# If all composers lived simultaneously would their ranking stay the same?



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

A thought experiment.

Imagine that all the composers lived at the same time and produced exactly the same output which they actually produced. Would the ranking of greatest composers and pieces remain the same?

Where I want to go with this? If ranking was based exclusively on musical quality, or merit, completely ignoring historical significance, would it remain the same?

What I want to ask: do old masters get some "discounts" in ranking due to living so long ago?
Would Bach be regarded equally important if he haven't lived in early 18th century?
Would Beethoven keep his position if he was contemporary with Mahler, Bruckner, etc...

Is music constantly improving, getting more advanced, more sophisticated?

Is Beethoven a baby for contemporary geniuses?

If Beethoven and Stravinsky lived at the same time, who'd be considered better?

If the old masters DO NOT get discounts for having lived when they lived, does it actually mean that music is getting WORSE?

Because according to the lists, almost all greatest pieces were composed before XX century, and some of them deep into 18th century, like Mass in B minor.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

This is nearly impossible to consider, because it ignores the continuum, the development of musical composition over many years/centuries...the huge influence of Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Haydn, Wagner, etc, etc on succeeding generations is impossible to discount. What sort of music would Mozart, or Beethoven be composing now, if they were alive?? impossible to tell...
it is rather like trying to compare athletes from the past with those of the present....yes, modern athletes run the 100 meter dash faster than Jesse Owens did in 1936....but if Owens lived now, with present day training, nutrition, equipment, conditions, etc, would he be just as fast?? there is always a building, a continuum of achievement....without the achievements of the past, it is impossible to consider innovations of the present. the present is based upon the efforts of the past.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Hey, I would hope that simultaneous time was "today", not only for purely selfish reasons, but also to be witnessing and hearing the results of Bach, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven composing for a modern Steinway piano absolutely blows my mind wide open!!!

Why would the rankings change?


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

They *are* all living simultaneously, in their music, unless no one is playing them any more. Isn't ranking, done properly, already based exclusively on musical quality? Don't *you* think the greatest works of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest aesthetic experiences to be had? Stravinsky's ballet music is good stuff, but have you had a better time listening to that than you have had listening to the greatest works of the big three?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Mozart would be composing pop, Wagner film music, Beethoven would be a rocker and Bach a metalist.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

> They *are* all living simultaneously, in their music, unless no one is playing them any more. Isn't ranking, done properly, already based exclusively on musical quality? Don't *you* think the greatest works of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest aesthetic experiences to be had? Stravinsky's ballet music is good stuff, but have you had a better time listening to that than you have had listening to the greatest works of the big three?


Well for me personally Beethoven is better, but that's just my personal experience and taste. I'm not an expert. Maybe some expert would say that Stravinsky's music is more advanced, sophisticated, what not...


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I agree with Heck148, it's essentially impossible because composers of one generation affect the composers of the next. But some specific points that the OP raises:



ZJovicic said:


> do old masters get some "discounts" in ranking due to living so long ago?
> 
> Is music constantly improving, getting more advanced, more sophisticated?


Music is constantly _changing_. It's not getting better or worse. The boundaries of what is perceived as good music are constantly expanding, but that's not in of itself an "improvement". Tastes change in response to new music, and vice versa. Having said that, I think some (many?) people genuinely believe that music showed a continuous improvement up till the 18th/19th centuries and then went into decline. This timeline of rise-and-fall matches - _by sheer coincidence!_ - their own particular tastes in music. The old masters like Bach and Beethoven get a "discount" because their music obeys the rules of what many of today's listeners regard as "proper" music (the _older_ masters, though, are a bit _too_ old!).

But to compare, say, Josquin, Mozart, and Saariaho - on any level other than the wholly subjective one of what people like to listen to - is pretty much meaningless in my book.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

If the music was somehow the same then their "ranking" wouldn't change - not for me, anyway - as it is the same music. But if we are supposed to imagine what they would do if they lived now and without a tradition behind them to move on from ... too many variables ... impossible.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

I'm confused about the word "discounts" in the OP. 

If the question that's being asked is whether a composer who lived long ago is automatically placed in a higher position in the composer ranks solely because of that feature. For example, if Composer A lived in the 18th C and composer B lived in the 20th C, and assuming they each produced work that the listening public like equally, the question is whether A would be placed higher in the ranks than B purely because it's older music. Or is "vintage" unimportant and the only relevant factor is quality?

I don't think it's a matter of vintage in determining composer ranks by people who vote in polls, or in any way by which they express their preferences. Instead the reason for the higher rankings (popularity or whatever) of certain composers over others is (i) the type of music they produced and ii) its quality and amount produced. If Beethoven and Shostakovich (as examples) lived at the same time and wrote exactly the same music as they did, I reckon the listening public in general would still prefer Beethoven because of his music style etc.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

I'm not sure that I understand the word "discounts" in the OP. 

I think that the question is possibly: is a composer who lived long ago placed in a higher position in the composer ranks solely because of that vintage factor, for any given quality of work? 

For example, if Composer A lived in the 18th C and composer B lived in the 20th C, and assuming they each produced work that the listening public like equally, the question is whether A would be placed higher in the ranks than B purely because it's older music. Or is a composer's "vintage" unimportant and the only relevant factor is quality of that composer's output?

I don't think it's a matter of vintage in determining composer ranks by people who vote in polls, or in any way by which they express their preferences. Instead the reason for the higher rankings , or popularity or whatever, of certain composers over others is (i) the type of music they produced and ii) its quality and amount produced. As examples, if Beethoven and Shostakovich lived at the same time and wrote exactly the same music as they did, I reckon that a higher proportion of the listening public would still prefer Beethoven because of his music style etc.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Yep that's what I had in mind, ranking a composer higher, all other things being equal, simply because he lived earlier, under assumption that at that time music was less developed, so producing such work at that time would imply more "greatness" than producing the same work later.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I think that if all the great composers were around now and composing music from their respective eras

I think Mozart and Verdi would flourish through opera.

But I dont think 18th and 19thc composers get a flying start in the polls because they composed at a time when music was less developed. I think they get these ratings because their music is better than later composers who had all the benefits of all the innovations etc.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

ZJovicic said:


> Yep that's what I had in mind, ranking a composer higher, all other things being equal, simply because he lived earlier, under assumption that at that time music was less developed, so producing such work at that time would imply more "greatness" than producing the same work later.


I think the word "credit" might have been better than "discount" in your OP, but I got your drift.

Just to be clear, I think that the composer ranks reflect primarily peoples' liking of the composers' music; the "greatness" of the composer is an implication of that liking, not the cause.

It's not the question you asked but if the 10 most popular composers were assumed to have the same birth year but the same age at death as they actually had, and could write whatever music they wished, would the rank order change? I guess it might well be the case. Beethoven might not have been much good at writing baroque, and Bach might not have been much good at writing romantic, etc.

Trying to reach any conclusions on this latter question is far more difficult than the one you actually asked.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

ZJovicic said:


> A thought experiment.
> 
> 1. Imagine that all the composers lived at the same time and produced exactly the same output which they actually produced. Would the ranking of greatest composers and pieces remain the same?
> 
> ...


Answers:

1. In other words, excluding the changes in historical eras, and knowing what we know about how to compose, would the rankings change due to their compositional abilities? No, the rankings would not change.

2. Discounted due to age? No way! Truth be known, if the 14th century was as studied as the 19th, Machaut would not be as low as the popularity lists have him. So much for age discounts. 
Yes for Bach. Yes for Beethoven.

3. Modern serious music composition can be complex. I remain unconvinced that it is more sophisticated than any other era. But music doesn't "advance" or "improve" - it just goes through periods where the rules for composition change in some way from the preceding era. It's not advancement, it's just change.

4. Just because we may have different compositional rules and methods now does not in any way make the old rules somehow less on some false chart of artistic and intellectual measurement.

5. Beethoven is the Babe Ruth of music composition. Hey Igor was no slouch, he's on the first team. Middle relief, great when he's sober.

6. See answer 3.

7. The lists you refer to are "popularity" lists. They are indicative of greatness, not a definition of greatness. See my comment above about Machaut.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Whose ranking? Concert audiences? Record buyers? Musical performers? Critics? Musicologists?

People hear music differently according to their musical knowledge and experience. We don't hear music in a cultural and intellectual vacuum, and we don't come upon it _tabula rasa._ Moreover, hearing all music simultaneously as new music in the world would simply overtax our individual and collective capacity to judge. Finally, definitive ranking is impossible even as things are.

The experiment is doomed from the outset.


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2018)

Jacck said:


> Mozart would be composing pop, Wagner film music, Beethoven would be a rocker and Bach a metalist.


Bartok would be in a prog rock band.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I'd probably move Arvo Part down 5 spots to #434, directly after John Cage. Don't ask me why—it's too involved.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

They wouldn't have time to compose because they'd all be fascinated with Scriabin's plans for the Mysterium and become his groupies.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think it would be a huge mess of things. A lot of the significance of atonal music is from having tonal music to begin with. Our understanding of music evolved over time, and certain works were influenced by others and reference others. I think the ranking would change because nobody would know exactly how to process all this music. I believe Stravinsky's music to be more complex than Beethoven's in general, and get more satisfaction from Stravinsky, but I wouldn't call either of them greater than the other. Making everything work together like Beethoven takes a special kind of skill.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

To a contemporary audience, all music composed before today _was_ composed simultaneously because of our abiity to listen to it any time in any order. The results speak for themselves.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Wagner and Zappa, no I can't see that ............

Sofa's in the Ring


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

Nereffid said:


> Music is constantly _changing_. *It's not getting better or worse. *


You missed the memo.


----------



## Capeditiea (Feb 23, 2018)

Today, we have many genres of popular music. Rap, Rock, Metal, Pop, EDM 
Now, each of these five on the list. 
Let's compress the epochs into a 10 year span. 
No, instead... let's show how the music today has evolved, 

think on how 1980's rap sounded compared to 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s they each have their own minute epoch. (yet only a few notible rappers have become mainstream enough that almost everyone has heard.) Tupac, Eminem, Jay-Z

Rock started a little further back. so i will go with the ten year scheme on this Elvis, Beatles, The Grateful Dead, Queen, Nirvana... 

Metal metal started a bit later (i think it was the 70's... though i cannot think of any from the 80s) Misfits, Pantera, Five Finger Death Punch. 

Pop, (i am not well versed in pop) Madona, Micheal Jackson, Boy Bands, Spice Girls, Britney Spears, Kelly Clarkson

EDM... so many names i have no idea what is what... 

I am sure you have heard all these... plus more. Use this timeline as an example. These are all 5 distinctively different genres. 
So, really each epoch is a genre. Since they each studied various methods. Which are still used today. 

The only reason that it hasn't been as wide and as rapid of evolution is not just because of hundreds of years of study, but because of a lack of technology. (Cars, internet, telephones, airplanes, etc.) 

So the music composed took longer to travel through the world. 

But how does this relate to the original question? 

it really is, that we would have the same outlook. but we also would be sacrificing a lot of composers who are known because of the many centuries that passed. Instead of there being the amount we know of today, we would be in qualms with how the promoters would want us to listen. So many of these composers would be thrown away, and never heard of. we wouldn't have symphony numbers but they would be named, since their focus would be on being original as possible rather than teaching future generations. 

This is a fascinating question, and took me a little while to think up of what it would have been like. 

I would have to say though, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Vivaldi, Korngold, Chopin, and Dvorak would be the big names. 
Where Bach, Mahler, Rachmaninov, Wagner, Lizst, and Brahms, would probably all be the infamous "overrated" composers. 
The term Chamber Music would basically be underground music. (as known in today's music) 

But no matter what... think of the fact there are various genres with in the classical music thing... (even though classical music is an epoch...) 


In Conclusion... 
One may want to think on why Classical music is called Classical music... Which the average person who listens to the mainstream music above end up hearing the term Classical Music they usually think of three names. Bach, Mozart. Beethoven.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

It doesn't take any imagination to answer these questions. In our time all composers _do live simultaneously _through recordings and history. That's why it is easy to compare one to another. And, as just about everyone around here has learned, polls indicate the big 3 of Beethoven, Bach and Mozart are ahead of everyone else in most comparisons.

This couldn't have happened in their times for various reasons, one being a lot of composers like J.S. Bach never had their music performed in their lifetimes. Mendelssohn finally performed Bach's St. Matthew Passion in the 1800s after it existed as nothing more than a score for decades.

Another major reason was there was no radio, recording or home listening technology available until the 20th century so the only way to hear music was at concert. Liszt tried to resolve this by redoing symphonies for solo or duo pianos but still you had to be able to play the piano(s) to hear the music at home.

Other composers were so far ahead of audiences it took time to understand and grasp their music. Mahler's music wasn't popular in the early 20th century and Toscanini dissed it publicly. Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps caused a riot at the premier and conservatories told students if they copied Debussy's radical style they would be expelled. Now those two are considered revolutionary geniuses.

But in our time anyone can hear anything they want anytime.

I don't understand why some people have such aversion to comparing composers against each other. They do it every day with coffee, tea, beer, shirts, TV shows and socks but, when it comes to music, some people say they can't or won't.

The reason I think that's nonsense is because you do it with your purchasing and listening behavior. Just like everything else in life, you are what you do. If you say you like Bach but you listen to Beethoven 6 hours a day and Bach 2, that tells you your answer.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I would say even present day to us, past composers don't live simultaneously. We have historical records of which era they came from, who did what first, and the musical environment of the time the music was produced. We just have history on fast forward and rewind.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Wagner and Zappa, no I can't see that ............
> 
> Sofa's in the Ring


More like Ring in the Sofas:

"I am your secret smut & lost magic rings down your cracks … I am the author of all tucks & damask piping."


----------

