# First rate, second rank or second rate, first rank??



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I was just reading some notes about CHH Parry, two of whose symphonies I have been listening to this evening. In the notes it mentioned how Parry is often considered to be a first rate, second rank composer along with the likes of Saint-Saens. Now I realize that it a characteristic of the (western?) human mind to rank everything, something we see a LOT in TC  But so what? Who cares if some academics or critics have made these distinctions based solely on their particular prejudices? I am not in charge of scheduling an orchestra's season or a radio stations programming, all that matters to me is what gives me pleasure. Perhaps in some technical ways, Parry is second rank to Brahms but Parry's 3rd and 4th give me more consistent pleasure than the Brahms' 3rd & 4th.

This is a thread so it's </rant> and <question> :lol:
What examples can you give in your personal listening where "generally accepted" ratings do not match yours? And can you give examples where you feel that the "generally accepted" is flat out wrong? If so, please give reasons not just personal preference.

As to rate & rank, I can sum up my opinion as WGASA


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Though I've never seen it proclaimed, I think we can agree Carl Reinecke is considered 2nd or even 3rd tier. But I would say he created at least one masterpiece, the Symphony No.2 in C-minor on the strength of its remarkably memorable themes in the opening movement. The main theme is so memorable in fact, I was convinced I'd been hearing it all my life even on first hearing.

Going the opposite direction, I've never quite seen the genius in Berlioz' _Symphonie fatnastique_. It's just music, the _idée fixe_ supposedly created by Berlioz is just a fancy word for motif to me, used in the same manner many years before. So while I can enjoy Berlioz he is for me a 2nd tier composer.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I think tier, rate or rank really just comes out to mean favourite, doesn't it? The following are not favourites:

Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Copland, Britten, Cage

I have a few albums by all of these composers and I enjoy them all very much. I guess that would make them first rate, second tier composers in my ears, to try to conform to the OP's ontology. This opinion could change over time, of course, as I get better acquainted with more of their works.

I can't really think of any composer generally considered to be of the second tier that I would place in the top tier. I think my knowledge and exposure, while getting very broad, is still fairly much focussed on the widely known names... and how many of them there are! Many of my favourites of the 20th Century might be considered second tier by the majority, but it is difficult to assess their wider standing.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

I would place Saint-Saens and Schnittke in the top tier, whereas they usually seem to be considered second-rate (not as in "bad", just "not as good as others).

I _used_ to consider Bach overrated, but have thankfully amended my views.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

MoonlightSonata said:


> I would place Saint-Saens and Schnittke in the top tier...


I would be inclined to go along with that.

Likewise, I might be inclined to put Vivaldi and Handel in the second tier (they couldn't exist in the same one as Bach  ). Chopin, too. His output is too limited to only one instrument.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

While I can see how maybe there can be ways of measuring these kinds of ranks to an extent, I am starting to think less in these kinds of terms.

Some of the music that moves me the most is by composers many would consider "second-tier", therefore, I don't like using that particular term to rank composers.

Most of the composers that are generally accepted as part of the canon I now consider "first-tier".

There are some I like much more than others, but different composers add their own unique traits, they do not have the same musical goals. I tend to get different kinds of musical satisfaction from different composers. I really value this diversity and the differences. How can one objectively rank these very different composers? It is difficult and I think it can simultaneously kind of devalue these artists contributions by assigning them first and second tiers.

Like saying "Vivaldi, why couldn't you be more like Bach? Then you could've been _first_-tier." It is kind of absurd. I'm glad Vivaldi was Vivaldi and Bach was Bach.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Second tier *great composers* are the likes of Bartok, Berlioz, Dvorak, Sibelius, Stravinsky. They are composers that I find noteworthy but fall short of tier one great composer status (Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven for example).


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

My preferences in tiers is blogged here:

http://artrock2006.blogspot.nl/2013/05/121-classical-composers.html


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

I have too little knowledge to presume to rank composers, and rating and ranking ain't going to change anything anyway.
My favourite is Haydn who I assume is generally considered to be first rank and first rate. I love the music of Delius and feel he is underrated but have no presumption about ranking him.
I think the problems start when you don't like something that is considered 'top drawer' by many, and then can't resist telling them. You can add a little further spice by stating he/it is vastly overrated 
Of late too many threads like this degenerate into pointless arguments, and i hope this one doesn't follow them.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Speaking of Haydn -- after close to a lifetime of exposure to his music, there's still so much that I need to re-listen or even hear the first time. It always brings pleasure! If that's not the first rank, I'm not sure what is.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

It often depends what they are writing. You'd hardly call Verdi and Wagner first rate symphoniists or string quartet writers. And how on earth anyone can call Handel second rate to Bach when JSB did not have an opera in his portfolio is beyond me. Anyway such comparisons are pointless. Just enjoy the riches given by genius!


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Second tier *great composers* are the likes of Bartok, Berlioz, Dvorak, Sibelius, Stravinsky. They are composers that I find noteworthy but fall short of tier one great composer status (Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven for example).


Chronology seems to be a factor too. The masters of one period will always have an edge over the masters of a later period (unless the two periods used different systems which make a fair comparision next to impossible).

The only tier-like ranking that makes sense for me is based on the degree of soulmateness. There are composers who might not be regarded among the greatest but whose music resonates with me and my own sensibilities more than any other music, while the music of acknowledged geniuses might leave me rather cold. Some composers feel like kin, others like friends, others more like acquaintances. This says nothing about the quality of their output, though.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Purcell would be my choice for 'First Tier, Second Rank'.

His music is beautiful and much loved, especially by Britons, but he couldn't be placed with Bach, Mozart, Handel et al because what the number of his works is not huge and he didn't undertake huge projects either.

But he lived up to my old school motto - 'Quod potui perfeci' - I did what I was able to, to the highest standard of excellence.

And William Lawes, for me, is such another, and for the same reasons.
Both these composers died young.


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

Personally, I am very dubious about any attempt to rank composers in what has always seemed to me an exercise in subjectivity. Instead - 1.Composers I like 2. Composers I don't like 3. Composers I should like 4. Composers I shouldn't really like - classifications that have served me well to the present.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

If they wrote one piece that I like very much, they are first tier to me. I don't care about anything else anymore.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

Becca said:


> What examples can you give in your personal listening where "generally accepted" ratings do not match yours? And can you give examples where you feel that the "generally accepted" is flat out wrong? If so, please give reasons not just personal preference.


There have been several previous threads discussing this issue, usually under the guise "_Which composer(s) do you consider to be under/over-rated_". Typically Mozart has been the main target for allegedly being over-rated, whilst Liszt are (sometimes Handel) are sometimes portrayed as being under-rated

Regardless of composer selected for particular attention, the answer to all such questions is that, whilst any single individual may have a set of composer preferences that differs from the "generally accepted" rankings, this alone does not invalidate the latter rankings since they are what they are by definition. Besides, such ranks are not determined by experts, as alleged in the OP, but by the buying and listening practices of the classical music customer base at large.

That point aside, most people change their mind about the rank order of their favourite composers as their listening experience develops and tastes evolve over time. This is especially the case among the younger elements. Thus, their opinions on the correctness or otherwise of various individual composers against the generally accepted rankings are often in a state of flux, and this makes their current set of fancies even less interesting to hear about when compared against the more generally accepted composer norms.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

an interesting thread, and I suppose by its very nature will always elicit relatively subjective responses, but here goes

I have never understood the position that Tchaikovsky appears to hold in the esteem of many!(and I experience a very similar response to anything by Richard Strauss)

Dvorak-in my 'top tier' without doubt but seems to be frowned upon because of a lack of an 'intellectual' element to his music-being a great symphonist, composer of superb chamber works and above all a 'tunesmith' appears to be not enough.....

'conservative' composers, those who did not necessarily change anything but nonetheless did write 'great 'music ie Glazunov, Myaskovsky, Atterberg-all belong close to my top tier primarily because I listen to their music with such frequency

and in my top tier by any measure-Nielsen,but how many would echo that view I wonder?

this could quite easily become some kind of rant and I am aware that our perceptions are in a state of flux-it is only recently that I have come to admire the symphonies of Schumann and would now regard myself as an advocate for four works that have received a lot of criticism over the years....

one composer whose position remains unassailable as far as I am (and always will be)concerned-Sibelius.......

but what of Melartin, Madetoja, Berwald and Kalinnikov-never likely to change the world but most definitely in my 'second tier' and very prominent at that


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

It wasn't to long ago when Mahler and Bruckner were considered second or third rate. Shostakovich was also considered by most to be talent that was compromised by supposed kowtowing to the Party


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

With enviable self knowledge, Richard Strauss once said: "I may not be a First Class composer, but I'm a first rate second class composer."


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

This ranks&teirs thing is pretty much meaningless subjective gibberish; so there.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

For a long time, I tend to dismiss the notions of first rank, second rank, third rank, tiers, minor versus major composers, blah, blah, blah. Essentially because my discoveries of obscured works often times were as revealing as these "masterpieces." Also, because fashion got hold of how works were assessed and evaluated (by the 1920s), it means that many works that were huge and popular during their heydays, were effectively shelved and forgotten. New trends (modernism, serialism, etc.) also distorted how music was looked upon. It was not until the advent of independent labels, along with the "wait a minute, what's wrong with tonality, what's wrong with people like Schmidt, Myaskovsky, Glazunov" do we realize the often intricate values of their music that were held high in the their day, only to be overlooked for often superficial, spurious reasons.


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

I'll chime in with agreement with those like Ukko and dholling who don't put much stock in these sorts of rankings.

I know that a composer like Charles Ives is "all over the map" with regards to his perceived importance and/or rank. Some (many?) consider him to be an amateurish dilettante who liked making music that sounded like train-wrecks. It seems like this is especially true in more conservative places like music schools. Many of my friends who earned their music degrees said that Ives was regarded as "suspect" at best. 

But others (including me) regard Ives as one of the greats of the 20th century -- and certainly the greatest composer that the United States has ever produced.

I suppose those differences of opinion don't really bother me. Especially since Ives' music has finally been given the exposure it deserves (imho!) through recordings.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

I prefer first rank, second tier, etc. to specific rankings of 1 through 50 (or whatever). Some ranking is inevitable, I suppose, but broad ranking is better than specific.

I like Richard Strauss' self-evaluation: "I may not be a first-rate composer, but I am a first-class second-rate composer." [As Gluek quoted above.]

This probably reflects a tight definition of first-rate (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, a handful of others).


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Triplets said:


> It wasn't to long ago when Mahler and Bruckner were considered second or third rate. Shostakovich was also considered by most to be talent that was compromised by supposed kowtowing to the Party


Mahler was considered that way by critics and many composers of a conservative mindset, yes. Mahler's friends, including the Second Viennese School, Bruno Walter, and Mengelberg, considered him securely among the all-time greats.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Going the opposite direction, I've never quite seen the genius in Berlioz' Symphonie fatnastique. It's just music, the idée fixe supposedly created by Berlioz is just a fancy word for motif to me, used in the same manner many years before. So while I can enjoy Berlioz he is for me a 2nd tier composer.

Of course Berlioz composed quite a bit more than the _Symphonie fatnastique_. A good number of these works are actually better, if not more popular: _Les Nuits d'été_ & _Les Troyens_ immediately come to mind.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Likewise, I might be inclined to put Vivaldi and Handel in the second tier (they couldn't exist in the same one as Bach).

It would seem you might need to explore the wider range of music by Vivaldi and Handel that exists. Vivaldi isn't of Bach's rank (who is) but Handel is close. His early Italian cantatas are delicious, his operas and oratorios continually astounding. Bach certainly surpasses Handel in terms of purely instrumental music, yet there are times listening to Handel's operas that I wish Bach hadn't been stuck composing for middling... and meddling... small-town church leaders. I cannot even begin to fathom what Bach might have done with Handel's freedom... or even with a position at a major court such as Dresden.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

As I've stated _ad nauseum _before - it all means absolutely nothing to me.

The only practical side to the question I can see is that a first rank, first tier composer is probably going to be represented with more different recordings from which a consumer can choose than a second rank, first tier composer - and so on, down the line.

So, for example, my Schumann craving may not have as many different ways to be satisfied as someone elses' Beethoven craving; my Nielsen craving as my Schumann craving: my Alfven craving as my Nielsen craving; my Spohr craving as my Alfven craving, etc etc

Still, there really isn't a whole lot to complain about that I can see.

Every once in a while I might start to get a little hot under the collar when someone speaks disparagingly on TC about one of my faves, but I quickly remind myself that it is all inconsequential.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2015)

Ukko said:


> This ranks&teirs thing is pretty much meaningless subjective gibberish; so there.


Succinct and I agree. The seeming infatuation with hieararchies is both bemusing and irrelevant to me. For me the idea of shoehorning creative endeavours into some apparently objective sports-like league table is..alien to my perceiving of music.


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

Amplifying my earlier post about the subject of such essentially subjective assessment of relative worth, there is always the corresponding dangers of putting down composers we don't like or grandstanding others that we feel have not been given adequate recognition.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Recently, I have come to dislike ranking composers in terms of greatness (what's the point and it's an impossible task). I have no problems ranking in terms of my personal favorites. I have even come to dislike stating why I dislike certain composers and have chosen to only elaborate on why I love certain composers. 

On a side note, I'm currently on a quest to understand why Bach is considered so unreachable (by listening to his music, of course), as if it's just a given that not even Beethoven or Mozart can touch him. I read at least one post every couple of days stating that general sentiment of his godlike status.


----------



## AClockworkOrange (May 24, 2012)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Recently, I have come to dislike ranking composers in terms of greatness (what's the point and it's an impossible task). I have no problems ranking in terms of my personal favorites. I have even come to dislike stating why I dislike certain composers and have chosen to only elaborate on why I love certain composers.


Very well put DiesIraeVIX.

I think classifying Composers is too subjective to actually do. What is 'greatness' and who defines it?

Often, it would be more accurate to say Composers A, B and C are ones favourites or held by one in particularly high regard.

I find as much pleasure - if not more so in so-called second tier composers. This being the case, they can hardly be second tier to me can they?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I'll make my usual comment about the "great" composers being just the composers who are most _popular_ among the tastemakers (whoever they may be...)

Sometimes my favourite music coincides with what has been deemed "great", and sometimes it coincides with has been thoroughly ignored, and usually it's in between. So while I acknowledge that there are first and second tiers (and more), these are really just popularity levels and not related to how much I might like a given composer's work.

In keeping with the spirit of the OP, I'll give an actual example: I mentioned in another thread recently that I'm very fond of Franz Schmidt's 3rd symphony. I guess Schmidt's considered second or third tier, and that work's not the most popular of his either. But what other people think of it is irrelevant to me (except, obviously, for the fact that someone thought enough of it to deem it worth recording, which is how I came to hear it).


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Going the opposite direction, I've never quite seen the genius in Berlioz' Symphonie fatnastique. It's just music, the idée fixe supposedly created by Berlioz is just a fancy word for motif to me, used in the same manner many years before. So while I can enjoy Berlioz he is for me a 2nd tier composer.
> 
> Of course Berlioz composed quite a bit more than the _Symphonie fatnastique_. A good number of these works are actually better, if not more popular: _Les Nuits d'été_ & _Les Troyens_ immediately come to mind.


As a _nota bene_ postscript, I'd add _Benvenutto Cellini _as well- which is a masterwork.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I have a lot of views on the matter of ranking, but I'm not sure I have the time to explain all the mathematics behind my system. For the present, I'll just say that Grażyna Bacewicz is rated 3.99238479237494444444444 in the √6th rank. Awesome composer.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Weston said:


> Going the opposite direction, I've never quite seen the genius in Berlioz' _Symphonie fatnastique_. It's just music, the _idée fixe_ supposedly created by Berlioz is just a fancy word for motif to me, used in the same manner many years before. So while I can enjoy Berlioz he is for me a 2nd tier composer.


The _idée fixe_ in the _Symphonie fantastique_ is not some sort of musical innovation like inventing serialism or something. In fact, it isn't a musical term at all, but more of a literary/psychological one. It just means an obsessive idea, in this case paralleling Berlioz's fixation on Harriet Smithson. And it is not a motive, but a full-blown and elaborate theme.

Someone like Berlioz seems to me precisely why ranks and tiers don't cut it for classifying composers. Berlioz was one of a kind and had he been invented as a literary character, no one would find him or his life remotely believable. Rank is neither here nor there. He and his music are thoroughly implausible and irreplaceable.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2015)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Recently, I have come to dislike ranking composers in terms of greatness (what's the point and it's an impossible task). I have no problems ranking in terms of my personal favorites. I have even come to dislike stating why I dislike certain composers and have chosen to only elaborate on why I love certain composers.
> 
> On a side note, I'm currently on a quest to understand why Bach is considered so unreachable (by listening to his music, of course), as if it's just a given that not even Beethoven or Mozart can touch him. I read at least one post every couple of days stating that general sentiment of his godlike status.


Agreed x 433 @ the foolishness of ranking objective greatness

This fellow may agree:






Now, I use the word "great" still simply because I find the words "IMHO" to be painful to type thousands of times... anywho, carry on.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I respect the views of those who find distasteful any question of ranking, but I myself don't see anything objectionable in discussing whether we think X composer is better than Y, or whether Z composer is first or second rank. Surely everyone knows that these things are not set in stone? The OP is simply giving us a basis for discussion and explicitly asks us to give reasons for our views. Isn't discussion what it's all about?

Sure, your view that P is second rank but first tier may simply be subjective, that P is one of your favourites - but I may well not have heard of P, and now be tempted to check him/her out.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> The _idée fixe_ in the _Symphonie fantastique_ is not some sort of musical innovation like inventing serialism or something. In fact, it isn't a musical term at all, but more of a literary/psychological one. It just means an obsessive idea, in this case paralleling Berlioz's fixation on Harriet Smithson. And it is not a motive, but a full-blown and elaborate theme.
> 
> Someone like Berlioz seems to me precisely why ranks and tiers don't cut it for classifying composers. Berlioz was one of a kind and had he been invented as a literary character, no one would find him or his life remotely believable. Rank is neither here nor there. He and his music are thoroughly implausible and irreplaceable.


I find Berlioz's big points to be less along the lines of the idee fixe anyway, and more along the lines of his advancement of orchestration, his sense of drama, and his proto-Wagner aesthetic. But I'm uneducated in this matter, so perhaps the phrase "good music!" will suffice.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> I respect the views of those who find distasteful any question of ranking, but I myself don't see anything objectionable in discussing whether we think X composer is better than Y, or whether Z composer is first or second rank. Surely everyone knows that these things are not set in stone? The OP is simply giving us a basis for discussion and explicitly asks us to give reasons for our views. Isn't discussion what it's all about?
> 
> Sure, your view that P is second rank but first tier may simply be subjective, that P is one of your favourites - but I may well not have heard of P, and now be tempted to check him/her out.


I wasn't expressing a distaste for ranking, lists, etc. You should know I love my lists  (I have a very systematic way of...everything).

I was rather just agreeing with a distaste for the inevitable occasions on which various posters _do indeed try to pass off such favoritisms as fact_. Pure and simple.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

^^^ 
I was speaking generally, based on my impressions of several posters on the thread, and not about *you*, Nathanb.:tiphat:
Also, I said that I do respect the views of those who don't like ranking - I just don't share that particular objection. 
Besides, you just *did* analyse why you hold your opinion of Berlioz.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> Besides, you just *did* analyse why you hold your opinion of Berlioz.


Oh, I feared that interpretation!

I was only listing those attributes of Berlioz because I felt that Weston's post put too much emphasis on the importance of the idee fixe (or lack thereof); as if to suggest that he is remembered because of that idea or something. Sort of a historical discussion there.

Rather, *I* enjoy Berlioz because he's got that sweeping music thing going on and then some epic stuff here and some pretty stuff there. And I haven't particularly cracked Romeo Et Juliette anyway 

I enjoy being historically informed, sure. But it doesn't particularly have any significant influence on my rankings of personal favorites, beyond the fact that history typically tells me to pay attention to certain things in the first place.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2015)

I make judgments of course, like everyone else, so perhaps I "rank" something in my head but I thought the OP was about a ranking "out there", a publicly agreed upon (or not) listing/s. That is what I was commenting upon.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Ranking is largely a subjective matter for any given *individual* who ranks. There is nothing more nor less from one's ranking compared with another person's. However, the interesting part starts when a consistent, collective consensus is formed over time; over a long period of time, which can have more useful indication of tiers. None of this really matters to the individual currently, of course.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> However, the interesting part starts when a consistent, collective consensus is formed over time; over a long period of time, which can have more useful indication of tiers.


What is the interesting part?
What is the purpose of tiers?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> I respect the views of those who find distasteful any question of ranking, but I myself don't see anything objectionable in discussing whether we think X composer is better than Y, or whether Z composer is first or second rank. Surely everyone knows that these things are not set in stone? The OP is simply giving us a basis for discussion and explicitly asks us to give reasons for our views. Isn't discussion what it's all about?
> 
> Sure, your view that P is second rank but first tier may simply be subjective, that P is one of your favourites - but I may well not have heard of P, and now be tempted to check him/her out.


Ah, but you see, Ingelou, some of of us have heard of every composer of the 17th-20th C. who matters, and many of those who don't. If we have placed someone in the 2nd rank of the 3rd tier or below, you needn't bother.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> I respect the views of those who find distasteful any question of ranking, but I myself don't see anything objectionable in discussing whether we think X composer is better than Y, or whether Z composer is first or second rank. Surely everyone knows that these things are not set in stone? The OP is simply giving us a basis for discussion and explicitly asks us to give reasons for our views. Isn't discussion what it's all about?
> 
> Sure, your view that P is second rank but first tier may simply be subjective, that P is one of your favourites - but I may well not have heard of P, and now be tempted to check him/her out.


I make a lot of lists for my own use. It's how I decide what goes on my frequent rotation list, for example. I'm currently working my way through the total recorded output of Amy Beach. Next after that will be Fanny Mendelssohn.

But, it's only what I find interesting right now. I would never want to rank either of them. That doesn't make any difference to me. I do not decide what I'm going to listen to on the basis of greatness. Maybe Beethoven is the greatest composer ever, but I rarely feel in the mood to listen to him these days.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

dogen said:


> Succinct and I agree. The seeming infatuation with hieararchies is both bemusing and irrelevant to me. For me the idea of shoehorning creative endeavours into some apparently objective sports-like league table is..alien to my perceiving of music.


Which was exactly my point ... WGASA


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2015)

Becca said:


> Which was exactly my point ... WGASA


Ah, new acronym on me. How uncouth!

Meh, WTF.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

When I google WGASA I get
World's Greatest Animal Show Anywhere:

I don't understand the relevance to the discussion. How can one rate one animal show greater than another? 

OP: I think most people would recognise that George Lloyd and Edmund Rubbra can't be listed amongst the very greats - like Beethoven. So these are my First Rate - Second Tier composers.
Vaughan Williams and Rachmaninov and Shostakovich are First Tier for me. They should be numbered amongst the Greats. 
I have no problem rating composers. It's human nature and I don't really believe these posters who say they don't do it in some small way.

EVERYBODY has their favourites. Favourite food, favourite friends, favourite whatever.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2015)

MagneticGhost said:


> When I google WGASA I get
> World's Greatest Animal Show Anywhere:


hehe, I got that too and was similarly nonplussed.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2015)

MagneticGhost said:


> OP: I think most people would recognise that George Lloyd and Edmund Rubbra can't be listed amongst the very greats - like Beethoven. So these are my First Rate - Second Tier composers.
> Vaughan Williams and Rachmaninov and Shostakovich are First Tier for me. They should be numbered amongst the Greats.
> I have no problem rating composers. It's human nature and I don't really believe these posters who say they don't do it in some small way.
> 
> EVERYBODY has their favourites. Favourite food, favourite friends, favourite whatever.


I agree, but I think there's a distinction to be made between private and public. I *KNOW* what my favourite foods, drinks, musicians, art works, books etc are and may therefore by default have my opinions effectively ranked (eg Thinking Plague I would probably place in a higher rank than One Direction). But a public "agreed on" ranking/tier arrangement? That's entirely different. Such things _to me_ smack of... figures of authority, conservatism, unattainable objectivity, atrophy...


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

dogen said:


> But a public "agreed on" ranking/tier arrangement?


How exotic!--I've never seen such a thing, myself. Even when a single politician runs uncontested in an election you'll get a foolish minority willing to spoil their ballot for the sake of humor or protest.

(Why I waste my time like that I'll never know...)


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

If I'm not mistaken, the only two objective qualities of a music score are length and complexity. Everything else is a matter of taste.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

MagneticGhost said:


> When I google WGASA I get
> World's Greatest Animal Show Anywhere:
> 
> I don't understand the relevance to the discussion. How can one rate one animal show greater than another?


Ahh, the relevance...

_They wanted to give the monorail a jazzy, African sounding name. So they sent out a memo to a bunch of zoo staffers saying, "What shall we call the monorail at the Wild Animal Park?" One of the memos came back with "WGASA" written on the bottom. The planners loved it and the rest is history. What the planners didn't know was that the zoo staffer had not intended to suggest a name. He was using an acronym which was popular at the time. It stood for "Who Gives A Sh** Anyhow?"_

A true story.


----------



## Überstürzter Neumann (Jan 1, 2014)

A few minutes ago I posted my list of top 10 composers. On that, one will find 9 of the usual suspects and ....Friedrich Kuhlau. 
Now it would be quite ridiculous of me (and surely the gentleman in question will agree on that) to claim that Kuhlau is one of the 10 greatest composers ever. However, I listen more to his music than the one of most others, and it speaks to me in a personal way.


----------



## Zarathustra (Dec 21, 2013)

Lennart said:


> A few minutes ago I posted my list of top 10 composers. On that, one will find 9 of the usual suspects and ....Friedrich Kuhlau.
> Now it would be quite ridiculous of me (and surely the gentleman in question will agree on that) to claim that Kuhlau is one of the 10 greatest composers ever. However, I listen more to his music than the one of most others, and it speaks to me in a personal way.


Not meaning to derail the thread could you please suggest one or two works by Kuhlau?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

dogen said:


> Succinct and I agree. The seeming infatuation with hieararchies is both bemusing and irrelevant to me. For me the idea of shoehorning creative endeavours into some apparently objective sports-like league table is..alien to my perceiving of music.


Superlatives- 'good,' 'better,' and 'best'- are bemusing and irrelevant to you?

Why?

Do you use discernment in dining and in daily living?- why not in music as well?


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Superlatives- 'good,' 'better,' and 'best'- are bemusing and irrelevant to you?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Do you use discernment in dining and in daily living?- why not in music as well?


That isn't what I said; as per my posts (42, 51).


----------



## Überstürzter Neumann (Jan 1, 2014)

Zarathustra said:


> Not meaning to derail the thread could you please suggest one or two works by Kuhlau?


I am very fond of the 3 quintets for flute and strings Op. 51, and the Grande Sonate Op. 85 for flute and piano. Kuhlau is justly famous for his works for flute, of which there are many more than mentioned here which deserves attention.
"Lulu" is a work I imagine people with at least some interest in opera might appreciate.
And then there is always "Elverhøj"...


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

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


----------



## fliege (Nov 7, 2017)

ArtMusic said:


> Ranking is largely a subjective matter for any given *individual* who ranks. There is nothing more nor less from one's ranking compared with another person's. However, the interesting part starts when a consistent, collective consensus is formed over time; over a long period of time, which can have more useful indication of tiers. None of this really matters to the individual currently, of course.


This is never done blind, though. e.g. someone new to classical music will already know which composers or pieces are considered great and so their judgment will be biased before they start listening. That bias can be very strong if the newcomer has heard an eloquent exposition on the greatness of a particular composer or work. I believe there is a more general truth here: as a society we like to build up our great artists in our imaginations because doing so helps us appreciate their art. I think there is a certain circularity to the process.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I don't have a problem with ranking composers although I think it is an exercise that results in lots of them being jointly of a rank - so you end up with a few blocks (which might equate with rank and tier). I don't even think it is a matter of subjectivity as I think that _*broad blocks *_of "value" can be demonstrated for composers through a consensus of "informed/experienced" people. There will be a few results that just reflect fashion but so what? Does it matter? Isn't this squeamishness about ranking really just taking the whole think too seriously?

The alternative of saying it is all just subjective doesn't really work as there are clearly examples of lesser composers and even composers of no value at all! So broad blocks of value emerge quite quickly. It makes me angry these days that young kids are taught that there is really no difference in value between Westlife and Mozart and that they are just different genres. I think that sort of thinking is essentially lazy and cowardly. CM fans are scared of being labelled elitist but it is not elitist to recognise and love the best, the most rewarding, the most likely to enrich your life ... . Indeed, it is a human right to have access to knowledge of great art and to the art itself. It isn't only for the rich.

I also do not see what is wrong with liking something a lot even if you recognise that it is not of "the highest rank".


----------

