# Top 100 Solo Piano Works



## Beebert

So, I found this list with a ranking of the 100 "greatest" works for piano ever written. What do you guys think of it? Agree with it? These kind of rankings are always hard to agree with or even possible to make sense of since much of these things are always a subjective. Anyway, in general I think it is a nice list. Are there any pieces here that you guys personally think shouldn't be there / are there any works that you guys are missing? Any works ranked too high or too low etc? 


1. Bach - Goldberg Variations 
2. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 111
3. Bach - The Well-Tempererad Clavier
4. Schubert - Piano Sonata D 960
5. Chopin - 24 Preludes
6. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 106 "Hammerklavier"
7. Chopin - Ballade 4 Op 52
8. Schumann - Fantasie in C major
9. Ravel - Gaspard de la Nuit
10. Beethoven - 33 Variations on a Waltz by Anton Diabelli Op 120
11. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 109 
12. Debussy - Préludes Book 2
13. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 110
14. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 57 "Appassionata" 
15. Chopin - Études Op 25
16. Liszt - Piano Sonata B minor
17. Schubert Piano Sonata D 959
18. Schumann - Davidsbündlertänze 
19. Chopin - Études Op 10
20. Chopin - Barcarolle 
21. Brahms - Op 118
22. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 53 "Waldstein"
23. Schumann - Kreisleriana
24. Schubert Piano Sonata D 894
25. Prokofiev - Piano Sonata 7 Op 83 "Stalingrad"
26. Debussy - Preludes Book 1
27. Ravel - Miroirs
28. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 101
29. Chopin Piano Sonata 3 Op 58
30. Shostakovich - 24 Preludes and Fugues
31. Chopin - Polonaise Fantaisie 
32. Schubert - Four Impromptus D 899
33. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 27 No. 2 "Moonlight"
34. Chopin - Ballade 1 Op 23
35. Bach - Partita 2 BWV 826
36. Schumann - Études Symphoniques
37. Prokofiev - Piano Sonata 6 Op 82
38. Scriabin - Piano Sonata 5 Op 53
39. Rachmaninoff - Preludes Op 32
40. Mozart Piano Sonata K 310
41. Schumann - Carnaval 
42. Schubert - Four Impromptus D 935
43. Chopin - Nocturnes Op 48
44. Bach - French Suite 5 BWV 816
45. Brahms - Op 119
46. Schumann - Kinderszenen
47. Schubert - Piano Sonata D 845
48. Schubert - Wanderer Fantasy D 760
49. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 81a "Les Adieux"
50. Brahms - Op 117
51. Debussy - Images pour piano bk 2
52. Chopin - Nocturnes Op 27
53. Chopin - Piano Sonata 2 Op 35
54. Haydn - Piano Sonata No. 62 Hob. XVI:52
55. Mussorgsky - Pictures at an Exhibition
56. Ravel - Le Tombeau de Couperin
57. Bach - Italian Concerto BWV 971
58. Debussy - Images pour piano bk 1
59. Schubert - Piano Sonata D 958
60. Brahms - Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel
61. Brahms - Op 116
62. Medtner - Sonata Romantica, Op. 53 No. 1
63. Bach - Partita 6 BWV 830
64. Chopin - Fantaisie in F minor
65. Ligeti - Études Books 1-3
66. Debussy - Etudes
67. Debussy - Estampes 
68. Schubert - Six Moments Musicaux D 780
69. Liszt - Années de pèlerinage
70. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 90
71. Bach - Overture in the French Style BWV 831
72. Mozart - Piano Sonata K 333
73. Schumann - Waldszenen 
74. Scriabin - Piano Sonata 9 Op 68
75. Chopin - Mazurkas Op 56
76. Scriabin Piano Sonata 2 Op 19
77. Messiaen - Vingt regards sur l'enfant-Jésus
78. Liszt - Études d'exécution transcendante
79. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 13 "Pathétique"
80. Webern - Variations for Piano 
81. Rachmaninoff - Preludes Op. 23
82. Schubert - Drei Klavierstucke D 946
83. Prokofiev - Piano Sonata 8 Op 84
84. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 31 No. 2 "The Tempest"
85. Ravel - Sonatine
86. Schumann - Fantasiestücke Op 12
87. Schumann - Papillons 
88. Berg - Piano Sonata Op 1
89. Ravel - Jeux d'eau
90. Beethoven Piano Sonata Op 28 "Pastorale" 
91. Bach - Inventions and Sinfonias BWV 772–801
92. Albeniz - Iberia
93. Ives - Piano Sonata No. 2 "Concord, Mass., 1840-60"
94. Chopin - Polonaise Op 53 "Heroic"
95. Haydn - Piano Sonata 60 Hob. XVI:50
96. Mozart - Piano Sonata K. 331
97. Chopin - Nocturnes Op 62
98. Rachmaninoff - Études-tableaux Op 39
99. Chopin - Ballade 3 Op 47
100. Chopin Scherzo 4 Op 54


----------



## tdc

Interesting list.

Some thoughts:
Since you are including Baroque, I would argue something by D. Scarlatti should be on there. Maybe some Mozart should be a little higher, Brahms Op. 118 and Handel Variations should be higher too. Rzewski's _The People United_... deserves a spot I think, Granados _Goyescas_ is an excellent work that should also be considered. Nothing by Bartok is a glaring omission I think.


----------



## Art Rock

No Field? No Alkan?? No Faure???

And although it does not bother me personally, including lots of Bach in a list of " "greatest" works for piano ever written" is of course dubious.


----------



## insomniclassicac

Solid list. I'd also throw the following into the ring for consideration:

Alkan - 12 Études Dans Tous Les Tons Mineurs, Op. 39
Alkan - Trois Grandes Études, Op. 76
Alkan - Souvenirs, "Trois Morceaux Dans Le Genre Pathétique", Op. 15
Balakirev - Islamey, Op. 18
Beethoven - 32 Variations in C Minor on an Original Theme, WoO 80
Brahms - Piano Sonata No. 3 in F minor, Op.5
Brahms - Variations on a Theme of Paganini, Op.35
Brahms - 2 Rhapsodies, Op. 79
Brahms - 4 Ballades, Op. 10
Chopin - Scherzo No. 1 in B Minor, Op. 20
Chopin - Scherzo No. 2 in B Flat Minor, Op. 31
Chopin - Polonaise in F-Sharp Minor, Op. 44
Decaux - Clairs de lune
Dukas - Piano Sonata in E-flat Minor
Enescu - Nocturne In D-Flat Major
Fauré - Nocturne No. 13 in B minor, Op. 119
Godowsky - Passacaglia
Liszt - Grandes études de Paganini
Liszt - Mephisto Waltz No. 1
Liszt - Waltzes from Gounod's Faust
Liszt - La lugubre gondola
Lyapunov - Études d'exécution transcendante, Op. 11
Medtner - Piano Sonata No. 7 In E Minor, 'Night Wind', Op. 25, No. 2
Rachmaninoff - Piano Sonata No.1, Op. 28
Rachmaninoff - Variations on a Theme of Chopin, Op. 22
Reubke - Piano Sonata in B-flat Minor
Schmitt - Ombres, Op. 64
Stanchinsky - Piano Sonata No. 2 in G major
Zaderatsky - 24 Preludes & Fugues

And I agree that including Baroque pieces on this list is pretty dubious.


----------



## chu42

Of course these kinds of lists are extremely subjective. But these are mostly very good choices- I like the inclusion of so much Schumann.

However, it could use more Alkan, Busoni, and Godowsky. These guys took piano technique to new limits.


----------



## Bulldog

I would have liked the following to be included:

Rachmaninov - Variations on a Theme by Corelli
Schumann - Humoreske
Shostakovich - Op. 34 Preludes
Scriabin - Op. 11 Preludes


----------



## Xisten267

Beebert said:


> So, I found this list with a ranking of the 100 "greatest" works for piano ever written. What do you guys think of it? Agree with it? These kind of rankings are always hard to agree with or even possible to make sense of since much of these things are always a subjective. Anyway, in general I think it is a nice list. Are there any pieces here that you guys personally think shouldn't be there / are there any works that you guys are missing? Any works ranked too high or too low etc?


I did some maths with the list you provided. In a process more or less similar to the standart deviation, I subtracted each position of a composer's work from 101, summed all portions associated to a composer and took the square root from the total, this for each composer in the list. Ex.:
Liszt: sqrt[(101-16)²+(101-69)²+(101-78)²] ~ 94.

I thought that it could be interesting to share here the results I had for each composer, which follow below:

_1. Beethoven .............. 267
2. Chopin ................... 252
3. Schubert ................ 199
4. Schumann .............. 184
5. Bach ...................... 178
6. Debussy ................. 142
7. Ravel ..................... 128
8. Brahms .................. 124
9. Prokofiev ................ 101
10. Liszt ..................... 94
11. Scriabin ................ 73
12. Shostakovich ......... 71
13. Mozart .................. 68
14. Rachmaninoff ........ 65
15. Haydn .................. 47
16. Mussorgsky ........... 46
17. Medtner ................ 39
18. Ligeti .................... 36
19. Messiaen ............... 24
20. Webern ................. 21
21. Berg ..................... 13
22. Albeniz .................. 9
23. Ives ...................... 8_

My bet is that Bach, Mozart and Liszt could be more represented, while Schumann could be a bit less. But there's much for me to explore yet and I'm in no position to make judgements about the results.


----------



## Hiawatha

Why only one concerto?


----------



## Guest

Beebert said:


> So, I found this list with a ranking of the 100 "greatest" works for piano ever written.


Do you mind telling us where you found this list?

I'd especially like to know whether it was the result of a poll of some kind and which forum, or whether it's a list based on one person's opinion and if so who is that person.


----------



## Guest

There seems to be quite a close correspondence with the solo piano list given here:

Compilation of the TC Top Recommended Lists

In some cases the ranks line up exactly; in many others they are not far apart. It looks like someone has merely taken the TC solo piano list and given it back to us in a somewhat disguised form. I wonder who might want to do that? I thought it looked odd right at the beginning of this thread that no references were given as to the source of the list, and when I looked at it more closely I though that I had seen it recently.

Here's the full 200 list as compiled by member "Air" several years ago.

*The TC Top 200 Recommended Solo Keyboard Works*
Facilitated by Air

1. Bach - The Well-Tempered Clavier, BWV 846-893
2. Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 29, Op. 106 "Hammerklavier"
3. Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 32, Op. 111
4. Chopin - 24 Preludes, Op. 28
5. Bach - Goldberg Variations, BWV 988
6. Schubert - Piano Sonata No. 21, D. 960
7. Ravel - Gaspard de la Nuit
8. Chopin - Ballade No. 4, Op. 52
9. Schumann - Fantasie in C major, Op. 17
10. Mussorgsky - Pictures at an Exhibition
11. Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 23, Op. 57 "Appassionata"
12. Debussy - Préludes, Books 1 & 2
13. Bach - Partitas, BWV 825-830
14. Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 30, Op. 109
15. Chopin - Études, Op. 10
16. Liszt - Piano Sonata, S. 178
17. Shostakovich - 24 Preludes and Fugues, Op. 87
18. Schubert - Four Impromptus, D. 899
19. Chopin - Études, Op. 25
20. Schumann - Davidsbündlertänze, Op. 6
21. Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 21, Op. 53 "Waldstein"
22. Schumann - Kreisleriana, Op. 16
23. Schubert - Piano Sonata No. 20, D. 959
24. Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 31, Op. 110
25. Prokofiev - Piano Sonata No. 7, Op. 83 "Stalingrad"
26. Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 8, Op. 13 "Pathétique"
27. Ravel - Miroirs
28. Bach - English Suites, BWV 806-811
29. Beethoven - 33 Variations on a Waltz by Anton Diabelli, Op. 120
30. Ravel - Pavane pour une infante défunte
31. Albéniz - Iberia
32. Mozart - Piano Sonata No. 14, K. 457
33. Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 14, Op. 27/2 "Moonlight"
34. Schumann - Carnaval, Op. 9
35. Mendelssohn - Lieder ohne Worte
36. Schumann - Études Symphoniques, Op. 13
37. Prokofiev - Piano Sonata No. 6, Op. 82
38. Scriabin - Piano Sonata No. 5, Op. 53
39. Brahms - Variations on a Theme of Paganini, Op. 35
40. Debussy - Children's Corner, L. 113
41. Chopin - Ballade No. 1, Op. 23
42. Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 28, Op. 101
43. Chopin - Nocturnes, Op. 9
44. Bach - French Suites, BWV 812-817
45. Medtner - Sonata Romantica, Op. 53/1
46. Schumann - Kinderszenen, Op. 15
47. Brahms - Six Pieces for piano, Op. 118
48. Schubert - Wanderer Fantasy, D. 760
49. Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 26, Op. 81a "Les Adieux"
50. Scarlatti - Keyboard Sonata in E Major, K. 380 "Cortège"
51. Debussy - Images pour piano, Sets 1 & 2
52. Chopin - Nocturnes, Op. 27
53. Chopin - Piano Sonata No. 2, Op. 35
54. Ravel - Le Tombeau de Couperin
55. Haydn - Piano Sonata No. 62, Hob. XVI/52
56. Fauré - Nocturnes
57. Bach - Italian Concerto, BWV 971
58. Scarlatti - Keyboard Sonata in E minor, K. 402
59. Busoni - Fantasia Contrappuntistica, BV 256
60. Brahms - Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel, Op. 24
61. Grieg - Lyric Pieces
62. Schubert - Four Impromptus, D. 935
63. Bach - Toccata in C minor, BWV 911
64. Schumann - Grand Sonata No. 3, Op. 14 "Concerto Without Orchestra"
65. Ligeti - Études, Books 1-3
66. Satie - Gymnopédies
67. Chopin - Piano Sonata No. 3, Op. 58
68. Liszt - Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2, S.244/2
69. Liszt - Années de pèlerinage
70. Tveitt - 50 Folk Tunes from Hardanger, Op. 150
71. Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 27, Op. 90
72. Schubert - Six Moments Musicaux, D. 780
73. Schubert - Piano Sonata No. 19, D. 958
74. Bach - Overture in the French Style, BWV 831
75. Debussy - Suite Bergamesque, L. 75
76. Brahms - Four Pieces for piano, Op. 119
77. Messiaen - Vingt regards sur l'enfant-Jésus
78. Liszt - Études d'exécution transcendante, S. 139
79. Schoenberg - Drei Klavierstücke, Op. 11
80. Chopin - Barcarolle in F sharp major, Op. 60
81. Debussy - Estampes, L. 100
82. Mozart - Prelude and Fugue in C major, K. 394
83. Rachmaninoff - Ten Preludes, Op. 23
84. Prokofiev - Piano Sonata No. 8, Op. 84
85. Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 17, Op. 31/2 "The Tempest"
86. Ravel - Sonatine
87. Schumann - Papillons, Op. 2
88. Alkan - Douze études dans tous les tons mineurs, Op. 39
89. Ravel - Jeux d'eau
90. Rameau - Pièces de Clavecin
91. Bach - Inventions and Sinfonias, BWV 772-801
92. Bach - Chromatic Fantasia and Fugue, BWV 903
93. Ives - Piano Sonata No. 2, Op. 19 "Concord, Mass., 1840-60"
94. Berg - Piano Sonata, Op. 1
95. Brahms - Seven Fantasias, Op. 116
96. Mozart - Piano Sonata No. 11, K. 331
97. Schumann - Grand Sonata No. 1, Op. 11
98. Medtner - Sonata Reminiscenza, Op. 38/1
99. Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 15, Op. 28 "Pastorale"
100. Janáček - On an Overgrown Path, JW 8/17
101. Chopin - Polonaises, Op. 40
102. Scriabin - Piano Sonata No. 10, Op. 70
103. Schubert - Piano Sonata No. 18, D. 894
104. Chopin - Mazurkas, Op. 56
105. Chopin - Ballade No. 3, Op. 47
106. Scarlatti - Keyboard Sonata in F minor, K. 466
107. Beethoven - 32 Variations on an Original Theme in C minor, WoO 80
108. Granados - Goyescas, Op. 11
109. Hummel - Piano Sonata No. 5, Op. 81
110. Dutilleux - Piano Sonata, Op. 1
111. Rachmaninoff - Etudes-Tableaux, Op. 33
112. Brahms - Three Intermezzi, Op. 117
113. Medtner - Skazki
114. Schubert - Drei Klavierstücke, D. 946
115. Brahms - Piano Sonata No. 3, Op. 5
116. Chopin - Fantaisie-Impromptu, Op. posth. 66
117. Schumann - Fantasiestücke, Op. 12
118. Brahms - Two Rhapsodies, Op. 79
119. Liszt - Harmonies poétiques et religieuses, S.173
120. Beethoven - Bagatelles, Op. 126
121. Scriabin - Vers la flamme, Op. 72
122. Bach - Toccata in E minor, BWV 914
123. Chopin - Polonaise in A flat major, Op. 53 "Heroic"
124. Haydn - Piano Sonata No. 60, Hob. XVI/50
125. Schumann - Piano Sonata No. 2, Op. 22
126. Handel - Harpsichord Suite No. 5, HWV 430 "The Harmonious Blacksmith"
127. Chopin - Andante spianato et grande polonaise brillante, Op. 22
128. Alkan - Grande Sonate "Les quatre âges", Op. 33
129. Weber - Aufforderung zum Tanz, Op. 65
130. Rodrigo - Cuatro Piezas para piano
131. Debussy - Rêverie, L. 68
132. Chopin - Scherzo No. 2, Op. 31
133. Mendelssohn - Variations sérieuses, Op. 54
134. Mozart - Fantasia in D minor, K. 397
135. Rachmaninoff - Études-tableaux, Op. 39
136. Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 24, Op. 78 "À Thérèse"
137. Rachmaninoff - Morceaux de Fantaisie, Op. 3
138. Rachmaninoff - Thirteen Preludes, Op. 32
139. Grieg - Ballade in the Form of Variations on a Norwegian Folk Song, Op. 24
140. Sorabji - Opus clavicembalisticum
141. Schumann - Waldszenen, Op. 82
142. Rachmaninoff - Piano Sonata No. 2, Op. 36
143. Schubert - Piano Sonata No. 13, D. 664
144. Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 18, Op. 31/3
145. Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 13, Op. 27/1 "Quasi una fantasia"
146. Beethoven - Eroica Variations, Op. 35
147. Tchaikovsky - Les Saisons, Op. 37
148. Barber - Piano Sonata, Op. 26
149. Liebermann - Gargoyles, Op. 29
150. Liszt - Mephisto Waltz No. 1, S. 514
151. Bach - Toccata in F sharp minor, BWV 910
152. Scarlatti - Keyboard Sonata in D minor, K. 9 "Pastorale"
153. Mozart - Fantasia in C minor, K. 475
154. Villa-Lobos - Rudepoêma, W. 184
155. Schubert - Piano Sonata No. 6, D. 566
156. Mozart - Piano Sonata No. 8, K. 310
157. Haydn - Piano Sonata No. 59, Hob. XVI/49
158. Chopin - Fantaisie in F minor, Op. 49
159. Schumann - Album für die Jugend, Op. 68
160. Lutosławski - Piano Sonata
161. Haydn - Andante with variations in F minor, Hob. XVII/6
162. Dvořák - Humoresques, Op. 101
163. Chopin - Nocturnes, Op. 48
164. Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 12, Op. 26
165. Bartók - Romanian Folk Dances, Sz. 56
166. Brahms - Piano Sonata No. 1, Op. 1
167. Cage - Sonatas and Interludes for prepared piano
168. Albéniz - Suite española, Op. 47
169. Haydn - Piano Sonata No. 33, Hob. XVI/20
170. Boulez - Piano Sonata No. 2
171. Chopin - Scherzo No. 3, Op. 39
172. Bach - Fantasia and Fugue in A minor, BWV 944
173. Franck - Prelude, Chorale, and Fugue
174. Dukas - Piano Sonata
175. Chopin - Ballade No. 2, Op. 38
176. Medtner - Piano Sonata in G minor, Op. 22
177. Schumann - Humoreske, Op. 20
178. Beethoven - Six variations on a theme in F major, Op. 34
179. Ginastera - Danzas Argentinas, Op. 2
180. Satie - Sports et Divertissements
181. Debussy - Deux Arabesques, L. 66
182. Schubert - Piano Sonata No. 14, D. 784
183. Bach - Toccata in D minor, BWV 913
184. Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 7, Op. 10/3
185. Liszt - Liebesträume, S. 541
186. Chopin - Berceuse, Op. 57
187. Mozart - Rondo in A minor, K. 511
188. Frescobaldi - Il secondo libro di toccate
189. Clementi - Piano Sonata in B minor, Op. 40/2
190. Liszt - Réminiscences de Don Juan, S. 418
191. Rachmaninoff - Variations on a Theme of Chopin, Op. 22
192. Brahms - Eight Pieces for piano, Op. 76
193. Schumann - Novelletten, Op. 21
194. Scarlatti - Keyboard Sonata in G Major, K. 455
195. Bach - Toccata in G Major, BWV 916
196. Schubert - Piano Sonata No. 16, D. 845
197. Prokofiev - Visions Fugitives, Op. 22
198. Byrd - My Ladye Nevells Booke
199. Medtner - Theme and Variations, Op. 55
200. Liszt - Trois études de concert, S. 144


----------



## Guest

Allerius said:


> I did some maths with the list you provided. In a process more or less similar to the standart deviation, I subtracted each position of a composer's work from 101, summed all portions associated to a composer and took the square root from the total, this for each composer in the list. Ex.:
> Liszt: sqrt[(101-16)²+(101-69)²+(101-78)²] ~ 94.


Agreed that the ranks you have produced for the composers reflect the order of the works, given your weighting system of 101, 100 ... down to 1 for the highest to the lowest rated work.

But I don't think that carrying the squaring process you've carried out would change the ranks compared with simply taking the sum of (101-16) + (101-69) etc, using your example for Liszt.

The size of the gaps in between the ranks would change according to whether or not the squaring process is carried out, but not the order. Since the weights of 101, 100, 99 .... you have chosen are arbitrary, there is no reason to prefer the squaring method over the simpler one. If we knew what the "correct" weights are to apply (which we don't and never will) then the simpler approach would probably be the better.


----------



## Xisten267

Partita said:


> Agreed that the ranks you have produced for the composers reflect the order of the works, given your weighting system of 101, 100 ... down to 1 for the highest to the lowest rated work.
> 
> But I don't think that carrying the squaring process you've carried out would change the ranks compared with simply taking the sum of (101-16) + (101-69) etc, using your example for Liszt.
> 
> The size of the gaps in between the ranks would change according to whether or not the squaring process is carried out, but not the order. Since the weights of 101, 100, 99 .... you have chosen are arbitrary, there is no reason to prefer the squaring method over the simpler one. If we knew what the "correct" weights are to apply (which we don't and never will) then the simpler approach would probably be the better.


The weighting system starts at 100 and ends at 1. Perhaps you're right, but I favoured the squaring method because it reduces the mathematical differences between the composers in the list. Using the method you suggested would make Beethoven have about two times the score of J.S. Bach for example, what just doesn't sound right to me.


----------



## Xisten267

Partita said:


> Do you mind telling us where you found this list?
> 
> I'd especially like to know whether it was the result of a poll of some kind and which forum, or whether it's a list based on one person's opinion and if so who is that person.


It's possible to argue against any given list of top or greatest something, but one thing I liked about the list Beebert provided compared to the TC list is that it is very reasonable in it's placements of Beethoven's late sonatas in my opinion. Piano sonata No. 31, Op. 110 for example, an underrated masterpiece in my perspective and perhaps my favorite piano sonata of all at the moment, was given a considerable high score in his list, although it does not fare so well at TC's.


----------



## Guest

Allerius said:


> The weighting system starts at 100 and ends at 1. Perhaps you're right, but I favoured the squaring method because it reduces the mathematical differences between the composers in the list. Using the method you suggested would make Beethoven have about two times the score of J.S. Bach for example, what just doesn't sound right to me.


I said that your squaring procedure doesn't change the order of composers, compared with a more simple method. The gaps in between the ranks will be different, but these gaps have no significance since the original set of weights is arbitrary.

To illustrate, take the top two composers in your table: Beethoven and Chopin. You obtain 267 and 252 points respectively. What I'm saying is that these numbers depend on the choice of weighting system. You took 100 down to 1 in even steps. This is arbitrary. E.g. You could have taken instead geometrically declining weights, rather than arithmetically declining weights. Since these weights are arbitrary, it means that the final numbers you derive are also arbitrary, except that the order will stay the same.


----------



## Guest

Allerius said:


> It's possible to argue against any given list of top or greatest something, but one thing I liked about the list Beebert provided compared to the TC list is that it is very reasonable in it's placements of Beethoven's late sonatas in my opinion. Piano sonata No. 31, Op. 110 for example, an underrated masterpiece in my perspective and perhaps my favorite piano sonata of all at the moment, was given a considerable high score in his list, although it does not fare so well at TC's.


You may have missed my main point.

Obviously the two lists are not exactly the same but I think there is sufficient similarity between the two lists that the one posted by the OP is simply a re-tinkering of the one that's been sitting here at T-C for many years.

Several works are in exactly the same position, and I would guess that it's far too coincidental for that to have happened by chance.

It's possible that the T-C list has been used on another website, in a slightly modified form, but I don't know. As I said, it looks odd to me that the list in post #! has no source identified. I have asked for this. I don't know who did the tinkering. I'll leave that for you to speculate upon.


----------



## Xisten267

Partita said:


> I said that your squaring procedure doesn't change the order of composers, compared with a more simple method. The gaps in between the ranks will be different, but these gaps have no significance since the original set of weights is arbitrary. It's simple maths.


Proportions are important to me, and the gaps in between the ranks have significance in my perspective if, like I said, a result such as J.S. Bach having half the score of Beethoven happens. Also, the procedure of summing squares and then taking a square root of the result is not so complex at all, and is widely used in many areas of science, for example for the evaluating of standard deviations.



Partita said:


> You may have missed my main point.
> 
> Obviously the two lists are not exactly the same but I think there is sufficient similarity between the two lists that the one posted by the OP is simply a re-tinkering of the one that's been sitting here at T-C for many years.
> 
> Several works are in exactly the same position, and I would guess that it's far too coincidental for that to have happened by chance.
> 
> It's possible that the T-C list has been used on another website, in a slightly modified form, but I don't know. As I said, it looks odd to me that the list in post #! has no source identified. I have asked for this. I don't know who did the tinkering. I'll leave that for you to speculate upon.


And my point is that both the TC and Beebert's lists are only references for exploration of musical works, not decisive and definitive guides, and therefore it doesn't really matter to me if one is derivative of the other or not. Of course, the fact that the TC lists involved the participations of many members that seem to be experienced listeners gives some credit to it, but I maintain my point nevertheless, because I understand that the listening process is mostly individual and subjective (although not necessarily completely relative). I won't be speculating upon who created the list at all because this is not important to me; the connection of it's content with my personal truths is.


----------



## Guest

Allerius said:


> *Proportions are important to me*, and the gaps in between the ranks have *significance* in my perspective if, like I said, a result such as J.S. Bach having half the score of Beethoven happens. Also, the procedure of summing squares and then taking a square root of the result is not so complex at all, and is widely used in many areas of science, for example for the evaluating of standard deviations.


Posts have crossed. I added another paragraph which you evidently haven't seen. It deals with your point, as I guessed you are interested in the proportional difference between composers. The proportions you have obtained are dependent on your initial weighting system. Change the weighting system and you'll get different proportions between the composers. Your ranks will stay the same, but it's possible to derive a different set of proportional differences by varying the decline rate of the listings.

If you try it out with geometrically declining weights, you'll see the proportions change. [By geometric, I mean the weights decline by a constant percentage, e.g. 1% at each step]. There is simply no "right" set of weights. You could take more or less anything that declines, Another possibility would be to take equal weights for each of the first 10, then a drop for the next 10, and so on. The drop size each time could be big or small. As you can see all of it is is totally arbitrary, but whatever you choose will affect your resuits. They may have significance for you but they have no wider objectivity unless other people share your preferred weighting system, which is most unlikely.



> And my point is that both the TC and Beebert's lists are only references for exploration of musical works, not decisive and definitive guides, and therefore it doesn't really matter to me if one is derivative of the other or not. Of course, the fact that the TC lists involved the participations of many members that seem to be experienced listeners gives some credit to it, but I maintain my point nevertheless, because I understand that the listening process is mostly individual and subjective (although not necessarily completely relative). I won't be speculating upon who created the list at all because this is not important to me; the connection of it's content with my personal truths is.


Certainly, I'm not suggesting for one moment that one list is better than another. I happen not to like either set of results. I've seen so many "lists" produced at T-C that I'm sick to death of them all. They're all highly dubious in my opinion. That's not the point as it's not what I'm talking about. It's just that it would have been courteous for the OP to have acknowledged the source of the list provided in post #1. He could found it on the back seat of a bus for all we know. If it was derived from an existing T-C list to which he or someone else has made some modifications, all the more so, in order that people here know the relevant background. Some of them may have actually contributed to the formation of the old T-C list.


----------



## Xisten267

Partita said:


> Posts have crossed. I added another paragraph which you evidently haven't seen. It deals with your point, as I guessed you are interested in the proportional difference between composers. The proportions you have obtained are dependent on your initial weighting system. Change the weighting system and you'll get different proportions between the composers. Your ranks will stay the same, but it's possible to derive a different set of proportional differences by varying the decline rate of the listings.
> 
> If you try it out with geometrically declining weights, you'll see the proportions change. [By geometric, I mean the weights decline by a constant percentage, e.g. 1% at each step]. There is simply no "right" set of weights. You could take more or less anything that declines, Another possibility would be to take equal weights for each of the first 10, then a drop for the next 10, and so on. The drop size each time could be big or small. As you can see all of it is is totally arbitrary, but whatever you choose will affect your resuits. They may have significance for you but they have no wider objectivity unless other people share your preferred weighting system, which is most unlikely.


And another choice would have been any better? My goal was to employ a system that was practical, easy to use, but that at the same time didn't give me results that were too diverse, giving more than a certain amount of relative score to any given composer. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I still think that it was a reasonable choice, out of many (infinite, actually) possible.



Partita said:


> Certainly, I'm not suggesting for one moment that one list is better than another. I happen not to like either set of results. I've seen so many "lists" produced at T-C that I'm sick to death of them all. They're all highly dubious in my opinion. That's not the point as it's not what I'm talking about. It's just that it would have been courteous for the OP to have acknowledged the source of the list provided in post #1. He could found it on the back seat of a bus for all we know. If it was derived from an existing T-C list to which he or someone else has made some modifications, all the more so, in order that people here know the relevant background. Some of them may have actually contributed to the formation of the old T-C list.


So you want so badly to know who created this list because you ought to give this person (or these people) proper credit? Ok then...


----------



## Schoenberg

One obvious work that should be on this list, even perhaps as contending one of the top 10 spots is the Liszt transcription of Beethoven's symphonies.


----------



## Guest

Allerius said:


> And another choice would have been any better? My goal was to employ a system that was practical, easy to use, but that at the same time didn't give me results that were too diverse, giving more than a certain amount of relative score to any given composer. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I still think that it was a reasonable choice, out of many (infinite, actually) possible.


I'm not arguing about your choice of weights. That's up to you. My only point was that whatever weights are selected will affect the proportional differences between composers. That's all that I said in the first instance, but you didn't appear to understand it. As you have now admitted, there is theoretically an infinite number of different weighting systems that could be used. Therefore your results won't necessarily have any general validity since they are based only one one set of weights that you happen to have selected totally arbitrarily.

You say that you think your weights are a "reasonable choice". I doubt it. It's up to you if you think that a typical listener will like, say, the 50th ranked work at 50% of the rate at which he likes the No 1 work, and the 100th work at 1% of the rate. It seems to me that such a weighting system is nothing like a sufficiently good indicator of a typical person's preference schedule. I don't know for sure and I don't assert it to be very likely but my guess is that a typical person's preferences would not decline in a straight line fashion in the way you assumed, but would have several kinks in it.


----------



## Xisten267

Partita said:


> I'm not arguing about your choice of weights. That's up to you. My only point was that whatever weights are selected will affect the proportional differences between composers. That's all that I said in the first instance, but you didn't appear to understand it. As you have now admitted, there is theoretically an infinite number of different weighting systems that could be used. Therefore your results won't necessarily have any general validity since they are based only one one set of weights that you happen to have selected totally arbitrarily. You say that you think your weights are a "reasonable choice". I doubt it. It's up to you if you think that a typical listener will like, say, the 50th ranked work at 50% of the rate at which he likes the No 1 work, and the 100th work at 1% of the rate. It seems to me that such a weighting system is nothing like a sufficiently good indicator of a typical person's preference schedule. I don't know for sure and I don't assert it to be very likely but my guess is that a typical person's preferences would not decline in a straight line fashion in the way you assumed, but would have several kinks in it.


But who is claiming that my results have any "general validity", as you put it? I did a ranking with a certain weighting system that in my opinion _is_ good because it suited my needs: it's easy, fast to use but without much numerical discrepancy between composers. The goal was to give a general, illustrative idea of how well each composer fared on Beebert's list, and the proportions here are important not because they have a general meaning, but because they can or cannot be easy to visualize. I admit that I didn't want that any given composer held a much highter relative score than the others, but this is just a personal preference. Perhaps a percentage could have been even better, but it would have taken more time to make something that is not and that I do not claim to be professional. I know that there were infinite ways of creating a weighting system for it and that the numerical results would change based on my choice.

I realize now that the reason for all this discussion may be that you're thinking that, by doing such a ranking, I'm somehow claiming that certain composers are better than others because they received better scores and, more, that these scores are an absolute way of evaluating them. I'm not.


----------



## Guest

Allerius said:


> I realize now that the reason for all this discussion may be that you're thinking that, by doing such a ranking, I'm somehow claiming that certain composers are better than others because they received better scores and, more, that these scores are an absolute way of evaluating them. I'm not.


No, my main reason for entering this discussion was to query the source of the list given in post #1. I haven't yet seen an answer to that request.

I'm 99% confident that the list is a derivative of the T-C list that I posted at #10. That list was produced many years ago as the first of a number covering all the main genres.

I say this because it is far too circumstantial that 20 of the items in the top 100 match each other exactly in respect of ranks. Some 19 others are within three spaces of each other, and most of the rest are not that far apart. The odds of this occurring from two genuinely independent lists are extremely small.

Does it matter? I guess superficially it doesn't matter on the premise that the list at post #1 is just another list that might be worth looking at. The problem as I see it is the T-C list was produced on the basis of - I guess, as I wasn't involved - quite a large sample of members whose opinions were taken into account in some kind of voting system. In other words, there is some credibility associated with those results because they are based a sample of members.

Against that, the list given in post #1 could well be the result of one person's attempt at re-jigging the T-C results purely in a manner that suits their own preferences. I don't know this to be true, and that is why asked for the source of the lst. In the absence of any answer, my guess is that the list is based solely on a sample of 1. If people wish to comment on that list given its uncertain status, it's up to them.

My other interest was your methodology. I would just like to say further that I am sceptical about your weighting system which declines in a straight line manner. I accept fully that there is no ideal set of weights, but I would have thought that a percentage decline might be better. In fact, if you use a percentage decline procedure and simply add the results without any "squaring" (which seems to be an unnecessarily complex step) you'll find that Chopin just pips Beethoven for the top spot, based on a 1% decline rate, which I accept is totally arbitrary. Note,that for this I was using the list in post #1, which includes 7 extra Chopin works compared with the T-C list. It look like the OP is a Chopin fan!


----------



## Beebert

I am sorry if my OP was unclear. I meant that I founded a list, as in created one! It was partly as a reaction to TC's list, yes. Many works there are rated far too low, and some too high. Of course, both the moonlight sonata and Pathetique for example are overrated works, Beethoven has written many more profound sonatas. I would say they are still overrated in my list too. Chopin 's Barcarolle was given an almost unforgivable rating here at TC's original list. I think it was placed Number 81! It is certainly one of Chopin's most profound works, and there is a good reason Why so many great artists have thought so. Garrick Olsen chose this piece as THE piece he would choose above all others if he could only hear one more piece in his entire life. And Nietzsche the philosopher praised it as the most supreme creation of music possible. As a pianist, who has played a lot of Chopin and other masters, I can say that I understand what he means. Btw, Chopin's third sonata is also underrated here, and everyone who understand piano music know that it is superior to his second sonata. 
Now, I also found that a work like Schubert's D 845 in a minor is extremely underrated, not only here but EVERYWHERE. This work surely is an equal to the late sonatas of Schubert. The only reason prefer the later ones would be preference. But as a work of art and structurally, it indeed is just as good. It is a highly inspired masterpiece, and it was rated 196! That is far too low and the only reason for its low rating must be that it isnt as well known, performed and popular as some of Schubert's(this exceptional genius and force of nature) other works. I prefer it to his impromptus, but I still gave it a slightly lower rating, because this far it hasnt yet received the recognition it deserves. I am sure that day will come though.


----------



## Xisten267

Partita said:


> Does it matter? I guess superficially it doesn't matter on the premise that the list at post #1 is just another list that might be worth looking at. The problem as I see it is the T-C list was produced on the basis of - I guess, as I wasn't involved - quite a large sample of members whose opinions were taken into account in some kind of voting system. *In other words, there is some credibility associated with those results because they are based a sample of members.*





Partita said:


> *Certainly, I'm not suggesting for one moment that one list is better than another.* I happen not to like either set of results. I've seen so many "lists" produced at T-C that I'm sick to death of them all. They're all highly dubious in my opinion. That's not the point as it's not what I'm talking about. It's just that it would have been courteous for the OP to have acknowledged the source of the list provided in post #1. He could found it on the back seat of a bus for all we know. If it was derived from an existing T-C list to which he or someone else has made some modifications, all the more so, in order that people here know the relevant background. Some of them may have actually contributed to the formation of the old T-C list.


So, you suggest now that one list may have "more credibility" than the other, thus being better, but when I stated that "the fact that the TC lists involved the participations of many members that seem to be experienced listeners gives some credit to it" in post #16 your answer was that you're not suggesting that one list is better than another. A contradiction. Funny, huh? 



Partita said:


> My other interest was your methodology. I would just like to say further that I am sceptical about your weighting system which declines in a straight line manner. I accept fully that there is no ideal set of weights, but I would have thought that a percentage decline might be better. In fact, if you use a percentage decline procedure and simply add the results without any "squaring" (which seems to be an unnecessarily complex step) you'll find that Chopin just pips Beethoven for the top spot, based on a 1% decline rate, which I accept is totally arbitrary. Note,that for this I was using the list in post #1, which includes 7 extra Chopin works compared with the T-C list. It look like the OP is a Chopin fan!


I already answered why I didn't use the weighting system you seem to favour nor a percentual approach, and if you didn't understand that, I suggest you to read again post #21. The conclusion that the OP have Chopin in high esteem can be obtained through the system I used too, by the way, so it's not suprising at all.


----------



## Guest

Beebert said:


> I am sorry if my OP was unclear. I meant that I founded a list, as in created one! It was partly as a reaction to TC's list, yes. Many works there are rated far too low, and some too high. Of course, both the moonlight sonata and Pathetique for example are overrated works, Beethoven has written many more profound sonatas. I would say they are still overrated in my list too. Chopin 's Barcarolle was given an almost unforgivable rating here at TC's original list. I think it was placed Number 81! It is certainly one of Chopin's most profound works, and there is a good reason Why so many great artists have thought so. Garrick Olsen chose this piece as THE piece he would choose above all others if he could only hear one more piece in his entire life. And Nietzsche the philosopher praised it as the most supreme creation of music possible. As a pianist, who has played a lot of Chopin and other masters, I can say that I understand what he means. Btw, Chopin's third sonata is also underrated here, and everyone who understand piano music know that it is superior to his second sonata.
> Now, I also found that a work like Schubert's D 845 in a minor is extremely underrated, not only here but EVERYWHERE. This work surely is an equal to the late sonatas of Schubert. The only reason prefer the later ones would be preference. But as a work of art and structurally, it indeed is just as good. It is a highly inspired masterpiece, and it was rated 196! That is far too low and the only reason for its low rating must be that it isnt as well known, performed and popular as some of Schubert's(this exceptional genius and force of nature) other works. I prefer it to his impromptus, but I still gave it a slightly lower rating, because this far it hasnt yet received the recognition it deserves. I am sure that day will come though.


Thanks for explaining the situation.

I trust you realise that the T-C list you started with was the result of many members' votes. It wasn't just produced out of thin air.

There is an infinite number of different combinations of works that could be derived from the T-C 200 list. That list does at least reflect a consensus of opinion at the time it was put together. Whether it would still result today, or something close to it, I'm not sure but would guess it isn't a bad list.

I see you have mentioned Schubert's D 845. Other very good ones are D 784 and D 840.

My personal preferences would have several more Schubert and Schumann works. Overall, I reckon that my composer rankings would be Schubert first, and then Beethoven and Schumann in roughly equal second. I'm afraid that I would have fewer by Chopin.


----------



## Beebert

Allerius said:


> So, you say now that one list may have "more credibility" than other, thus being better, but when I stated that "the fact that the TC lists involved the participations of many members that seem to be experienced listeners gives some credit to it" in post #16 your answer was that you're not suggesting that one list is better than another. A contradiction. Funny, huh?
> 
> I already answered why I didn't use the weighting system you seem to favour nor a percentual approach, and if you didn't understand that, I suggest you to read again post #21. The conclusion that the OP have Chopin in high esteem can be obtained through the system I used too, by the way, so it's not suprising at all.


Even if I do have Chopin in high esteem, I do not hold him as high as your system showed. I definitively hold Schubert higher than Chopin. Most probably Schumann too.


----------



## Beebert

Partita said:


> Thanks for explaining the situation.
> 
> I trust you realise that the T-C list you started with was the result of many members' votes. It wasn't just produced out of thin air.
> 
> There is an infinite number of different combinations of works that could be derived from the T-C 200 list. That list does at least reflect a consensus of opinion at the time it was put together. Whether it would still result today, or something close to it, I'm not sure but would guess it isn't a bad list.
> 
> I see you have mentioned Schubert's D 845. Other very good ones are D 784 and D 840.
> 
> My personal preferences would have several more Schubert and Schumann works. Overall, I reckon that my composer rankings would be Schubert first, and then Beethoven and Schumann in roughly equal second. I'm afraid that I would have fewer by Chopin.


Well, I agree with you and I too put Schubert highest. If I did a list just with my heart and based on my own ears completely, it would have looked different. I hold Schubert, Schumann and Beethoven higher than Chopin. If piano concertos were included, I would have hold Mozart higher too.


----------



## Beebert

Some of the old list rankings are literally bad though, like the examples I mentioned. I too love D 784 and 840. But I hold D 845 higher, and I am sure Schubert himself did the same, since he entitled it "Premiere grande sonata" even though it was written after D 784, and it is probably also why he chose to focus on and finish this one instead of D 840, a piece which in texture and motives has some similarities with D 845.


----------



## Beebert

I btw too love Schubert the most and I hold his music the highest. Thereafter Mozart(if piano concertos are included), Schumann and Beethoven. If I would have done a list with my heart and solely based on my own ears, it would have looked different.


----------



## Art Rock

Beebert said:


> Some of the old list rankings are literally bad though, like the examples I mentioned.


"Literally bad" meaning exactly what?


----------



## Xisten267

Beebert said:


> Even if I do have Chopin in high esteem, I do not hold him as high as your system showed. I definitively hold Schubert higher than Chopin. Most probably Schumann too.


Then both the methods that I used and member _Partita_ suggested do not have a good accuracy.


----------



## Guest

Allerius said:


> So, *you suggest now that one list may have "more credibility" than the other, thus being bette*r, but when I stated that "the fact that the TC lists involved the participations of many members that seem to be experienced listeners gives some credit to it" in post #16 your answer was that you're not suggesting that one list is better than another. A contradiction. Funny, huh?


Now you're just plain making up silly stories.

Can you show where you reckon I suggested what you ascribe to me above: _'one list may have "more credibility" than the other, thus being better'

_That is utterly false. The comment I made was much more guarded, and is certainly nothing like consistent with what you have stated.

I said that there is some credibility associated with the T-C results because they are based a sample of members, not just the opinion of one person. This is a simple fact based on elementary statistics. Note that I said "some credibility". I didn't say anything about the T-C results being "better", as you allege. You have made that up to suit your feeble argument.

Come on, let's see what you have to say about this.

You are obviously clutching at straws if you feel the need to resort to a shabby trick like this.


----------



## Guest

Allerius said:


> I already answered why I didn't use the weighting system you seem to favour nor a percentual approach, and if you didn't understand that, I suggest you to read again post #21. The conclusion that the OP have Chopin in high esteem can be obtained through the system I used too, by the way, so it's not suprising at all.


I deal with this second part of your last reply to me, concerning weighting method, separately.

My point in discussing this initially was to show that the results can be highly sensitive to the weighting system used. This is fairly obvious actually.

I thought you had accepted that your weighting method might have been better if you had adopted weights that decline by a given percentage, rather than by a single constant number. You didn't do so because I understood that you found it a more complicated procedure.

I have done it for you. It is very easy. It shows that Chopin comes out ahead of Beethoven, the reverse of what you had come up with. I guess you may have found this to be somewhat awkward.

My other point was that your "squaring" procedure is bizarre. I have never come across anything similar in other poll assessments. It looks to me as if you may have done it to bolster Beethoven's apparent "lead" over other composers.

I'm not expressing any opinion about what is the best set of weights, just pointing out the consequences if you switch from arithmetically declining to geometrically declining weights, in terms of the No 1 and No 2 ranks.


----------



## Xisten267

Partita said:


> Now you're just plain making up silly stories.
> 
> Can you show where you reckon I suggested what you ascribe to me above: _'one list may have "more credibility" than the other, thus being better'
> 
> _That is utterly false. The comment I made was much more guarded, and is certainly nothing like consistent with what you have stated.
> 
> I said that there is some credibility associated with the T-C results because they are based a sample of members, not just the opinion of one person. This is a simple fact based on elementary statistics. Note that I said "some credibility". I didn't say anything about the T-C results being "better", as you allege. You have made that up to suit your feeble argument.
> 
> Come on, let's see what you have to say about this.
> 
> You are obviously clutching at straws if you feel the need to resort to a shabby trick like this.


It's _obvious_ that it's _better_ to have _some credibility_ about any kind of results you have from a data collection than _none_. This is trivial. Whatever, you know that. You're just playing with words to continue this nonsensical discussion about a meaningless subject, and I can only wonder why.



Partita said:


> My point in discussing this initially was to show that the results can be highly sensitive to the weighting system used. This is fairly obvious actually.


Yes, it is, and I already have agreed with you on this.



Partita said:


> I thought you had accepted that your weighting method might have been better if you had adopted weights that decline by a given percentage, rather than by a single constant number. You didn't do so because I understood that you found it a more complicated procedure.


Exactly.



Partita said:


> I have done it for you. It is very easy. It shows that Chopin comes out ahead of Beethoven, the reverse of what you had come up with. I guess you may have found this to be somewhat awkward.


False. In the first moment, when I was testing the weighting system I would use, I did only the scores for Beethoven and Bach, and when I realized that the latter had half the score of the former in the system you propose (the first I tested) I decided to dismiss it.



Partita said:


> My other point was that your "squaring" procedure is bizarre. I have never come across anything similar in other poll assessments.


No, it's not. It's a method like any other. As I have already told you twice before, it's somewhat (not completely) similar to the standard deviation formula.



Partita said:


> It looks to me as if you may have done it to bolster Beethoven's apparent "lead" over other composers.


Wrong shot. I didn't.



Partita said:


> I'm not expressing any opinion about what is the best set of weights, just pointing out the consequences if you switch from arithmetically declining to geometrically declining weights, in terms of the No 1 and No 2 ranks.


Great! But why spend so much time and effort doing so if I've already expressed that I know such consequences?


----------



## Bulldog

The one obvious conclusion of this thread is that a list made from the personal preferences of many people has more validity than a list based on the preferences of one person. Of course, it's best to take these lists lightly and not give them serious weight.


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> The one obvious conclusion of this thread is that a list made from the personal preferences of many people has more validity than a list based on the preferences of one person. Of course, it's best to take these lists lightly and not give them serious weight.


i fully agree with that.


----------



## Guest

Allerius said:


> It's _obvious_ that it's _better_ to have _some credibility_ about any kind of results you have from a data collection than _none_. This is trivial. Whatever, you know that. You're just playing with words to continue this nonsensical discussion about a meaningless subject, and I can only wonder *why*.


Why?

That's obvious. I don't like being very badly mis-quoted, as you have done in your post #24.

I asked you to justify your assertion that I suggested _"one list may have "more credibility" than the other, thus being better'_.

I never said or implied anything of the sort. You have twisted what I actually said out of all recognition.

Your answer above is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Xisten267

Partita said:


> Why?
> 
> That's obvious. I don't like being very badly mis-quoted, as you have done in your post #24.
> 
> I asked you to justify your assertion that I suggested _"one list may have "more credibility" than the other, thus being better'_.
> 
> I never said or implied anything of the sort. You have twisted what I actually said out of all recognition.
> 
> Your answer above is completely irrelevant.


Isn't all this discussion irrelevant?

...

Please, make a better ranking if you can. See, I would have not published any results had I known they would be followed by this tiresome, pointless discussion.


----------



## PlaySalieri

The second list looks better.

I am glad to see Mozart k457 ranked as his best sonata - though baffled why K394 and K397 are both ranked and the incomparably superior c minor fantasy is not (k475).

It seems odd too that Mozart would probably be ranked no 1 on piano concertos and is way down on solo piano.


----------



## tdc

Lately the Mozart piano pieces I've been enjoying most are k331, k333, k545 and piano concertos k271 and k595.


----------



## ECraigR

Weird list for a top 100. The 20th century composers are noticeably absent, besides token representations at the end. It’s more like a list of grewt works between Bach, Chopin, and Beethoven.


----------



## Guest

Here is the thread that generated the list of top 200 solo piano works I gave in post #10.

https://www.talkclassical.com/14616-tc-top-200-recommended.html?highlight=

It was started by "Air" in August 2011 and took several months to complete all the voting. 

On a quick look through, it involved a series of voting rounds taking 10 works at a time, 1-10, 11-20 etc up to 200. For each set there was a "nomination" round followed by a "voting round".

The members who participated at each stage probably varied as the thread progressed. All participants were self-selecting. The degree of familiarity with the works being voted upon was likely to have been variable among the participants.

It would seem that any attempt to update this poll with a fresh vote would involve much work.


----------



## Art Rock

^ it is also clearly stated that this is a keyboard list, including harpsichord works. To simply take this as a piano works list is therefore incorrect.


----------



## Guest

^ That's correct. Both the list of 100 in post #1 and the original list of 200 include "keyboard" works, excluding organ. 

I suppose it was decided to include all keyboard works in order to avoid disputes over whether any particular work could be played on piano or on other types of keyboard, or both.


----------



## Coed Bach

*Glaring omissions*



Beebert said:


> So, I found this list with a ranking of the 100 "greatest" works for piano ever written. What do you guys think of it? Agree with it? These kind of rankings are always hard to agree with or even possible to make sense of since much of these things are always a subjective. Anyway, in general I think it is a nice list. Are there any pieces here that you guys personally think shouldn't be there / are there any works that you guys are missing? Any works ranked too high or too low etc?
> 
> 1. Bach - Goldberg Variations
> 2. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 111
> 3. Bach - The Well-Tempererad Clavier
> 4. Schubert - Piano Sonata D 960
> 5. Chopin - 24 Preludes
> 6. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 106 "Hammerklavier"
> 7. Chopin - Ballade 4 Op 52
> 8. Schumann - Fantasie in C major
> 9. Ravel - Gaspard de la Nuit
> 10. Beethoven - 33 Variations on a Waltz by Anton Diabelli Op 120
> 11. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 109
> 12. Debussy - Préludes Book 2
> 13. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 110
> 14. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 57 "Appassionata"
> 15. Chopin - Études Op 25
> 16. Liszt - Piano Sonata B minor
> 17. Schubert Piano Sonata D 959
> 18. Schumann - Davidsbündlertänze
> 19. Chopin - Études Op 10
> 20. Chopin - Barcarolle
> 21. Brahms - Op 118
> 22. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 53 "Waldstein"
> 23. Schumann - Kreisleriana
> 24. Schubert Piano Sonata D 894
> 25. Prokofiev - Piano Sonata 7 Op 83 "Stalingrad"
> 26. Debussy - Preludes Book 1
> 27. Ravel - Miroirs
> 28. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 101
> 29. Chopin Piano Sonata 3 Op 58
> 30. Shostakovich - 24 Preludes and Fugues
> 31. Chopin - Polonaise Fantaisie
> 32. Schubert - Four Impromptus D 899
> 33. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 27 No. 2 "Moonlight"
> 34. Chopin - Ballade 1 Op 23
> 35. Bach - Partita 2 BWV 826
> 36. Schumann - Études Symphoniques
> 37. Prokofiev - Piano Sonata 6 Op 82
> 38. Scriabin - Piano Sonata 5 Op 53
> 39. Rachmaninoff - Preludes Op 32
> 40. Mozart Piano Sonata K 310
> 41. Schumann - Carnaval
> 42. Schubert - Four Impromptus D 935
> 43. Chopin - Nocturnes Op 48
> 44. Bach - French Suite 5 BWV 816
> 45. Brahms - Op 119
> 46. Schumann - Kinderszenen
> 47. Schubert - Piano Sonata D 845
> 48. Schubert - Wanderer Fantasy D 760
> 49. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 81a "Les Adieux"
> 50. Brahms - Op 117
> 51. Debussy - Images pour piano bk 2
> 52. Chopin - Nocturnes Op 27
> 53. Chopin - Piano Sonata 2 Op 35
> 54. Haydn - Piano Sonata No. 62 Hob. XVI:52
> 55. Mussorgsky - Pictures at an Exhibition
> 56. Ravel - Le Tombeau de Couperin
> 57. Bach - Italian Concerto BWV 971
> 58. Debussy - Images pour piano bk 1
> 59. Schubert - Piano Sonata D 958
> 60. Brahms - Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel
> 61. Brahms - Op 116
> 62. Medtner - Sonata Romantica, Op. 53 No. 1
> 63. Bach - Partita 6 BWV 830
> 64. Chopin - Fantaisie in F minor
> 65. Ligeti - Études Books 1-3
> 66. Debussy - Etudes
> 67. Debussy - Estampes
> 68. Schubert - Six Moments Musicaux D 780
> 69. Liszt - Années de pèlerinage
> 70. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 90
> 71. Bach - Overture in the French Style BWV 831
> 72. Mozart - Piano Sonata K 333
> 73. Schumann - Waldszenen
> 74. Scriabin - Piano Sonata 9 Op 68
> 75. Chopin - Mazurkas Op 56
> 76. Scriabin Piano Sonata 2 Op 19
> 77. Messiaen - Vingt regards sur l'enfant-Jésus
> 78. Liszt - Études d'exécution transcendante
> 79. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 13 "Pathétique"
> 80. Webern - Variations for Piano
> 81. Rachmaninoff - Preludes Op. 23
> 82. Schubert - Drei Klavierstucke D 946
> 83. Prokofiev - Piano Sonata 8 Op 84
> 84. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 31 No. 2 "The Tempest"
> 85. Ravel - Sonatine
> 86. Schumann - Fantasiestücke Op 12
> 87. Schumann - Papillons
> 88. Berg - Piano Sonata Op 1
> 89. Ravel - Jeux d'eau
> 90. Beethoven Piano Sonata Op 28 "Pastorale"
> 91. Bach - Inventions and Sinfonias BWV 772-801
> 92. Albeniz - Iberia
> 93. Ives - Piano Sonata No. 2 "Concord, Mass., 1840-60"
> 94. Chopin - Polonaise Op 53 "Heroic"
> 95. Haydn - Piano Sonata 60 Hob. XVI:50
> 96. Mozart - Piano Sonata K. 331
> 97. Chopin - Nocturnes Op 62
> 98. Rachmaninoff - Études-tableaux Op 39
> 99. Chopin - Ballade 3 Op 47
> 100. Chopin Scherzo 4 Op 54
> 
> Scarlatti, Handel, Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, Kabalevsky, Poulenc, Grieg, Granados, Bartok, Smetana, Villa-Lobos, C P E Bach, Clementi, Faure, Saint-Saens, Couperin, Rameau.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I see nothing wrong with the list. Like all rankings of great music, it is bound, of course, to contain a subjective element. The only thing I would change in the top 20 is to swap the Liszt B minor for Schubert D960 (which I love but I always think is rated just a tad too highly). Of course there is lots of other great solo piano music, but I think the list nailed all the big hitters. However, I do take major issue with Ives’s “Concord”, Albeniz’s Iberia, and Messiaen’s Vingt Regards being ranked so far down the list. These are among the jewels of the entire piano literature and if they were more common concert staples I can’t help but think they would be higher.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I think it's best to take what the fervent Schubert enthusiasts here say with a grain of salt. Partita also claimed that Schubert's 6th mass is as masterful as Bach's B minor and Mozart's K.427, and also did various other things. He quitted TC a long time ago. And of course we know Beebert always creates threads and rankings to show Schubert's piano works are better than anyone else's.
Regarding Mozart, I think his piano concertos tend to get too much love (compared to Beethoven's, for example), while his keyboard works get too neglected. I don't see why K.394, K.397, K.475, K.511, K.533, K.540 should be neglected so much. From a historical perspective, K.511 is just as significant as any of Beethoven's, Schubert's, Chopin's. K.497 is not a solo piano work, (listen to the outer movements) but not any lesser in terms of scale compared to the later composers' piano sonatas.



hammeredklavier said:


> View attachment 148131
> 
> "Written between May and June 1785, Mozart C minor Fantasy KV 475 is a perfect illustration example of what Brahms had in mind when proclaiming Mozart as "a fellow modernist." ...
> ... Yes, the missing tonality was in fact C minor; "atonality" is of course not justified, but it was certainly hinted…Adorno's « hegemony of tonality» remains and Mozart's acquisitions anticipate those of Wagner, transforming musical language « only indirectly, by means of the amplification of the tonal space and not through its abolition»""
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> < The Aesthetic State: A Quest in Modern German Thought, by Josef Chytry, P. 291 >
> 
> Also look at the ways to reach climax (before falling with arpeggios to the reprise of the initial material) in both Wagner and Mozart (sonata K.533), with a 7th chord built on F.
> Wagner uses a half-diminished 7th. Mozart uses a dominant 7th.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ( 5:05 ~ 5:35 )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ( 7:00 ~ 7:30 )





hammeredklavier said:


> "There is something Tristanesque avant la lettre about the opening vertical sonority of the Adagio; and in fact, three of its four notes (E-sharp, B, G-sharp) are enharmonically identical to the so-called Tristan chord, even in their register. As in Tristan und Isolde, the dissonance of this initial descends here rather than rising, as in Wagner's opera. The composer of Tristan greatly admired Mozart, particularly his works in the minor, and regarded him as "der große Chromatiker"- a quality that undoubtedly inspired Wagner." (Mozart's Piano Music, By William Kinderman, Page 35)





hammeredklavier said:


> "When Vladimir Nápravník was the composer's guest at Maydanovo in February 1892 Tchaikovsky would often ask him in the evenings to sit at the piano and play on his own (instead of playing piano duets): "Pyotr Ilyich 'worshipped' Mozart and once, while listening to the Andante from his piano fantasia No. 4, he said that out of this work one could make a splendid vocal quartet". Tchaikovsky eventually realised this idea the following year, adapting that section of the Fantasie et sonate in C minor, KV 475, into a quartet for singers which he entitled Night, and for which he wrote the verses himself. Tchaikovsky attended the first performance of his quartet at the Moscow Conservatory on 9/21 October 1893. Also present on this occasion was his friend Nikolay Kashkin, who would write in his obituary of Tchaikovsky barely a month later: "There at the Conservatory he also said to me that the beauty of that melody by Mozart was a mystery for him, and that he himself could not explain the irresistible charm of the simple melody of that quartet."
> 
> "He often reminisced about his childhood impressions when Mozart was played at Wahnfried. He had discovered the C minor Fantasy at his Uncle Adolf's house and had dreamt about it for ages afterwards." < Wagner: A Biography, By Curt von Westernhagen, P. 82 >





hammeredklavier said:


> http://musicstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Popovic_JIMS_0932106.pdf#page=9


----------



## Coed Bach

Interesting that Faure's Nocturnes are nowhere to be seen in the Top 100, but No.56 in the Top 200.


----------



## lextune

Beebert said:


> So, I found this list with a ranking of the 100 "greatest" works for *piano *ever written. What do you guys think of it?
> 
> 1. Bach - Goldberg Variations


I think they should have called it "100 greatest works for *keyboard instrument*" if they were going to have Bach on the list.

Bach did not have the sonority of a piano in mind when he wrote 'Goldberg', or anything else for that matter. He was not a fan of the very early models of pianos he got to try.


----------



## hawgdriver

Beebert said:


> So, I found this list with a ranking of the 100 "greatest" works for piano ever written. What do you guys think of it?
> 
> 1. Bach - Goldberg Variations
> 2. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 111
> 3. Bach - The Well-Tempererad Clavier
> 4. Schubert - Piano Sonata D 960
> 5. Chopin - 24 Preludes
> 7. Chopin - Ballade 4 Op 52
> 11. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 109
> 12. Debussy - Préludes Book 2
> 13. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 110
> 14. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 57 "Appassionata"
> 15. Chopin - Études Op 25
> 16. Liszt - Piano Sonata B minor
> 19. Chopin - Études Op 10
> 20. Chopin - Barcarolle
> 22. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 53 "Waldstein"
> 24. Schubert Piano Sonata D 894
> 25. Prokofiev - Piano Sonata 7 Op 83 "Stalingrad"
> 26. Debussy - Preludes Book 1
> 27. Ravel - Miroirs
> 29. Chopin Piano Sonata 3 Op 58
> 30. Shostakovich - 24 Preludes and Fugues
> 31. Chopin - Polonaise Fantaisie
> 33. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 27 No. 2 "Moonlight"
> 34. Chopin - Ballade 1 Op 23
> 35. Bach - Partita 2 BWV 826
> 44. Bach - French Suite 5 BWV 816
> 48. Schubert - Wanderer Fantasy D 760
> 52. Chopin - Nocturnes Op 27
> 53. Chopin - Piano Sonata 2 Op 35
> 55. Mussorgsky - Pictures at an Exhibition
> 67. Debussy - Estampes
> 68. Schubert - Six Moments Musicaux D 780
> 79. Beethoven - Piano Sonata Op 13 "Pathétique"
> 81. Rachmaninoff - Preludes Op. 23
> 83. Prokofiev - Piano Sonata 8 Op 84
> 85. Ravel - Sonatine
> 96. Mozart - Piano Sonata K. 331
> 99. Chopin - Ballade 3 Op 47


These for sure.

I think Mozart K475+K457, however you package either or both, is a top 100 solo keyboard work. K570, K533 too?

Visions fugitives, maybe?

Needs Grieg somehow.

A Scarlatti sonata maybe. Or five. K32, K380, K119. If each is about five minutes, and a Bach prelude and fugue is roughly the same, idk...there's some love that needs to be spread around. Some Scarlatti works are certainly on par or exceed some of Bach's good stuff. But when "WTC" is a monolith...boy, that skews the whole affair.

Surprised the Prokofiev Toccata is not on the list.

Brahms Op. 79 Rhapsodien is Brahm's best solo piano composition, glad he didn't light it on fire as his impulse dictated.


----------



## chipia

Good list of pieces, but maybe the list would be more representative of the breadth of piano music if we restricted it to one piece per composer? Also I think it's a bit inconsistent that Ligeti Etudes Books 1-3 are listed as one piece, whereas the two Books of Images by Debussy are listed separately.

How about Oleg Eiges Sonata Toccata?






Nikolai Kapustin may also deserve a place on this list:


----------

