# How Many Great Composers Are There?



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

First, forget the word "great" in the title. I used it as a short placeholder for a more detailed idea. People on TC often use phrases such as first tier (first rate) or second tier (second rate) composers. They may write about composers who are important or noteworthy. I've always wondered how many classical composers TC members include in those categories. I assume it varies, perhaps widely, among TC members. I would like people to give me a sense of how many composers they believe are great/top/important/noteworthy/etc.. The actual definition of this category can vary so I will suggest several.

How many composers...

would be in the classical composer Hall of Fame? You can think of other Halls of Fame such as sports if that helps.

ought to be sampled by classical music listeners because those composers offer something special, important, or foundational?

would make up an essential canon of classical composers?

Please don't just count the composers you like a lot, but rather estimate how many would fit in any of the suggested lists (and you can make your own definition). You can give your definition of top/important/noteworthy/etc. and then give your estimate. I will weigh in a bit later.

NOTE: Obviously there is no correct answer. The question is completely subjective. I want to know how many composers _you_ think fall into that category.

Incidentally, I know some people will only read the title and misunderstand the intent of the thread. Hopefully most will not, but I'm somewhat interested to see how often that happens.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I think there are way more great composers than famous composers. For some reason classical music audience and performers are concentrated on a relatively small circle of all times greats. I'd estimate there's at least 1000 great composers, perhaps even a couple of thousands.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

My logic: there are around 200 countries in the world, let's say at last half of them has at least some kind of classical music tradition. This is 100, let's say, that throughout history there was at least 10 significant names in each country who made some contributions to classical music... this is 1000. If you include all those graduated from compositions programs in conservatories and academies, and who can make decent works, the number increases.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> ...How many composers...
> 
> would be in the classical composer Hall of Fame?


Such a fine question deserves a truly literal (_i.e._, pedantic) answer: It depends on how much floor space we can afford for the Composers' Hall of Fame. And times are tough - even the Liberace Museum in Las Vegas had to shut its doors recently due to lack of traffic, a sad day for music.

But I bet we could support, say, 2,500 square feet of floor space. Of this, we'll need 500 SF for the gift shop (overpriced busts and knick-knacks mostly made in China) and another 400 SF for corridors and common space. This leaves enough room for ten "Great Composers" each allocated 160 SF, a space about 12-13 feet on a side. Each space will have paintings, other exhibits, and a kiosk with several sets of headphones for listening to music selections (a quarter a play). In addition, each space will have a Disney-style animatronic statue of the composer that can respond to spoken queries. For example, ask Beethoven a question and he will look up and say, rather loudly, "What? What? Speak up!" He will speak in English of course, out of unfortunate commercial necessity.

So anyway, the short answer is ten.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Glad you dropped the qualifier "great" because that term cannot be defined in way that everyone would ever agree to. 

Hall of Fame is a nice idea, and easier to grasp. First, the Hall of the Exceptionals would start likely with Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky and a very few more. Then the Main Hall with hundreds of others. Then there has to be a Forgotten By-Ways corridor for those composers who wrote something of value, just not at the pinnacle of creation - like Raff. Head count for the whole museum: I have no idea, but 1000 sounds as reasonable as anything else. Now, if we're trying to count the truly exceptional, great, worthy of remembering for all time: 25? Henry Pleasants wrote an influential book 60 years ago, The Agony of Modern Music, and he argued that there has been nothing since Wagner that is all that great, original or worth preserving. Harsh, and utterly wrong, to me. But his thesis is well argued. If you went by the popular vote of the average citizen, for whom classical music is absolutely non-important, you'd probably have a list of less than 10...


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2018)

> mmmbls:
> Incidentally, I know some people will only read the title and misunderstand the intent of the thread. Hopefully most will not, but I'm somewhat interested to see how often that happens.


Other than the direct questions that you are asking, what is the intent of the thread? What will you hope to get from the outcome that you couldn't have achieved by answering the questions yourself?


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Classical music is a bit like tennis, fans can know 50-100 on average, the general public is familiar with just a dozen of names or so. This is far fewer than in other arts. There are way more famous writers, poets, painters... even philosophers! than composers! Who knows why.
How many great popular music artists are there? This is also interesting question.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

For the classical hall of fame, I need to break it down some:

Pre-Bach - 10
Baroque - 3
Classical - 2
Romantic - 15
20th Cent.- 20
21st Cent. - 5

That's 55 for induction - based very loosely on a combination of exposure and perceived quality. Overall, less than a hunch.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Tulse said:


> Other than the direct questions that you are asking, what is the intent of the thread? What will you hope to get from the outcome that you couldn't have achieved by answering the questions yourself?


I'm hoping to get a better sense of the variation among TC members in their subjective response to the question. Based on _my interpretation of_ many posts in various threads I've been slightly surprised by the number of composers TC members view as valuable/top level/etc.. I wanted to ask the question more directly to see if I was interpreting those posts incorrectly. My answer would not help me understand others' views.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think quite a lot of composers were/are great. For example I think Leo Brouwer is a great composer. Byrd, Dufay and Machaut were great composers. So putting a number on it would be hard. Schumann is often listed as a great composer, but what really makes him 'greater' or more important than someone like Dufay? 

Sure maybe there aren't very many great composers in quite the same sense as the 'trilogy', but I think those arguably came at more ideal times in terms of building on the past, but also before so much had already been done. Composing could arguably be seen to be more difficult in the earliest stages (before much of the initial ground work was laid out) but also perhaps a little more difficult in the stages after so much had already been done with tonality and structure. Brahms in his time certainly thought his task was more difficult than some of the previous masters (like Mozart) had it.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Maybe this will help. Wikipedia lists around 4700 composers. I guess they are all in some sense great/notable, if they deserved mention in encyclopedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_composers_by_name

Most of them are not just listed, but have their own articles.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

And the list is far from being complete...


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

There is a big question: why do we listen to so few, when there are so many?

Situation in popular music is totally opposite... even the most obscure bands have their loyal audience. Situation in classical music is comparable to what would it be like if everyone just listened to The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and dozen more bands.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

ZJovicic said:


> There is a big question: why do we listen to so few, when there are so many?
> 
> Situation in popular music is totally opposite... even the most obscure bands have their loyal audience. Situation in classical music is comparable to what would it be like if everyone just listened to The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and dozen more bands.


A major issue is probably the length of songs versus classical works. A smaller number of classical works takes more time to listen to. Also, in the past radio and now online streaming encourage people to think of pop songs as parts of playlists, which tend to include hits from a variety of artists.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

True, but there are also album oriented listeners who listen to a whole album and treat it as one work, the same way they would treat a symphony or a song cycle by Schubert.

I am personally more into exploring a larger number of composers than listening to the whole output of just few of them. Because no matter how good, say, Mozart is, there must be some repetitiveness in 600 of his works. A lot of it is very similar style and even though most works are top quality, just few of them really have their own distinct character, or "personality", something that would make them totally unique among all those other works.

So as we don't have infinite time, I think the best idea is to listen to the very best works of as many different composers as possible, and only later exploring catalogues of greats in more depth.


----------



## josquindesprez (Aug 20, 2017)

If there's going to be a hall of fame, you need a veteran's committee to elect some of the forgotten greats, like Zelenka, and the relatively rediscovered Renaissance greats. Personally, I'm a big hall person.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

The OP seems intent on a bigger number rather than a smaller -- which is fine. But if I were to apply my own criteria for Hall of Fame-worthy, I'd say 50 or 60 names.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

"How Many Great Composers Are There?"

There's enough—more than enough to ever possibly hear in a lifetime, with always someone new under the sun if one stays open and remains curious. There's someone worth hearing from every epic of time, from Hildegard of Bingen to Shostakovich. It can never run out, ever. Humanity needs it. There's plenty... and sometimes even a handful of one's favorite composers are enough. I'll skip trying to bean-count them to a specific number that tries to quantify the boundless.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

If I knew the answer I give it to you, but for sure I discover a new one everyday on this site, so I think the list will grow.
Latests one ; Gian Francesco Malipiero (1882-1973):angel:


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

There is only one.......


----------



## St Matthew (Aug 26, 2017)

Olias said:


> There is only one.......


Who? I'd like to know


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2018)

I'd probably go for fewer, rather than more, ruling out those who may have contributed to variations on a theme, but didn't produce something that was a significant development or a change of direction. Merely producing 'great examples' would not be sufficient.

So, for example, I wouldn't include several of the long line of symphonists who are "famous" (eg Sibelius, Shostakovich) (and might merit a place in a hall of _fame_) because I'd want a hall of classical _innovation and development_. And I'd want to resist the temptation to be inclusive ("we must have a representative from every country that's got one").

I'm guessing - my knowledge of 'innovation and development' has big gaps - about 50.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Prestoclassical has 64 names on it's main composer list.
They use the title 'Popular' for them and it would be hard to argue against any of them being inducted


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

ZJovicic said:


> My logic: there are around 200 countries in the world, let's say at last half of them has at least some kind of classical music tradition. This is 100, let's say, that throughout history there was at least 10 significant names in each country who made some contributions to classical music...


But are those "significant names... who made some contributions to classical music." Take Scotland, I imagine there would be ten significant musicologists from that enlightened country, but are there there ten great composers? (Is there one? Ten composers certainly... but great?) Now take Germany, you would find a lot more than ten great composers. So this "imagine ten from each country" is too rough an estimate.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

There's not a clear-cut answer of course, because as soon as you settle on a certain number (say 100), someone will come up with "but what about...." and you realize that this composer has just as much right as #100 (or even #77) to be in the list. By the way, for me personally, 100 would not even be enough to include all the composers I enjoy a lot.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Back in 1842, the Germans made a (quite monumental) try, as regards their own nation - the _Walhalla_ of famous Germans/Austrians, high above the Danube river.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walhalla_memorial

As for composers, they included: 
Beethoven, Gluck, Haydn, Händel, Mozart

and later were added 
Bach, Brahms, Bruckner, Reger, Schubert, Strauss, Wagner, Weber.

Whether for example Schumann should be there, is being debated ... and one could certainly think of other composers - say a dozen - that are worth considering, for various reasons.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

"How many great composers are there?" is a question that's intrigued me for some time. Not because I think there's an actual answer - anyone who's read many of my posts over the years knows what I think of the word "great" - but because of how we respond to the question.

Of course I've done my composer polls to find out who are the composers liked by the most people, which turns out to be a reasonable proxy for the way "great" gets used as a marker. In as much as the percentage scores could be taken as sound, certain percentage scores represent a sort of cut-off point. There seemed to be, roughly speaking, a top 3, a top 25, a top 60, and a top 100. I noticed then that Harold Schonberg's _Lives of the Great Composers_ covers (judging by the highlighted entries in the index; I don't own a copy) 70 composers. 
I've also looked at numbers of recordings listed on ArkivMusic and at the length of (1980) _Grove_ entries. With the ArkivMusic you might say a top 3, a top 20, and a top 40, while with the Grove I could pick out roughly speaking a top 15 and a top 30.
The point of all this nerd detail is that, even when, as in the ArkivMusic and Grove lists, there isn't a deliberate attempt to rank the composers, if you plot the "scores" on a graph, you see some fairly obvious tiers emerging at the higher end of the graph.

But the bigger point is that although the same names keep appearing in the top tiers of all of the ranked lists I've looked at, they're never all the same names. And in fact, when I collate the rankings and try to plot the resulting scores on a graph, any sense of tiering disappears and I get something not far off a straight line with a few small dips and bumps in it.

So ultimately I'm not convinced there is such a thing as first-tier and second-tier composers; there are only "composers who are to a variable degree more popular/highly regarded than others".

I mean, when I did those composer polls I felt limited by _only_ having 602 names on the list...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I'll be interested to see how others answer, but so far answers seem to cluster around two values - 50 and a lot (with two suggesting 1000 or more).

The first book on classical music I ever read was Goulding's Classical Music: The 50 Greatest Composers and Their 1000 Greatest Works. That was a wonderful introduction for me, and 50 seemed a perfect number for me to start exploring. Obviously Goulding picked a round number that was "doable" for new listeners. I later bought David Dubal's The Essential Canon of Classical Music which lists 236 composers. Dubal separates the composers into two groups - 60 main composers and 176 "other" composers. I have heard music by all these composers and believe all are worthwhile/important/notable/etc..

The Naxos Classical Music Library lists many thousands of composers though many have very few works recorded. Of course there were many more composers through time that are not represented in Naxos but who presumably were played on and off even if for a relatively brief period of time and in a localized region. All of these were good composers capable of producing music many thoroughly enjoyed even if they were quickly forgotten. I assume the number of composers with any recorded music is a small percentage of all professional composers (those ever paid for their work).

When I thought about this question, my general estimate was many hundreds. Among the less notable composers, Dubal includes Alessandro Marcello, Pietro Nardini, Arrigo Boito, Percy Grainger, and Ned Rorem. He suggests others who could easily have been included but were not such as William Schuman, David Diamond, John Adams, and Terry Riley. I would add names such as Georg Benda, William Alwyn, Christian Cannabich, Henri Dutilleux, Louise Farrenc, John Field, Michael Haydn, Magnus Lindberg, Ernest Moeran, Ignaz Pleyel, Joachim Raff, Franz Schmidt, Louis Spohr, Peteris Vasks, and many others.

So I guess that I would include at least 500 and probably more in my list of Hall of Fame or "ought to be sampled" composers. I would view all of those as composers in the very top echelon of professional composers through time.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> "How Many Great Composers Are There?"
> 
> There's enough-more than enough to ever possibly hear in a lifetime, with always something new under the sun if one stays open and remains curious. There's someone worth hearing from every epic of time, from Hildegard of Bingen to Shostakovich. It can never run out, ever. Humanity needs it. There's plenty... and sometimes even a handful of one's favorite composers are enough. I'll skip trying to bean-count them to a specific number that tries to quantify the boundless.


This is more or less my position, too, except I would go a long way past Shostakovich even though it is not so easy to sort the sheep from the goats among more recent ones. I assume greatness is to do with still being worth listening to. It is more than technique, alone, and has something to do with the capacity to surprise and delight or move. For each period I seem to have a bar (I assume it is about quality but it may not be!) for composers that I want to spend a lot of time with but I do know there are many more who have achieved a measure of immortality. It is just that I would rather get acquainted with my 101st piece by Schubert than my 4th piece by, say, Cherubini. And, as I have yet to really get into early/pre-baroque music (I will get there) I am merely assuming that there will be a similar number as for other periods.


----------



## waldvogel (Jul 10, 2011)

As a comparison, baseball has a documented history of about 150 years, much less than classical music. The baseball hall of fame has about 300 inductees, which include people like umpires, owners, and writers... if you just include players the number drops to roughly 250.

There are some injustices there - Lloyd Waner is in and Bill Dahlen is out, Judy Johnson (a man) is in and Minnie Minoso (another man) is out. But the process of induction has been generally pretty good. It also accommodates superstars who had brief careers (Sandy Koufax) and players who had above average careers for a very long time (Lou Brock). But there are no one-year wonders, and very few players who got in by being nice and friendly with the sportswriters who elect them, but with average talent.

So who would you put in the composers' hall of fame? I'm sure there are people here who would put Xenakis in and leave Beethoven out, but that would definitely be a minority opinion, and it would definitely not meet the 75% minimum that the baseball hall of fame demands for election. 

So I'll put a few names here for your perusal. Would these composers make the hall of fame?

Juan Arriaga - the ultimate "what could have been" composer.

Johann Nepomuk Hummel - his music is really good, it was very popular during his lifetime, and is almost never heard today. If you like Haydn, you'll like Hummel. Unfortunately for Hummel, he was writing like Haydn in 1830.

Bedrich Smetana - a terrific composer who is almost unknown outside of the Czech Republic. I've heard The Bartered Bride and the string quartet "from my life"... and if his other stuff is close to that quality, he's a great composer.

Aram Khatchaturian - some really good highlights, some really awful stuff that he might have written so that Stalin didn't send him to Siberia, or just because he wasn't consistently excellent.

Alan Hovanhess - ridiculously prolific, but with some good stuff there. Others in this category include Telemann and Vivaldi.

Ruggiero Leoncavallo - the ultimate one-hit wonder, but what a hit!

The criteria for election isn't "do I think the composer should be in" but "do I think that this composer could get 75% support."


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

> Johann Nepomuk Hummel - his music is really good, it was very popular during his lifetime, and is almost never heard today. If you like Haydn, you'll like Hummel. Unfortunately for Hummel, he was writing like Haydn in 1830.


I think that this strong imperative of innovation in classical music is a bit unjustified or simply unjust. Why not continue tradition of certain time tested and noble forms and styles? If a certain form or style is truly polished, refined, it should allow for practically unlimited number of original works which are faithful to this tradition.
There are many such forms in poetry for example: sonnet is one of them.
Also in literature, of course there is a lot of innovation in contemporary literature, but writing GOOD fiction in conventional realist style is not really frowned upon as much as it is in classical music. Of course today can still be written great realist novels in styles not too different from Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, but dealing with contemporary issues.

Just as originality and innovation is great, there is also something noble, IMO, in cultivating and preserving certain genres and being faithful to certain traditions. So, if there was a composer today who wrote in Haydn's style, I wouldn't give him any points for innovation, but I would evaluate his music for its merit. If it's bland... it would be just a poor imitation. But if it's original, distinct, GOOD, it could still be a great work, even though it's in old style.

For example Italian canzone and Frenche chanson are some of genres, traditions that are valued highly and cultivated in their respective countries and there are many new works, rooted in tradition, but still original, fresh, etc. Also in Bosnia, there is a traditional type of song called Sevdalinka. One of the ways of preserving culture is to keep composing new works in those styles, keeping Sevdalinka alive...


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

> Ruggiero Leoncavallo - the ultimate one-hit wonder, but what a hit!


I'd definitely include him too.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I've heard some of Hummel's works - the trumpet concerto of course is notable. But that aside - and I like Haydn - I wouldnt spend any more time listening to his music. he is where he belongs in my view - obscurity.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

^
Tastes differ. I love the works of Hummel, and I'm very glad enterprising labels (like Chandos) have brought him to our attention.



waldvogel said:


> Bedrich Smetana - a terrific composer who is almost unknown outside of the Czech Republic. I've heard The Bartered Bride and the string quartet "from my life"... and if his other stuff is close to that quality, he's a great composer.


I think the Moldau (Vltava) is one of the best known pieces of classical music worldwide. The whole My fatherland (Ma vlast) cycle of tone poems is excellent.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> ^
> Tastes differ. I love the works of Hummel, and I'm very glad enterprising labels (like Chandos) have brought him to our attention.


I also love Hummel's music, and he is definitely not obscure; the number of recordings devoted to his music is ample proof.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Just listening to Hummel's trumpet concerto. Very good stuff, I like his style. Good discovery.


----------



## waldvogel (Jul 10, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> ^
> Tastes differ. I love the works of Hummel, and I'm very glad enterprising labels (like Chandos) have brought him to our attention.
> 
> I think the Moldau (Vltava) is one of the best known pieces of classical music worldwide. The whole My fatherland (Ma vlast) cycle of tone poems is excellent.


I completely forgot about Ma Vlast. I love it.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Definitions of great are varied. A composer is great I think if they wrote just one song that was truly unique and enjoyed by even just one person. I admire that definition of great, but I don't think it's the only definition worth talking about.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I tend to focus on great works over great composers, and innovation and individuality over craftsmanship, which often don't go hand in hand. Scriabin was a way more innovative composer over Tchaikovsky, but Tchaikovsky wrote more memorable melodies, I can't recall any theme by Scriabin off the top of my head. Brahms' music is better put together than Berlioz, but Berlioz was much more intriguing original. Raff and Schumann I feel are the same level, both not quite deserving of top honours. I find most of Handel's music boring, and not very innovative, compared to Prokofiev. I think there are greater composers of the 20th Century like Stravinsky, Ravel, Debussy, and Bartok that are less favoured in reputation than more mediocre composers (in comparison) in the 19th Century like Mendelssohn, Schumann, Weber, Schubert, Saint Saens, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> First, forget the word "great" in the title. I used it as a short placeholder for a more detailed idea...The actual definition of this category can vary so I will suggest several.
> 
> How many composers...
> 
> ...


I think we can see that the number of composers who might fit these general criteria is very large. But if we're really strict in applying the second, tripartite criterion - "special, important, or foundational" - the job of picking the greats gets easier.

Let's say that "special" refers to a strongly impressive creative power, as heard in a striking artistic profile, a distinct stylistic identity or "sound," and an outstanding technical skill that makes a composer stand out in the history of the art. "Important" would refer to a composer's prominence in the musical culture of his time and in subsequent eras. And "foundational" would refer to the presence of specific elements of a composer's work that contribute greatly to the subsequent development of music.

These three factors aren't of equal importance in rating a composer's greatness, since "specialness" refers to intrinsic qualities of his work, while the other two factors are more affected by circumstances. Some very "special" composers - Schubert, for example, or even Mussorgsky - may have been prevented by death from becoming as prominent or influential as they might otherwise have been. Composers who were at least remarkable for their creativity and who achieved (or should have achieved) a fair measure of prominence or influence on the future of music would include, at a minimum, Monteverdi, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Berlioz, Wagner, Brahms, Debussy, Schoenberg and Stravinsky.

A number of others might be added to that short list, but even as the list stands it should be obvious that applying the stated criteria won't give us a fully considered assessment of the "greatness" of any of these composers. It simply leaves out entirely any attempt to get to grips with what their music says to us, and it would be an odd conception of artistic greatness that discounted or ignored what works of art mean to those who experience them. I think an artist can meet all these criteria for nomination to the Music Hall of Fame and still fall notably short of scaling the heights and plumbing the depths of artistic expression. If meeting that challenge were part of the price of admission, the hall might be a rather small room.

But I'm not saying who I'd put in it.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Phil loves classical said:


> I tend to focus on great works over great composers, and innovation and individuality over craftsmanship, which often don't go hand in hand. Scriabin was a way more innovative composer over Tchaikovsky, but Tchaikovsky wrote more memorable melodies, I can't recall any theme by Scriabin off the top of my head. Brahms' music is better put together than Berlioz, but Berlioz was much more intriguing original. Raff and Schumann I feel are the same level, both not quite deserving of top honours. I find most of Handel's music boring, and not very innovative, compared to Prokofiev. I think there are greater composers of the 20th Century like Stravinsky, Ravel, Debussy, and Bartok that are less favoured in reputation than more mediocre composers (in comparison) in the 19th Century like Mendelssohn, Schumann, Weber, Schubert, Saint Saens, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner


Wow. This post is all over the place. Not going to bother arguing against any of it considering the highly subjective nature. But I'd just like to say that if you can't recall any theme by Scriabin you haven't listened enough to his music. I practically breathe some his themes on an daily basis.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I tend to think about painting and painters/artists when I think of questions like this. There are so many great painters besides the even greater ones who we generalists may be familiar with. Works by any one of them might be wonderful to have on our walls and to live with.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

In a sports hall of fame the selections are essentially the greatest players of their era. An 'era' in sports could be as little as a decade, so using that example in music would mean every 'best' composer of every decade could be included in a hall of fame. This would include everyone of any fame and lots of others that are not famous.

If you mean the best of every century, that makes it easier but also makes it more difficult. For example, who would be the 'best' among J.S. Bach, Vivaldi and Handel who all composed at the same time? How about between Brahms, Tchaikovsky and Bruckner who were all active together? Or Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven who all performed in the 1790s?

This is the difficulty. Fanfare magazine has a better idea, I think: they put recordings in their classical hall of fame.


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2018)

42 ..............


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> ...These three factors aren't of equal importance in rating a composer's greatness, since "specialness" refers to intrinsic qualities of his work, while the other two factors are more affected by circumstances. Some very "special" composers - Schubert, for example, or even Mussorgsky - may have been prevented by death from becoming as prominent or influential as they might otherwise have been. Composers who were at least remarkable for their creativity and who achieved (or should have achieved) a fair measure of prominence or influence on the future of music would include, at a minimum, Monteverdi, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Berlioz, Wagner, Brahms, Debussy, Schoenberg and Stravinsky...


I agree that any metrics one uses to include composers in some overall list of "The Great/Important/Worthy/Special/Etc. Ones" can vary greatly leading to very different lists both in size and composer content.We all view certain composers as more elevated (whatever that exactly means) than others. I used to have a relatively modest list of such composers due somewhat, but not completely, to not hearing many others. As I have explored more and more composers, my "list" of elevated ones has grown. The growth I think is due to understanding how many people became extremely competent composers, and then realizing there exist many who stand over those who are "merely" extremely competent.

It's all very subjective, and perhaps Larkenfield summed it up best:



Larkenfield said:


> "How Many Great Composers Are There?"
> 
> There's enough-more than enough to ever possibly hear in a lifetime, with always someone new under the sun if one stays open and remains curious...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Such a fine question deserves a truly literal (_i.e._, pedantic) answer: It depends on how much floor space we can afford for the Composers' Hall of Fame. And times are tough - even the Liberace Museum in Las Vegas had to shut its doors recently due to lack of traffic, a sad day for music.
> 
> But I bet we could support, say, 2,500 square feet of floor space. Of this, we'll need 500 SF for the gift shop (overpriced busts and knick-knacks mostly made in China) and another 400 SF for corridors and common space. This leaves enough room for ten "Great Composers" each allocated 160 SF, a space about 12-13 feet on a side. Each space will have paintings, other exhibits, and a kiosk with several sets of headphones for listening to music selections (a quarter a play). In addition, each space will have a Disney-style animatronic statue of the composer that can respond to spoken queries. For example, ask Beethoven a question and he will look up and say, rather loudly, "What? What? Speak up!" He will speak in English of course, out of unfortunate commercial necessity.
> 
> So anyway, the short answer is ten.





dogen said:


> 42 ..............


Smarta*ses, but I enjoyed both posts.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I think that there isn't too much difference between immortals (those in top 10 or top 20) and other greats, and number of these other greats is huge. Immortals became immortals not always only due to their exceptional talent and output, but also for historical reasons, certain important audiences being exposed to them at the right time, even due to parroting of received opinions, and in general LUCK. Even geography plays a role. There are certainly many exceptional composers from peripheral countries whose music is overlooked simply because of geography. And when I say exceptional, I truly mean it... it is very possible that they were in many ways DIFFERENT from the mainstream and in some ways more original than the mainstream, simply due to being more isolated, and perhaps being influenced by local folk music and local culture and tradition. Even Haydn, who is certainly mainstream, said that he was forced to be original due to living in isolation for a significant amount of time.
Many of composers who are household names today were in obscurity for a long time, until someone re-discovered them and started revival movements. It's very likely that there will be many more such revivals and that many new greats will be discovered from different historical periods.
Also I think, just today, there is an enormous amount of great composers. We just don't know of them. Because so few people listen to contemporary classical music. Audience is almost absent, critics are also harsh, competition is big, but financial rewards relatively low.
I would include the greatest film music composers and even some popular music composers (songwriters) among the greats.


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2018)

ZJovicic said:


> I would include the *greatest film music composers *and even some popular music composers (songwriters) among the greats.


Now you're just reverting to your idea of a formula.

I wonder if anyone's done a thread which shows that there are great film scores written for poor movies?


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2018)

MacLeod said:


> I wonder if anyone's done a thread which shows that there are great film scores written for poor movies?


Patience dear boy, patience.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

I think that the short lists (up to 50 or so) are useful for music appreciation.

But even there, the concern is that books, courses, concerts, recordings, publicity all coalesce around the same names over and over again, far beyond introductory levels -- in a way that distorts _all_ levels of music. That is one reason why reaction over the past 40+ years against "the canon" of musical works has been harsh.

However, adding an indiscriminate mass of composers and works to those lists isn't helpful either. In practice, classical music has factionalized in many ways -- Baroque composers, contemporary composers, styles, genres -- all in turn accused of elitism by the left and tax-wasting by the right.


----------

