-on composer relationship. The peak of convergence)
> 2. Schumann - 10 (2nd most)
> 3. Brahms - 10
> 4. Beethoven - 10
> 5. John Williams - 10 (converges with its own branch)
> 6. Mendelssohn - 10
> 7. Dvorak - 10
> 8. Rameau - 9
> 9. Bach - 8
> 10. Handel - 8
> 11. Mahler - 8 (converges ie. with Schumann and Brahms)
> 12. Monteverdi - 8
> 13. Mozart - 7
> 14. Haydn - 7
> 15. Machaut - 7
> 16. Ravel - 7 (converges ie. with Schumann and Schubert)
> 17. Stravinsky - 7 (converges with its own smaller branch)
> 18. Debussy - 6
> 19. Justin Bieber - 5
> 20. Vivaldi - 5
> 21. Chopin - 4
> 22. Tchaikovsky - 4
> 23. Wagner - 3
> 24. Josquin - 3
> 25. Copland - 2 (just added these guys to disprove the article in your link)
> 26. Bernstein - 0 (took the first 10 composers)
> ... and so on


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Need I remind you that the subject was 'the 5 greatest composers of all time'. That's a pretty high bar! I am willing to bet you that there is far more objective evidence supporting non-contemporary composers being on the list than any contemporary composer. Being a traditionalist has nothing to do with anything if the opinions are as objective as possible.
> 
> The premise touted by more than one poster above that those who find the OP list to be nothing short of bizarre are simply biased traditionalists are putting up a smoke-screeen and trying to divert the real subject which is that it is a number of these contemporary composers who are the ones who have no objectivity.


Still the expectation of objectivity. Why?


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> There was no objectivity - they were asked their opinion. 'Opinion' and 'objectivity' don't belong in the same sentence (except this one of course!).


Opinion with no objectivity may be what happened here, but I don't see why that leads to the broad conclusion that opinion and objectivity don't belong in the same sentence. Have you become that jaded? (Though, if so, in this day and age I can't say I blame you. )

Why would anyone who takes pride in their credibility not try to be as objective as possible? Do we not expect that those in the professions (medicine, law etc.), in business, in any workplace or on a jury will give their best objective opinion? Do these people come home and suddenly dumb down to the point of replacing objective opinion with biased preferences when it comes to something like 'the 5 greatest composers of all time'? Maybe they do, but I hope not and it shouldn't be that way.

I can only assume that posters who assume that any opinion is de facto subjective are reflecting their own life experience that the opinions of people around them are not to be trusted or they are, for some unknown reason, ignoring the fact that they trust others' opinions often if not all the time because a lot of people try to be objective when giving an opinion to loved ones.

Personally, I try to be as objective as possible when giving opinions on subjects such as the greatest composers of all time. For instance, I place Beethoven in the top 5, not because of some traditionalist bias, but for reasons such as the fact that there is no decade since his death almost 200 years ago that he hasn't been on the very short list of most influential, most respected by musicologists, musicians, conductors and most popular among CM listeners. And news flash: in CM there is a correlation (albeit not exact) between popularity of composers that has lasted for over a century and their overall 'greatness'.

Also, as a further example, although my top 5 favorite opera composers would not include Wagner, I couldn't argue against objective evidence that he deserves to be in the top 5 greatest of all time.


----------



## Ethereality

Nvm: not worth it.


----------



## norman bates

DaveM said:


> Need I remind you that the subject was 'the 5 greatest composers of all time'.


if it was for me, I would choose only 20th century composers, go figure (well, maybe I would mention Bach). Because for my taste (and my admittedly limited knowledge) I prefer 20th century composers. Sorry?



DaveM said:


> That's a pretty high bar! I am willing to bet you that there is far more objective evidence supporting non-contemporary composers being on the list than any contemporary composer. Being a traditionalist has nothing to do with anything if the opinions are as objective as possible.


so being objective means to recognize that the classical music in the twentieth century is inferior to that of the past centuries?


----------



## Ethereality

I added *Justin Bieber* and *John Williams *to my mathematics-induced Top Composers list for more comparison.

Terrific list there. I'm absolutely loving and in-agreement with the results of these math convergences.


----------



## DaveM

Ethereality said:


> Your reading comprehension is perhaps the worst I've come across in the past few months.


This coming from the one who says there is a kind of objectivity that has nothing to do with fact:



Ethereality said:


> ..You don't have to _agree_ with this kind of objectivity at all: it has nothing to do with fact...


----------



## DaveM

norman bates said:


> if it was for me, I would choose only 20th century composers, go figure (well, maybe I would mention Bach). Because for my taste (and my admittedly limited knowledge) I prefer 20th century composers. Sorry?
> 
> so being objective means to recognize that the classical music in the twentieth century is inferior to that of the past centuries?


Okay, so you don't distinguish preference from objectivity.


----------



## norman bates

DaveM said:


> Okay, so you don't distinguish preference from objectivity.


_We asked each of the 174 to name five composers from throughout history who they considered to be the greatest, according to four main criteria: originality, impact, craftsmanship and enjoyability. _

In terms of originality and impact (if impact means influence) I would put Debussy objectively ahead of Mozart for instance. His originality is unquestionable (well, Fanelli could have something to say), and his influence was just massive, changing the language of classical music, but also deeply influencing jazz, and even popular music.


----------



## DaveM

norman bates said:


> _We asked each of the 174 to name five composers from throughout history who they considered to be the greatest, according to four main criteria: originality, impact, craftsmanship and enjoyability. _
> 
> In terms of originality and impact (if impact means influence) I would put Debussy objectively ahead of Mozart for instance. His originality is unquestionable (well, Fanelli could have something to say), and his influence was just massive, changing the language of classical music, but also deeply influencing jazz, and even popular music.


There is no arguing about the fact of originality and influence of the music of Debussy, but using almost any objective parameter of originality and, particularly, influence, I don't think you'll find much support for Debussy over Mozart. Re: originality and influence: Mozart operas over Debussy? Mozart symphonies and concertos over Debussy's orchestral works? Mozart solo piano works over Debussy?


----------



## norman bates

DaveM said:


> There is no arguing about the fact of originality and influence of the music of Debussy, but using almost any objective parameter of originality and, particularly, influence, I don't think you'll find much support for Debussy over Mozart. Re: originality and influence: Mozart operas over Debussy? Mozart symphonies and concertos over Debussy's orchestral works? Mozart solo piano works over Debussy?


in terms of originality? Compare Mozart to Haydn. His style wasn't particularly revolutionary. He was playing the classical style of his time.
On the other hand Debussy sounded like almost nothing before. He did not only used harmony in totally different way, his music was also a complete change of perspective compared to the romantic tradition.
In terms of influence Debussy's influence has been immense.
I can't say the same for Mozart even remotely. 
So there you go.


----------



## Guest

The definition of 'objective' according to Oxford, is



> not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.


This supports my view that this poll cannot, and should not be regarded as an objective poll, making any factual claims about greatness. I would further add that whilst one might try and establish facts about the originality and impact of a composer, the enjoyability is much less amenable to objectivity.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> The definition of 'objective' according to Oxford, is
> 
> This supports my view that this poll cannot, and should not be regarded as an objective poll, making any factual claims about greatness. I would further add that whilst one might try and establish facts about the originality and impact of a composer, the enjoyability is much less amenable to objectivity.


I happen to believe that there is objective evidence of the enjoyability of some composers over others insofar as some reliably and repeatedly fill concert halls over others and the recordings of the music of some consistently outsell that of others. But when it comes to the greatest composers of this or that, there are better objective measures.


----------



## tdc

Aspects of this list I really like, other aspects are kind of bizarre. I think it shows that many composers today don't have the same bias towards Romanticism as I often encounter on this forum. I've also stated numerous times here that I feel Monteverdi is a greater composer than Handel, which appears to be the consensus among these composers as well. 

I think the absence of Handel can be explained by the fact that today while highly respected, very few people consider him the 'greatest' composer. 

I think some of the high placing of modern/contemporary composers simply reflects a desire of these composers to elevate more current music, (or give support to the 'underdog'), and bring attention to some newer sounds. 

If Stravinsky, Ligeti and Mahler are removed out of the top ten and replaced with Brahms, Haydn and Bartok, then the list would consist of the same ten composers I posted in a top ten list here a month or so ago.


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> In terms of originality and impact (*if impact means influence*) I would put Debussy objectively ahead of Mozart for instance. His originality is unquestionable (well, Fanelli could have something to say), and his influence was just massive, changing the language of classical music, but also deeply influencing jazz, and even popular music.


Yes. I quote. _"how greatly did they influence the musical scene both in their own lifetime and in years/centuries to come."_



DaveM said:


> I happen to believe that there is objective evidence of the *enjoyability *of some composers over others insofar as some reliably and repeatedly fill concert halls over others and the recordings of the music of some consistently outsell that of others. But when it comes to the greatest composers of this or that, there are better objective measures.


Again, I quote the magazine. _"quite simply, how much pleasure does their music give you".

_That last is, I would suggest, a slight flaw in their wording. 'Enjoyability' surely means the extent to which something can be enjoyed. So, respondents should be trying to estimate the extent to which other people have, or will enjoy the composer's works. In fact, the elaboration I've cited merely asks them for what they themselve had enjoyed - in other words, a subjective response.

The article hasn't simply ignored the 'missing' either. There is a side article noting the scarcity or complete absence of Handel, Holst, Berlioz, Palestrina, Bruckner, Mendelssohn, Dvorak and Grieg - and the likelihood of letters to the editor expressing disgust that they've been overlooked!

One of the things this poll has prompted me to do is to listen to some of the music about which these composers have written. For example, John Casker (I've not heard of him) wrote about Ligeti's Horn Trio, Piano Concerto and Etudes with such enthusiasm that I want to see if I enjoy it too (and yes, I have listened to Ligeti - I have some idea of what I might be letting myself in for).

I see no reason why anyone should expect every single one of the 174 to treat the survey in exactly the same sober and serious way some of the poll fans here do when they are asked. I would instead expect them to treat it with the same range of opinions as we find across TC and any polled population generally on matters of this type. Hence the playful 5 votes for Beethoven, the votes for the exclusively 'contemporary', the votes for the exclusively 'traditional'. And at no point does the editor claim that this must be regarded as some kind of definitive and objective list. It's an opportunity to consider the tastes of an informed - if, inevitably idiosyncratic - audience. Forget the top 50 ranking; enjoy the learning.


----------



## DaveM

^^^I would suggest to those presenting published polls as part of an OP that disclosure that the poll is not to be taken seriously is important if, of course, there is clear evidence that that is the case. That said, this thread gave some useful information on how certain posters perceive the meaning of the word ‘objectivity’.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> ^^^I would suggest to those presenting published polls as part of an OP that disclosure that the poll is not to be taken seriously is important if, of course, there is clear evidence that that is the case. That said, this thread gave some useful information on how certain posters perceive the meaning of the word 'objectivity'.


More detail about the context of the poll in the OP would indeed have been useful (and Lizstian added more as the thread progressed).

But I would also suggest that some posters might exercise greater restraint in their criticisms, and when offered legitimate challenge, have the courage to respond (as you almost invariably do).

I asked Johnnie Burgess what he meant by "taking the poll seriously". S/he's chosen not to reply. If 'taken seriously' means "accept as gospel, the judgements in the article" I would agree that it shouldn't be 'taken seriously'. But that's a very narrow definition.

In response to absurd levels of criticism, I asked DavidA to say how he would have conducted the poll, and who he would want to ask if he doesn't think that the 'contemporary composers' who were asked are worth listening to. He too has chosen not to reply. I also asked him who would have been in his top 5 (and who he would have left out to make sure Handel was included). He has chosen not to reply.

It seems that some have not only not taken the poll seriously, but have not given the thread the respect it deserves.


----------



## Ethereality

I like John Corgliano's picks. He's a smart man.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

MacLeod said:


> More detail about the context of the poll in the OP would indeed have been useful (and Lizstian added more as the thread progressed).
> 
> But I would also suggest that some posters might exercise greater restraint in their criticisms, and when offered legitimate challenge, have the courage to respond (as you almost invariably do).
> 
> I asked Johnnie Burgess what he meant by "taking the poll seriously". S/he's chosen not to reply. If 'taken seriously' means "accept as gospel, the judgements in the article" I would agree that it shouldn't be 'taken seriously'. But that's a very narrow definition.
> 
> In response to absurd levels of criticism, I asked DavidA to say how he would have conducted the poll, and who he would want to ask if he doesn't think that the 'contemporary composers' who were asked are worth listening to. He too has chosen not to reply. I also asked him who would have been in his top 5 (and who he would have left out to make sure Handel was included). He has chosen not to reply.
> 
> It seems that some have not only not taken the poll seriously, but have not given the thread the respect it deserves.


I take it a joke poll when a couple voters list 1 name 5 times or names mother nature as an composer shows they did not take it as serious. I would have responded back to the ones who listed 1 to name 4 more or asked if they only wanted to vote for 1, in the one who picked Beethoven 5 times, Beethoven would only count 1 time.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Ethereality said:


> I like John Corgliano's picks. He's a smart man.


They should have told him to pick 4 more or just count Beethoven 1 time.


----------



## larold

_And talking of works not heard, it's not absolutely true for tons of modern composers? _

By modern do you mean living composers? The recording era changed this for everyone.

Name some whose music isn't played and known that you think are great.


----------



## norman bates

larold said:


> _And talking of works not heard, it's not absolutely true for tons of modern composers? _
> 
> By modern do you mean living composers? The recording era changed this for everyone.
> 
> Name some whose music isn't played and known that you think are great.


I mean modern as usually associated to classical era, that means from the start of the 20th century or even a bit before. 
Modern classical music isn't even remotely known or performed as the classics. For instance, for a long time I've tried to find a work by Jan Ingenhoven that was considered the first atonal song, and to my knowledge it's not been recorded even once. 
Andrew Hill wrote an opera, and I'd really like to listen to it, it's still unrecorded. A lot of music written by Sorabji is still only on paper.
Some of my very favorite composers are Maurice Ohana and Giacinto Scelsi. How well known are they? Sure, now there are recordings of their work, but are they heard even remotely as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Puccini etc?
And I've mentioned musicians that are relatively well known. 
The recording made possible to a lot of music to be heard, no doubts about it, but for a classical composer there are other difficulties to consider (there should be an orchestra to perform your music, that could also be very hard to play), and even if one is able to record his music, the huge (and always increasing) amount of music available makes every single musician less and less visible. You could be able to have your whole body of work recorded and still be completely unknown. 
When Bach was rediscovered on the other hand the situation was very different, the world of music was much smaller back then, so once heard he (even if dead) had a wide audience listening to his music.


----------



## Larkenfield

larold said:


> _Could you clarify your 'continually confuse popularity with greatness'? _
> 
> Toward the end of the 20th century and into the 21st century one composer ascended more than any other: Mahler. In 1950 Mahler was not considered among the greatest composers even though, as a conductor and music director, he had held important posts in Vienna and New York (Philharmonic) and continually played his own symphonies to, at best, lackluster reviews and fanfare.
> 
> Today he is played by orchestras everywhere. Where I live the Grand Rapids (Mich.) Symphony, Lansing Symphony Orchestra and the Michigan State University Philharmonic all schedule performances of his symphonies -- every year. He is a hit with conductors, orchestras and attenders.
> 
> But is he great? Arturo Toscanini, one of the greatest and most revered conductors in history said his music was not only not great it wasn't good. Furtwangler never played it before or after the war. It took Leonard Bernstein and Maurice Abravanel in USA to make it popular here, thanks to the advent of the long played record.
> 
> No one considered him great less than a lifetime ago yet he has skyrocketed in popularity to a point where his symphonies are now played in concert all over the world as much as Beethoven's. Would anyone say he is Beethoven's peer as a composer? Then why does he get as much air time? Because he is popular.
> 
> To me this is popularity, not greatness. This popularity is just as great with conductors and orchestra managers as record buyers and fans, too. This is what I mean to confuse popularity with greatness.
> 
> I agree there is a certain cache to hearing music less familiar and perhaps more contemporary than the greatest music of history. But to confuse that with greatness I cannot accept. And the title here is "50 Greatest Composers by 174 Composers."


And exactly when does "popular" become symphonies that are considered critical successes according to you? Fifty years? One hundred? Most likely never? It's possible for them to be both and be well-deserving of being high on anyone's list. I would suggest there has _already_ been plenty of time for his symphonies to wear out their welcome and yet there has been no loss of interest in them after Bernstein put Mahler on the musical landscape for good with the NYP-and his concerts for the centennial of Mahler's birth was in 1960 and almost 60 years ago. Sixty!... So there's more than popularity going on here for the interest in them to have already lasted this long... The only ones who say this are the ones who don't seem to understand him, IMO, in the first place because they have more criticism of him than praise. How about a statement such as, "My preference was for recordings that somewhat scaled back Mahler's psychoses..." Now what makes you an expert on his psychological state of mind to make such an arrogant statement of a man who was never viewed with psychosis even by Freud-but who indeed had his neuroses and doubts that led to him question the deeper issues of life and yet functioned quite well and successfully in the world until he died. What's wrong with that? Nothing's wrong with that. So your apparent understanding of him is neither sympathetic nor insightful. It's narrow, judgemental and negative... He wrote his last symphony more than 100 years ago and I would suggest that it's still being heard, along with his 9 others, because while he remains popular, listeners remain fascinated by them, not to mention the man, and find depth there because they are strongly biographical in certain ways and Mahler put a great deal of himself in them that have inspired others to ask the same probing questions of life, not to mention that he was a melodic genius and one of the greatest orchestrators of all time, which seems to have escaped some of his crass listeners... I find the above critique full of errors... and who exactly gives a damn whether Toscanini or Furtwangler liked them?... The 8th Symphony, the last of Mahler's works that was premiered in his lifetime, was a symphony that was a _critical and popular success_ during his lifetime when he conducted the Munich Philharmonic in its first performance, in Munich, on 12 September 1910. His symphonies also had to overcome being unfairly banned in Europe when Hitler was in power. I would consider them second only to Beethoven and there's more to them than only "popularity," not after his 1st Symphony is still being played though it was composed in 1888. That's almost 130 years ago! Mahler's "psychoses" is a gross exaggeration though he's sometimes played as a total neurotic by those who identify with him perhaps too strongly though he was a man of remarkable resilience even after numerous deaths (such as the death of six siblings growing up and later the tragic loss of his daughter), a devastating divorce from a woman he still loved, and his heart problems that led to his death. What a displeasure to read about a composer by those who mainly have faint praise, can't seem to hear even half of what he put into his works, and criticism. Toscanini couldn't even get Ravel's Bolero right during its American premiere, so forget him playing Mahler, and actually Furtwangler performed Mahler's Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen, live performance with Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau and the Vienna Philharmonic, 1951 (on Orfeo) and Mahler's, Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen, studio recording with Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau and the Philharmonia Orchestra, 1952 (on Naxos, EMI)... _He 
played him_.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> Aspects of this list I really like, other aspects are kind of bizarre. I think it shows that many composers today *don't have the same bias towards Romanticism as I often encounter on this forum.*


I can agree with this, I think some people have this mindset* anything Romantic composers wrote is valuable and "we must have patience to listen to them even though many of the composers and works are boring". For example, Dvorak sounds like a second-rate of Tchaikovsky to me and I find Mahler not really all that interesting except 1st, 4th, 5th symphonies. 
I still find a lot of Romantic choral works a big disappointment. (Verdi has some good bits like Dies Irae), Examples like Faure Requiem, the long-winded Brahms German Requiem (I do like Brahms' 3rd, 4th symphonies and 1st piano concerto though). They seem to be interested in creating certain atmospheres with constant "ahhhh~" (like Ligeti's). They lack the strength of motivic drive and melodic interest of earlier music. Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff's vespers sound like pastiche of Renaissance music, lacking the usual spirit of individuality we associate with these Romantic composers. I feel that they weren't totally successful in creating their own voice in these works.

Despite many people's attempt to "Romanticize" Romantic composers in this forum, I think there's only a handful of works and composers that really matter and are worth listening to. Clementi sounds extremely similar to Beethoven, but for some reason people consider him to be not a serious composer. I find the modulations in the opening to his 4th symphony intriguing. 
Schumann's 4th symphony is kind of repetitive with think orchestration by comparison. If we listen to Clementi in the same mindset* we listen to Schumann for example, I'm sure we would rank Clementi close to Schumann.


----------



## hammeredklavier

norman bates said:


> in terms of originality? Compare Mozart to Haydn. His style wasn't particularly revolutionary. He was playing the classical style of his time.
> On the other hand Debussy sounded like almost nothing before. He did not only used harmony in totally different way, his music was also a complete change of perspective compared to the romantic tradition.
> In terms of influence Debussy's influence has been immense.
> I can't say the same for Mozart even remotely.
> So there you go.











Excuse me. I find Debussy's piano music new-agey. Reverie, Suite Bergamasque, Arabesques.. Yes he was original and inventive, for inspiring the new-age composers. 
La Mer - I find it to be good semi-classical film music. I think the golden age of classical music composition pretty much ended with the last line of Great Germans, Brahms, Wagner, R. Strauss, Mahler, Schoenberg. After that, minimalism, new-age, film scores start to dominate and "classical music" starts to become tainted with their influences. I find Mozart and Haydn to be more relevant to history and development of "classical music". Harmonic Similarities in Wagner and Mozart

_"On the other hand Debussy sounded like almost nothing before." _

Wagner Siegfried Idyll: 



Debussy Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun: 




I guess you could make an argument Debussy still sounds different.
But then Mozart's choral music doesn't quite sound like Anton Cajetan Adlgasser and Johann Ernst Eberlin. Haydn's doesn't sound like Nikola Porpora's.


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> I can agree with this, I think some people have this mindset* anything Romantic composers wrote is valuable and "we must have patience to listen to them even though many of the composers and works are boring". For example, Dvorak sounds like a second-rate of Tchaikovsky to me and I find Mahler not really all that interesting except 1st, 4th, 5th symphonies.
> I still find a lot of Romantic choral works a big disappointment. (Verdi has some good bits like Dies Irae), Examples like Faure Requiem, the long-winded Brahms German Requiem (I do like Brahms' 3rd, 4th symphonies and 1st piano concerto though). They seem to be interested in creating certain atmospheres with constant "ahhhh~" (like Ligeti's). They lack the strength of motivic drive and melodic interest of earlier music. Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff's vespers sound like pastiche of Renaissance music, lacking the usual spirit of individuality we associate with these Romantic composers. I feel that they weren't totally successful in creating their own voice in these works.


There seems to be a great deal of classical music you don't like. Maybe a different category would give you more satisfaction.


----------



## fluteman

Lisztian said:


> BBC music magazine asked 174 contemporary composers to vote for 5 composers as the 'greatest' of all time, then they tallied up the results to come up with a list of 50. Here are the results:
> 
> 1. Bach
> 2. Stravinsky
> 3. Beethoven
> 4. Mozart
> 5. Debussy
> 6. Ligeti
> 7. Mahler
> 8. Wagner
> 9. Ravel
> 10. Monteverdi
> 11. Britten
> 12. Sibelius
> 13. Messiaen
> 14. Bartók
> 15. Shostakovich
> 16. Haydn
> 17. Saariaho
> 18. Brahms
> 19. Reich
> 20. Chopin
> 21. Vaughan Williams
> 22. Schoenberg
> 23. Gesualdo
> 24. Janáček
> 25. Schubert
> 26. Gershwin
> 27. Glass
> 28. Ives
> 29. Prokofiev
> 30. Lutoslawski
> 31. Cage
> 32. Tchaikovsky
> 33. Berg
> 34. Feldman
> 35. Varèse
> 36. Webern
> 37. Byrd
> 38. R.Strauss
> 39. Verdi
> 40. Elgar
> 41. Birtwistle
> 42. Knussen
> 43. Sondheim
> 44. Stockhausen
> 45. Satie
> 46. Tallis
> 47. Hildegard von Bingen
> 48. Boulez
> 49. Schumann
> 50. Rachmaninov
> 
> Thoughts?


I've given my opinion in other threads on the significance and usefulness, or lack thereof, of (most) polls and surveys. But one thing I like about this one is that it probably gives a more or less accurate picture of which composers a wide array of prominent contemporary composers consider have had the most significant influence on western music, especially contemporary western music, including their own, though there is no indication in your post that the question was actually put to them exactly that way.

Looked at in that light, I find it most interesting that Stravinsky shoots up to no. 2 from his much lower place on most other "greatest composer" lists posted here, including the one offered by me (though I never pretended that mine measured greatness by any definition, only long-term commercial success, not the same thing but at least measurable with some objectivity). Arnold Schoenberg, in contrast, must settle for a relatively modest ranking of no. 22.

This jibes with my argument elsewhere that Stravinsky, not Schoenberg or anyone else, had the greatest influence on modern western music of any single composer, and by a large margin. Whatever the usefulness of this ranking in the never-ending greatness debate, I think it is telling on this specific issue.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> View attachment 126720
> 
> 
> Excuse me. I find Debussy's piano music new-agey. Reverie, Suite Bergamasque, Arabesques.. Yes he was original and inventive, for inspiring the new-age composers.
> La Mer - I find it to be good semi-classical film music. I think the golden age of classical music composition pretty much ended with the last line of Great Germans, Brahms, Wagner, R. Strauss, Mahler, Schoenberg. After that, minimalism, new-age, film scores start to dominate and "classical music" starts to become tainted with their influences. I find Mozart and Haydn to be more relevant to history and development of "classical music". Harmonic Similarities in Wagner and Mozart
> 
> _"On the other hand Debussy sounded like almost nothing before." _
> 
> Wagner Siegfried Idyll:
> 
> 
> 
> Debussy Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you could make an argument Debussy still sounds different.
> But then Mozart's choral music doesn't quite sound like Anton Cajetan Adlgasser and Johann Ernst Eberlin. Haydn's doesn't sound like Nikola Porpora's.


Debussy was unprecedented and more highly original in the development of harmony than Mozart. He took things in a different direction than Wagner. Mozart was more into working with what was already there. Those somewhat similar lines in Mozart and Wagner were used in way different contexts.


----------



## hammeredklavier

So Mr. Phillovesclassical, since when Mozart has become a "safe composer" for you? :lol:



Phil loves classical said:


> For those that think Mozart is a safe composer. Here is the most Romantic-pioneering piece (no I won't shy away from that term). The opening of Beethoven's Pathetique seems obviously modelled after it. Controversial for its time, and it proclaimed by Brahms to be Modernist (at the time).


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> There seems to be a great deal of classical music you don't like. Maybe a different category would give you more satisfaction.


I still have a ton of stuff to listen to, and I do like a lot of the canon stuff such as Mendelssohn's 4th symphony, violin concerto, 6th string quartet. 
_"Maybe a different category would give you more satisfaction."_ I should ask this question to normanbates.
I wish there was another forum "contemporary music" for these people who love composers such as Maurice Ohana and Giacinto Scelsi. These days, I feel that there's a difference between the two fandoms that can't be reconciled, like 'classical vs jazz'. Why do people discuss how much Gershwin is "not classical", but not how much John Cage or Philip Glass are not?
It's a real problem because we're trying to rank real classical music composers and these contemporary music enthusiasts are always trying to get semi-classical composers high up in the ranking. Maybe if we create another forum "contemporary music" for them, that should solve the problem.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> So Mr. Phillovesclassical, since when Mozart has become a "safe composer" for you? :lol:


Never. What's that post got to do with development of harmony?


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> Excuse me. I find Debussy's piano music new-agey. Reverie, Suite Bergamasque, Arabesques.. Yes he was original and inventive, for inspiring the new-age composers.
> *La Mer - I find it to be good semi-classical film music.* I think the golden age of classical music composition pretty much ended with the last line of Great Germans, Brahms, Wagner, R. Strauss, Mahler, Schoenberg. After that, minimalism, new-age, film scores start to dominate and "classical music" starts to become tainted with their influences.


I'm somewhat confused by this. Are you suggesting that Debussy was influenced by film composers? Are Reverie, Suite Bergamasque, Arabesques the only piano music of his you've listened to? There's much more besides that sounds much less conventional.



hammeredklavier said:


> Why do people discuss how much Gershwin is "not classical", but not how much John Cage or Philip Glass are not?


They do (_we _do). Ad nauseam.



hammeredklavier said:


> *It's a real problem *because we're trying to rank real classical music composers and these contemporary music enthusiasts are always trying to get semi-classical composers high up in the ranking. Maybe if we create another forum "contemporary music" for them, that should solve the problem.


It's not a real problem at all. Why can't you just listen to what you like and not fret about what others are liking?


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> View attachment 126720
> 
> 
> Excuse me. I find Debussy's piano music new-agey. Reverie, Suite Bergamasque, Arabesques.. Yes he was original and inventive, for inspiring the new-age composers.
> La Mer - I find it to be good semi-classical film music. I think the golden age of classical music composition pretty much ended with the last line of Great Germans, Brahms, Wagner, R. Strauss, Mahler, Schoenberg. After that, minimalism, new-age, film scores start to dominate and "classical music" starts to become tainted with their influences. I find Mozart and Haydn to be more relevant to history and development of "classical music". Harmonic Similarities in Wagner and Mozart
> 
> _"On the other hand Debussy sounded like almost nothing before." _
> 
> Wagner Siegfried Idyll:
> 
> 
> 
> Debussy Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you could make an argument Debussy still sounds different.
> But then Mozart's choral music doesn't quite sound like Anton Cajetan Adlgasser and Johann Ernst Eberlin. Haydn's doesn't sound like Nikola Porpora's.


You could have demonstrated that such 'filmic' elements have tainted classical music but you didn't. There is nothing necessarily negative about music having strong imagery.


----------



## hammeredklavier

MacLeod said:


> I'm somewhat confused by this. Are you suggesting that Debussy was influenced by film composers?







Have you ever had this feeling, stuff like the _Rite of Spring_ sounds "complicated" upon first hearing, but when you hear the music again in the background of film scenes that go really well with the music, and the _Rite of the Spring_ starts sounding really GOOD and everything about the music starts to make sense? In my view, there are loads of stuff like that in classical music, especially towards the end of the Golden Age, and they often fake as "classical music" when in fact they're inherently "film music". (I never feel this way with Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms)
Likewise, I don't particularly find "genius" with stuff like _La Mer_. Like, listen to any point in their pieces - they're interested in creating certain atmospheres and that's it. Let people like Phillovesclassical keep overhyping it (as if Debussy wasn't overhyped enough as a "classical composer" already), :lol: As I said, it is my view the Golden Age of Classical Music Composition pretty much ended with guys like Wagner and Mahler and some others. It is my view we should only do ranking with them and big guys before their time. It is my view there should be a clearer dividing line between classical music and contemporary music. Let the contemporary music fandom create a ranking (separate from the one for "classical music") for the later guys.



Phil loves classical said:


> Never. What's that post got to do with development of harmony?


Development of harmony for guys like whom? John Williams? :lol:


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> Have you ever had this feeling, stuff like the _Rite of Spring_ sounds "complicated" upon first hearing, but when you hear the music again in the background with film scenes go really well with the music, and the _Rite of the Spring_ starts sounding really GOOD and everything about the music starts to make sense?


Well, no, I can't say I have. [add] I'm tempted to say it already made sense to me, seeing those dinosaurs! :lol:



hammeredklavier said:


> In my view, there are loads of stuff like that in classical music, especially towards the end of the Golden Age, and they often fake as "classical music" when in fact they're inherently "film music". (I never feel this way with Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms)


Have you ever looked up your favourite composer to see to what extent their work is used in films? Mozart has 1,593 soundtrack credits on imdb. Debussy has only 353.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0003665/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1



hammeredklavier said:


> It is my view we should only do ranking with them and big guys before their time. It is my view there should be a clearer dividing line between classical music and contemporary music. Let the contemporary music fandom create a ranking (separate from the one for "classical music") for the later guys.


You didn't answer my question or help clarify my confusion. In fact, you've made things worse.

You are entitled to your views about what does and does not constitute classical music, but a good proportion of the 174 composers polled clearly disagree, and, tbh, it's their opinions I'm more interested in.


----------



## hammeredklavier

MacLeod said:


> Mozart has 1,593 credits on imdb.


You misunderstand me. I never said Mozart's music was never used in films. Mozart's music doesn't suddenly _"sound better"_ when listened at the same time with film scenes that fit it. Likewise, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, Bach - they serve very well as "stand-alone pieces of art music". But there are "classical music" pieces that don't, I think.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> You misunderstand me.


Well I said that rght from the start of this exchange!



hammeredklavier said:


> I never said Mozart's music was never used in films.


I know you didn't. I was making the point that there are many directors/producers out there who think Mozart's works fit quite nicely into a cinematic context.


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> I'm somewhat confused by this. Are you suggesting that Debussy was influenced by film composers?


To this ignorant fellow "film music" is like an N-word. Don't read more into it.


----------



## tdc

hammeredklavier said:


> You misunderstand me. I never said Mozart's music was never used in films. Mozart's music doesn't suddenly _"sound better"_ when listened at the same time with film scenes that fit it. Likewise, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, Bach - they serve very well as "stand-alone pieces of art music". But there are "classical music" pieces that don't, I think.


In some ways we have similar tastes in music in others completely opposite. I have no interest in some of the less famous names of the classical era you enjoy. To tell you the truth outside of Mozart I find it the most boring era of classical music.

Debussy I consider not far behind Mozart and Bach, practically in their same category. I think he found outstandingly original ways of using harmony that opened new doors for a kind of mysterious and deeply beautiful expression in classical music. Sheer brilliance. He is responsible for and influenced some of what I consider to be the best music I've ever listened to. As far as Schoenberg his early stuff shows he was no slouch but his 12 tone inspired pieces for the most part come across to me as anti-music. I would rather listen to the Backstreet Boys.


----------



## Phil loves classical

tdc said:


> In some ways we have similar tastes in music in others completely opposite. I have no interest in some of the less famous names of the classical era you enjoy. To tell you the truth outside of Mozart I find it the most boring era of classical music.
> 
> Debussy I consider not far behind Mozart and Bach, practically in their same category. I think he found outstandingly original ways of using harmony that opened new doors for a kind of mysterious and deeply beautiful expression in classical music. Sheer brilliance. He is responsible for and influenced some of what I consider to be the best music I've ever listened to. As far as Schoenberg his early stuff shows he was no slouch but his *12 tone inspired pieces for the most part come across to me as anti-music*. I would rather listen to the Backstreet Boys.


I could agree with total serial music like Babbitt, and some of Boulez/Stockhausen. The more I listened to Schoenberg, the more I feel he only disguises his 12-tone music in serialism, but is actually Classical/Romantic in structure/form and even gesture, as if he translated music from those eras into a different (albeit imprecise) language.


----------



## fluteman

tdc said:


> Debussy I consider not far behind Mozart and Bach, practically in their same category. I think he found outstandingly original ways of using harmony that opened new doors for a kind of mysterious and deeply beautiful expression in classical music.


And there they all are in the top five in this ranking, along with Stravinsky and Beethoven. Regardless of one's personal preferences, I think this is an accurate list of the composers who "opened new doors" in western music to the greatest extent, at least up to circa 1950.


----------



## Ethereality

tdc said:


> To tell you the truth outside of Mozart I find it the most boring era of classical music. Debussy I consider not far behind Mozart and Bach, practically in their same category.


You seem to be privy to only certain dimensions of music. When Beethoven had his mind on other dimensions, including rhythm, complex form and dynamic, that were interacting _co-dependent_ with one another as to permit exponentially more potential, his writing became exponentially more intricate than his predecessors. Complexity doesn't fit into a single dimension, as when you add more dimensions, like Beethoven did with elaborate horizontal form and harmony, and rhythm, via new formulas for rhythm including development and dynamic, you get much more relational complexity--and Ludwig is arguably so far the one attaining the most complete unification of all the dimensions, reaching a maximum level of complexity and interpretive consciousness. This is why Beethoven's harmonies seem less complex when they're not: his harmony is _extrinsic_ not intrinsic, it's designed for the bigger interactions of complex musical dimensions together, and _Beethoven knew this._ It was his visionary departure. Don't short yourself on a prevailing academic realization.

You can prematurely visualize this via a very simplistic math example, where h = harmonic complexity, v = voice-leading/spacing complexity, r = rhythmic complexity, d = dynamic complexity, and c = overall complexity. In the example, Bach and Beethoven are given 12 points to distribute as they choose into either category. Here is the product of their interactions: [Bach: 6h * 4v * 1r * 1d =_ 24c_] [Beethoven: 3h * 3v * 3r * 3d = _81c_]

I want to provide a better example however. I can understand a Bachian misinterpretation of Beethoven as limited: Time as a dimension appears limited to humans as it moves slowly from our perspective and uncontrollable to us, just as extrinsic and vertical harmony appears limited when you haven't studied the bigger picture of how all musical elements most effectively compile into complexity. Humans are the best example however: We are lamely made of mostly a few chemical elements, if _element_ is viewed as a dimension (a certain balance or _harmony_ within its chemical levels), yet humans are the most complex thing in the universe based on the other dimensions interacting co-dependently with the elemental, such as quantity, energy form, position, (not the complexity of each dimension, but the potential of their interactions) as they amalgamate with one another in the best-fit pattern, to find their best limitations to a whole process, sacrificing themselves for the bigger purpose, a formula. Beethoven identically has found the most-optimal pattern for each dimension to work towards max complexity. It's the well-established and prevailing understanding, look more into it.


----------



## Simon Moon

hammeredklavier said:


> I wish there was another forum "contemporary music" for these people who love composers such as Maurice Ohana and Giacinto Scelsi. These days, I feel that there's a difference between the two fandoms that can't be reconciled, like 'classical vs jazz'. Why do people discuss how much Gershwin is "not classical", but not how much John Cage or Philip Glass are not?
> It's a real problem because we're trying to rank *real classical music* composers and these contemporary music enthusiasts are always trying to get *semi-classical composers* high up in the ranking. Maybe if we create another forum "contemporary music" for them, that should solve the problem.


Sorry, but the portions I bolded above could be some of the most ridiculous things I've read on TC.

Please let me know, exactly the criteria you used to determine a 'real classical' piece from a 'semi-classical' piece.


----------



## fluteman

Simon Moon said:


> Sorry, but the portions I bolded above could be some of the most ridiculous things I've read on TC.
> 
> Please let me know, exactly the criteria you used to determine a 'real classical' piece from a 'semi-classical' piece.


I have to agree, as in a discussion like this, what can "classical" mean other than having had a significant long-term artistic and cultural impact? If we mean "classical" in the sense of CPE Bach through Beethoven, and/or roughly 1750-1825, and/or having many or most of the attributes of formal concert music during that period, as hammeredklavier may have meant, I think we can safely place Gershwin, Cage and Glass all well outside the classical period or style, though Cage and Glass even further outside of it than Gershwin. Of course, Cage, who lived until 1992, and Glass, who is still living, are both later composers than Gershwin.

When I use "classical" in the former sense, I often draw a distinction, however rough and approximate, between classical and contemporary art or music. I'd argue that one must place art in it's proper historical context to judge if it's earned the title "classical", and that implies a distinction between the art of our peers and that created a century or more ago, i.e., before any of us here now were alive. As the classical period formerly referred to ancient Greece and Rome (I seldom see it used that way today other than by scholars), a time and place where many of the attributes of western culture originated, I think including a temporal aspect is appropriate. Used in this sense, I'd say Gershwin is fast approaching classical status, but as for Cage and Glass, we may have to wait nearly until the 22nd century.


----------



## Lisztian

fluteman said:


> I have to agree, as in a discussion like this, what can "classical" mean other than having had a significant long-term artistic and cultural impact? If we mean "classical" in the sense of CPE Bach through Beethoven, and/or roughly 1750-1825, and/or having many or most of the attributes of formal concert music during that period, as hammeredklavier may have meant, I think we can safely place Gershwin, Cage and Glass all well outside the classical period or style, though Cage and Glass even further outside of it than Gershwin. Of course, Cage, who lived until 1992, and Glass, who is still living, are both later composers than Gershwin.
> 
> When I use "classical" in the former sense, I often draw a distinction, however rough and approximate, between classical and contemporary art or music. I'd argue that one must place art in it's proper historical context to judge if it's earned the title "classical", and that implies a distinction between the art of our peers and that created a century or more ago, i.e., before any of us here now were alive. As the classical period formerly referred to ancient Greece and Rome (I seldom see it used that way today other than by scholars), a time and place where many of the attributes of western culture originated, I think including a temporal aspect is appropriate. Used in this sense, I'd say Gershwin is fast approaching classical status, but as for Cage and Glass, we may have to wait nearly until the 22nd century.


I personally consider something to be 'classical music' if the work is influenced by the tradition of western art music more than from any other musical tradition. It's a problematic title, to be sure, but I believe that's how it has come to be used. Therefore composers like Saariaho, Ligeti, Cage, Knussen, etc fall under 'classical,' and that was taken for granted by those who enjoy this music and came to this forum intending to discuss it (along with other interests). We can place it in its proper historical context by calling it 'modern classical' or, going further, 'spectral classical,' for example.

I disagree that having a significant long-term artistic/cultural impact is a requirement. For every Beethoven there is a Steibelt, who we still consider classical, but probably mediocre classical. I don't think you can look at it from a more stylistic point of view either: we consider composers as dissimilar as Palestrina, Machaut, Mozart, and Alkan to be 'classical,' so I'm not sure why we'd cut off present-day composers who come from the same tradition.


----------



## Guest

(Why) Does it matter whether we bestow the term 'classical' on any particular composer's works? As far as I can see, it's only purpose is to elevate this over that, more for the benefit of the individual doing the bestowing than the music.


----------



## Lisztian

rnare fsbsrnbarnea


----------



## Lisztian

MacLeod said:


> (Why) Does it matter whether we bestow the term 'classical' on any particular composer's works? As far as I can see, it's only purpose is to elevate this over that, more for the benefit of the individual doing the bestowing than the music.


It matters because there have been suggestions from multiple parties (not only in this thread) that certain contemporary composers should not be discussed on a classical forum. Other than that I agree with you.


----------



## Guest

Lisztian said:


> It matters because there have been suggestions from multiple parties (not only in this thread) that certain contemporary composers should not be discussed on a classical forum. Other than that I agree with you.


Oh, yes, I understood you were responding to those multiple parties who think it does matter.


----------



## hammeredklavier

MacLeod said:


> (Why) Does it matter whether we bestow the term 'classical' on any particular composer's works? As far as I can see, it's only purpose is to elevate this over that, more for the benefit of the individual doing the bestowing than the music.


Many 'contemporary music' enthusiasts I have met talk of stuff like Frank Zappa or progressive rock. They don't seem to be all that much interested in classical music and its history. I find them more distant and alien than jazz listeners who have slight interest in classical music, for example.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Mozart is just "popular", but not "influential". But when other composers are inspired by Debussy, Debussy is being "influential". 
Debussy rips off Wagner. - Debussy is innovative.
Mozart writes in the classical style. - Mozart is derivative. 
Great logic. :lol:

-----

Schoenberg:




*"I owe very, very much to Mozart; and if one studies, for instance, the way in which I write for string quartet, then one cannot deny that I have learned this directly from Mozart. And I am proud of it!"*




"When I composed my Fourth String Quartet, I said this time I must compose like Mozart does it."




"The idea for the recapitulation in the first movement of Schönberg's Fourth String Quartet follows exactly the execution of Mozart's G minor Symphony KV 550 and Jupiter Symphony KV 551."
---
Ravel wrote his Piano Concerto in G Major "in the spirit of Mozart and Saint-Saëns"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/mu...from-mozart/KSiBBZu7ZAkcEKd78INswK/story.html
"Mozart! To us, adherents of the younger modern school, he is the greatest musician, the musician par excellence, our god!"
https://books.google.ca/books?id=D3RtDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA123
Mozart was revered above all other composers: the clarity, perfection of workmanship, and the purity of his lyricism, not to mention his prodigious output, struck Ravel as virtually superhuman.
----
http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart
This "revelation" of the music of Don Giovanni on the threshold of adulthood was a crucial factor in his decision a few years later to leave behind him the security of a career in the civil service and to aspire to become a composer. As he later confessed to Nadezhda von Meck in a letter from 1878: "The music of Don Giovanni was the first music which produced a tremendous impression on me. It awoke a holy enthusiasm in me which would later bear fruit. Through this music I entered that world of artistic beauty inhabited only by the greatest geniuses [...] *It is to Mozart that I am obliged for the fact that I have dedicated my life to music.* He gave the first impulse to my musical powers and made me love music more than anything else in the world"
----
https://books.google.ca/books?id=P7DTNCEPZhkC&pg=PT270
Rossini: "The Germans have always been at every time the greatest harmonists and the Italians the greatest melodists. But from the moment that the North produced a Mozart, we of the South were beaten on our own ground, because this man rises above both nations, uniting in himself all the charms of Italian melody and all the profundity of German harmony".
----
Brahms: "Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, *it was a completely new thing*. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony!"
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135






-----

Give me examples of Mozart's predecessors or contemporaries sounding exactly like these:

1:58


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> Originally Posted by *MacLeod*
> (Why) Does it matter whether we bestow the term 'classical' on any particular composer's works? As far as I can see, it's only purpose is to elevate this over that, more for the benefit of the individual doing the bestowing than the music.
> 
> Many 'contemporary music' enthusiasts I have met talk of stuff like Frank Zappa or progressive rock. They don't seem to be all that much interested in classical music and its history. I find them more distant and alien than jazz listeners who have slight interest in classical music, for example.


More misunderstanding on my part, I'm sure...but how does this answer the question I posed and you quoted in this post?



hammeredklavier said:


> Mozart is just "popular", but not "influential". But when other composers are inspired by Debussy, Debussy is being "influential".
> Debussy rips off Wagner. - Debussy is innovative.
> Mozart writes in the classical style. - Mozart is derivative.
> Great logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [etc]


Is this post to all and sundry, or a response to norman bates specifically?


----------



## Lisztian

hammeredklavier said:


> Many 'contemporary music' enthusiasts I have met talk of stuff like Frank Zappa or progressive rock. They don't seem to be all that much interested in classical music and its history. I find them more distant and alien than jazz listeners who have slight interest in classical music, for example.


This is often true for 'contemporary music enthusiasts,' but not for 'contemporary classical enthusiasts' who usually also have a big interest in traditional classical music as well. This is especially the case as far as the people who voted in this poll: looking at the list of them probably 90% of them are composers who have been 'classically trained' at universities/conservatoriums, so they've probably studied the repertoire and compositional techniques from older and newer masters.


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> Mozart is just "popular", but not "influential". But when other composers are inspired by Debussy, Debussy is being "influential".
> Debussy rips off Wagner. - Debussy is innovative.
> Mozart writes in the classical style. - Mozart is derivative.
> Great logic. :lol:
> 
> -----
> 
> Schoenberg:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I owe very, very much to Mozart; and if one studies, for instance, the way in which I write for string quartet, then one cannot deny that I have learned this directly from Mozart. And I am proud of it!"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "When I composed my Fourth String Quartet, I said this time I must compose like Mozart does it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The idea for the recapitulation in the first movement of Schönberg's Fourth String Quartet follows exactly the execution of Mozart's G minor Symphony KV 550 and Jupiter Symphony KV 551."
> ---
> Ravel wrote his Piano Concerto in G Major "in the spirit of Mozart and Saint-Saëns"
> https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/mu...from-mozart/KSiBBZu7ZAkcEKd78INswK/story.html
> "Mozart! To us, adherents of the younger modern school, he is the greatest musician, the musician par excellence, our god!"
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=D3RtDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA123
> Mozart was revered above all other composers: the clarity, perfection of workmanship, and the purity of his lyricism, not to mention his prodigious output, struck Ravel as virtually superhuman.
> ----
> http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart
> This "revelation" of the music of Don Giovanni on the threshold of adulthood was a crucial factor in his decision a few years later to leave behind him the security of a career in the civil service and to aspire to become a composer. As he later confessed to Nadezhda von Meck in a letter from 1878: "The music of Don Giovanni was the first music which produced a tremendous impression on me. It awoke a holy enthusiasm in me which would later bear fruit. Through this music I entered that world of artistic beauty inhabited only by the greatest geniuses [...] *It is to Mozart that I am obliged for the fact that I have dedicated my life to music.* He gave the first impulse to my musical powers and made me love music more than anything else in the world"
> ----
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=P7DTNCEPZhkC&pg=PT270
> Rossini: "The Germans have always been at every time the greatest harmonists and the Italians the greatest melodists. But from the moment that the North produced a Mozart, we of the South were beaten on our own ground, because this man rises above both nations, uniting in himself all the charms of Italian melody and all the profundity of German harmony".
> ----
> Brahms: "Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, *it was a completely new thing*. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony!"
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----
> 
> Give me examples of Mozart's predecessors or contemporaries sounding exactly like these:
> 
> 1:58


You've probably made more enemies for this incredible composer than you have made him friends. Why? Because you continue to mischaracterize the other composers who have come after him and do not seem to understand the essence of their work, including someone like Debussy. While he was influenced by Wagner early on, he rebelled against that influence and distinctively had his own innovative style and characteristics that were part of his great originality, which you and David Wright do not seem to appreciate nor understand because you are never complementary. You do not understand this and undervalue him as you undervalue many other composers who came after Mozart. Mozart was of course influential to those who know anything about him and many famous composers have testified to that, such as Wagner and Tchaikovsky, and yet some come across portraying Mozart as not being influential who may not have a sufficient background in their understanding of Mozart to begin with. I believe Mozart was the greatest composer who ever lived, starting at the age of five, but I believe it does him a great disservice to constantly measure everyone else against him when the value or point of their music seems entirely lost or misunderstood. It can lead to a negative reaction against Mozart. Sometimes composers need to be understood on their own without drawing constant comparisons that can be unfair or unnecessary to both. I believe that one needs to have the capacity to understand each composer on his or her own who have demonstrated their obvious individuality and genius over a lifetime.


----------



## fluteman

Lisztian said:


> I personally consider something to be 'classical music' if the work is influenced by the tradition of western art music more than from any other musical tradition. It's a problematic title, to be sure, but I believe that's how it has come to be used. Therefore composers like Saariaho, Ligeti, Cage, Knussen, etc fall under 'classical,' and that was taken for granted by those who enjoy this music and came to this forum intending to discuss it (along with other interests). We can place it in its proper historical context by calling it 'modern classical' or, going further, 'spectral classical,' for example.
> 
> I disagree that having a significant long-term artistic/cultural impact is a requirement. For every Beethoven there is a Steibelt, who we still consider classical, but probably mediocre classical. I don't think you can look at it from a more stylistic point of view either: we consider composers as dissimilar as Palestrina, Machaut, Mozart, and Alkan to be 'classical,' so I'm not sure why we'd cut off present-day composers who come from the same tradition.


Yes, but two questions: First, exactly how is it to be determined what is to be included within "the tradition of western art music" and what is to be excluded, deemed non-traditional or simply forgotten? Doesn't it take the passage of time and the creation of historical context to make that determination?

Second, before we debate things like this, don't we need to make clear whether we are using the term "classical" in its broad or narrow sense? In its narrow sense, referring to music of a particular period and style, Steibelt's music certainly qualifies. And even in its broad sense, while in the fullness of time history has not judged Steibelt's music to be at the exalted level of Beethoven's, it has not been entirely forgotten, so he has a place at the table, even if not a prominent one.

Charles Rosen argues that in analyzing the music of the classical period, only Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven need be considered, as all others were merely trying to do similar things but didn't do them nearly as well. But Steibelt did (more than) enough to create music recognizably in the classical style, undeniably within the classical period, and compelling enough to be remembered, if only faintly, as a significant part of that tradition. So though it no doubt suited Rosen's purposes as a musicologist to consider only Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, the rest of us need not follow suit, at least not quite to that extreme.

In this latter regard (i.e., "classical" in the broad sense), I would say, as I've suggested in other threads, the classical artist aims to create art that communicates ideas sufficiently universal, important and profound to speak to future generations. The popular artist seeks to capitalize on the zeitgeist of the moment and have the greatest possible immediate impact on the largest possible audience. Notice that in creating these definitions, I don't say anything about whether either the classical or popular artist succeeds in attaining their goals. So you can see I have long since conceded your point, at least technically. But as to those who do not, even slightly, why think about them at all?


----------



## Simon Moon

hammeredklavier said:


> Many 'contemporary music' enthusiasts I have met talk of stuff like Frank Zappa or progressive rock. They don't seem to be all that much interested in classical music and its history. I find them more distant and alien than jazz listeners who have slight interest in classical music, for example.


This is interesting, because I am a fan of Zappa, prog, jazz and contemporary classical, but I am relatively knowledgeable and interested in its history.

My interest in all the above is pretty much all for the same general reasons (to varying degrees): high level of musicianship, complexity, emotional depth, etc.


----------



## Nereffid

hammeredklavier said:


> Have you ever had this feeling, stuff like the _Rite of Spring_ sounds "complicated" upon first hearing, but when you hear the music again in the background of film scenes that go really well with the music, and the _Rite of the Spring_ starts sounding really GOOD and everything about the music starts to make sense? In my view, there are loads of stuff like that in classical music, especially towards the end of the Golden Age, and they often fake as "classical music" when in fact they're inherently "film music". (I never feel this way with Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms)


I get what you're saying, but obviously on a literal level the idea that _Rite of Spring_ or _La Mer_ is inherently "film music" is nonsensical. I'd suggest that if you associate such works with film music it's because at bottom both modern music and film are 20th-century art-forms and it's not surprising that they might share similar senses of - I'm not quite sure what the word should be, perhaps "narrative". Saying that modern music only starts to make sense when accompanied by visual images isn't an argument against modern music being able to stand on its own as classical music; instead, it's revealing that the listener has the capacity to understand modern music, just as they understand film, _but they're not using that capacity_ when the music doesn't have those visual images as a sort of safety harness.


----------



## fluteman

Nereffid said:


> I get what you're saying, but obviously on a literal level the idea that _Rite of Spring_ or _La Mer_ is inherently "film music" is nonsensical. I'd suggest that if you associate such works with film music it's because at bottom both modern music and film are 20th-century art-forms and it's not surprising that they might share similar senses of - I'm not quite sure what the word should be, perhaps "narrative". Saying that modern music only starts to make sense when accompanied by visual images isn't an argument against modern music being able to stand on its own as classical music; instead, it's revealing that the listener has the capacity to understand modern music, just as they understand film, _but they're not using that capacity_ when the music doesn't have those visual images as a sort of safety harness.


Very well said. But in addition, modern technology has helped greatly increase the role of music as part of a multimedia experience, so that a lot of the best-known modern music is best known in that context. I don't have any major objection to that. My own lifelong interest in classical music generally and Stravinsky's music in particular was given a major early boost when I saw Disney's Fantasia in the theater when I was four.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> I get what you're saying, but obviously on a literal level the idea that _Rite of Spring_ or _La Mer_ is inherently "film music" is nonsensical. I'd suggest that if you associate such works with film music it's because at bottom *both modern music and film are 20th-century art-forms and it's not surprising that they might share similar senses of - I'm not quite sure what the word should be, perhaps "narrative".* Saying that modern music only starts to make sense when accompanied by visual images isn't an argument against modern music being able to stand on its own as classical music; instead, it's revealing that the listener has the capacity to understand modern music, just as they understand film, _but they're not using that capacity_ when the music doesn't have those visual images as a sort of safety harness.


This seems like a sensible observation, though I think I understand your hesitation about the word 'narrative'. My problem with it is that 'film music' is as unhelpful a term as 'classical music'; it's too broad to encompass what hammeredclavier seems to be suggesting and, ironically, so much film music draws in style on the very periods in CM history that he prefers. Doubtless there were movies in the early years of cinema that used music which drew on 20thC classical, but this tended to come much later - well after Debussy was dead. As far as I can tell from a very brief search, Stravinsky didn't compose for the screen, though imdb lists 119 credits where his music was used - many fewer than Mozart!

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0006311/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

Perhaps more interesting is this, the man's own views about music for films.

http://www.filmmusicsociety.org/news_events/features/2003/101003.html



> I realize that music is an indispensable adjunct to the sound film. It has got to bridge holes; it has got to fill the emptiness of the screen and supply the loudspeakers with more or less pleasant sounds. The film could not get along without it, just as I myself could not get along without having the empty spaces of my living-room walls covered with wall paper. But you would not ask me, would you, to regard my wall paper as I would regard painting, or apply aesthetic standards to it? [...] Mozart once said: "Music is there to delight us, that is its calling." In other words, music is too high an art to be a servant to other arts; it is too high to be absorbed only by the subconscious mind of the spectator, if it still wants to be considered as music.


----------



## norman bates

hammeredklavier said:


> View attachment 126720
> 
> 
> Excuse me. I find Debussy's piano music new-agey. Reverie, Suite Bergamasque, Arabesques.. Yes he was original and inventive, for inspiring the new-age composers.


No I don't excuse you for such a stupid remark. Especially after a even more stupid remark about the sublime Vespers of Rachmaninoff.  New-age composers? I know of tons of classical composers, jazz musicians, and even pop and folk music influenced by Debussy, but I can't think of any new age musician influenced by him. Who are the new-age composers influenced by Debussy?



hammeredklavier said:


> La Mer - I find it to be good semi-classical film music. I think the golden age of classical music composition pretty much ended with the last line of Great Germans, Brahms, Wagner, R. Strauss, Mahler, Schoenberg. After that, minimalism, new-age, film scores start to dominate and "classical music" starts to become tainted with their influences. I find Mozart and Haydn to be more relevant to history and development of "classical music". Harmonic Similarities in Wagner and Mozart


Haydn sure was influential.



hammeredklavier said:


> _"On the other hand Debussy sounded like almost nothing before." _
> 
> Wagner Siegfried Idyll:
> 
> 
> 
> Debussy Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun:


To your ears this sounds similar? I mean, it's well known that Wagner had an influence on Debussy (like Berlioz was an influence on Wagner), but I can't hear it here. I mean, If you had mentioned the unresolved harmonies in Tristan and Isolde that would have more sense.
And even being influenced Debussy went in a totally new direction (much more influenced by Fanelli, I would accept a criticism on Debussy based on Fanelli, not on Wagner).



hammeredklavier said:


> I still have a ton of stuff to listen to, and I do like a lot of the canon stuff such as Mendelssohn's 4th symphony, violin concerto, 6th string quartet.
> _"Maybe a different category would give you more satisfaction."_ I should ask this question to normanbates.
> I wish there was another forum "contemporary music" for these people who love composers such as Maurice Ohana and Giacinto Scelsi. These days, I feel that there's a difference between the two fandoms that can't be reconciled, like 'classical vs jazz'. Why do people discuss how much Gershwin is "not classical", but not how much John Cage or Philip Glass are not?
> It's a real problem because we're trying to rank real classical music composers and these contemporary music enthusiasts are always trying to get semi-classical composers high up in the ranking. Maybe if we create another forum "contemporary music" for them, that should solve the problem.


that's entirely your problem, like this invented and completely arbitrary category of semi-classical (why I'm so sure you're using it just to mean "music with less value"?) I've already seen this with another user, instead of semi-classical he used his label "post-modern" for the music he don't like, not even knowing what post-modernism means. 
Personally I love Perotin, Lassus, Gesualdo, Monteverdi, Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Debussy, Scelsi and there's no "difference that can't be reconciled" between classical and jazz. Many jazz musicians and jazz fans love classical music and many classical composers and fans love jazz music. If you're not able to appreciate other music why should it be the same for others?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Mr. normanbates, I don't excuse you for your unintelligent remarks either sir. 
You don't seem to be able to differentiate _"what you appreciate"_ from _"what was influential through history"_ for one thing. I'm not very fond of the choral movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony for its vocal writing and stuff -but I don't deny its significance being the first choral symphony in history and its influence on composers such as Mendelssohn and Mahler. Here, I differentiate "what I like" from "what was influential in history."

Speaking of previous comments, it's amusing you mentioned Frederick Delius and Glenn Gould as examples of "detractors of Mozart". Gould called Beethoven's middle period masterpieces such as the 5th piano concerto, 5th symphony and violin concerto, "banal". He hated Bach's chromatic fantasy and Italian concerto. He dismissed a whole bunch of Romantic era composers such as Schubert, Schumann, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Liszt etc etc and their works as empty gestures. Furthermore, Gould said "I can't think of another composer who ended an era better than Orlando Gibbons." (As if JS Bach wasn't even good enough for a candidate.)

I get criticized on the forum for quoting David C F Wright (who actually had mostly sane opinions on many composers including Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Wagner) and you're actually serious in quoting Gould and Delius lol. 
As for Frederick Delius, he also hated Beethoven and German music. You're quoting all these minor musicians of classical music history who had extremely weird opinions on music, - like hating everything operatic, or everything Germanic, the MAINSTREAM. It seems that you tried to prove "Mozart is not part of the mainstream of the Western classical music and its tradition of influence" and failed miserably. 
And little did you know, Glenn Gould actually praised Mozart's K546 saying it's a gorgeous piece, and he even said he liked it. (A piece I recommended you listen once in one thread where you whined about how much you hated Mozart. And you probably never did listen. I still remember that thread where you discussed neoclassicism and the "balance" and "order" in classicism, without knowing of the terms properly)

Looking at your post history, you don't even seem to be all that interested in the composers you said you LOVE. It makes me doubt how much of their oeuvre you listen to on daily basis, compared to prog rock. 
I still maintain that I don't see "genius" in stuff like _La Mer_. Schizophreniac flute and trumpet passages (that aren't even good as melodies for a crap popsong) combining to make weird sound effects, increasing the dynamics to fortississimo, dying down to pianissimo, - rinse and repeat.
Stuff like that ONLY makes for good background music for films imo. 
Then there are the sentimental piano miniatures that remind me of Yuhki Kuramoto. (Sigh)
I can't believe people actually cum to this stuff, saying all kinds of hyperbole about harmony and expression and what not. It's just so BIZZARE.

I do appreciate Ravel's Piano Concerto in G major, and I find his Jeux d'eau interesting. (even in Chopin, I find his 4th Ballade interesting) but none of Debussy's works I find interesting. Yes, Debussy "went into another direction", did his own stuff. Just like all other composers in history. What's your point . heck don't even care that much about that point of classical music history anyway (like who influenced whom and stuff) 

Saint-Saens was completely RIGHT in calling Debussy's music "noise", 
and saying that _"'What gives Sebastian Bach and Mozart a place apart is that these two great expressive composers never sacrificed form to expression. As high as their expresson may soar, their musical form remains supreme and all-sufficient.' "_


----------



## norman bates

hammeredklavier said:


> Mr. normanbates, I don't excuse you for your unintelligent remarks either sir.
> You don't seem to be able to differentiate _"what you appreciate"_ from _"what was influential through history"_


me? I thought it was your problem. For instance, I absolutely love Alec Wilder and as I've said Maurice Ohana. If I had to say my three or four favorite musicians, they would be there. Their influence? Nothing. On the other hand I have never liked almost anything I've heard of John Cage (maybe slightly the prepared piano pieces). His influence? Massive, absolutely huge on the last fifty years (and I actually like a lot of things influenced by him). But his music? Meh.
I'm not a fan of Mozart (I like the Requiem and few other things), but hey, I know that tons of experts, composers, and fans who I respect swear about his absolute greatness, so I don't want even argue about it. I think I'm missing something and I keep listening to him hoping to have the "click" moment.
But what is is influence? I mean, he's obviously one of the most popular composers ever, no doubts about it, but what he changed? The dissonance quartet beginning was definitely ahead of its time, but I've never read any composer talking about it, and I doubt that who thinks of Mozart is considering THAT Mozart.
He's generally considered a composer who brought existing forms to excellence, not a revolutionary composer. 
With Debussy there was a paradigm shift, he went in a completely different direction from the existing romanticism (especially of Wagner). Even if he was influenced by Wagner to some degree.
With Mozart you have a classical composer who didn't brought a new style or a new harmonic conception or a new way to think the music. And that doesn't take anything away from his musical merits, but it seems that you can't differentiate value from innovation and influence, the thing you are saying is my fault.



hammeredklavier said:


> for one thing. I'm not very fond of the choral movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony for its vocal writing and stuff -but I don't deny its significance being the first choral symphony in history and its influence on composers such as Mendelssohn and Mahler. Here, I differentiate "what I like" from "what was influential in history."


ok, and why can't you do that with Mozart? 



hammeredklavier said:


> Speaking of previous comments, it's amusing you mentioned Frederick Delius and Glenn Gould as examples of "detractors of Mozart". Gould called Beethoven's middle period masterpieces such as the 5th symphony and violin concerto, "banal". He hated Bach's chromatic fantasy and Italian concerto. He dismissed a whole bunch of Romantic era composers' works such as Schubert, Schumann, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Liszt etc etc as empty gestures. Furthermore, Gould said "I can't think of another composer who ended an era better than Orlando Gibbons." (As if JS Bach wasn't even a candidate.)
> 
> I'm getting criticized on the forum for quoting David C F Wright (who actually had mostly sane opinions on many composers such as Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Wagner) and you're actually serious in quoting Gould and Delius lol.
> As for Frederick Delius, he also hated Beethoven and German music. You're quoting all these minor musicians of history who had extremely weird opinions on music, - like hating everything operatic, or everything Germanic, the MAINSTREAM. It seems you tried to prove "Mozart is not part of the mainstream of the Western classical music and its sphere of influence" and failed miserably.


Actually Delius was a HUGE fan of Wagner.
And my intention is never been to prove that "Mozart is not part of the mainstream of the Western classical music" (now THAT would be stupid!), I'm just saying that for the generally aknowledged beauty of his music he wasn't a particularly influential composer. I was exactly trying to say that influence and value don't have to go necessarily together.

And little did you know, Glenn Gould actually praised Mozart's K546 saying it's a gorgeous piece, and he even said he liked it. (A piece I recommended you listen once in one post where you whined about how much you hated Mozart. And you probably never did listen. )



hammeredklavier said:


> Looking at your post history, you don't even seem to be all that interested in the composers you said you LOVE. It makes me doubt how much of their oeuvre you listen to regularly, compared to prog rock.


I listened a lot of prog rock like twenty years ago. The fact that I write about certain thing doesn't mean that I'm listening obsessively to that.



hammeredklavier said:


> I still maintain that I don't see "genius" in stuff like La Mer. Schizophreniac flute and trumpet passages (that aren't even good as melodies for crap popsongs) combining to make weird sound effects, increasing the dynamics to fortississimo, dying down to pianissimo, - rinse and repeat.
> Stuff like that ONLY makes for good background music for films imo.


well, Mozart too is used as good background music. I personally discovered Debussy listening to Michelangeli and not in a soundtrack and I loved it.



hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, Debussy "went into another direction", did his own stuff. Just like ALL other composers in history.


lol, no. There's a difference between being personal and original (a thing that can be certainly said of a lot of great composers) and opening a new era for music like Debussy, a thing that can be said of very few musicians, and Mozart is not in that group. Deal with it, you can dislike his music, but his influence has been massive.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> Saint-Saens was completely RIGHT in calling Debussy's music "noise",
> and saying that _"'What gives Sebastian Bach and Mozart a place apart is that these two great expressive composers never sacrificed form to expression. As high as their expresson may soar, their musical form remains supreme and all-sufficient.' "_


Do you have a specific example? 'Form', of course, can refer to everything from melody to structure.


----------



## hammeredklavier

norman bates said:


> me? I thought it was your problem. For instance, I absolutely love Alec Wilder and as I've said Maurice Ohana. If I had to say my three or four favorite musicians, they would be there. Their influence? Nothing.


Please read my post #226 again.
_"It is to Mozart that I am obliged for the fact that I have dedicated my life to music."_ -Tchaikovsky
So let's see the names of composers who decided to become composers themselves because of Debussy.



norman bates said:


> He's generally considered a composer who brought existing forms to excellence, not a revolutionary composer.


I'm curious what you think of Bach, the number 1 in the list. Whatabout Brahms? 
Sorry, I'll just have to consider you a troll and ignore you if you're going to keep insisting works like K491, K511, K516, K540, K550 had no impact on later generations.



norman bates said:


> The dissonance quartet beginning was definitely ahead of its time, but I've never read any composer talking about it, and I doubt that who thinks of Mozart is considering THAT Mozart.


What do you mean nobody talked about it? A whole bunch of composers have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haydn_Quartets_(Mozart) Haydn and Beethoven were inspired by it in writing Oratorio "The Creation" and String Quartet Op.59 No.3 respectively.

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn (if Mozart clicks for you or not). No matter how much you scream and yell, the fact remains that Mozart's influence in _"classical music"_ has been massive. Deal with it.


----------



## Lisztian

hammeredklavier said:


> View attachment 126720
> 
> 
> Excuse me. I find Debussy's piano music new-agey. Reverie, Suite Bergamasque, Arabesques.. Yes he was original and inventive, for inspiring the new-age composers.


Rather than these (lovely) early works, people generally single out his later piano works as being his most important/innovative/stimulating, from the Preludes to the Etudes to the Images to the Estampes.



hammeredklavier said:


> La Mer - I find it to be good semi-classical film music.


Semi-classical film music? What?


----------



## norman bates

hammeredklavier said:


> Please read my post #226 again.
> _"It is to Mozart that I am obliged for the fact that I have dedicated my life to music."_ -Tchaikovsky


look, I'm sure that Mozart was a big inspiration for a lot of composers. I have absolutely no doubt about it. But musical influence is a different thing. With Debussy classical music to functional harmony to non functional harmony and from the titanism of romantic music to a music that was much more about color than development.
It's a rare key moment for music like Jan van Eyck using oil for his paintings, or Picasso painting his Demoiselles D'avignon. It opened new possibilities for music, and as I've said not just classical music.



hammeredklavier said:


> So let's see the names of composers who decided to become composers themselves because of Debussy.


ok, but first I'm still waiting for the new age composers influenced by Debussy. 



hammeredklavier said:


> I'm curious what you think about Bach, the number 1 in the list.


I absolutely love Bach (I'm actually learning the Gigue for his partita n.2 Bwv 1004 these days).
About his influence I'm not so sure.



hammeredklavier said:


> Whatabout Brahms?


I really like Brahms too, less than Bach but he's a composer I really enjoy, especially in this period of the year.



hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry, I'll just have to consider you a troll and ignore you if you're going to keep insisting works like K491, K511, K516, K540, K550 had no impact on later generations.


you should be more precise about what you mean with impact. In the sense that those works impressed other composer? As I've said, I have no doubts about it. In the sense that without the music of Mozart I could not imagine the work of other composers? I can't see that.
But you could explain that to me if you want.



hammeredklavier said:


> What do you mean nobody talked about it? A whole bunch of composers have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haydn_Quartets_(Mozart) Haydn and Beethoven were inspired by it in writing Oratorio "The Creation" and String Quartet Op.59 No.3 respectively.


I was (I think obviously) talking of the beginning of the dissonance quartet in particular, is like not much more than a minute of music if I remember it correctly.



hammeredklavier said:


> Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn (if Mozart clicks for you or not). No matter how much you scream and yell, the fact remains that Mozart's influence in _"classical music"_ has been massive.


But you haven't still explained what has been his influence. To quote the words of admiration of other composers is not what I call a influence.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> Mr. normanbates, I don't excuse you for your unintelligent remarks either sir.
> You don't seem to be able to differentiate _"what you appreciate"_ from _"what was influential through history"_ for one thing. I'm not very fond of the choral movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony for its vocal writing and stuff -but I don't deny its significance being the first choral symphony in history and its influence on composers such as Mendelssohn and Mahler. Here, I differentiate "what I like" from "what was influential in history."
> 
> Speaking of previous comments, it's amusing you mentioned Frederick Delius and Glenn Gould as examples of "detractors of Mozart". Gould called Beethoven's middle period masterpieces such as the 5th piano concerto, 5th symphony and violin concerto, "banal". He hated Bach's chromatic fantasy and Italian concerto. He dismissed a whole bunch of Romantic era composers such as Schubert, Schumann, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Liszt etc etc and their works as empty gestures. Furthermore, Gould said "I can't think of another composer who ended an era better than Orlando Gibbons." (As if JS Bach wasn't even good enough for a candidate.)
> 
> I get criticized on the forum for quoting David C F Wright (who actually had mostly sane opinions on many composers including Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Wagner) and you're actually serious in quoting Gould and Delius lol.
> As for Frederick Delius, he also hated Beethoven and German music. You're quoting all these minor musicians of classical music history who had extremely weird opinions on music, - like hating everything operatic, or everything Germanic, the MAINSTREAM. It seems that you tried to prove "Mozart is not part of the mainstream of the Western classical music and its tradition of influence" and failed miserably.
> And little did you know, Glenn Gould actually praised Mozart's K546 saying it's a gorgeous piece, and he even said he liked it. (A piece I recommended you listen once in one thread where you whined about how much you hated Mozart. And you probably never did listen. I still remember that thread where you discussed neoclassicism and the "balance" and "order" in classicism, without knowing of the terms properly)
> 
> *Looking at your post history*, you don't even seem to be all that interested in the composers you said you LOVE. It makes me doubt how much of their oeuvre you listen to on daily basis, compared to prog rock.
> *I still maintain that I don't see "genius" in stuff like La Mer. Schizophreniac flute and trumpet passages (that aren't even good as melodies for a crap popsong) combining to make weird sound effects, increasing the dynamics to fortississimo, dying down to pianissimo, - rinse and repeat.
> Stuff like that ONLY makes for good background music for films imo. *
> Then there are the sentimental piano miniatures that remind me of Yuhki Kuramoto. (Sigh)
> I can't believe people actually cum to this stuff, saying all kinds of hyperbole about harmony and expression and what not. It's just so BIZZARE.
> 
> I do appreciate Ravel's Piano Concerto in G major, and I find his Jeux d'eau interesting. (even in Chopin, I find his 4th Ballade interesting) but none of Debussy's works I find interesting. Yes, Debussy "went into another direction", did his own stuff. Just like all other composers in history. What's your point . heck don't even care that much about that point of classical music history anyway (like who influenced whom and stuff)
> 
> Saint-Saens was completely RIGHT in calling Debussy's music "noise",
> and saying that _"'What gives Sebastian Bach and Mozart a place apart is that these two great expressive composers never sacrificed form to expression. As high as their expresson may soar, their musical form remains supreme and all-sufficient.' "_


Who has time or motivation to look at someone's post history, I wonder?

Just because you don't see or hear it in La Mer doesn't mean it's not there. There are many that feel differently as this list shows. Ok, I get it: your opinion means more than this list of composers. Isn't it possible to appreciate both Mozart and Debussy for the different things they achieved rather than judging Debussy from the criteria one judges Mozart? Stravinsky and Bartok admired Debussy. Bartok especially saying:

"Debussy's great service to music was to reawaken among all musicians an awareness of harmony and its possibilities. In that, he was just as important as Beethoven, who revealed to us the possibilities of progressive form, or as Bach, who showed us the transcendent significance of counterpoint. Now, what I am always asking myself is this: is it possible to make a synthesis of these three great masters, a living synthesis that will be valid for our time?"

Ok, next you're going to attack Stravinsky and Bartok as if their opinions don't matter, or less than Saint-Saen's. Where is that going to lead to?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> Who has time or motivation to look at someone's post history, I wonder?
> Just because you don't see or hear it in La Mer doesn't mean it's not there. There are many that feel differently as this list shows. Ok, I get it: your opinion means more than this list of composers. Isn't it possible to appreciate both Mozart and Debussy for the different things they achieved rather than judging Debussy from the criteria one judges Mozart? Stravinsky and Bartok admired Debussy. Bartok especially saying:


This is the kind of thing I should be saying to people like normanbates. Without Mozart and Haydn, would Beethoven, Hummel, Rossini been possible, for example? https://www.earlymusicamerica.org/files/EMagSummer07Hummel.pdf 
It baffles me sometimes that people always say something simple as word "art" has a vague meaning and cannot be defined. Like they always say, "art is subjective" - But at the same time they always talk about "innovation and influence in art" as if they know completely what they're talking about. How can something be innovative, if it doesn't inspire? How can you be sure to what extent tonal composers influenced atonality, for instance?:

_"Colour lies at the heart of Messiaen's music. He believed that terms such as "tonal", "modal" and "serial" are misleading analytical conveniences. For him there were no modal, tonal or serial compositions, only music with or without colour. He said that Claudio Monteverdi, Mozart, Chopin, Richard Wagner, Mussorgsky and Stravinsky all wrote strongly coloured music."_

Something like Jean-Fery Rebel's Les Elemens sounds "new" for its time, would it be equally innovative as Debussy? How do you know for sure? This is why I don't like to use the term "innovation" often, and take a grain of salt when other people over-use it. 
Regardless of whether I like Debussy or not, I don't deny he influenced others as well. 
Remember I did not say "Mozart is more important than Debussy in classical music history" in the first place - someone else started the shitstorm in the first place. 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=PxXDujN2Bn8C&pg=PA6
_"Described in 1902 as one of Mozart's works that 'speaks persuadingly to every generation . . . [through which] Mozart's influence still persists and must be reckoned with as a factor in the complexus of forces which is moulding the music of the new century', it had similar exposure among twentieth-century composers. *Bartok used examples from the Requiem in his teaching;"*_





 (The title of the video is "Most Badass Passages in Beethoven Symphonies", but the content is more like "Haydn's (and Mozart's) influence on Beethoven symphonies")


----------



## Guest

^You say you don't care about the idea of influence, but you're quite keen to repeat how influential Mozart was.


----------



## norman bates

hammeredklavier said:


> Remember I did not say "Mozart is more important than Debussy in classical music history" in the first place - someone else started the shitstorm in the first place.


Look, what I've said is that Debussy was more influential than Mozart, in a discussion where DaveM was talking of objectivity about this list, and I used his argument of objectivity against him saying "in objective terms Debussy was a more influential composer than Mozart". I haven't said nothing about the quality of the music of Mozart, because I'm not the right person to do that.
Influence and quality of the music are completely different things (and I'd say that too for influence and importance, just because the second is a quite ambiguous term). Like I've said, I love composers who didn't influenced anybody and that doesn't diminish their value at all in my eyes.

My intention wasn't to bash Mozart at all. I was just mocking on an argument that doesn't have sense.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> This is the kind of thing I should be saying to people like normanbates. Without Mozart and Haydn, would Beethoven, Hummel, Rossini been possible, for example? https://www.earlymusicamerica.org/files/EMagSummer07Hummel.pdf
> It baffles me sometimes that people always say something simple as word "art" has a vague meaning and cannot be defined. Like they always say, "art is subjective" - But at the same time they always talk about "innovation and influence in art" as if they know completely what they're talking about. How can something be innovative, if it doesn't inspire? How can you be sure to what extent tonal composers influenced atonality, for instance?:
> 
> _"Colour lies at the heart of Messiaen's music. He believed that terms such as "tonal", "modal" and "serial" are misleading analytical conveniences. For him there were no modal, tonal or serial compositions, only music with or without colour. He said that Claudio Monteverdi, Mozart, Chopin, Richard Wagner, Mussorgsky and Stravinsky all wrote strongly coloured music."_
> 
> Something like Jean-Fery Rebel's Les Elemens sounds "new" for its time, would it be equally innovative as Debussy? How do you know for sure? This is why I don't like to use the term "innovation" often, and take a grain of salt when other people over-use it.
> Regardless of whether I like Debussy or not, I don't deny he influenced others as well.
> Remember I did not say "Mozart is more important than Debussy in classical music history" in the first place - someone else started the shitstorm in the first place.
> 
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=PxXDujN2Bn8C&pg=PA6
> _"Described in 1902 as one of Mozart's works that 'speaks persuadingly to every generation . . . [through which] Mozart's influence still persists and must be reckoned with as a factor in the complexus of forces which is moulding the music of the new century', it had similar exposure among twentieth-century composers. *Bartok used examples from the Requiem in his teaching;"*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (The title of the video is "Most Badass Passages in Beethoven Symphonies", but the content is more like "Haydn's (and Mozart's) influence on Beethoven symphonies")


How is all this relevant on Debussy's influence in the development in harmony over Mozart, which is what we were discussing before I dug up the quote on Bartok?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> How is all this relevant on Debussy's influence in the development in harmony over Mozart, which is what we were discussing before I dug up the quote on Bartok?


I don't see much relevance in Bartok's quote with our original discussion either . 
Yes. Debussy may have had some impact in the 20th century, (his best stuff is from Wagner of course).
But whether you think the 20th century stuff is an improvement from the previous eras is a different issue, I think.


----------



## hammeredklavier

MacLeod said:


> ^You say you don't care about the idea of influence, but you're quite keen to repeat how influential Mozart was.


Where do I say I don't care about the idea of influence?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> Debussy was unprecedented and more highly original in the development of harmony than Mozart. He took things in a different direction than Wagner. Mozart was more into working with what was already there. Those somewhat similar lines in Mozart and Wagner were used in way different contexts.





Phil loves classical said:


> Just because you don't see or hear it in La Mer doesn't mean it's not there. Isn't it possible to appreciate both Mozart and Debussy for the different things they achieved rather than judging Debussy from the criteria one judges Mozart? Stravinsky and Bartok admired Debussy. Bartok especially saying:


Try this:

Just because you don't see or hear it in Mozart's music doesn't mean it's not there. Isn't it possible to appreciate both Mozart and Debussy for the different things they achieved rather than judging Mozart from the criteria one judges Debussy? Brahms and Rossini admired Mozart. Brahms especially saying:

_"Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony!"_
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> Where do I say I don't care about the idea of influence?


Here :



hammeredklavier said:


> heck don't even care that much about that point of classical music history anyway (like who influenced whom and stuff)


----------



## hammeredklavier

norman bates said:


> I was (I think obviously) talking of the beginning of the dissonance quartet in particular, is like not much more than a minute of music if I remember it correctly.


 _"The second moment is an Andante cantabile in F major, and starts in much simpler vein: with a clear melody in the first violin. But almost immediately, in the second phrase, you'll hear again that winding chromaticism in the inner parts, and also those tell-tale repeated notes in the cello. Soon after that, the moment become obsessively concerned with a small motive that is first passed from violin to cello, and then to the inner parts; and then, again, you will hear the characteristic build up of instruments, starting (as the slow introduction did) with the cello and moving upwards. In other words, it soon becomes clear that the slow introduction to this 'dissonance' quartet has actually been a kind a mine from which material for the rest of the movements are to be taken."_



norman bates said:


> But you haven't still explained what has been his influence. To quote the words of admiration of other composers is not what I call a influence.


Harmonic Similarities in Wagner and Mozart





"I owe very, very much to Mozart; and if one studies, for instance, the way in which I write for string quartet, then one cannot deny that I have learned this directly from Mozart. And I am proud of it!"


----------



## hammeredklavier

MacLeod said:


> Here :


"I don't even care *that much* about *that point* of classical music history anyway".
It just means I don't place as much significance in the 20th century as I do for the previous eras . I still do care, but not as much as the previous eras. I find that a lot of 20th century stuff consists of too many ambient, film-music-like elements to be taken seriously. You on the other hand, can think whatever you like, like "the previous eras are too full of tea-time music for aristocrats or bourgeoisie to be taken seriously by me".


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> "I don't even care that much about that point of classical music history anyway (*like who influenced whom and stuff*)".


My tastes here are not relevant to the point we're discussing.


----------



## hammeredklavier

MacLeod said:


> My tastes here are not relevant to the point we're discussing.


Sure, Debussy deserves some credit for inspiring Stravinsky and Bartok.
But other people in this thread are also talking about his influence on pop, jazz, rock, metal etc.



norman bates said:


> In terms of originality and impact (if impact means influence) I would put Debussy objectively ahead of Mozart for instance. His originality is unquestionable (well, Fanelli could have something to say), and his influence was just massive, changing the language of classical music, but also deeply influencing jazz, and even popular music.


And I baffled: "isn't this a classical music forum?"
I think there has to be a clear line drawn between classical and non-classical here. We can't go over it, at least in this forum. Why should "we" care about Scott Joplin's influence on jazz (for example) in this forum?
Some people in this forum think prog rock (for example) should be considered classical music, I don't agree with them. So this is another area where personal opinions affect our decisions, I think.


----------



## Trout

Just some of the classical composers Debussy has influenced:

Alain, Alwyn, Albéniz, Barber, Bartók, Bax, Beach, Bennett, Berg, Berio, Bliss, Bloch, Boulanger, Boulez, Bridge, Cage, Canteloube, Carpenter, Carter, Casella, Castelnuovo-Tedesco, Chausson, Chávez, Cilea, Clarke, Copland, Creston, Crumb, Dallapiccola, Delius, Dohnányi, Druckman, Dukas, Duruflé, Dutilleux, Enescu, Falla, Françaix, Gerhard, Gershwin, Ginastera, Glass, Griffes, Grofé, Guarnieri, Harris, B Herrmann, Hindemith, Honegger, Howells, Ibert, Ireland, Janácek, Jolivet, Jongen, Karg-Elert, Kodály, Koechlin, Kokkonen, B Kolb, Kraft, Larsen, Lehár, Leighton, Ligeti, Loeffler, Lutoslawski, Malipiero, Martin, Martinu, Mascagni, Messiaen, Milhaud, Mompou, Montsalvatge, Moreno Torróba, Novák, Orff, Pierné, W Pijper, Pizzetti, Ponce, Poulenc, Prokofiev, Puccini, Rautavaara, Ravel, Reger, Reich, Respighi, Revueltas, Rodrigo, Rorem, Roussel, Rubbra, Ruggles, Satie, Scelsi, Schmitt, Schreker, Schulhoff, Scriabin, Stravinsky, Suk, Szymanowski, Tailleferre, Takemitsu, Tournemire, Tower, Turina, Varèse, Vierne, Villa-Lobos, Webern, Xenakis, Zemlinsky

It is foolish to say that he was just some so-called "new-age" influence.


----------



## norman bates

hammeredklavier said:


> _
> Harmonic Similarities in Wagner and Mozart
> 
> _


_

I've seen a very interesting video recently exactly about the Tristan chord. It talks also about the influence on Debussy (and also how Debussy mocked Wagner and that chord in his Golliwog's cakewalk, and of course Debussy went in a completely new direction even being influenced by Wagner), and in the video this guy explains how the Tristan chord in itself (a half dimished chord) wasn't something new or particularly special but was used by a lot of composers before Wagner. It was HOW Wagner used it, without resolving the harmonies he used that made his music innovative.






About Schoenberg, I didn't know that._


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, Debussy deserves some credit for inspiring Stravinsky and Bartok.
> But other people in this thread are also talking about his influence on pop, jazz, rock, metal etc.
> 
> And I baffled: "isn't this a classical music forum?"
> I think there has to be a clear line drawn between classical and non-classical here. We can't go over it, at least in this forum. Why should "we" care about Scott Joplinh's influence on jazz (for example) in this forum?
> Some people in this forum think prog rock (for example) should be considered classical music, I don't agree with them. So this is another area where personal opinions affect our decisions, I think.


What's considered classical music does not exist in a vacuum, so it has touched many other genres for those whose taste and understanding far exceeds your own understanding of 18th-century Classical era, and that naturally comes up for conversation because music as a whole is much broader than that. You praise no one else and perhaps that's the problem. Who influenced who is only secondary and means little if the intrinsic value and enjoyment of someone like Debussy as a classical composer is missed or mischaracterized. His importance is far more than his influence on Stravinsky and Bartok, but the point is repeatedly lost with such a narrow and provincial point of view. If you cannot demonstrate some fundamental understanding of these other genres and how they relate, more than turning up your nose at them with distain and disapproval, which so far does not seem possible, then how can you possibly imagine to know what classical music is? You want to define things narrowly and that's never going to happen. Why? Because many listeners listen to more than one genre and understand the relationship between them, including the futility of strict labels that even you can't define, even if the Classical era is your great favorite. Strict and inflexible labels only go so far and then these ridiculous competitive comparisons between composers will inevitably fail. Debussy's music is playing on the radio and I find it imaginative and gorgeous for its own sake, and playing before that were the glories of Mozart. Both belong.


----------



## norman bates

hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, Debussy deserves some credit for inspiring Stravinsky and Bartok.
> But other people in this thread are also talking about his influence on pop, jazz, rock, metal etc.
> 
> And I baffled: "isn't this a classical music forum?"
> I think there has to be a clear line drawn between classical and non-classical here. We can't go over it, at least in this forum. Why should "we" care about Scott Joplin's influence on jazz (for example) in this forum?
> Some people in this forum think prog rock (for example) should be considered classical music, I don't agree with them. So this is another area where personal opinions affect our decisions, I think.


The point was the influence on music (I've never mentioned metal in any case, altough maybe today there could be some advanced guitarist going in that direction, who knows), and music is much more than just classical music, even if as I suspect you think that everything else is worthless (a lot of persons, myself included think that jazz has produced absolutely amazing music).
And even considering just classical music, the influence of Debussy would still be huge, it's not just on Stravinsky or Bartok (actually I hadn't even thought of Bartok, was he influenced by Debussy?)


----------



## tdc

norman bates said:


> (actually I hadn't even thought of Bartok, was he influenced by Debussy?)


This can be found on Bartok's wiki:

"Debussy's great service to music was to reawaken among all musicians an awareness of harmony and its possibilities. In that, he was just as important as Beethoven, who revealed to us the possibilities of progressive form, or as Bach, who showed us the transcendent significance of counterpoint. Now, what I am always asking myself is this: is it possible to make a synthesis of these three great masters, a living synthesis that will be valid for our time?"

-Bartok

*Edit - * I see phil posted that Bartok quote on post 242 as well. Its been all over the forums lately Norman I'm surprised you haven't come across it yet.


----------



## tdc

Saint-Saens comments about Debussy show that he didn't understand Debussy or the direction music was going. Saint Saens was a child prodigy and obviously highly intelligent, but composition is not purely about the intellect. Trying to reduce what is great in music to forms and formulas is missing the point in my view.


----------



## tdc

Ethereality said:


> You seem to be privy to only certain dimensions of music. When Beethoven had his mind on other dimensions


I have come to terms with the fact that Beethoven is among the greatest of composers, but at the same time his music doesn't really speak to me.

Maybe what I value most in music has more to do with a certain kind of beauty I perceive and admire, where Beethoven's music maybe is more closely related to a display of power.

Rosen describes the hammerklavier sonata essentially like that. Beethoven's music strikes me as rather confrontational and war-like, and I don't really enjoy that kind of approach to classical composition. This doesn't take away from the fact the man was a musical genius.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> And I baffled: "isn't this a classical music forum?"


I baffled too!

I point out that in one post, you say you are not interested in music history ("who influenced whom and all that stuff") and yet in another you want to point out how influential Mozart was (is). I simply aimed to show that you are not consistent in your arguing.

Your response was to say,



> You on the other hand, can think whatever you like, like "the previous eras are too full of tea-time music for aristocrats or bourgeoisie to be taken seriously by me".


I have no idea what this means, or why it applies to me, or in what way it is relevant to the point about 'influence'. So, I simply state that what my tastes are is not relevant to what we are (or what I thought we were discussing). Your further response was



hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, Debussy deserves some credit for inspiring Stravinsky and Bartok.
> But other people in this thread are also talking about his influence on pop, jazz, rock, metal etc.


Then why not just say that if we're looking at the influence of these 50 greatest classical composers on classical music, we should discount their influence on other genres in weighing their greatness?



hammeredklavier said:


> Some people in this forum think prog rock (for example) should be considered classical music, I don't agree with them. So this is another area where personal opinions affect our decisions, I think.


I think so too. I consistently argue that it's virtually impossible to come up with objective criteria to weigh this composer against that or this genre against that in an attempt to measure their worth.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I find that Debussy's harmony lacks depth of form and voice-leading. In order for me to appreciate something for harmony, there has to be some kind of melodic voice-leading to validate argument and make things sense one chord after another chord with form. Listen to the Adagio of Mozart K546, (



) or the development of String Quartet K421 1st movement (



) or Quoniam of Mass K427 (



) or or Rondo K511 (



) the slow movement of String Quartet K499, (



) for example.

And Listen to Debussy's stuff like _Images_. -- I'm not going to revere someone just cause he can array out random "cool-sounding" chords. Again, I don't necessarily see "genius" in stuff like that.

There has to be something more than that. (I find the finale of Chopin Sonata Op.35 for example also a bit lackluster in this regard.) Debussy's piano pieces frequently resort to the method of holding down the pedal and arpeggiating out big chords for shock effect, (basically relying on the timbral quality of the piano). I don't see that kind of stuff as "ingenuity". Sorry, but I find Debussy a bit overrated as a harmonist. 
I find Liszt's Valse Oubliee (



) for example, just as effective, if not more, as anything by Debussy. But when it comes to harmony, people are crazy about Debussy all the time. It kind of baffles me. I don't see why Debussy deserves such a special treatment.

https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/claude-debussy.pdf
_"In La Mer, there is no structure or form but everything evolves from brief sections with rhapsodic changes of tempo and texture...
Some will comment favourably upon Debussy's harmony but that does a great disservice to composers of original and progressive harmony such as Liszt and Schoenberg."_ -David C F Wright

-----
Ravel wrote his Piano Concerto in G Major "in the spirit of Mozart and Saint-Saëns"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/mu...from-mozart/KSiBBZu7ZAkcEKd78INswK/story.html
"Mozart! To us, adherents of the younger modern school, he is the greatest musician, the musician par excellence, our god!"
https://books.google.ca/books?id=D3RtDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA123
Mozart was revered above all other composers: the clarity, perfection of workmanship, and the purity of his lyricism, not to mention his prodigious output, struck Ravel as virtually superhuman.


----------



## tdc

hammeredklavier said:


> I find that Debussy's harmony lacks depth of form and voice-leading. In order for me to appreciate something for harmony, there has to be some kind of melodic voice-leading to validate argument and make things sense one chord after another chord with form. Listen to the Adagio of Mozart K546...
> 
> And Listen to Debussy's stuff like _Images_. -- I'm not going to revere someone just cause he can array out random "cool-sounding" chords. Again, I don't necessarily see "genius" in stuff like that.


So Debussy's harmony is very different than Mozart's, and had he been more harmonically conservative, do you think he would be so highly revered today? Why do you think he is so often grouped with the elite composers? Because other people are stupid and David Wright and yourself truly understand music on a level the rest of us don't?

Debussy spent 12 years at the conservatory, after he won the Prix de Rome he was exposed to Renaissance music and was inspired to further his studies in counterpoint. Do you think someone would do all of that and then sit at their piano and belt out 'random sounding chords'? No.



hammeredklavier said:


> Ravel wrote his Piano Concerto in G Major "in the spirit of Mozart and Saint-Saëns"
> https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/mu...from-mozart/KSiBBZu7ZAkcEKd78INswK/story.html
> "Mozart! To us, adherents of the younger modern school, he is the greatest musician, the musician par excellence, our god!"
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=D3RtDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA123
> Mozart was revered above all other composers: the clarity, perfection of workmanship, and the purity of his lyricism, not to mention his prodigious output, struck Ravel as virtually superhuman.


Ravel also called Debussy's _Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune_ a perfect piece of music and stated that it wasn't until he heard Debussy that he really understood what music was capable of.


----------



## Guest

@hammeredklavier

If you trust Bernstein, listen to him on Debussy (available on Youtube).

[add]

As for David C Wright (thanks for the link) he comes at music from a distinct perspective where the morals of the composer seem to be as important as the music. So he doesn't only dismiss Debussy, but Schubert, Chopin and Scriabin as well.



> Debussy was an argumentative, difficult and unpleasant man. His private life was both turbulent and scandalous as it was with Schubert, Chopin and Scriabin and many have opined that this is why some of their music is of poor quality since they wished to spend more time on sexual pursuits than attending to perfection in their music. Whatever protests are made about this statement, it is true.


In this introduction to his DMus, his use of English is somewhat confused and poorly punctuated, with a liberal sprinkling of assertions that need to be backed up with some evidence. For example,



> it is accepted almost universally that his opera Pelleas and Melisande is one of the worst operas ever written,


A quick internet search finds evidence to oppose this view.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...nterview-pelleas-et-melisande-gerhaher-kozena

Elsewhere...



> Dr Wright believes that the life style and character of the composer is inherent in some of his music and quotes, as examples Haydn for his wit and diplomacy, Schubert for his laziness and plagiarism, Bruckner for his Catholic spirituality, Elgar for his pride and pomposity and Britten for his homosexuality and pederasty.


https://www.wrightmusic.net/

A common enough proposition, but hardly the basis for an examination of what they actually composed.

And also:



> The truth about Salieri and Mozart is that Salieri was a far better composer than Mozart


Dr Wright is entitled to his views, and you are entitled to agree with them. But you should at least recognise that they are opinions and not indisputable facts.


----------



## norman bates

hammeredklavier said:


> I find that Debussy's harmony lacks depth of form and voice-leading. In order for me to appreciate something for harmony, there has to be some kind of melodic voice-leading to validate argument and make things sense one chord after another chord with form.


To me while I love a good melody, I also think that melody is like a path in the garden, instead of just a bearing wall in a house if I can put this way. I like the path (and I love a great melody), but I don't need it to appreciate the trees, flowers etc (sorry Heinrich Schenker). That is basically the turning point of the art in the twentieth century with Kandinski and Picasso and Hilma af Klint and all the other artists who were saying that to appreciate colors and textures and drawings one don't have to adhere strictly to a form.
And this is not a abstract theory, I (like many others) instantly appreciated the sound of the harmonies of Debussy, who as one of the most important father of modern music sounds also very easy to approach.
You mentioned the Images: just look how in Reflets dans l'eau he just takes the melody and fractured it just to achieve the effect of the light dancing on the surface of the water. That's a clever and extremely effective solution. 
That said, I don't even know why we are talking about this anymore, you're not able to appreciate Debussy and I struggle with Mozart (but I dont' think I've said anything against the quality of his music), but I didn't want to start a comparison between the two composers. The point was just their influence, something that does not say anything about the value of their music.


----------



## arpeggio

I have learned to take these BBC polls with a grain of salt. They should not be considered definitive.

Back in the June, 2009 issue (I still have it) they had a greatest prodigy list:
1. Mendelssohn
2. Schubert
3. Korngold
4. Glazunov
5. Prokofiev
6. Britten
7. Saint-Saëns
8. William Crotch
9. Liszt
10. Shostakivich

Interesting who is missing.

Anyways, the list is no better or worst than any of the ones generated by this august body. It may be helpful to someone new to classical music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

MacLeod said:


> The truth about Salieri and Mozart is that Salieri was a far better composer than Mozart
> 
> [/FONT][/SIZE]


I have talked about this many times before:

_"I've read through many of David C F Wright's articles and I too have been wondering as to whether he's really serious about his statements regarding Mozart vs Salieri.
But it's worth noting that the amount of Mozart's works he praises in the Mozart article is great than the amount of Salieri's works he praises in the Salieri article. Also he gives more detailed and thoughtful explanations why he considers Mozart's works great (like Symphony No.34 in C K338). "Much is made of key signatures in the music of classical composers. The triumphant D major for Haydn, the allegedly profound C minor in both Mozart and Beethoven, but there is a case of glorious E flat for Mozart." (https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/mozart.pdf Page 5)

He occasionally does mention his view on Mozart vs Salieri in articles of other composers, but when he does, he often uses the word "musician" instead of "composer" when says Salieri is superior to Mozart as in the one about Schubert. ("But the fact is that Leopold Mozart disliked Salieri since Salieri was a finer musician and always obtained posts Leopold wanted for his son, and this was simply because Salieri was a far greater musician than either of the Mozarts.") ( https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf Page 3)

When discussing examples of great composers he always quotes Mozart as one of the greats along with Beethoven, Haydn, but not Salieri.
"Schubert could not develop his material as could great composers such as Haydn, Mozart, and especially Beethoven." (Schubert article, Page 1)
"Take a concert described as a collection of very best in classical music. We have Haydn, Beethoven, Mozart.. so far so good. But then there is included a waltz by Johann Strauss II and a piece by Piazzolla." (https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/i-know-what-i-like.pdf Page 1)
"A recent BBC concert was announced as a remarkable event containing music by the world's very greatest composers, namely Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Piazzolla...really?"
https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/what-makes-a-great-composer.pdf"_


----------



## hammeredklavier

norman bates said:


> The point was just their influence, something that does not say anything about the value of their music.


When you hear 








are you sure you don't hear any influence?


----------



## Room2201974

hammeredklavier said:


> I find that Debussy's harmony lacks depth of form and voice-leading. In order for me to appreciate something for harmony, there has to be some kind of melodic voice-leading to validate argument and make things sense one chord after another chord with form. Listen to the Adagio of Mozart K546, (
> 
> 
> 
> ) or the development of String Quartet K421 1st movement (
> 
> 
> 
> ) or Quoniam of Mass K427 (
> 
> 
> 
> ) or or Rondo K511 (
> 
> 
> 
> ) the slow movement of String Quartet K499, (
> 
> 
> 
> ) for example.
> 
> And Listen to Debussy's stuff like _Images_. -- I'm not going to revere someone just cause he can array out random "cool-sounding" chords. Again, I don't necessarily see "genius" in stuff like that.
> 
> There has to be something more than that. (I find the finale of Chopin Sonata Op.35 for example also a bit lackluster in this regard.) Debussy's piano pieces frequently resort to the method of holding down the pedal and arpeggiating out big chords for shock effect, (basically relying on the timbral quality of the piano). I don't see that kind of stuff as "ingenuity". Sorry, but I find Debussy a bit overrated as a harmonist.
> I find Liszt's Valse Oubliee (
> 
> 
> 
> ) for example, just as effective, if not more, as anything by Debussy. But when it comes to harmony, people are crazy about Debussy all the time. It kind of baffles me. I don't see why Debussy deserves such a special treatment.
> 
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/claude-debussy.pdf
> _"In La Mer, there is no structure or form but everything evolves from brief sections with rhapsodic changes of tempo and texture...
> Some will comment favourably upon Debussy's harmony but that does a great disservice to composers of original and progressive harmony such as Liszt and Schoenberg."_ -David C F Wright
> 
> -----
> Ravel wrote his Piano Concerto in G Major "in the spirit of Mozart and Saint-Saëns"
> https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/mu...from-mozart/KSiBBZu7ZAkcEKd78INswK/story.html
> "Mozart! To us, adherents of the younger modern school, he is the greatest musician, the musician par excellence, our god!"
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=D3RtDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA123
> Mozart was revered above all other composers: the clarity, perfection of workmanship, and the purity of his lyricism, not to mention his prodigious output, struck Ravel as virtually superhuman.


 "Let's go. He's starting to develop."


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> Debussy spent 12 years at the conservatory, after he won the Prix de Rome he was exposed to Renaissance music and was inspired to further his studies in counterpoint.


Isn't this the kind of thing pretty much every composer does these days? Even those who write "anti-music".



tdc said:


> Do you think someone would do all of that and then sit at their piano and belt out 'random sounding chords'? No.


I didn't just say, "random sounding chords", I said "random COOL-sounding chords". They do sound COOL, but Debussy's music seems to be stripped of the difficulty of writing for form and voice-leading. It feels like any composer these days can write out a sequence of COOL-sounding chords if they studied hard enough. But to write music that actually makes sense with structure and relation from one chord to another in terms of form (without sounding awkward) seems like an entirely different animal.


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> "A recent BBC concert was announced as a remarkable event containing music by the world's very greatest composers, namely Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Piazzolla...really?"
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/what-makes-a-great-composer.pdf"[/I]


Piazzolla is considered a modern master by many but hardly by the ultra arch-conservatives who understand nothing about him or are capable of praising anything contemporary or modern. His music is full of color, passion, warmth and personality. Yours is only one opinion and predictably and easy to anticipate in the negative. Each century and each era has its own standards, but the only ones whose opinions really matter are the ones who can find something to enjoy or praise within each period. And some are known for finding little or nothing even when a composer of great individuality, melodic mastery and romantic spirit has captured the world.


----------



## tdc

hammeredklavier said:


> Isn't this the kind of thing pretty much every composer does these days? Even those who write "anti-music".


Perhaps, but I didn't accuse Schoenberg's music as being random.



hammeredklavier said:


> I didn't just say, "random sounding chords", I said "random COOL-sounding chords". They do sound COOL, but Debussy's music seems to be stripped of the difficulty of writing for form and voice-leading. It feels like any composer these days can write out a sequence of COOL-sounding chords if they studied hard enough. But to write music that actually makes sense with structure and relation from one chord to another in terms of form (without sounding awkward) seems like an entirely different animal.


To me it sounds as though you over emphasize the intellectual aspects of music. This kind of attitude I think is largely responsible for why so many perceive classical music today as so dry, academic and boring. Debussy created a more creative and intuitive style, one that is pleasing to the ear, relatively accessible yet retained a high degree of complexity. I believe what Debussy did is much more impressive than Schoenberg's accomplishments.

As has been pointed out by many Schoenberg applied his "new" rules of harmony (though he wasn't the first to conceive the concept of 12 tone music) to older voice leading principles, which is why on closer inspection Boulez lost interest (yet big names like Boulez, Messiaen and Takemitsu revere Debussy as possibly the greatest composer), Elliott Carter described Schoenberg as 'more of the same old Brahms stuff'.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> I have talked about this many times before:
> 
> _"I've read through many of David C F Wright's articles and I too have been wondering as to whether he's really serious about his statements regarding Mozart vs Salieri.
> But it's worth noting that the amount of Mozart's works he praises in the Mozart article is great than the amount of Salieri's works he praises in the Salieri article. Also he gives more detailed and thoughtful explanations why he considers Mozart's works great (like Symphony No.34 in C K338). "Much is made of key signatures in the music of classical composers. The triumphant D major for Haydn, the allegedly profound C minor in both Mozart and Beethoven, but there is a case of glorious E flat for Mozart." (https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/mozart.pdf Page 5)
> 
> He occasionally does mention his view on Mozart vs Salieri in articles of other composers, but when he does, he often uses the word "musician" instead of "composer" when says Salieri is superior to Mozart as in the one about Schubert. ("But the fact is that Leopold Mozart disliked Salieri since Salieri was a finer musician and always obtained posts Leopold wanted for his son, and this was simply because Salieri was a far greater musician than either of the Mozarts.") ( https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf Page 3)
> 
> When discussing examples of great composers he always quotes Mozart as one of the greats along with Beethoven, Haydn, but not Salieri.
> "Schubert could not develop his material as could great composers such as Haydn, Mozart, and especially Beethoven." (Schubert article, Page 1)
> "Take a concert described as a collection of very best in classical music. We have Haydn, Beethoven, Mozart.. so far so good. But then there is included a waltz by Johann Strauss II and a piece by Piazzolla." (https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/i-know-what-i-like.pdf Page 1)
> "A recent BBC concert was announced as a remarkable event containing music by the world's very greatest composers, namely Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Piazzolla...really?"
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/what-makes-a-great-composer.pdf"_


Already mentioned this before as well, that Wright did say Salieri is a far better composer than Mozart as here:

https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/antonio-salieri.pdf

Why selectively pick and choose his arguments?


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> I have talked about this many times before:
> 
> _"I've read through many of David C F Wright's articles and I too have been wondering as to whether he's really serious about his statements regarding Mozart vs Salieri.
> [etc]_


You miss my point. I'm not interested in whether Wright's opinion about Salieri holds up. I'm showing that he is an unreliable writer - which you yourself illustrate by pointing out that maybe he didn't really mean it - and is not to be taken seriously. To base your views of Debussy on his analysis is unwise.


----------



## norman bates

hammeredklavier said:


> When you hear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you sure you don't hear any influence?


yes I can hear similarities. But I don't think I've said that nobody was influenced by Mozart, but just that I don't think he's been one of the most influential composers.


----------



## norman bates

tdc said:


> t (yet big names like Boulez, Messiaen and Takemitsu revere Debussy as possibly the greatest composer), Elliott Carter described Schoenberg as 'more of the same old Brahms stuff'.


Messiaen who by the way was a huge admirer of Pelleas and Melisande, and there are videos where one can see how he used it to teach to his students (and Messiaen was a composer that along with Nadia Boulanger could be considered one of the most important music teachers of the last century). This for the



> it is accepted almost universally that his opera Pelleas and Melisande is one of the worst operas ever written,


from the guy "who actually had mostly sane opinions on many composers".


----------



## Ethereality

Johnnie Burgess said:


> They should have told him to pick 4 more or just count Beethoven 1 time.


I'm pretty sure he was counted once there.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> Already mentioned this before as well, that Wright did say Salieri is a far better composer than Mozart as here:
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/antonio-salieri.pdf
> Why selectively pick and choose his arguments?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (*dies from laughing*) So, Mr. Phillovesclassical, 
I suspect you knew what kind of critic Wright was when YOU YOURSELF quoted him in the thread <Mozart is my enemy>.



Phil loves classical said:


> Schaffer created the myth that Mozart at his worst is better than Salieri and the "mediocre" others at their best. *David Wright says* Salieri is superior to Mozart, I'm sure he was exaggerating or just plain biased there, but *he is not alone* in praising some of Salieri's works over the least of Mozart's





Phil loves classical said:


> *Dr. David Wright is a composer*, critic for MusicWebInternational.
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/


------

"Debussy was an argumentative, difficult and unpleasant man. His private life was both turbulent and scandalous as it was with Schubert, Chopin and Scriabin and many have opined that this is why some of their music is of poor quality since they wished to spend more time on sexual pursuits than attending to perfection in their music. Whatever protests are made about this statement, it is true."
-David C F Wright

"To my mind, Johann Christian is the finest of the Bachs."
-David C F Wright

"Stravinsky and Bartok are the two most overrated composers of the twentieth century."
-Glenn Gould

-----

So you're _free to pick and choose_, and I'm not? HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> So you're _free to pick and choose_, and I'm not?


I don't read phil as "picking and choosing" in the same way that you were "picking and choosing". He selected a quote from a readily available online 'critic' to make a point about the relative merits of Salieri and Mozart. You, on the other hand, picked only those quotes from the same online critic that suit your argument that Wright is a critic whose opinons are reliable, and chose to ignore those that don't.

And btw, what's the relevance of the random quotes at the bottom of your post?


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (*dies from laughing*) So, Mr. Phillovesclassical,
> I suspect you knew what kind of critic Wright was when YOU YOURSELF quoted him in the thread <Mozart is my enemy>.
> 
> ------
> 
> "Debussy was an argumentative, difficult and unpleasant man. His private life was both turbulent and scandalous as it was with Schubert, Chopin and Scriabin and many have opined that this is why some of their music is of poor quality since they wished to spend more time on sexual pursuits than attending to perfection in their music. Whatever protests are made about this statement, it is true."
> -David C F Wright
> 
> "To my mind, Johann Christian is the finest of the Bachs."
> -David C F Wright
> 
> "Stravinsky and Bartok are the two most overrated composers of the twentieth century."
> -Glenn Gould
> 
> -----
> 
> So you're _free to pick and choose_, and I'm not? HAHAHAHAHA


I remember that was in the context of someone saying the worst stuff Mozart wrote was better than the best of others like Salieri. But I am impressed you have the diligence you'd go back and dig up old posts, given we are all just giving an opinion usually, which can over time change.


----------



## Tero

Bach seems to have made it as probably the keyboard works are known to composers. Other than that, baroque composers are underrated. I rank Vivaldi and Handel both much above Haydn. Nice to see Janáček in the list.


----------



## eljr

hammeredklavier said:


> "Debussy was an argumentative, difficult and unpleasant man. His private life was both turbulent and scandalous as it was with Schubert, Chopin and Scriabin and many have opined that this is why some of their music is of poor quality since they wished to spend more time on sexual pursuits than attending to perfection in their music. Whatever protests are made about this statement, it is true."
> -David C F Wright


Would we not all prefer to spend more time in sexual pursuits than in attending to perfection in about anything?

Isn't this how we are hard wired as humans?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> But I am impressed you have the diligence you'd go back and dig up old posts, given we are all just giving an opinion usually, which can over time change.


I apologize if you find it annoying, but I think it shows I actually listen to what others say carefully every time. And I respect your opinions


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> "Debussy was an argumentative, difficult and unpleasant man. His private life was both turbulent and scandalous as it was with Schubert, Chopin and Scriabin and many have opined that this is why some of their music is of poor quality since they wished to spend more time on sexual pursuits than attending to perfection in their music. Whatever protests are made about this statement, it is true."
> -David C F Wright


On those rare occasions where I've had the great misfortune to read "Mr. Wrong", he never specifically mentions _who_ has opined that their music is poor because of their sexual pursuits. So one can only assume that he's referencing himself. It's one of the many things I find disagreeable about some of his unbalanced, undocumented and morally condescending reviews, and it's obvious how much some enjoy quoting him on composers they apparently have no hope or prayer in understanding. Mr. Wright should learn how to footnote his articles, and those who believe him should learn to expect them as basic scholarship rather than usually swallowing him hook, line, and sinker. Perhaps this is why some who read him often find themselves on the wrong side of history regarding the reputation of composers who are consistently played and esteemed by the world's greatest musicians and by the world's greatest orchestras. That's just one more consideration among many that "Mr. Wrong" has ignored along the lines of basic research & scholarship. He's become the poster boy of what not to do as a writer and reviewer though occasionally he has something interesting to say mixed in with his usual shortsightedness, slander and mischaracterizations.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Larkenfield said:


> On those disappointing occasions where I've had the great misfortune to read Mr. "Wrong", he never specifically mentions _who_ has opined that their music is poor because of their sexual pursuits.


Good point. As I said before, I don't think of Wright as an important figure in classical music. I think of him as halfway between a critic and a troll. I just read his articles for my own amusement. Wright sometimes discusses in depth why he thinks certain works are great or not (the Schubert article, for example), other times he's just funny:

_"In 1817, Chopin had written a Polonaise in G minor dedicated to one of the young Skarbek countesses. He already had a roving eye even at eight years of age, as did the immoral Scriabin; another man noted for his lechery!"

"Young Frederick sat at the piano in a velvet jacket and shorts and knee high white stockings. He was already a dandy or presented as a dandy."_

Wright doesn't always talk nonsense about composers' private lives. He sometimes gives thoughtful reviews like "The Symphonies of Arnold Bax", for example:
https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/the-symphonies-of-arnold-bax.pdf


----------



## Kieran

Lisztian said:


> BBC music magazine asked 174 contemporary composers to vote for 5 composers as the 'greatest' of all time, then they tallied up the results to come up with a list of 50. Here are the results:
> 
> 4. Mozart
> 
> Thoughts?


Ah no..................


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> On those rare occasions where I've had the great misfortune to read "Mr. Wrong", he never specifically mentions _who_ has opined that their music is poor because of their sexual pursuits. So one can only assume that he's referencing himself. It's one of the many things I find disagreeable about some of his unbalanced, undocumented and morally condescending reviews, and it's obvious how much some enjoy quoting him on composers they apparently have no hope or prayer in understanding. Mr. Wright should learn how to footnote his articles, and those who believe him should learn to expect them as basic scholarship rather than usually swallowing him hook, line, and sinker. Perhaps this is why some who read him often find themselves on the wrong side of history regarding the reputation of composers who are consistently played and esteemed by the world's greatest musicians and by the world's greatest orchestras. That's just one more consideration among many that "Mr. Wrong" has ignored along the lines of basic research & scholarship. He's become the poster boy of what not to do as a writer and reviewer though occasionally he has something interesting to say mixed in with his usual shortsightedness, slander and mischaracterizations.


'Seems to me that he's prejudicially dismissing some great composers to his readers. And they likely will never expend the effort to get to know those composers, which often takes many years. This is sad.


----------



## Luchesi

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What an absolute joke


Yes, enjoyability throws whole thing off. Composers can enjoy the latest minimalistic 'adventure', but that's an experience. What weight should it be given?


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Originally Posted by *Brahmsianhorn*
> What an absolute joke
> 
> Yes, enjoyability throws whole thing off. Composers can enjoy the latest minimalistic 'adventure', but that's an experience. What weight should it be given?


Each composer will, I imagine, have given each of the four criteria differing weight. It's obvious by the response from one or two that out of 174 composers you will find some who also think the whole thing of polling and ranking a joke, as well as some who will have given it careful consideration, and weighed, say, influence much more highly, even if they themselves don't get much pleasure out of the work of the composers they've picked. The problem with that possibility is that it casts doubt on the rankings: people only vote for Bach/Stravinsky because they recognise his influence - not that they find them enjoyable. And why would composers feel compelled to vote for those from whom they _don't _get pleasure?

I'm not sure why it's a joke, though.


----------



## mmsbls

MacLeod said:


> Each composer will, I imagine, have given each of the four criteria differing weight. It's obvious by the response from one or two that out of 174 composers you will find some who also think the whole thing of polling and ranking a joke, as well as some who will have given it careful consideration, and weighed, say, influence much more highly, even if they themselves don't get much pleasure out of the work of the composers they've picked. The problem with that possibility is that it casts doubt on the rankings: people only vote for Bach/Stravinsky because they recognise his influence - not that they find them enjoyable. And why would composers feel compelled to vote for those from whom they _don't _get pleasure?
> 
> I'm not sure why it's a joke, though.


I agree that some composers did not respond properly (i.e. they didn't take the poll seriously). I'm not sure we know how many composers weighted the 4 factors in a manner that would suggest casting doubt on the rankings.

Mostly I agree with pjang23 that only allowing 5 votes yields high uncertainty on the rankings below the top ones. The number of votes are too small such that the uncertainties get rather large quickly.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure we know how many composers weighted the 4 factors in a manner that would suggest casting doubt on the rankings.


We don't know, I'm sure. The article doesn't offer any further explanation on methodology, or any reflections by the composers on the challenge (or ease) of responding.



mmsbls said:


> Mostly I agree with pjang23 that only allowing 5 votes yields high uncertainty on the rankings below the top ones. The number of votes are too small such that the uncertainties get rather large quickly.


Alas, they didn't publish the frequency of votes for each composer. I suppose I could go through and count the top five at least.

(I didn't count the extras for any composer who voted more than once for Bach, Beethoven and Mozart!)

Bach - 98
Stravinsky - 71
Beethoven - 61
Mozart - 35
Debussy - 34

Only 3 votes for Rachmaninov, who finished 50th.

Even allowing for errors in my counting, that makes Bach a clear winner, and 4th and 5th lagging well behind 2nd and 3rd.

I'm not sure how allowing those polled to have more than 5 votes would have reduced 'uncertainties'. Wouldn't this have simply increased the number of different composers in the list, and the number of composers getting only 1 or 2 votes, producing a long undifferentiated tail?

I also think it interesting that there was limited predictability about how each composer might vote, though I'll admit there are many composers in the list that I've not heard of, or I've heard of but I don't know their work. For example, you couldn't point to those who voted for Beethoven and readily forecast who else might be in their list. Carl Davis also voted for Bach, Gershwin, Tchaikovsky and Verdi, whereas Brett Dean also voted for Birtwhistle, Haydn, Janacek and Kurtag.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> Each composer will, I imagine, have given each of the four criteria differing weight. It's obvious by the response from one or two that out of 174 composers you will find some who also think the whole thing of polling and ranking a joke, as well as some who will have given it careful consideration, and weighed, say, influence much more highly, even if they themselves don't get much pleasure out of the work of the composers they've picked. The problem with that possibility is that it casts doubt on the rankings: people only vote for Bach/Stravinsky because they recognise his influence - not that they find them enjoyable. And why would composers feel compelled to vote for those from whom they _don't _get pleasure?
> 
> I'm not sure why it's a joke, though.


When I started out as a CM fan I wanted to collect the majority opinions about composers. I expected that it would be educational and save me a lot of time. I read a few books and I didn't agree with all of it, but mostly I did.

So I started believing that there was a helpful way to rank. And then years later I mostly dismissed that idea, for most people (but not me). I concluded that for most people ranking was too subjective (but not for me).

So when I found out my opinions agreed with the authors and the critics who wrote books. I concluded that there must be something to this. There must be some universals we can find. Even if it's not objective it's at lead a view of what humans experience in the road to CM appreciation. It's predictable and everyone's the same - to a degree. Only about 50% of the people (musicians) I talk to agree with me about this.


----------



## Red Terror

Not a bad list, as far these things go. But they must have forgotten about Xenakis, Partch, Kurtág, Takemitsu, and Weinberg .


----------



## Bruckner Anton

The list is heavily biased towards modern and Britain-related composers. If you dont believe, let some composers go through the list 100 years later.


----------



## Skakner

Some reasons NOT to take this list seriously.

- Brahms # 18 ?????? 
- Britten (11) over Brahms (18) and Shostakovich (15) 
- Some Saariaho #17, over Brahms, Chopin, Schubert, Prokofiev 
- I like Stravinsky but #2? No way!!!


----------



## Nereffid

So much rage and tears could have been avoided if instead of calling the list "50 Greatest Composers" they'd been more accurate and called it "50 Names That Came Up Most Frequently When A Bunch Of People Were Asked To Name Five Great Composers".


----------



## Phil loves classical

Personally I think it's great to question a bit the rankings many have accepted as gospel. I personally felt a sort of complacency when I felt I already absorbed the works of the 'greatest composers' according to the Introductions to Classical I've been exposed to.

I more I explore music, the more I don't think it's as clear cut as many seem to think of the rankings, even though I'm not much of a subjectivist (I know how it sounds, not trying to start anything here).


----------



## Nereffid

Phil loves classical said:


> Personally I think it's great to question a bit the rankings many have accepted as gospel. I personally felt a sort of complacency when I felt I already absorbed the works of the 'greatest composers' according to the Introductions to Classical I've been exposed to.
> 
> I more I explore music, the more I don't think it's as clear cut as many seem to think of the rankings, even though I'm not much of a subjectivist (I know how it sounds, not trying to start anything here).


When I see a list with a few unusual entries, my first thought is "that's _interesting_". Many others seem to immediately react with "that's _wrong_". Ligeti as one of the 10 greatest composers? One could whine about how other people's tastes in music are stupid, or one could actually think about fitting this concept into one's worldview.


----------



## Forster

From another thread...

What has surprised you the most on TC?



JTS said:


> Just shows what a bunch of losers these so called 'composers' are. But what can you expect from the BBC? Like making a list of artists and Michelangelo doesn't make the top 50. A certain Ludwig van Beethoven reckoned that Handel was the greatest composer of all but don't let that influence you!


And from earlier in this thread...

50 Greatest Composers by 174 Composers



> 174 mainly untalented unknowns assessing genius. The fact that there is no Handel on the list shows what a bunch of losers they are.


This reference to living composers as 'a bunch of losers' is catching.



Forster said:


> The last time this was discussed, some members felt that they should have asked the dead composers who would have had better opinions.


Our kind OP who posted the list said...



Lisztian said:


> BBC music magazine asked 174 *contemporary *composers to vote for 5 composers as the 'greatest'


To which one member replied...



1996D said:


> It was over before it began. The bias in this list is obvious, with a heavy focus on modern unimportant composers, because those who voted are just that.


As I said elsewhere, perhaps BBC Music Magazine should have communed with the dead.


----------



## JTS

Looking at the list, it is a dumb list as who believes Gershwin is a greater composer than Handel? Or George himself would have probably laughed his head off at the thought. Not to say that Gershwin's unworthy, but to put him above Handel? And Stravinsky above Mozart and Beethoven? And some of the people on there I’d never even heard of. The other thing of course is the methodology used which is pretty dumb to be honest


----------



## Bulldog

JTS said:


> Looking at the list, it is a dumb list as who believes Gershwin is a greater composer than Handel? Or George himself would have probably laughed his head off at the thought. Not to say that Gershwin's unworthy, but to put him above Handel? And Stravinsky above Mozart and Beethoven? And some of the people on there I'd never even heard of. The other thing of course is the methodology used which is pretty dumb to be honest


The list isn't dumb; it just doesn't line up with your personal preferences.


----------



## Eriks

“ The fact that there is no Handel on the list shows what a bunch of losers they are.”

Rather: at least they got one thing right. He’s good but not top 50.


----------



## Kreisler jr

With Britten at 11 and RVW at 21 even a Martian could have told you in which country this poll was done...  Das Land ohne Musik
Of course they would not name Handel as it would have reminded them of 200 years without a mentionable composer of their own


----------



## Ethereality

Which composers are inherently more similar, if that could be measured I wonder? 174 Composers' Top 30, or TalkClassical's Top 30?

Stravinsky, Ligeti, Saariaho, Monteverdi, Reich, Gesualdo, Cage, Gershwin, Britten

Brahms, Schumann, Dvorak, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, Handel, Bruckner


----------



## violadude

I think it's great that there are certain composers in unexpected places. Stravinsky at #2? Totally believable to me. Of course we all know Beethoven was a great composer, but it's good to leave room in the pantheon for are lovely artists living and working today. Some people act like the 18th and 19th century were inhabited by magical demigods whose utterances are so far beyond are abilities today  Kinda nonsense if you ask me.


----------



## Forster

Kreisler jr said:


> With Britten at 11 and RVW at 21 even a Martian could have told you in which country this poll was done...  Das Land ohne Musik
> Of course they would not name Handel as it would have reminded them of 200 years without a mentionable composer of their own


"They" were not 174 English composers.


----------



## fbjim

I wish I liked Stravinsky as much as others did. Other than the Rite-I know Stravinsky was known for his stylistic changes but sometimes I wish he had just written 50 Rites.


----------



## fbjim

Kreisler jr said:


> With Britten at 11 and RVW at 21 even a Martian could have told you in which country this poll was done...  Das Land ohne Musik
> Of course they would not name Handel as it would have reminded them of 200 years without a mentionable composer of their own


i think the funniest thing about this poll is the accusations of modernist ideological bias when RV freaking Williams is just outside the top twenty

yknow the guy who thought Beethoven was too vulgar


----------



## JTS

Bulldog said:


> The list isn't dumb; it just doesn't line up with your personal preferences.


Well to have a composer like Saariaho in who most people will have never heard of and leave out a composer who is commonly held to have written great masterpieces appears dumb to me any way.


----------



## JTS

Eriks said:


> " The fact that there is no Handel on the list shows what a bunch of losers they are."
> 
> Rather: at least they got one thing right. He's good but not top 50.


Well doesn't say much about Handel. Says a lot about them! Glad they (and you) know better than Mozart and Beethoven!


----------



## violadude

JTS said:


> Well to have a composer like Saariaho in who most people will have never heard of and leave out a composer who is commonly held to have written great masterpieces appears dumb to me any way.


Saariaho is considered to have written great masterpieces among the community of composers being asked the question.


----------



## fbjim

People in a field will always have different opinions. Some of the weirdest opinions I've read on art have come from artists themselves- which makes sense if you think about it. We value originality and innovation in art, so it stands to reason that we wouldn't just expect every musical artist to list "Beethoven Bach Brahms Mozart Haydn" or something. Not to mention that working in music probably exposes you to a ton of music outside what is generally widely available- ask someone who works in film what their greatest films and you'll get a ton of stuff not specifically in the general widely-accepted repertoire of great Hollywood films.


----------



## JTS

violadude said:


> Saariaho is considered to have written great masterpieces among the community of composers being asked the question.


Why has no-one outside of that tight little circle never heard of her?


----------



## Bulldog

JTS said:


> Well to have a composer like Saariaho in who most people will have never heard of and leave out a composer who is commonly held to have written great masterpieces appears dumb to me any way.


Okay, you prefer Handel to Saariaho; so I do I. However, that doesn't change the fact that most TC members know of Saariaho, and plenty even prefer her music to Handel's.


----------



## Forster

We all know better than Mozart and Beethoven who we would choose (and some do choose) in their top 5. Are you suggesting we should all choose Handel just because WAM and LvB did?


----------



## fbjim

Beethoven almost certainly did not consider Stravinsky one of the top composers of all time


----------



## JTS

Bulldog said:


> Okay, you prefer Handel to Saariaho; so I do I. However, that doesn't change the fact that most TC members know of Saariaho, and plenty even prefer her music to Handel's.


So what tremendous masterworks has she written, comparable with Messiah, Dixit Dominus, Julius Caesar, Solomon, Aggrippina, Alcina, etc?


----------



## JTS

Forster said:


> We all know better than Mozart and Beethoven who we would choose (and some do choose) in their top 5. Are you suggesting we should all choose Handel just because WAM and LvB did?


I am suggesting they might be a bit better qualified as far as genius is concerned than the 174 guys who voted.


----------



## fbjim

Beethoven thought Cherubini was one of the greats near the end of his life, an opinion you'll virtually never hear now. Should we question his qualifications now?


----------



## Ethereality

JTS said:


> Well doesn't say much about Handel. Says a lot about them! Glad they (and you) know better than Mozart and Beethoven!


If you're putting Beethoven and Mozart as the authority, you're answering the question twice, by choosing them, to then choose. It means you don't have good judgement yourself yet to decide, which has additional meaning: it means your own judgement to place Mozart and Beethoven high isn't even reliable. Why not just have your own judgement instead of taking others?

If you're saying Beethoven and Mozart could've compiled a better list? How? When it would be one without any of these composers. The Top 10 would be Buxtehude and Cherubini and JC Bach.



JTS said:


> Well to have a composer like Saariaho in who most people will have never heard of and leave out a composer who is commonly held to have written great masterpieces appears dumb to me any way.


Or pretty lucky and honest for such an occurrence to happen?


----------



## Eriks

If someone has time, could you explain what to listen to in Handel? I find it easy to get bored, even when listening to Messiah. Of course Handel was a genius, but he lived in an environment where he was dependent on commercial success. (Or have I misunderstood the English music scene during Handels time?) He did not compose for eternity but kept in mind that the public (or patrons) must like it the first time they heard it. And that is perhaps not ideal now when we can listen as often as we like. Perhaps Handel’s music is a joy to perform so one has a different perspective if playing music oneself (I don’t). 

Telemann also did not compose for eternity but he had lots of interesting ideas combined with lots of charm, when Handel in my opinion just sounds pompous.


----------



## Forster

JTS said:


> I am suggesting they might be a bit better qualified as far as genius is concerned than the 174 guys who voted.


Well I guess you'll just have to live with the fact that there's 174 composers out there with a multiplicity of differing opinions that coalesce, mathematically speaking, around some, but not all of the same opinions as you. At least they agreed about Beethoven and Mozart, eh?

Now, I think the Handel issue has been done to death. Moving on...


----------



## JTS

fbjim said:


> Beethoven thought Cherubini was one of the greats near the end of his life, an opinion you'll virtually never hear now. Should we question his qualifications now?


Well at least we do hear of Cherubini and enjoy his music,


----------



## JTS

Forster said:


> Well I guess you'll just have to live with the fact that there's 174 composers out there with a multiplicity of differing opinions that coalesce, mathematically speaking, around some, but not all of the same opinions as you. At least they agreed about Beethoven and Mozart, eh?
> 
> Now, I think the Handel issue has been done to death. Moving on...


Actually when I listen to the compositions of many of these 174 composers I am very glad that they have differing opinions from me!


----------



## fbjim

let's also not mention some of the great French composers, as calling other composers terrible was pretty much a national pastime for French musicians


in any case the reason i'd care about a "composers list" is that these are likely people with a significantly wider breadth of musical experience (in what they listen to) than the average listener- not that they're "geniuses" or uniquely gifted at identifying greatness or anything- but that they've heard more music than I probably ever will.


----------



## violadude

JTS said:


> Why has no-one outside of that tight little circle never heard of her?


Well, perhaps among other reasons, A LOT has to do with the fact that record companies these days are more likely to make safe bets on well known composers rather than risk their profits on lesser known ones since the financial market isn't as booming as it was back when a lot of classical music staples became popular on record. This, combined with the fact that art is not nearly as well funded (in America at least) as it used to be, meaning that orchestras also have to rely on safe bets to bring in patrons. Also, Saariaho's music has not had 200 years to permeate into the collective bin of culturally inherited knowledge we all walk around with, and her music is not associated with any particular holiday or occasion that movie or ad executives can cynically shove into their property. So there's all those reasons.


----------



## fbjim

JTS said:


> Well at least we do hear of Cherubini and enjoy his music,


like every time I've looked up information about one of his (wonderful) string quartets it's inevitably commented what a pity it is that nobody ever plays them!


----------



## JTS

violadude said:


> Well, perhaps among other reasons, A LOT has to do with the fact that record companies these days are more likely to make safe bets on well known composers rather than risk their profits on lesser known ones since the financial market isn't as booming as it was back when a lot of classical music staples became popular on record. This, combined with the fact that art is not nearly as well funded (in America at least) as it used to be, meaning that orchestras also have to rely on safe bets to bring in patrons. Also, Saariaho's music has not had 200 years to permeate into the collective bin of culturally inherited knowledge we all walk around with, and her music is not associated with any particular holiday or occasion that movie or ad executives can cynically shove into their property. So there's all those reasons.


Might also be that not many people like it or want to hear it. From my brief acquaintance with it I would not want to hear it again. It might be wonderful for the 174 composers but sorry it doesn't do it for me!


----------



## violadude

JTS said:


> Might also be that not many people like it or want to hear it. From my brief acquaintance with it I would not want to hear it again. It might be wonderful for the 174 composers but sorry it doesn't do it for me!


Oh I think it has potential for gaining much larger following. You'd be surprised how many people I've actively seen convert to the "cult of modern classical" just from hanging out on these forums.


----------



## Eriks

I think the thread might need a link to a Saariaho piece






I would say that classical music generally enjoys a very high respect in Finland. Even people not into classical music will regards some Sibelius pieces as an important part of their identity ( as it played a part in the movement for Finnish independence from Russia). To me it's not surprising that a relatively young Finnish composer appears on a list chosen by other composers.


----------



## mmsbls

JTS said:


> Might also be that not many people like it or want to hear it. From my brief acquaintance with it I would not want to hear it again. It might be wonderful for the 174 composers but sorry it doesn't do it for me!


I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with your recent posts in this thread. You clearly dislike modern music and think very little of today's composers. But why disparage the selection committee without even knowing what they were asked to do? What's somewhat interesting is that the 174 composers were not simply asked to rank their top 5 greatest composers. They were asked to base their selections on 4 factors:

1) originality - to what extent did your chosen composers take music in new and exciting directions?
2) impact - how greatly did they influence the musical scene both in their own lifetime and in years/centuries to come?
3) craftmanship - from a technical point of view, how brilliantly constructed is their music?
4) sheer enjoyability - quite simply, how much pleasure does their music give you?

50% of the ranking involves originality and influence on later music including through modern times. A full 25% simply asks them how much they like the composers music. Was Handel as original as Saariaho? Did he influence composers of his or later times as much as she did? How much do the 174 composers enjoy the music of Handel compared to Saariaho? The answers to those questions (along with the 5 nomination limit) presumably explain why Saariaho made the list but Handel did not.

The 174 contemporary composers were not asked to select the 5 composers based on such requirements as casual classical music listeners must know them, casual classical music listeners must enjoy their music, long dead composers must consider them great, or other criteria that might produce a more conventional list.

The list doesn't contain the "greatest" composers of all time, but rather it contains an interesting selection of composers believed to be original, influential, technically superior, and enjoyable by 174 living people who dedicate their lives to the same thing the composers on the BBC's top 50 list did.


----------



## JTS

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with your recent posts in this thread. You clearly dislike modern music and think very little of today's composers. But why disparage the selection committee without even knowing what they were asked to do? What's somewhat interesting is that the 174 composers were not simply asked to rank their top 5 greatest composers. They were asked to base their selections on 4 factors:
> 
> 1) originality - to what extent did your chosen composers take music in new and exciting directions?
> 2) impact - how greatly did they influence the musical scene both in their own lifetime and in years/centuries to come?
> 3) craftmanship - from a technical point of view, how brilliantly constructed is their music?
> 4) sheer enjoyability - quite simply, how much pleasure does their music give you?
> 
> 50% of the ranking involves originality and influence on later music including through modern times. A full 25% simply asks them how much they like the composers music. Was Handel as original as Saariaho? Did he influence composers of his or later times as much as she did? How much do the 174 composers enjoy the music of Handel compared to Saariaho? The answers to those questions (along with the 5 nomination limit) presumably explain why Saariaho made the list but Handel did not.
> 
> The 174 contemporary composers were not asked to select the 5 composers based on such requirements as casual classical music listeners must know them, casual classical music listeners must enjoy their music, long dead composers must consider them great, or other criteria that might produce a more conventional list.
> 
> The list doesn't contain the "greatest" composers of all time, but rather it contains an interesting selection of composers believed to be original, influential, technically superior, and enjoyable by 174 living people who dedicate their lives to the same thing the composers on the BBC's top 50 list did.


Take point 2/ Did Santiago influence the music scene in her own lifetime and in the centuries t9 come as has Handel's?
4/ how much pleasure does Handel's music gibe to peopke compared with out goid modern lady?


----------



## mmsbls

JTS said:


> Take point 2/ Did Santiago influence the music scene in her own lifetime and in the centuries t9 come as has Handel's?
> 4/ how much pleasure does Handel's music gibe to peopke compared with out goid modern lady?


I'm not sure I understand your comments. I don't know how the 174 composers view Saariaho's influence compared to Handel, but I'm guessing many of them were significantly more influenced by her works than by Handel's. Also, to be clear, the each member of the selection group was not asked to guess how much pleasure composers' music gives people in general but rather to include how much pleasure composers' music gives them in particular.


----------



## Bulldog

JTS said:


> So what tremendous masterworks has she written, comparable with Messiah, Dixit Dominus, Julius Caesar, Solomon, Aggrippina, Alcina, etc?


You sure like to make assumptions based on your personal preferences. Of the above works, I'd say that only one is a tremendous masterwork. Concerning the others, I would much rather listen to Handel's keyboard suites.

So here we are. Both of us prefer Handel to Saariaho. The difference is that I don't take my preference and declare that Handel is the superior composer.


----------



## SanAntone

*Re: 50 Greatest Composers by 174 Composers*

There seems to be a lot being made about Handel's name not appearing on this list. Or, at least one member is making a big deal out of it. But this list was created from polling 174 living composers for a list of the composers they think of as the greatest. I don't think it takes a great leap of the imagination to understand that Handel may not be at the forefront of their minds as much as a contemporary composer like Saariaho.

These lists are not worth arguing over. They offer some insight into the preferences of a group of mostly British composers who are still active. I don't agree with the list, it is not my list. So what?


----------



## DaveM

The below are what I see occurring when a number of posters pile on one poster on subjects like this. It's as if there's an empowerment to make unfounded, specious and denigrating statements.



violadude said:


> Saariaho is considered to have written great masterpieces among the community of composers being asked the question.


Well, that's not surprising, but is there a significant audience that agrees? Maybe, but I can't find evidence of it. I could be wrong.



Bulldog said:


> Okay, you prefer Handel to Saariaho; so I do I. However, that doesn't change the fact that most TC members know of Saariaho, and plenty even prefer her music to Handel's.


No, most TC members don't know of Saariaho. Maybe 'most TC members who enjoy contemporary music' would be more appropriate.



Ethereality said:


> If you're putting Beethoven and Mozart as the authority, you're answering the question twice, by choosing them, to then choose. It means you don't have good judgement yourself yet to decide, which has additional meaning: it means your own judgement to place Mozart and Beethoven high isn't even reliable. Why not just have your own judgement instead of taking others?


Perhaps 'I don't think you have good judgment.' would be better than 'You don't have good judgment..' ', unless you have some expertise in that field.



Bulldog said:


> You sure like to make assumptions based on your personal preferences. Of the above works, I'd say that only one is a tremendous masterwork. Concerning the others, I would much rather listen to Handel's keyboard suites. So here we are. Both of us prefer Handel to Saariaho. The difference is that I don't take my preference and declare that Handel is the superior composer.


I don't understand the need to proclaim some sort of superiority.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> most TC members know of Saariaho, and plenty even prefer her music to Handel's.


Plenty of TC members prefer Miles Davis to Telemann. So what?


----------



## JTS

Bulldog said:


> You sure like to make assumptions based on your personal preferences. Of the above works, I'd say that only one is a tremendous masterwork. Concerning the others, I would much rather listen to Handel's keyboard suites.
> 
> So here we are. Both of us prefer Handel to Saariaho. The difference is that I don't take my preference and declare that Handel is the superior composer.


Not just my personal preference. Just a personal preference of most of the musical population which you would appear to be out of kilter with, which is your privilege of course. . I think you've got a vastly greater audience for the metropolitans production of Caesar or Agrippina than any of Saariaho's works both now and in his lifetime. And as for Messiah, we'll let that speak for itself.


----------



## JTS

SanAntone said:


> *Re: 50 Greatest Composers by 174 Composers*
> 
> There seems to be a lot being made about Handel's name not appearing on this list. Or, at least one member is making a big deal out of it. But this list was created from polling 174 living composers for a list of the composers they think of as the greatest. I don't think it takes a great leap of the imagination to understand that Handel may not be at the forefront of their minds as much as a contemporary composer like Saariaho.
> 
> These lists are not worth arguing over. They offer some insight into the preferences of a group of mostly British composers who are still active. I don't agree with the list, it is not my list. So what?


As I said the list is dumb and it may be that it's dumbness reflects the question asked and the way it was asked. Just a thought that if GFH was more in the mind of contemporary composers then their compositions might be a bit more listenable to?


----------



## JTS

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure I understand your comments. I don't know how the 174 composers view Saariaho's influence compared to Handel, but I'm guessing many of them were significantly more influenced by her works than by Handel's. Also, to be clear, the each member of the selection group was not asked to guess how much pleasure composers' music gives people in general but rather to include how much pleasure composers' music gives them in particular.


And of course that's why this pole is dumb to be presented in a popular music magazine as it is narrow because it speaks to an extremely narrow section of the musical population. They probably listen to each other's music with a great enjoyment and interest but how many others do?


----------



## mmsbls

JTS said:


> And of course that's why this pole is narrow because it speaks to an extremely narrow section of the musical population. They probably listen to each other's music with a great enjoyment and interest but how many others do?


The pole's list is somewhat unusual, and it does speak to a subset of the musical population. But that subset is not a random subset but rather a subset who have a specific expertise that would appear to be quite relevant to the list.

In the context of this pole, why is it important that the average classical music listener might not enjoy the music of composers on the list as much as other composers? That's clearly not the intent of the pole.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> The below are what I see occurring when a number of posters pile on one poster on subjects like this.


I'm quite sure that if "JTS" felt piled on, they would withdraw having said their piece, rather than keep repeating it.

What no-one here knows, not even those who have actually read the whole article, including the 174 names, is the exact mechanism by which the poll was carried out. I'm fairly certain, however, that the magazine did not get 174 composers together to confer over their choices. Some posters have responded as if all 174 _agreed _to reject Handel (and some other well known composers too). In fact, it just so happened that not one of the 174 named Handel.

One or two of them treated the poll in the same sceptical, or playful way that some here do, by, for example, giving all 5 votes to the same composer (Beethoven, Bruckner) or two for the same (Mozart, Bach). And yes, some pop/rock artists appear (Kate Bush, Bjork, David Sylvian), as well as 'blackbird', and 'Mother Nature'.

Several composers who voted (eg Steve Reich and John Williams) were also voted for.

While many on the list _maybe _British (I don't know - you can't tell just by their names, and their nationality wasn't given) there seems to me sufficient numbers of other nationalities to bring in a number of composers who are important to _them _in _their _country (and not to JTS in theirs. If, indeed, there is any bias, you might have expected one of the Brits to name Handel).

Take Clara Iannotta. I picked her because I know nothing about her or her music. I've never heard of her. She named

Pierluigi Billone
Michelle Lou
Eliane Radigue
Rebecca Saunders
Steven Kazuo Takasugi

Who are we to complain about her choices, given the considerations the poll asked her to weigh up?

Contrary to the irritating headline at the top of the magazine's article, this wasn't about "the greatest" at all, not in any simplistic sense. What is much more interesting than who gained the _most _votes is to sift through those who got any votes at all, and use the list to find new composers and new music, as well as confirmation of one's own good taste.

What would have been much worse - for anyone who wants classical to thrive - would have been for all 174 to agree on exactly the same tired old, dead composers, rather than name any fresh, living who will take classical into the future.


----------



## JTS

Eriks said:


> I think the thread might need a link to a Saariaho piece
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that classical music generally enjoys a very high respect in Finland. Even people not into classical music will regards some Sibelius pieces as an important part of their identity ( as it played a part in the movement for Finnish independence from Russia). To me it's not surprising that a relatively young Finnish composer appears on a list chosen by other composers.


The sort of stuff my late father-in-law would listen to with a pained expression and at the end say, "Interesting!"


----------



## JTS

mmsbls said:


> The pole's list is somewhat unusual, and it does speak to a subset of the musical population. But that subset is not a random subset but rather a subset who have a specific expertise that would appear to be quite relevant to the list.
> 
> In the context of this pole, why is it important that the average classical music listener might not enjoy the music of composers on the list as much as other composers? That's clearly not the intent of the pole.


Expertise? Such an expertise no-one has heard of most of them?


----------



## Forster

JTS said:


> The sort of stuff my late father-in-law would listen to with a pained expression and at the end say, "Interesting!"


Now we have to consider what your father-in-law's opinion is? Sheesh!


----------



## JTS

Forster said:


> Now we have to consider what your father-in-law's opinion is? Sheesh!


Now you have to listen to a bit of humour. Apologies!


----------



## JTS

Duplicate post deleted!


----------



## JTS

Just coming back to the actual pole without this continual arguing about whether a modern composer who hardly anyone’s heard of is better than a widely heard composer of the past, the OP and the BBC announced this pole as giving the list of the ‘greatest composers’. My point simply was that any list which purports to give a list of greatest composers and which omits a man who is by the vast majority of conductors, music lovers, etc, to be one of the greats, is pretty dumb. As I say, like giving a list of artists where Michelangelo is omitted. Not everyone would put GFH as highly as I would, but not in the top 50 strikes me as being pretty dumb . Just my opinion but I’m sure it’s one shared with the vast majority of the musical population if not on TC.


----------



## JTS

Forster said:


> I'm quite sure that if "JTS" felt piled on, they would withdraw having said their piece, rather than keep repeating it.
> 
> What no-one here knows, not even those who have actually read the whole article, including the 174 names, is the exact mechanism by which the poll was carried out. I'm fairly certain, however, that the magazine did not get 174 composers together to confer over their choices. Some posters have responded as if all 174 _agreed _to reject Handel (and some other well known composers too). In fact, it just so happened that not one of the 174 named Handel.
> 
> One or two of them treated the poll in the same sceptical, or playful way that some here do, by, for example, giving all 5 votes to the same composer (Beethoven, Bruckner) or two for the same (Mozart, Bach). And yes, some pop/rock artists appear (Kate Bush, Bjork, David Sylvian), as well as 'blackbird', and 'Mother Nature'.
> 
> Several composers who voted (eg Steve Reich and John Williams) were also voted for.
> 
> While many on the list _maybe _British (I don't know - you can't tell just by their names, and their nationality wasn't given) there seems to me sufficient numbers of other nationalities to bring in a number of composers who are important to _them _in _their _country (and not to JTS in theirs. If, indeed, there is any bias, you might have expected one of the Brits to name Handel).
> 
> Take Clara Iannotta. I picked her because I know nothing about her or her music. I've never heard of her. She named
> 
> Pierluigi Billone
> Michelle Lou
> Eliane Radigue
> Rebecca Saunders
> Steven Kazuo Takasugi
> 
> Who are we to complain about her choices, given the considerations the poll asked her to weigh up?
> 
> Contrary to the irritating headline at the top of the magazine's article, this wasn't about "the greatest" at all, not in any simplistic sense. What is much more interesting than who gained the _most _votes is to sift through those who got any votes at all, and use the list to find new composers and new music, as well as confirmation of one's own good taste.
> 
> What would have been much worse - for anyone who wants classical to thrive - would have been for all 174 to agree on exactly the same tired old, dead composers, rather than name any fresh, living who will take classical into the future.


And that is where of course the BBC is totally wrong in publishing a list like this in the form it did. If the composers named five people who have influence their own music then fair enough, but it hardly represents who is the greatest composer. If some of them haven't taken it seriously it will not help matters at all. And probably most readers will just look at it and will have my reaction to it. It will certainly not help modern classical music to thrive. The only thing which will help modern classical music to thrive is to make it listenable and enjoyable


----------



## Ethereality

I've never accepted popularity or majority as a measure of quality. If it's false within the big circle of all music, it's probably problematic within the Classical circle too. You appear to lack an ability to form your own opinion, or possess your own judgement.


----------



## Forster

Sorry, duplicate  .


----------



## Forster

JTS said:


> And that is where of course the BBC is totally wrong in publishing a list like this in the form it did. If the composers named five people who have influence their own music then fair enough, but it hardly represents who is the greatest composer. If some of them haven't taken it seriously it will not help matters at all. And probably most readers will just look at it and will have my reaction to it. It will certainly not help modern classical music to thrive. The only thing which will help modern classical music to thrive is to make it listenable and enjoyable


The title on the front of the magazine was not "The 50 Greatest Composers"

It was "50 Greatest Composers of all time as voted for by 174 of today's finest composers"

So let's not get too hung up that we might have been misled and accept it for what it is.

(Oh, and can we stop calling it a 'pole' please? Thanks.)


----------



## JTS

Ethereality said:


> I've never accepted popularity or majority as a measure of quality. That is what seems dumb. You seem to lack an ability to form your own opinion or possess your own judgement.


I hardly think that mere popularity is behind my assessment of Handel. The rest of the musical world (apart from a few apparently) hails him as an acknowledged master composer. Just listen to what Gardiner says and then conducts






Of course I realise that this obviously doesn't count!


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> I'm quite sure that if "JTS" felt piled on, they would withdraw having said their piece, rather than keep repeating it..


Piling on is piling on. Maybe those piling on should withdraw and repetition wouldn't be necessary. But they don't and they aren't. Just sayin'.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> Piling on is piling on. Maybe those piling on should withdraw and repetition wouldn't be necessary. But they don't and they aren't. Just sayin'.


And JTS isn't.

If a number of members all react simultaneously to one other poster's comment, that's not piling on. There's no conspiracy here.


----------



## JTS

Forster said:


> The title on the front of the magazine was not "The 50 Greatest Composers"
> 
> It was "50 Greatest Composers of all time as voted for by 174 of today's finest composers"
> 
> So let's not get too hung up that we might have been misled and accept it for what it is.
> 
> (Oh, and can we stop calling it a 'pole' please? Thanks.)


Whatever it was there is no need for anyone to accept it or agree with it. I have made my point that I've disagreed with it. I have made the point that I have thought it was dumb to omit the man generally acknowledged by most musicians if not TC as one of the greatest composers who has ever lived from the top 50. That is the only point I'm making


----------



## Art Rock

The correct term is poll. Pole has lots of meanings, but not this one.


----------



## Eriks

JTS said:


> The sort of stuff my late father-in-law would listen to with a pained expression and at the end say, "Interesting!"


Your father in law has a good point. Much modern music sounds like some complexified instrumental Gregorian chant. It's like the combination of melody, rhythm, and harmony at the same time is forbidden. Two of these are Ok but never all three at the same time.


----------



## JTS

Art Rock said:


> The correct term is poll. Pole has lots of meanings, but not this one.


Apologies. This auto-text!


----------



## violadude

I guess I don't really understand the mindset at play here. Like, why are you so defensive if you're already in the majority? Just sit back and enjoy your majority status and let us lonely modern classical fans enjoy this one time where Saariaho made it on a top list? Is that hard for you to do? Even though Handel is on every single other top list of composers that exists out there? To me it's like making a passionate defense of the Star Wars franchise or something. It's like ya we all know and appreciate (to whatever extent) Star Wars, can something else have the spotlight about without you freaking out about it?


----------



## JTS

violadude said:


> I guess I don't really understand the mindset at play here. Like, why are you so defensive if you're already in the majority? Just sit back and enjoy your majority status and let us lonely modern classical fans enjoy this one time where Saariaho made it on a top list? Is that hard for you to do? Even though Handel is on every single other top list of composers that exists out there? To me it's like making a passionate defense of the Star Wars franchise or something. It's like ya we all know and appreciate (to whatever extent) Star Wars, can something else have the spotlight about without you freaking out about it?


 I'm not defensive at all. It seems to me you are defensive and projecting your defensiveness on me. To compare Handel with the Star Wars franchise seems to be rather ludicrous. And you accuse me of 'freaking out' when I am just making a valid point appears to be somewhat OTT. May I say that strange though it might appear to you an appreciation of GFH does not automatically make one a fan of Star Wars! Just where you got that connection from is quite beyond me


----------



## violadude

JTS said:


> I'm not defensive at all. It seems to me you are defensive and projecting your defensiveness on me. To compare Handel with the Star Wars franchise seems to be rather ludicrous. And you accuse me of 'freaking out' when I am just making a valid point appears to be somewhat OTT. May I say that strange though it might appear to you an appreciation of GFH does not automatically make one a fan of Star Wars! Just where you got that connection from is quite beyond me


Oh, you know how analogies work right? I wasn't saying that Handel fans are automatically star wars fans, just comparing their relative popularity to illustrate the ridiculousness of being so defensive over something which needs no defense. You understand the point right? Like, if I'm a fan of something super popular and it appears on every "top list" ever, it doesn't make sense for me to be so vocal about a single list that doesn't have it, because I'm already among a comfortable majority and should not feel threatened by the tastes of a minority group.


----------



## Ethereality

One could envision inserting the 'hold my beer, there's someone wrong on the internet' meme aside from the fact that it doesn't really apply on an art or subjective evaluation forum. The meme is more like 'nobody is right on the internet.' And I'm very thankful this is happening over the waves and not at my physical residence. No amount of playing Handel over this cognitive dissonance could soothe. Maybe that's where (pull another recent thread into it) Shostakovich comes into the arena.


----------



## JTS

violadude said:


> Oh, you know how analogies work right? I wasn't saying that Handel fans are automatically star wars fans, just comparing their relative popularity to illustrate the ridiculousness of being so defensive over something which needs no defense. You understand the point right? Like, if I'm a fan of something super popular and it appears on every "top list" ever, it doesn't make sense for me to be so vocal about a single list that doesn't have it, because I'm already among a comfortable majority and should not feel threatened by the tastes of a minority group.


It's interesting you are being very defensive well I am just pointing out what the general opinion among musicians is. Why are you being so defensive? You are the one who's going on about it not me. I'm not a doctrine by the taste of a minority group but you appear to be threatened by the fact I say it's a dumb list when one of the greatest composers is omitted. If you're not threatened why keep going on about it?


----------



## JTS

Ethereality said:


> One could envision inserting the 'hold my beer, there's someone wrong on the internet' meme aside from the fact that it doesn't really apply on an art or subjective evaluation forum. The meme is more like 'nobody is right on the internet.' And I'm very thankful this is happening over the waves and not at my physical residence. No amount of playing Handel over this cognitive dissonance could soothe. Maybe that's where (pull another recent thread into it) Shostakovich comes into the arena.


Thankfully some of us over the years have learned to have a robust discussion among friends without falling out or resorting to fisticuffs .


----------



## janxharris

JTS said:


> Thankfully some of us over the years have learned to have a robust discussion among friends without falling out or resorting to fisticuffs .


You didn't offend some here by implication when you used the word 'dumb'?


----------



## JTS

janxharris said:


> You didn't offend some here by implication when you used the word 'dumb'?


I don't think I accused anyone here of being 'dumb'. I merely said the list to me appeared dumb by not including one of the great composers. I'm not sure how a list can be offended


----------



## mmsbls

JTS said:


> Expertise? Such an expertise no-one has heard of most of them?


OK, fair enough. You've made your position known and now are having fun with it. You understand where some of us stand on the issue, and we understand your position.


----------



## JTS

The problem with lists like this is that they tend to leave glaring but obvious gaps. The late André Previn tells a story from his Hollywood days about how a gaggle of experts (including himself) put forward a motion that any composer nominated for a musical Oscar by the Academy should at least be able to read music. He said this found general favour with everyone including himself until somebody mention the name of Irving Berlin, at which point the motion was hastily dropped!


----------



## SanAntone

JTS said:


> As I said the list is dumb and it may be that it's dumbness reflects the question asked and the way it was asked. Just a thought that if GFH was more in the mind of contemporary composers then their compositions might be a bit more listenable to?


I have no trouble listening to new music, like Saariaho, or old music, like Handel.


----------



## JTS

SanAntone said:


> I have no trouble listening to new music, like Saariaho, or old music, like Handel.


But that was not the question. The question was concerning the greatest composer. I've no problem with people listening to contemporary music.


----------



## SanAntone

JTS said:


> But that was not the question. The question was concerning the greatest composer. I've no problem with people listening to contemporary music.


You claimed it was unlistenable, apparently you have a problem with contemporary music.

And the question was answered by the 174 composers asked to participate in the poll. You just don't agree with the poll.  Nor do I, but I don't really care what 174 composers think about who's great.


----------



## JTS

SanAntone said:


> You claimed it was unlistenable, apparently you have a problem with contemporary music.
> 
> And the question was answered by the 174 composers asked to participate in the poll. You just don't agree with the poll.  Nor do I, but I don't really care what 174 composers think about who's great.


I said I have no problem with people listening to it if they wish.

God there's something we agree on. I was making was that I thought it was dumb that an almost universally recognised great composer wasn't included in the top 50. I didn't think any disagreement with that.


----------



## mikeh375

JTS said:


> The problem with lists like this is that they tend to leave glaring but obvious gaps. The late André Previn tells a story from his Hollywood days about how a gaggle of experts (including himself) put forward a motion that any composer nominated for a musical Oscar by the Academy should at least be able to read music. He said this found general favour with everyone including himself until somebody mention the name of Irving Berlin, at which point the motion was hastily dropped!


not wholly relevant. That was more about protectionism, not subjective choices. Debates about trained and untrained composers are still prevalent in media circles of composers today.


----------



## vtpoet

Interesting list. And revealing, especially that Stravinsky is no. 2. Composers, of course, listen to music for different reasons than the average classical music listener. One can infer what Beethoven's list would have been, for example. We know that he didn't care for Mozart's piano sonatas, and probably would have ranked Clementi's (definitely) as superior to Mozart's Sonatas, and also preferred CPE Bach's Sonatas. I'm not sure if he would have ranked Händel as greater than Bach, but he kept Bach's WTC around and his own Diabelli variations are conjectured to be his answer to the Goldberg variations. I, personally, would not rank Stravinsky at No. 2, but who cares what I think.


----------



## SanAntone

JTS said:


> I said I have no problem with people listening to it if they wish.
> 
> God there's something we agree on. I was making was that I thought it was dumb that an almost universally recognised great composer wasn't included in the top 50. I didn't think any disagreement with that.


Maybe Handel was #51.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> Maybe Handel was #51.


Yes, I'm sure there's room in the world for more than 50 'great' composers.

As far as we know, the voters didn't rank their five (and certainly not the 50) so it would be a slight misrepresentation of the maths to say that they "ranked" any individual composer in any specific position.

This "ranking" is simply a list of composers ordered according to the number of mentions out of the 735 votes cast (that's 174 x 5). Beethoven was not "ranked 1st by 174 composers", but was mentioned by more composers than any other composer (roughly 100, I think). So while it might console fans of Handel to think he was actively ranked 51st and not last, in truth, he didn't get a single mention at all (not that I could find by scouring the list and there is a paragraph in the article about who was missing).


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> Yes, I'm sure there's room in the world for more than 50 'great' composers.
> 
> As far as we know, the voters didn't rank their five (and certainly not the 50) so it would be a slight misrepresentation of the maths to say that they "ranked" any individual composer in any specific position.
> 
> This "ranking" is simply a list of composers ordered according to the number of mentions out of the 735 votes cast (that's 174 x 5). Beethoven was not "ranked 1st by 174 composers", but was mentioned by more composers than any other composer (roughly 100, I think). So while it might console fans of Handel to think he was actively ranked 51st and not last, in truth, he didn't get a single mention at all (not that I could find by scouring the list and there is a paragraph in the article about who was missing).


Well if asked to name five great composers I doubt I'd choose Handel either.


----------



## Art Rock

A few years ago I asked TC members to send in their top30 composers (personal taste), ranked or unranked. Of the 40 submitted ranked lists, there were only two that had Handel in the top five.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> Well if asked to name five great composers I doubt I'd choose Handel either.


Me either.

There'd be no room after I'd picked Sibelius, Beethoven, Satie, Debussy and Prokofiev...or would I include Shostakovich and leave out...or Vaughan Williams...and then there's Strav...no, no...I've missed out Haydn and Mahler...and then, I'm allowed to vote for pop/rock composers too, so what about Wyatt and Eno?

:lol:


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

What can I say? I see Ligeti at no. 6 (although he's no. 1) and my faith in humanity is restored. I'm truly sorry for those who do not see this list as a beacon of hope


----------



## SanAntone

I've started a thread:

*Your list of the five greatest composers*


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> I've started a thread:
> 
> *Your list of the five greatest composers*


Oh, you _shouldn't _have...thank you so much!! :lol:


----------



## vtpoet

SanAntone said:


> Well if asked to name five great composers I doubt I'd choose Handel either.


Just about the time I've written off Händel, I'll hear some aria out of the blue, like this:






Or here on Youtube






And if I had to chose between every last stitch of Stravinsky (or any number of composers) and this, I'd chose Händel. It just brings me to my knees. My knees. The light of God shines through. Like Mozart said of Händel, he can strike a lightning bolt and there you stand, like a duck in a thunder storm, wondering what happened.


----------



## SanAntone

vtpoet said:


> Just about the time I've written off Händel, I'll hear some aria out of the blue, like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or here on Youtube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if I had to chose between every last stitch of Stravinsky (or any number of composers) and this, I'd chose Händel. It just brings me to my knees. My knees. The light of God shines through. Like Mozart said of Händel, he can strike a lightning bolt.


I would not wish to write off either Stravinsky or Handel ... and the things is, we don't have to. 

I agree with you about Handel's operas, they are what I usually listen to above all else from him - the same is true for Mozart.


----------



## Nereffid

Maybe Handel is the 6th-best composer according to all those who didn't put him in their top 5? :lol:


----------



## JTS

mikeh375 said:


> not wholly relevant. That was more about protectionism, not subjective choices. Debates about trained and untrained composers are still prevalent in media circles of composers today.


From what Andre Previn said it was about protecting themselves from looking foolish.


----------



## JTS

SanAntone said:


> Well if asked to name five great composers I doubt I'd choose Handel either.


That is of course the problem with surveys like that. It's just a study in numbers. 50 people might rank Handel as their no 6 but he doesn't get a mention while one person ranks Joe Bloggs as their no 5 and he does.


----------



## hammeredklavier

vtpoet said:


> We know that he didn't care for Mozart's piano sonatas, and probably would have ranked Clementi's (definitely) as superior to Mozart's Sonatas, and also preferred CPE Bach's Sonatas.


What's the source for this? There's no evidence he appreciated any C.P.E. Bach work above Mozart K.475/K.457, K.426/K.546.



vtpoet said:


> I'm not sure if he would have ranked Händel as greater than Bach, but he kept Bach's WTC around and his own Diabelli variations are conjectured to be his answer to the Goldberg variations. I, personally, would not rank Stravinsky at No. 2, but who cares what I think.


Beethoven's Op.13/ii is said to be his answer to the andante of Mozart K.608 (which he copied out himself), the cadenza of Op.37/i and Op.58/i are his answer to K.394, Op.31/i is to K.397. He did rank Handel higher than Bach, mainly because he felt more affinity to Handel than Bach in terms of musical temperament. I don't think this is due to his supposed lack of knowledge of certain pieces of Bach.

"On another occasion he is said to have remarked, "Handel is the greatest composer that ever lived", and spoke of the oratorio as having "sublimity of language". The music of Messiah so permeated Beethoven's being that on his deathbed he is reputed to have quoted from The Messiah"

"He is the greatest composer that ever lived. I would uncover my head and kneel before his tomb."
-- Ludwig van Beethoven, quoted in Percy M Young, Handel (1947)


----------



## vtpoet

hammeredklavier said:


> What's the source for this? There's no evidence he appreciated any C.P.E. Bach work above Mozart K.475/K.457, K.426/K.546.


No, not with that specificity, but I have read in several sources of his preferences for CPE Bach's keyboard works over Mozart's but I don't remember them now. It's not something I'm willing to research for you. There are other ways I'd rather spend my time, so feel free to disregard what I've written. Others can confirm or deny as suits them.


----------



## vtpoet

I would add, HK, that Mozart was clearly a far greater influence on Beethoven than CPE Bach, if judged solely by works like his piano quintet, so one ought to probably take Beethoven's statements concerning his preference for CPE Bach's solo keyboard works with a grain of salt. In one anecdote, Beethoven says Haydn was simply jealous of his genius (the piano trios) and some years later he was kneeling before Haydn (after a performance of the Creation) and doffing his cap (if he had one). Whatever prompted Beethoven to trash talk Mozart and praise CPE could just have been a bad day for Beethoven as regards Mozart.


----------



## JTS

I think when it comes to Beethoven and Mozart, according to the latest biography by Swafford, Beethoven was not much taken with Mozart’s abilities as a pianist, not the works themselves. He felt that Mozart played more like a harpsichordist


----------



## Kreisler jr

The difference in playing style between Mozart and Beethoven seems well documented by contemporaries who heard them both. There was probably also a boost both in instrument building and playing technique as shown by composers in between like Dussek or Clementi. (Mozart trash-talked Clementi as "mere mechanic" but this seems admitting that Clementi was in fact technically better.) According to most sources, Beethoven's playing was quite free and "romantic".

As for great composer's favorite composers, I think it is mostly true what someone wrote that in their maturity most composers are almost exclusively interested in their own music. We should not take these remarks (often poorly documented) that seriously. In the case of Beethoven it should also be noted that all of his favorites were long dead and not competitors, except for Cherubini and he overlapped very little with Beethoven's main fields.


----------



## fbjim

Nereffid said:


> Maybe Handel is the 6th-best composer according to all those who didn't put him in their top 5? :lol:


I honestly suspect something like this- perhaps Handel is the type of composer that is widely admired but not in many people's top 5. Maybe he suffers from comparison to Bach.


----------



## vtpoet

Kreisler jr said:


> I think it is mostly true what someone wrote that in their maturity most composers are almost exclusively interested in their own music.


If so, it wasn't true of JS Bach. According to CPE Bach, he was very interested and appreciative of contemporary composers. It made me laugh once, reading a review of a CD by Fasch, wherein the reviewer completely dismissed Fasch with a reference to Bach-something like: Nobody who appreciates Bach need spend any time on Fasch. I laughed because Fasch was one of the composers for whom Bach expressed some admiration.


----------



## vtpoet

Kreisler jr said:


> (Mozart trash-talked Clementi as "mere mechanic" but this seems admitting that Clementi was in fact technically better.) According to most sources, Beethoven's playing was quite free and "romantic".


There was/is a good youtube video concerning Clementi's influence on Mozart. It's speculative but I found it persuasive. I would provide a link but I'd have to search for it. The youtuber talked about the appearance of consecutive octaves, sudden changes in dynamics, repeated notes, etc... all techniques typical of Clementi (which would appeal to Beethoven) and very different from Mozart's earlier piano sonatas. If I find it I'll post a link.

Edit: Here it is.


----------



## ORigel

fbjim said:


> People in a field will always have different opinions. Some of the weirdest opinions I've read on art have come from artists themselves- which makes sense if you think about it. We value originality and innovation in art, so it stands to reason that we wouldn't just expect every musical artist to list "Beethoven Bach Brahms Mozart Haydn" or something. Not to mention that working in music probably exposes you to a ton of music outside what is generally widely available- ask someone who works in film what their greatest films and you'll get a ton of stuff not specifically in the general widely-accepted repertoire of great Hollywood films.


Beethoven Bach Brahms Mozart Haydn is my Top 5 composers list much of the time, in that order.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Art Rock said:


> A few years ago I asked TC members to send in their top30 composers (personal taste), ranked or unranked. Of the 40 submitted ranked lists, there were only two that had Handel in the top five.


And that is one reason why Beethoven saying he preferred Clementi and CPE sonatas to Mozart's is of interest but not that relevant.

Beethoven ranked Handel No 1 - and he can't even make the top 50 on that BBC poll and hardly anyone on TC rates him.

Mozart ranked Michael Haydn highly - and JC Bach - yet their works are not exactly shining supreme in the musical firmament.

We are better placed to evaluate the musical heritage of the last 300 years than those who lived in those times.

I think that BBC list is ok - I would argue against Stravinsky being in the top 5 frankly as I don't think he was a greater composer than Mozart Schubert Brahms by any measure. Top 10 would be ok.


----------



## Bulldog

PlaySalieri said:


> Beethoven ranked Handel No 1 - and he can't even make the top 50 on that BBC poll and hardly anyone on TC rates him.


Oh, I think that quite a few active members think highly of Handel's music. I'd place him around no. 10 on my favorites list.


----------



## hammeredklavier

PlaySalieri said:


> Mozart ranked Michael Haydn highly - and JC Bach - yet their works are not exactly shining supreme in the musical firmament.


I don't think Mozart cared about Christian Bach to the extent he did Michael Haydn. In letters to his father, he kept asking for the score Michael's contrapuntal symphonies and graduals (which were written to replace church sonatas in opening ceremonies, under Colloredo's orders). He never did the same with Christian's music. I think Michael is unlike the "generic" Baroque and Classical composers who "churned out for the sake of churning out". Listen to how different these works (both composed in 1777) sound (the first one even reminds me of Mozart's K.543/i at around 2:50):


----------

