# The Top 10 Greatest Composers According to New York Times



## peeyaj

The New York Times music critic, Anthony Tomassini, for 2 weeks, decided to rank who are the greatest composers of Western Classical Music. He asked his readers to name their top 10 list and help him to write the list. Today, the list was published.










1. *Johann Sebastian Bach*










2. *Ludwig van Beethoven*










3. *Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart*










4. *Franz Peter Schubert*










5. *Claude Debussy*










6. *Igor Stravinsky*

7. *Johannes Brahms*

8. *Giussepi Verdi*

9. *Richard Wagner*

10. *Bela Bartok*

Read his list here:



> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/arts/music/23composers.html?ref=arts


and the discussions



> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/arts/music/09composers.html


*Agree with NYT?*


----------



## graaf

1-3 had to be those 3, and I also like the order. The rest of the list is very good but probably every member here would change a thing or two. I would place Wagner higher, and would find a place for Tchaikovsky and Puccini. While thinking who would have to go away to find place for those two I realized that I was prone to dismiss those that I have listened least, which is obviously a bad approach, so I will skip that


----------



## emiellucifuge

Why is Verdi ahead of Wagner. Theyre both opera composers yet Wagner is both better ( see our tc 100 list) , and had a far greater influence on music that came after him. Leitmotivs, harmony etc...

And Bartok?


----------



## Aramis

Dumb as all other "greatest composers" lists :tiphat:


----------



## MrTortoise

Nothing like a silly list to get things stirred up a bit 

I agree with a lot of the list, and even thought I'm not much of an opera fan Verdi and Wagner deserve to be there, though it pains me a bit that Chopin didn't make the cut. The man couldn't orchestrate his way out of a paper bag though, I have to admit


----------



## Aramis

MrTortoise said:


> The man couldn't orchestrate his way out of a paper bag though, I have to admit






 - is this concerto better orchestrated than Chopin's?


----------



## MrTortoise

yes, both in fact


----------



## Aramis

MrTortoise said:


> yes, both in fact


How would you prove it?


----------



## Webernite

I suppose my list (of composers who lived between about 1700 and 1950) would be something like this:

1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Wagner
4. Mozart
5. Brahms 
6. Haydn
7. Handel
8. Schubert
9. Tchaikovsky
10. Schoenberg

If you were to accuse me of being an extreme German nationalist (musically speaking!), you wouldn't be entirely wrong. I have some sympathy for Rameau, Chopin, Debussy, Prokofiev and Verdi, among others. But none of them would make it into my top ten.


----------



## graaf

Webernite edited his post (fixing Tchaikovsky), making mine obsolete 
delete this please


----------



## Nix

This is actually one of the better lists I've seen, but I suppose since it's only 10 there's less chance for controversy. The only problem I have with it is the inclusion Verdi and the exclusion of Haydn. And then some minor changes in order. 

Also, I feel like the next logical step after having our own top 100 Symphonies and top 100 Operas is to make our own top 100 composers.


----------



## Webernite

I like the idea of having a Top 50 Pianists thread, too. Or possibly Top 100 Musicians (Non-Composers).


----------



## MrTortoise

Aramis said:


> How would you prove it?


Like I said, nothing like a silly list...

Anyway, the short answer is, my ears tell me 

I love Chopin, in fact, in my top 10 list it would begin with JS Bach and then Chopin as number 2. Given that, it does pain me a bit to say that listening to the Chopin piano concertos always leaves me thinking the orchestral parts could have been written better and with more inspiration. He gives so much to the piano and so little to the orchestra. Now having said that, I'm glad that Chopin blessed our world with his piano/orchestral works, but he spent so much of his career writing exclusively for the piano it is no wonder that his orchestral writing is not on the same level.

I meant no disrespect to one of your countries greatest poets. :tiphat:


----------



## Aramis

MrTortoise said:


> Anyway, the short answer is, my ears tell me


Very well, but how about letting the facts tell you that Chopin wrote all his orchestral music in very early age and very little of great composers had written anything better for orchestra in such age, except maybe the most outstanding masters of orchestration.

The truth is that Chopin didn't write anything great for orchestra but considering his age/classical infuences of Hummel etc we see that Chopin wasn't untalented orchestrator, but someone who gave up orchestral music and didn't write any as mature composers.

If we compare two first works with orchestra by Beethoven with those by Chopin there won't be any greater difference in orchestral craftshmanship to be proven musicologically and with solid, concrete arguments.

That's why I try to belie the unjust stereotyphe and tendency of bashing his skills when I can.


----------



## Air

Webernite said:


> I like the idea of having a Top 50 Pianists thread, too. Or possibly Top 100 Musicians (Non-Composers).


I wouldn't. It would pain me to see a list in which all the historical greats, Fischer, Rachmaninov, Cortot, Hofmann, Moiseiwitsch, Sofronitsky, Rosenthal, Schnabel, Busoni, etc. were left out just because very few people on this forum have heard of them. A Top 50 Living Pianists (or Musicians, since getting to 50 might be hard) may be a better idea.


----------



## Aramis

Air said:


> It would pain me to see a list in which all the historical greats, Fischer, Rachmaninov, Cortot, Hofmann, Moiseiwitsch, Sofronitsky, Rosenthal, Schnabel, Busoni, etc. were left out just because very few people on this forum have heard of them.


Well, then at least you would know what I feel while observing already existing "top" threads :tiphat:


----------



## Webernite

Air said:


> I wouldn't. It would pain me to see a list in which all the historical greats, Fischer, Rachmaninov, Cortot, Hofmann, Moiseiwitsch, Sofronitsky, Rosenthal, Schnabel, Busoni, etc. were left out just because very few people on this forum have heard of them. A Top 50 Living Pianists (or Musicians, since getting to 50 might be hard) may be a better idea.


Well, it could be "Top 100 Pianists Since 1950" or something along those lines. That would exclude most of the really early pianists, without costing them their dignity.

"Top 10 Composers" lists always implicitly do the same thing for Renaissance composers. After all, one can make a pretty good case for putting Josquin and Ockgeham above, say, Haydn, but the whole thing would get very messy that way.


----------



## Air

Webernite said:


> Well, it could be "Top 100 Pianists Since 1950" or something along those lines. That would exclude most of the really early pianists, without costing them their dignity.
> 
> "Top 10 Composers" lists always implicitly do the same thing for Renaissance composers. After all, one can make a pretty good case for putting Josquin and Ockgeham above, say, Haydn, but the whole thing would get very messy that way.


Cortot, Fischer, and Sofronitsky performed well into the 50's. If they end up lower than a Valentina Lisitsa or Lang Lang please don't blame me.

I think if there was a better place to cut it it would be the distinction between those that are alive and those that are not. I know this will cost the final wave of Great Pianists (Richter, Horowitz, Michelangeli, Arrau, Rubinstein, Gilels, Gould, Serkin, etc.) a spot on the list, but to cut it any other way would be in my opinion, either disastrous or too random.


----------



## MrTortoise

Webernite said:


> "Top 10 Composers" lists always implicitly do the same thing for Renaissance composers. After all, one can make a pretty good case for putting Josquin and Ockgeham above, say, Haydn, but the whole thing would get very messy that way.


It is a shame that most classical music discussions begin with Bach and Handel and overlook the innovators from the Rennaissance and Medieval periods, and even early Baroque. Gesualdo nor Tallis will ever make the list in popular opinion.


----------



## Webernite

Air said:


> Cortot, Fischer, and Sofronitsky performed well into the 50's. If they end up lower than a Valentina Lisitsa or Lang Lang please don't blame me.
> 
> I think if there was a better place to cut it it would be the distinction between those that are alive and those that are not. I know this will cost the final wave of Great Pianists (Richter, Horowitz, Michelangeli, Arrau, Rubinstein, Gilels, Gould, Serkin, etc.) a spot on the list, but to cut it any other way would be in my opinion, either disastrous or too random.


I think it'd be much too boring just to create a list of living pianists. There aren't even that many who are widely known...

And you underestimate Talk Classical's populous if you believe Cortot wouldn't get a decent ranking.


----------



## Air

Webernite said:


> I think it'd be much too boring just to create a list of living pianists. There aren't even that many who are widely known...
> 
> And you underestimate Talk Classical's populous if you believe Cortot wouldn't get a decent ranking.


Well I'd be open to testing it out. It's all up to you, my good man!


----------



## emiellucifuge

Aramis said:


> Well, then at least you would know what I feel while observing already existing "top" threads :tiphat:


We give time to share little known works in the hope of convincing others. You may hardly criticise this system as you didnt even bother trying to influence the vote in any way. Besides , many little known symphonies were included; Myaskovsky 6, Bantock Hebridean and many others. Personally I think the list has been a success in this regard.


----------



## Webernite

MrTortoise said:


> It is a shame that most classical music discussions begin with Bach and Handel and overlook the innovators from the Rennaissance and Medieval periods, and even early Baroque. Gesualdo nor Tallis will ever make the list in popular opinion.


True. Even composers as late as Buxtehude suffer from the same problem.


Air said:


> Well I'd be open to testing it out. It's all up to you, my good man!


I'm not sure whether I'm conscientious enough to run the thread myself.  But I do think it would be a fun idea.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Webernite said:


> True. Even composers as late as Buxtehude suffer from the same problem.


The problem extends on both sides of the romantic era. I havent see many lists that rank Stockhausen, Xenakis, Boulez or Varese near the top which is arguably where they should be.


----------



## toucan

That's right


----------



## Webernite

I think people feel lost when there's no traditional view about where such-and-such composer ranks in the canon. Most people create their lists by synthesizing what critics have said with their own tastes. This is why you end up with people who don't like Mozart still ranking him very highly, and why Brahms almost never ranks above Beethoven. There are certain traditional guidelines within which to work. 

But with Xenakis, as with Buxtehude, people just don't know where to start. You could put them anywhere between 20 and 120 without much controversy. So everyone simply decides not to make a judgement at all.


----------



## Aramis

> We give time to share little known works in the hope of convincing others. You may hardly criticise this system as you didnt even bother trying to influence the vote in any way. Besides , many little known symphonies were included; Myaskovsky 6, Bantock Hebridean and many others. Personally I think the list has been a success in this regard.


I don't criticise system or anything and I didn't bother to propose anything since I couldn't count on support.

Or maybe I am criticising system a little bit - this "time to share little known" shows that 100 symphonies it too much to handle for participants. You got to point when one links movement of some symphony on YT and others vote for it because they liked it. This list will include works that people didn't SELECT, they voted for works they heard for the first time because someone linked it. That makes little sense, half of this list will be accidental, not well-thought.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Not at all, now that were in the more obscure sections we have 4 days to review our libraries, check out recommendations etc... I know at least one member (Weston) has been maintaining some form of ranking spreadsheet which he is using. Besides, the fact that symphonies require the support from multiple people irons out anomalies. 

I admit the system isnt perfect but I dont believe your criticisms are justified. The problems I see is the small sample size which may skew the results in a certain direction if we happen to have a large percentage of post-romantic russia fans for example.


----------



## joen_cph

> I didn't bother to propose anything since I couldn't count on support


Which symphonies were you thinking about ?


----------



## Webernite

Aramis said:


> I don't criticise system or anything and I didn't bother to propose anything since I couldn't count on support.
> 
> Or maybe I am criticising system a little bit - this "time to share little known" shows that 100 symphonies it too much to handle for participants. You got to point when one links movement of some symphony on YT and others vote for it because they liked it. This list will include works that people didn't SELECT, they voted for works they heard for the first time because someone linked it. That makes little sense, half of this list will be accidental, not well-thought.


Yeah, but in the end the point isn't to create a great stone tablet with the undisputed Top 100 Symphonies on it. The point is to learn about new music and to encourage people to articulate what they like and dislike about different works. It also provides a rough guide for classical novices. And it gives us all something to talk about!


----------



## Kieran

He placed Verdi above Wagner based upon their moral views, which kind of defeats the purpose of the list. No Haydn, who looms so large in histories of the symphony and string quartet. No Handel. 

It really is like your list and mine: a selection based upon private prejudice and preference, but it's good fun for all that. Difficult to argue with the top three, though I'd have a different order. So would you, probably. What I mostly got from this exercise is the thought that I should look for some Schubert music, so it wasn't completely wasted on me...:tiphat:


----------



## emiellucifuge

Well then why isnt Aristotle up there?


----------



## Aramis

> Which symphonies were you thinking about ?


Szymanowski 1-4 especially, I think I voted once on one of them. But since kitsch like Rautavaara already took it's place I restrained from proposing it again as it would be blasphemous to place any of these under Rautavaara's and not only his music.

Btw, there is no Harold in Italy on the list :<



> Not at all, now that were in the more obscure sections we have 4 days to review our libraries, check out recommendations etc... I know at least one member (Weston) has been maintaining some form of ranking spreadsheet which he is using. Besides, the fact that symphonies require the support from multiple people irons out anomalies.


Still the same - if one has no knowledge about some obscure area of music and is given one symphony to listen he can't just conclude that of all works from this area that's the one to place on top 100.



> The point is to learn about new music and to encourage people to articulate what they like and dislike about various works.


Nah, I think this list is prepared in order to be posted as stick thread later and to serve newcomers.


----------



## Polednice

emiellucifuge said:


> Why is Verdi ahead of Wagner. Theyre both opera composers yet Wagner is both better ( see our tc 100 list) , and had a far greater influence on music that came after him. Leitmotivs, harmony etc...
> 
> And Bartok?


The actual reasoning given in the article is that the writer enjoys both Verdi and Wagner equally, but Wagner was a racist, so he gets bumped down a notch... That's how stupid the list is!

It's quite obvious from his writing that he was also being political by keeping the German composers to a minimum.


----------



## Aramis

Polednice said:


> but Wagner was a racist


Jews are nationality, not race.


----------



## Jacob Singer

Polednice said:


> The actual reasoning given in the article is that the writer enjoys both Verdi and Wagner equally, but Wagner was a racist, so he gets bumped down a notch... That's how stupid the list is!


I agree, that is a really stupid reason.



Polednice said:


> It's quite obvious from his writing that he was also being political by keeping the German composers to a minimum.


I am not crazy about this list, either, but I find that the Germans (other than Beethoven) are usually highly overrated in most classical music circles (sometimes to the point of absurdity). They certainly thought _very_ highly of themselves in the 19th and 20th centuries, so it is no surprise that people to this day continue to buy into the hype, especially in the snootier music cliques.

Also, Bartok in the top ten?

Really?


----------



## Polednice

Aramis said:


> Jews are nationality, not race.


It was shorter than anti-semite and I was hoping no one would care  I was wrong!


----------



## emiellucifuge

Jews are a race?


----------



## Random

Um, wouldn't a Jew be someone who is a believer in the Jewish Religion?

That can be anyone of any race.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Tricky. Its kind of an ethnic group with a religion, people can convert but its also inherited. And now they have a nation again.


----------



## Polednice

Oh dear. My typing laziness has derailed the conversation...


----------



## Aramis

Polednice said:


> Oh dear. My typing laziness has derailed the conversation...


Don't worry, you can't spoil such rubbish thread.


----------



## Jacob Singer

Aramis said:


> Jews are nationality, not race.


Uh, no.

Judaism is a religion, and while the hatred directed at the Jews in the German states was originally on religious terms (in the 18th and early 19th century), eventually it would become very racial.

In the 19th century, while the western European powers were embracing constitutional republicanism and civil liberty, the German states were not, with their societies still stuck in an 18th century mindset. The elitist aristocrats that ruled much of mainland Europe were German-speakers, while the many peoples they lorded over were of a variety of cultures. Germans began to see their race and culture as unquestionably better than anyone else's, and they began to see the Jews' very race as the source of all that was wrong within their societies. This extreme arrogance and anti-democratic nature of 19th and early-20th century German culture would eventually lead to two world wars and the Holocaust.


----------



## Aramis

> Uh, no. Judaism is a religion, and while the hatred directed at the Jews in the German states was originally on religious terms (in the 18th and early 19th century), eventually it would become very racial.
> In the 19th century, while the western European powers were embracing constitutional republicanism and civil liberty, the German states were not, with their societies still stuck in an 18th century mindset. The elitist aristocrats that ruled much of mainland Europe were German-speakers, while the many peoples they lorded over were of a variety of cultures. Germans began to see their race and culture as unquestionably better than anyone else's, and they began to see the Jews' very race as the source of all that was wrong within their societies. This extreme arrogance and anti-democratic nature of 19th and early-20th century German culture would eventually lead to two world wars and the Holocaust.


"Jews" refers both to people of particular nation and religion but in Wagner's case it was about first only. He wouldn't mind if some native German guy would turn to Judaism and make art, what he had problem with were *ethnic* Jews who spreaded across Europe and affected German culture. Religion had little to do with this, it was all about ethnicity.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

One way of assessing this list is to look at the rankings, 
and consider the some of the more individualistic-type results-

1. Bach
2.Beethoven
3. Mozart (As has been said before, everybody does this- it's just a question of the order...)

4. Schubert (Well- that's a little interesting- but I'm not going to strenuously object...)

5. Debussy
6. Stravinsky (Highest I've ever seen either of these two ranked.)

7. Brahms (not too out-of-line)

8. Verdi (Also unprecendentedly high.)
9. Wagner (Comes in low- and [by the author's admission] more a
comment on the author's perspective than the Art of Wagner.)

10. Bartók (Maybe the weirdest result of all!)

Of course, Haydn & Handel are the jarring absences.

I like Bartók all right, Stravinsky a little more, and Debussy above either of those. I also like Ravel, Puccini and Bruckner... but the thought wouldn't cross my mind to put ANY of those three within a zip-code of a 'top-10 greatest' slot.

Is there a chance that the author's last name (Tommasini) has something to do with the uniquely high rating for Verdi??


----------



## starry

emiellucifuge said:


> Tricky. Its kind of an ethnic group with a religion, people can convert but its also inherited. And now they have a nation again.


*Some* live in a nation created very controversially through the Zionist movement. Many other Jewish people live happily alongside other people in many other countries of the world.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

One way of assessing this list is to look at the rankings,
and consider the some of the more individualistic-type results-

1. Bach
2.Beethoven
3. Mozart (As has been said before, everybody does this- it's just a question of the order...)

4. Schubert (Well- that's a little interesting- but I'm not going to strenuously object...)

5. Debussy
6. Stravinsky (Highest I've ever seen either of these two ranked.)

7. Brahms (not too out-of-line)

8. Verdi (Also unprecendentedly high.)
9. Wagner (Comes in low- and [by the author's admission] more a
comment on the author's perspective than the Art of Wagner.)

10. Bartók (Maybe the weirdest result of all!)

Of course, Haydn & Handel are the jarring absences. 

This post almost mirrors my own thinking. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart are almost a given... the question being the order (although for me there is no question that Bach is always no. 1). I'd probably rank Schubert at 5 or 6... but 4 is no glaring mistake. Stravinsky at 6 is way out of his league as much as I admire much of his work. Debussy I also agree is a bit high... above Handel, Wagner, Brahms, and Haydn? Wagner is too low... especially considering the impact he had upon so many other composers... including those placed above him on this list. Verdi, as much as I like him, is no Handel or Haydn who are indeed the glaring absences. Bartok just seems a bizarre afterthought... an attempt to throw in another Modernist or perhaps someone from outside of the big 4: Germany/Italy/France/Russia.

My own personal list would probably look something like this:

1. Bach
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Wagner
5. Handel
6. Schubert
7. Brahms
8. Haydn
9. Monteverdi
10. Richard Strauss

But that's just me...:tiphat:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I am not crazy about this list, either, but I find that the Germans (other than Beethoven) are usually highly overrated in most classical music circles (sometimes to the point of absurdity). They certainly thought very highly of themselves in the 19th and 20th centuries, so it is no surprise that people to this day continue to buy into the hype, especially in the snootier music cliques.

Or perhaps... a possibility that just may have escapes you... the Germans actually have produced a good amount of the greatest music ever written... a body of music admired and enjoyed by the classical music audience who might actually, in spite of what you imagine, be able to think for themselves regardless of the "hype" (all those Bach videos with scantily clad dancers, I suppose).


----------



## peeyaj

Imho, the exclusion of Haydn is good. I don't find Haydn's music serious compared to my dear Franz..



> *May Haydn forgive me, but one of the Vienna Four just had to go, and Haydn's great legacy was carried out by his friend Mozart, his student Beethoven and the entire Classical movement.*


----------



## Jacob Singer

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Or perhaps... a possibility that just may have escapes you... the Germans actually have produced a good amount of the greatest music ever written...


That's the exact attitude I am talking about, and why I think so much of it gets overrated in the first place. The fact is that outside of the _extremely_ insular and often hopelessly narrow-minded classical music world, I can't find a single living soul on this earth who would agree with you.

Even if you consider _all_ of the many works by the likes of Beethoven and Bach, it still only represents a tiny fraction of all of the music out there.

"a good amount of the greatest music ever written"? Not even close.


----------



## World Violist

Of course I agree with almost none of this list except for Bach. Wagner should be higher, etc. etc.

Edit: And of course, it's a stupid concept, this listing of the greatest composers. Why am I even posting on this thread? It's too silly.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

That's the exact attitude I am talking about, and why I think so much of it gets overrated in the first place. The fact is that *outside of the* extremely insular and often hopelessly narrow-minded *classical music world*, I can't find a single living soul on this earth who would agree with you.

Even if you consider all of the many works by the likes of Beethoven and Bach, it still only represents a tiny fraction of all of the music out there.

In other words... outside of the realm of those whose opinions matter on the subject, not a single person would agree with me? Even then, I suspect you haven't looked all that hard. Or perhaps you imagine we should include the opinions of 14-year-old head-bangers or rappers in judging classical music? Gotta love the holier than thou dismissal of the whole of the classical music world as insular and hopelessly narrow-minded... as if any other genre of music were any less so. The reality is that the English and French and Chinese produced more than their fair share of the greatest literature and poetry ever written, and the Italians achieved a great deal more than most nationalities in terms of painting and art. Economics, politics, an openness to outside influences, a strong educational support structure, etc... all play a role in this... but there is no telling why so many artists of real ability show up in a given time or place. But of course you can deny this all you wish and for whatever reason, the most popular being a misguided belief that art is egalitarian and that all artists are equal.


----------



## Jacob Singer

StlukesguildOhio said:


> In other words... outside of the realm of those whose opinions matter on the subject, not a single person would agree with me?


Your thinking that only the opinions of the classical music world "matter" is why you fail to understand. The fact that you used that word speaks volumes.

I've known plenty of talented musicians from all kinds of different cultural (and national) backgrounds - _many of them with traditional classical training_ - and I don't know any who would agree that "the Germans actually have produced a good amount of the greatest music ever written", as you said.

What part of that aren't you getting?



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Economics, politics, an openness to outside influences, a strong educational support structure, etc... all play a role in this... but there is no telling why so many artists of real ability show up in a given time or place.


No, actually there is, like when the elites who control the propagation of artistic works want people to believe that some artists should be necessarily highly regarded at the expense of others. It's happened in various cultures, and the German example eventually became perhaps the most extreme in the history of the modern world. The benefit of living outside of that time and space is that we can prevent ourselves from falling victim to that same blind worship.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Your thinking that only the opinions of the classical music world "matter" is why you fail to understand. The fact that you used that word speaks volumes.

Typical presumptuousness. If someone disagrees with you, they just don't get it. If the "classical music world" disagrees with you, their opinions are to dismissed as nothing more than the thoughts of the"extremely insular and often hopelessly narrow-minded". The fact that others who disagree with you may actually know something... maybe even more than yourself... is completely beyond your realm of possibilities, right?

I've known plenty of talented musicians from all kinds of different cultural (and national) backgrounds - many of them with traditional classical training - and I don't know any who would agree that "the Germans actually have produced a good amount of the greatest music ever written"

If this were at all true, one would might suggest that you don't know any musicians worth knowing. Even admitting to the more than rich contributions to the realm of classical music of the Italians, French, Russians, Polish, English, etc... one would need to be virtually ignorant of the whole of Western music history (or simply willfully close-minded or anti-German) to fail to recognize the scale of the contributions of the German composers.

What part of that aren't you getting?

The whole of your argument. The Germans haven't made one of the largest contributions to the whole of Western classical music?

Quote:
Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio View Post
Economics, politics, an openness to outside influences, a strong educational support structure, etc... all play a role in this... but there is no telling why so many artists of real ability show up in a given time or place.

No, actually there is, like when the elites who control the propagation of artistic works want people to believe that some artists should be necessarily highly regarded at the expense of others. It's happened in various cultures, and the German example eventually became perhaps the most extreme in the history of the modern world. The benefit of living outside of that time and space is that we can prevent ourselves from falling victim to that same blind worship.

That's third-rate PC thinking: The "school of resentment" as Harold Bloom used to call it. If an artist who is somewhat universally admired isn't of my race or nationality or gender, or gender preference then the obvious reason that he or she has attained this position is through a manipulation of the simple-minded with the aid of some vast conspiracy. Of course there are always the inconvenient facts... why a homosexual such as Michelangelo or Leonardo would be chosen by the power elite of the Catholic Church as the greatest artists of their time... Why would a probable bi-sexual such as Shakespeare would have been supported over Milton? How could Dante have been allowed such recognition in spite of the fact that much of what he wrote challenges the church, the wealthy, and the governments of the time? Why do we get Picasso, a Spaniard, and not an American, Englishman, or even a Frenchman as the "greatest" artist of the 20th century?

The reality is that the "canon" or the idealized list of the great artists in any genre from across time is not the product of power-brokers out to propagate their culture over that of others... although certainly nearly every culture does make attempts at such. Considering the relative economic and military weakness of the German states in comparison to the French, Dutch, English, and even the Spanish from the 1500s until the late 19th century, the argument becomes even more lame. The reality is that the "canon" is a ideal surely never fully agreed upon which is the product of the collective opinions of those whose opinions "matter"... and those whose opinions "matter" are those who have invested the most time, effort, study, and even money into the appreciation, promotion, and preservation of a given art form, and this includes academics, critics, historians, patrons, performers, informed audiences, and subsequent artists. But you would have us believe that the opinions of all these are moot... or rather they are all mindlessly following the party-line?


----------



## emiellucifuge

Uh ........

Do the works of:
Handel
J.S. Bach
C.P.E. Bach
J.C. Bach
W.F. Bach
Beethoven
Mozart
Wagner
Mendelssohn
Offenbach
Weber
Schoenberg
Webern
Berg
Reinecke
Telemann
Rihm
Schumann
Spohr
Strauss
Pachelbel
Stockhausen
Brahms
Bruch
Gluck
Henze
Hindemith
Meyerbeer

Not constitute at least a good amount of music? I dont know who would deny that.



starry said:


> *Some* live in a nation created very controversially through the Zionist movement. Many other Jewish people live happily alongside other people in many other countries of the world.


Youre right of course


----------



## Pieck

Aramis said:


> Jews are nationality, not race.


Judaism isn't a nationality, they are a race.
Israel is a nation not Judah.
If Im born to Jewish parents Im Jewish, if Im born in Israel I can be an arabic muslim.
Wagner was racist


----------



## Aramis

Pieck said:


> Judaism isn't a nationality, they are a race.
> Israel is a nation not Judah.
> If Im born to Jewish parents Im Jewish, if Im born in Israel I can be an arabic muslim.
> Wagner was racist


"The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים‎‎ Yehudim [jɛhuːdiːm]), also known as the Jewish people, are a *nation and ethnoreligious group* originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. *The Jewish ethnicity, nationality*, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the *Jewish nation*(...)"


----------



## Pieck

Aramis said:


> "The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים‎‎ Yehudim [jɛhuːdiːm]), also known as the Jewish people, are a *nation and ethnoreligious group* originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. *The Jewish ethnicity, nationality*, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the *Jewish nation*(...)"


But if im born to Jewish parents in the US and am a complete atheist am I Jewish? I am


----------



## Aramis

Yes, Jewish because of your national, not racial descent.


----------



## starry

So all Jewish people have to think exactly the same do they? LOL. 

I don't care about race really anyway, all people are just human beings. There's no doubt that quite alot of people are still very preoccupied with ethnicity though, particularly in societies which aren't that pluralistic.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Handel
J.S. Bach
C.P.E. Bach
J.C. Bach
W.F. Bach
Beethoven
Mozart
Wagner
Mendelssohn
Offenbach
Weber
Schoenberg
Webern
Berg
Reinecke
Telemann
Rihm
Schumann
Spohr
Strauss
Pachelbel
Stockhausen
Brahms
Bruch
Gluck
Henze
Hindemith
Meyerbeer

How could you forget Schubert?

and Hildegard of Bingen?
and Gustav Mahler?
and Bruckner?
Johann Adolph Hasse
Heinrich Schütz
Oswald von Wolkenstein
Hieronymus Praetorius
Johann Schein
Samuel Scheidt
Dieterich Buxtehude (German/Danish)
Heinrich Ignaz Franz Biber
Jan Dismas Zelenka (Bohemian)
Telemann
Johann Adolph Hasse
Carl Maria von Weber
Johann Strauss
Richard Strauss
Franz von Suppé
Max Bruch
Hugo Wolf
Engelbert Humperdinck
Alexander Zemlinsky
Franz Schreker
Max Reger
Carl Orff
Erich Korngold
Ernst Krenek
Kurt Weill
Joseph Marx
Othmar Schoeck

Just a minor player though in the world of music


----------



## Pieck

Aramis said:


> Yes, Jewish because of your national, not racial descent.


Jews reproduce among themselves for thousands of years. A study has shown that Polish jew has closer genes to an Italian jew than christian Polish. Thats a race I think


----------



## emiellucifuge

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Handel
> J.S. Bach
> C.P.E. Bach
> J.C. Bach
> W.F. Bach
> Beethoven
> Mozart
> Wagner
> Mendelssohn
> Offenbach
> Weber
> Schoenberg
> Webern
> Berg
> Reinecke
> Telemann
> Rihm
> Schumann
> Spohr
> Strauss
> Pachelbel
> Stockhausen
> Brahms
> Bruch
> Gluck
> Henze
> Hindemith
> Meyerbeer
> 
> How could you forget Schubert?
> 
> and Hildegard of Bingen?
> and Gustav Mahler?
> and Bruckner?
> Johann Adolph Hasse
> Heinrich Schütz
> Oswald von Wolkenstein
> Hieronymus Praetorius
> Johann Schein
> Samuel Scheidt
> Dieterich Buxtehude (German/Danish)
> Heinrich Ignaz Franz Biber
> Jan Dismas Zelenka (Bohemian)
> Telemann
> Johann Adolph Hasse
> Carl Maria von Weber
> Johann Strauss
> Richard Strauss
> Franz von Suppé
> Max Bruch
> Hugo Wolf
> Engelbert Humperdinck
> Alexander Zemlinsky
> Franz Schreker
> Max Reger
> Carl Orff
> Erich Korngold
> Ernst Krenek
> Kurt Weill
> Joseph Marx
> Othmar Schoeck
> 
> Just a minor player though in the world of music


:lol: lol

Just goes to prove my point


----------



## Aramis

Pieck said:


> Jews reproduce among themselves for thousands of years. A study has shown that Polish jew has closer genes to an Italian jew than christian Polish. Thats a race I think


So: white people, black people, asian people, arab people... and jews? Nah, they are ethnic group but by no means separate race.

Compare photo of Wagner or any other white european composer with jewish Mahler, then with asian Tan Dun, then with black Scott Joplin. Wagner and Mahler clearly belong to same race but with two others there are major differences that make diffrent race.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I don't care about race really anyway, all people are just human beings. 

Certainly. The fact that the Germans have contributed such a great deal to the tradition of Western classical music does not undermine the contributions of others (French, Italian, Russian, English, etc...). One also recognizes that given a similar support system any other nationality might achieve something similar... or not. Nor is the question one of culture hegemony or superiority. German literature and art are rather slim pickings in comparison to their music and in comparison to the art and literature of other cultures. At the same time, I wouldn't eliminate cultural differences. There is surely something unique about the music of the French or the Russians or the Italians as opposed to the Germans, just as Japanese art is quite distinct from that of China or Korea.


----------



## Aramis

> German literature and art are rather slim pickings in comparison to their music and in comparison to the art and literature of other cultures.


Jokes. From middle-ages to modern times German writers/poets/painters are among most representative examples of this period and genre.


----------



## starry

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I am not crazy about this list, either, but I find that the Germans (other than Beethoven) are usually highly overrated in most classical music circles (sometimes to the point of absurdity). They certainly thought very highly of themselves in the 19th and 20th centuries, so it is no surprise that people to this day continue to buy into the hype, especially in the snootier music cliques.
> 
> Or perhaps... a possibility that just may have escapes you... the Germans actually have produced a good amount of the greatest music ever written... a body of music admired and enjoyed by the classical music audience who might actually, in spite of what you imagine, be able to think for themselves regardless of the "hype" (all those Bach videos with scantily clad dancers, I suppose).


You call them the Germans but they were actually very much from different places, no Germany existed until the end of the 19th century. Vienna for quite a while was a center for musical creativity and that was partly because it was the political center of an Empire. Lots of composers from all over went there including many Czechs.

Some composers have been relatively ignored just because they have not been around a musical center like Vienna and so were considered unimportant. Berwald for example. And in the recording age you'll find some of richest countries (eg USA and UK) have made extensive recordings of music from their own countries and distributed them worldwide. Music from some other countries may not have been explored to the same extent.


----------



## starry

StlukesguildOhio said:


> There is surely something unique about the music of the French or the Russians or the Italians as opposed to the Germans, just as Japanese art is quite distinct from that of China or Korea.




Well we've argued about all that before.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

You call them the Germans but they were actually very much from different places, no Germany existed until the end of the 19th century.

Yes... and no Italy existed either. It would seem most logical to base the nationality on the language of the composer. Kafka was born in what was later Czechoslovakia and is now the Czech Republic. He wrote in German, however, and so his literature is commonly seen as part of the German literary tradition.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Jokes. From middle-ages to modern times German writers/poets/painters are among most representative examples of this period and genre.

After Wolfram von Eschenbach and the The _Nibelungenlied_, where are the major German literary figures prior to Goethe and Schiller? How well-known are Schiller, Novalis, Lessing, Heine, or Holderlin outside of the German-speaking nations? Do they rival the French, English, Italian, or Russian writers (with the exceptions of Goethe) prior to the 20th century? That's surely arguable.

Now philosophy on the other hand...


----------



## Aramis

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Jokes. From middle-ages to modern times German writers/poets/painters are among most representative examples of this period and genre.
> 
> After Wolfram von Eschenbach and the The _Nibelungenlied_, where are the major German literary figures prior to Goethe and Schiller? How well-known are Schiller, Novalis, Lessing, Heine, or Holderlin outside of the German-speaking nations? Do they rival the French, English, Italian, or Russian writers (with the exceptions of Goethe) prior to the 20th century? That's surely arguable.
> 
> Now philosophy on the other hand...


If you won't expect name equal to Shakespeare you will find many like von Lohenstein or von Grimmelshausen. The renaissance is dominated by Shakespeare thus no other name seem to sound impressive. How well-known are Schiller, Novalis, Lessing, Heine, or Holderlin outside of the German-speaking nations? Uhm, how can you ask? I'm surprised. I mean, perhaps fat Americans sitting in McDonald didn't all read _Die Räuber_ and otheres but Schiller, Heine and Novalis at least are major figures of world's literature. You forgot about other, like Hoffmann as well. Generally what happened there between 1750-1850 is enough to belie your statement of German literature being extremely lesser than music.

You also didn't elaborate on other arts. I suppose recalling Viennese expressionism or Friedrich made you restrain.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

If you won't expect name equal to Shakespeare you will find many like von Lohenstein or von Grimmelshausen. The renaissance is dominated by Shakespeare thus no other name seem to sound impressive. How well-known are Schiller, Novalis, Lessing, Heine, or Holderlin outside of the German-speaking nations? Uhm, how can you ask? I'm surprised. I mean, perhaps fat Americans sitting in McDonald didn't all read Die Räuber and otheres but Schiller, Heine and Novalis at least are major figures of world's literature. You forgot about other, like Hoffmann as well. Generally what happened there between 1750-1850 is enough to belie your statement of German literature being extremely lesser than music.

Germany's nearest equivalent to Shakespeare is Goethe but what of an equivalent of Milton, Blake, Keats, Wordsworth, Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Voltaire, Rousseau, Hugo, Baudelaire, Flaubert, Tolstoy, Dickens, Donne, Ariosto, Tasso, Racine, Moliere, Rabelais, Montaigne, Dostoevsky, Zola, Balzac, etc... These are all among the major writers in the West. Looking on Amazon there appear to be two decent translations of Schiller, a couple mediocre translations of Novalis, nothing on Lessing (unless you want Doris Lessing), etc... Surprisingly there are several good translations of Heinrich Heine, Holderlin, and Hoffmann. Nonetheless, none of these rival the translations available of Flaubert, Baudelaire, Tolstoy, Dostoevski... nor are many of these writers explored much within World Literature Surveys from what I have seen (although it certainly would differ in central Europe). Now this situation changes greatly with the onset of the 20th century: Rilke, Kafka, Thomas Mann, Hermann Hesse, Gunter Grass, Heinrich Boll, Paul Celan and others are all among the major players available in a multitude of translations.

The same is even more true of German painting. After the Renaissance and figures such as Durer, Holbein, Schoengauer, Cranach, etc... there is little by German painting outside of Caspar David Friedrich that makes much of a mark on the world scene until the late 19th century when the Viennese decadents (Klimt, Schiele, Kokoschka) and the German Expressionists and Bauhaus modernists (Kirchner, Dix, Grosz, Ernst, Beckmann, Klee, etc...) come upon the scene... only to be squashed by the rise of the Nazis. German painting began to make a big comeback in the mid-1980s with the so-called Neo-Expressionists... especially Anselm Kiefer.

Now I am saying this as someone from a German background, a professional artist who has done more than a little study in the field of art history and as someone with more than a little background in the study of literature including European literature in translation. Rather than falling back on your sad stereotypes of Americans (perhaps you would like to hear some of the stereotypes directed at the Polish?) perhaps you might do well to recognize that the esteem that von Lohenstein, von Grimmelshausen, as well as even Novalis, Holderlin, etc... rarely even make the least appearance in literary discussions outside of central Europe. hell, poor Schiller is mostly known only for his Ode to Joy (thanks to Beethoven) and Wilhelm Tell (thanks to Rossini). You have a better chance finding a good translation of Tu Fu, Li Bo, and Wang Wei than you do of finding a decent English translation of Klopstock, von Eichendorff, von Droste-Hulshoff, Morike, Theodor Storm, etc... although Keller and Kleist are beginning to make a solid showing as precursors to Modernism.


----------



## Aramis

> Germany's nearest equivalent to Shakespeare is Goethe but what of an equivalent of Milton, Blake, Keats, Wordsworth, Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Voltaire, Rousseau, Hugo, Baudelaire, Flaubert, Tolstoy, Dickens, Donne, Ariosto, Tasso, Racine, Moliere, Rabelais, Montaigne, Dostoevsky, Zola, Balzac, etc... These are all among the major writers in the West.


It's impressive list of names from all around the world and of all periods, but you seem to write like the comparison would be Germany vs rest of the world. And it's not, so let's be substantial. Your point was that all the rest of German art is miserable in comparison with their music. To belie this view I don't have to make list of equivalents for world's elite writers from all nations combined because it's obvious that it won't work and I'm not that far in overestimating German art. It's enough to make equivalents for things that make German music great.

And thus I'll say:

- Bach is the only one with no equivalent in other arts since despite many gifted non-musical artist from that time noone had such great influence.

- Weimar Classicism and connected with it Sturm und Drang movement which shaped romanticism is equivalent of what happened in musical Germany at the same time + titan of painting, Friedrich. Mozart, von Weber and Schubert - check.

- Mature romantic writers like Nietzsche, Hoffmann and Haine are equivalent of mature romantics. Wagner, Schumann, Brahms - check.

- Viennese expressionism and writers like Thomass Mann are major figures in early XXth century arts. Mahler, Schoenberg and whole SVS - check.

So, out of four greatest periods of German music three have unargueably worthy equivalents. That's not what I can unbalance.


----------



## starry

People influence each other across boundaries, particular with music which has quite a universal aspect to it anyway.


----------



## RBrittain

Schubert at 4th? Surprising.

No Tchaikovsky, and yet Stravinsky makes the list? Very surprising.


----------



## tdc

RBrittain said:


> No Tchaikovsky, and yet Stravinsky makes the list? Very surprising.


Thats what I found odd, Bartok being there too - quite bizarre IMO. All though I suppose those 2 were very influential.


----------



## Jacob Singer

StlukesguildOhio said:


> If this were at all true, one would might suggest that you don't know any musicians worth knowing. Even admitting to the more than rich contributions to the realm of classical music of the Italians, French, Russians, Polish, English, etc... one would need to be virtually ignorant of the whole of Western music history (or simply willfully close-minded or anti-German) to fail to recognize the scale of the contributions of the German composers.


Believing that some of them are consistently overrated within certain circles is not the same as failing to recognize the "scale of contributions of the German composers" in its entirety. You are just mischaracterizing what I said because it is easier to do than to defend your "good amount of the greatest music ever written" comment.

I'm guessing that the only way I can be right in your mind is if I find this "scale of contributions" to be at the same very high level that you do. If I think that it is just a little less, then you've set yourself up to be able to rationalize that I am somehow wrong, keeping yourself safe from any idea which might completely shatter your strict perceptions of the world.

Anyways, getting back to your "greatest music ever written" comment...

There are certain German composers (and Austrian, while we're at it) for whom I have great respect, and I am delighted to be able to appreciate their contributions to the world of music, but in the big picture they are but a few threads of a _much_ larger tapestry. I am not so arrogant to believe that just because I may really like some key Germans like Beethoven (or whomever) that the Germans were thus responsible for "a good amount of the greatest music ever written." That would be a ridiculous thing to say, because it sounds like some huge percentage, when it simply can't be all that big considering all of the other stuff out there. Even if you include the Germans and the Austrians together, then that percentage is still going to be quite small overall. It's just a matter of being realistic and not letting cultural biases blind oneself to the incredible amount of amazing music out there…

Of course, one could put a bunch of Germans on a list as if this were some childish name-dropping contest (with a host of questionable names added to boost the numbers), but no matter how many you list, I could always list more from some other ethnic group. The fact is that the number of Germans responsible for "a good amount of the greatest music ever written" _pales_ in comparison to the number of African-Americans just in the past century alone. I could probably list a lot more Brits and European-Americans too, but that's not the point. In fact, I find the whole notion of listing people of a particular ethnic group for the _sole purpose_ of showing how great they are in comparison to others to be distasteful.


----------



## peeyaj

RBrittain said:


> Schubert at 4th? Surprising.
> 
> No Tchaikovsky, and yet Stravinsky makes the list? Very surprising.


No, it's not. Schubert may not be your taste, but his influence in the art of art song is monumental. His Ninth symphony is influential in Bruckner and pre-figures Mahler. The String Quintet is one of the most beautiful creation of music. Having Tchaikovsky in top 10, now that what I called "very surprising".


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The fact is that the number of Germans responsible for "a good amount of the greatest music ever written" pales in comparison to the number of African-Americans just in the past century alone.

And didn't we all know that this was where you were headed with this? Seriously, as much as I like jazz and blues and early rock n roll even most of us here are talking about "classical music" The term is in the name of the group (Talk "Classical"). Only in the most hallucinatory state of denial can you even begin to suggest that African American composers have had even the slightest amount of the influence over the last 1000 years on the development of Western classical music as have the German/Austrians (and note the two are usually thrown together on the basis of language for the simple reason that was no Germany... nor Italy for that matter... until the late 1900s), the Italians, the Russians, the English, etc...

If we are moving into the realm of jazz and blues and other popular and folk genre begins to blur the definition of classical music. I have no problem admitting that the African American contribution to jazz probably amounts to the greatest contribution of America in the field of music. Even if we accept jazz as an extension or equal to classical music (something which I have no problem accepting... I suspect Miles and Ellington may just far outlast Stockhausen, Glass, and Ligeti) we are talking about a single musical form that was at its peak for perhaps 50 years. Yes, we can name endless jazz musicians... but seriously only a few are worth seriously placing along side the greatest classical composers. You forget that for every major classical composer, there were also 100s if not thousands of 2nd and 3rd tier composers largely forgotten... as will be the majority of your African American composers. Ellington and Armstrong and Monk may last... but Tad Dameron? Benny Golson? Jimmy Heath? Art Farmer? Will they ultimately be any more known than Nicolaus Bruhns, Johann Friedrich Franz Burgmüller, or Franz Gleißner?

Considering rap... we might also blame African-American for some of the worst music to ever be created.:lol:


----------



## Sid James

I think that these lists are ultimately of limited value as they say more about the list compilers (in this case, American) than who are the greatest composers or whatever. This has been stated before by members like some guy on other threads, and I agree with him on this.

If you think that the Austro-Germanic classical music tradition is the "greatest" then that simply reflects what YOU value in music. It says you might like listening to symphonic or chamber music, or heavy counterpoint or thematic development, or a certain quality of solidity or immutibility one finds in some of these composers. You obviously don't value other things that were or are strong in other classical music traditions or approaches. Every value judgement one makes about music is based on the cultural viewpoint that you as a listener are coming from. Very post-modern I know, but it's basic premise rings true to me at least, and some others on this thread as well...


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...until the late 1900s


You might want to correct this typo before anyone else notices it.

(Although, if what you meant was late 1_8_00s, then you're on your own with this one. That's still too late for what you said.)


----------



## Pieck

some guy said:


> You might want to correct this typo before anyone else notices it.
> 
> (Although, if what you meant was late 1_8_00s, then you're on your own with this one. That's still too late for what you said.)


Why is late 1800s wrong? both countries reunited in the 60s, 70s


----------



## Jacob Singer

StlukesguildOhio said:


> And didn't we all know that this was where you were headed with this? Seriously, as much as I like jazz and blues and early rock n roll even most of us here are talking about "classical music" The term is in the name of the group (Talk "Classical"). Only in the most hallucinatory state of denial can you even begin to suggest that African American composers have had even the slightest amount of the influence over the last 1000 years on the development of Western classical music as have the German/Austrians


Oh, so now you are changing your argument. How convenient.

You said "a good amount of the greatest music ever written," which is what I've been arguing against. You didn't say "classical".


----------



## emiellucifuge

if it aint classical, it aint good :devil:


----------



## emiellucifuge

But in all seriousness, proportional to the vast amount of music written over a millennia in the 'classical' tradition, the Jazz or popular styles represent a negligible amount. Regardless of their supposed quality.


----------



## RBrittain

peeyaj said:


> No, it's not. Schubert may not be your taste, but his influence in the art of art song is monumental. His Ninth symphony is influential in Bruckner and pre-figures Mahler. The String Quintet is one of the most beautiful creation of music.


He is in my taste, in fact. But 4th seems surprisingly high. He is definitely worthy of the top 10, but not 4th.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

You might want to correct this typo before anyone else notices it.

(Although, if what you meant was late 1800s, then you're on your own with this one. That's still too late for what you said.)

My bad. I should have suggested the late 19th century:

German unification: 1871
Italian unification: 1861


----------



## TresPicos

peeyaj said:


> No, it's not. Schubert may not be your taste, but his influence in the art of art song is monumental. His Ninth symphony is influential in Bruckner and pre-figures Mahler. The String Quintet is one of the most beautiful creation of music. Having Tchaikovsky in top 10, now that what I called "very surprising".


Wow! Schubert and Debussy in the top 5?! 

I never thought I would see such a list! And with Bartok in the top 10 as a bonus!

Go, NYT! :trp:


----------



## starry

emiellucifuge said:


> But in all seriousness, proportional to the vast amount of music written over a millennia in the 'classical' tradition, the Jazz or popular styles represent a negligible amount. Regardless of their supposed quality.


I expect that is the case. Although if you look at music now and how it is global, how people can record their music and just distribute it on the internet.....there is probably more music being produced now than there ever was at any comparable point in the past. Music is both less elite-based and less controlled than it has ever been. There is also more variety of styles than there has ever been before too. At what point this global deluge of music supercedes the quantity pre-20th century I don't know, not sure it matters. Also quite alot of the music of the past has been lost, particularly the further back you go. People weren't always so intent on preserving the cultural legacy like they are today.


----------



## Barking Spiderz

Hmm. IMO these kind of lists are a waste of time. How can you compare a piano works specialist like Chopin with a heavy duty opera dude like Wagner with a generalist like Mozart with an experimentalist like Stockhausen. After all in the pop world you dont see lists ranking Led Zeppelin, ABBA and Bob Marley against eachother.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

No list should be done....It is a personal thing!

Your list and mine are different and that is ok! We ARE DIFFERENT, this is *not bad*. Bach is not on my list. Is it on yours? Is that bad! NOT-AT-ALL!!!!!!

Martin


----------



## atsizat

For me, Both Bach and Vivaldi are the best classical composers. This list doesn't have my music taste as they don't even put Vivaldi on top 10 list. What a pity!


----------



## Morimur

It's a good list and Tommasini is a credible critic.


----------



## Woodduck

Morimur said:


> It's a good list and Tommasini is a credible critic.


Anyone who ranks Verdi above Wagner for no musical reason whatever but because he was a more agreeable person has no credibility and doesn't deserve to host American Idol.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Anyone who ranks Verdi above Wagner for no musical reason whatever but because he was a more agreeable person has no credibility and doesn't deserve to host American Idol.


Such a mental midget 'does' deserve to clip Simon Cowell's toenails with a ten-foot step ladder though- while being forced to listen to a Norman Lebrecht lecture of course.


----------



## Steatopygous

Woodduck said:


> Anyone who ranks Verdi above Wagner for no musical reason whatever but because he was a more agreeable person has no credibility and doesn't deserve to host American Idol.


So you say, but in view of your remonstrations against others who speak didactically it would be seemly to remember that yours is just an opinion, however deeply held. If, IF, Tomassini really can't separate their musical contribution on any other grounds, then to prefer one over another for the reason he gives is entirely open to him (as it is for you to disagree). Tomassini clearly cannot be dismissed as a lightweight by anyone familiar with his wider work.


----------



## Steatopygous

For myself, I would put Haydn above Tchaikovsky, and I might alter the order a little, but I agree with Morimur that, to paraphrase a little, it is a credible list.


----------



## Woodduck

Steatopygous said:


> So you say, but in view of your remonstrations against others who speak didactically it would be seemly to remember that yours is just an opinion, however deeply held. If, IF, Tomassini really can't separate their musical contribution on any other grounds, then to prefer one over another for the reason he gives is entirely open to him (as it is for you to disagree). Tomassini clearly cannot be dismissed as a lightweight by anyone familiar with his wider work.


Phrased with Oxfordian dignity and only the seemliest touch of personal aggression, good sir. Alas, Tomassini, purporting to rank composers as composers, not as philanthropists, husbands, fathers, Sunday school teachers, or boy scout troop leaders, asserts no musical rationale whatever for his preference, and says only:

_"But who ranks higher? They may be tied as composers but not as people. Though Verdi had an ornery side, he was a decent man, an Italian patriot and the founder of a retirement home for musicians still in operation in Milan. Wagner was an anti-Semitic, egomaniacal jerk who transcended himself in his art. So Verdi is No. 8 and Wagner No. 9."
_
That is essentially a declaration that the subject at hand doesn't matter a damn, and it leaves a gaping hole in the middle of an exercise which otherwise puts up at least a pretense of being meaningful. If Tomassini has done any "wider work" relating to the musical achievements of these two composers, he seems to have let his personal biases drive it from his mind, however cursorily (if colloquially, as in "jerk") he states them.

I must add, incidentally, that I find the idea of an artist "transcending himself" in his art both curious and questionable. Is it not more likely that works which proceed, with the most intense and devoted labors, from the deepest places in an artist's psyche "transcend," not the artist himself, but the limited and prejudiced conceptions of him nurtured by others, conceptions more than likely based on those parts of his reputation most publicized and obvious to the "popular mind" (a wonderful oxymoron, I think)?


----------



## KenOC

I agree with Woodduck. If Tommasini ranks composers based on his opinion of their worth as human beings, then he is certainly (in this case) a musical lightweight.


----------



## Steatopygous

But he HAS ranked them on musical grounds, and found them completely equal. He has, one may suppose, applied all the musical judgment of which he is capable - which is considerable - and been unable to separate them. Then, and only then, he has chosen another non-musical means of arbitration, one with which I concur and Woodduck does not. 
Apparently you do not either. I am perfectly happy for you to differ, but it should be on grounds we actually have as evidence, rather than your hypothetical. .


----------



## Steatopygous

Woodduck said:


> Phrased with Oxfordian dignity and only the seemliest touch of personal aggression, good sir. Alas, Tomassini, purporting to rank composers as composers, not as philanthropists, husbands, fathers, Sunday school teachers, or boy scout troop leaders, asserts no musical rationale whatever for his preference, and says only:
> 
> _"But who ranks higher? They may be tied as composers but not as people. Though Verdi had an ornery side, he was a decent man, an Italian patriot and the founder of a retirement home for musicians still in operation in Milan. Wagner was an anti-Semitic, egomaniacal jerk who transcended himself in his art. So Verdi is No. 8 and Wagner No. 9."
> _
> That is essentially a declaration that the subject at hand doesn't matter a damn, and it leaves a gaping hole in the middle of an exercise which otherwise puts up at least a pretense of being meaningful. If Tomassini has done any "wider work" relating to the musical achievements of these two composers, he seems to have let his personal biases drive it from his mind, however cursorily (if colloquially, as in "jerk") he states them.
> 
> I must add, incidentally, that I find the idea of an artist "transcending himself" in his art both curious and questionable. Is it not more likely that works which proceed, with the most intense and devoted labors, from the deepest places in an artist's psyche "transcend," not the artist himself, but the limited and prejudiced conceptions of him nurtured by others, conceptions more than likely based on those parts of his reputation most publicized and obvious to the "popular mind" (a wonderful oxymoron, I think)?


I refer you to my answer to Ken, above. I can't agree that Tomassini implies the subject doesn't matter a damn. As for being meaningful, I think we both have doubts about that - it's just another list. If biases he has, they do not seem to be musical ones. 
Your comment about an artist "transcending himself" is something I have considerable sympathy with. But I know what Tomassini means. For example, I don't have a great deal of sympathy with the utilitarian philosophy of Peter Singer, but I note that on at least one occasion involving his mother he jettisoned his philosophical position in favour of compassion and loyalty. He showed himself, in my view, to be a better man than philosopher, and if someone phrased that as saying his personality transcended his philosophy I would know what she meant.


----------



## Nereffid

This is quite a storm in a teacup, but I'm inclined towards Woodduck's side of the argument. I get an implication from what Tommasini wrote that if Wagner had been an even bigger jerk, he wouldn't have made no.9 either.

_No.9 is Bartók. True, this guy isn't quite in the same league as Wagner, but Wagner stole my last Rolo, for God's sake! He's a monster!_

I had to laugh at what Tommasini wrote about Schubert: _You have to love the guy, who died at 31, ill, impoverished and neglected except by a circle of friends who were in awe of his genius._
However true it is, it could just has easily be a description of an obscure cult leader; not sufficient grounds to "love the guy".


----------



## Steatopygous

Nereffid said:


> This is quite a storm in a teacup, but I'm inclined towards Woodduck's side of the argument. I get an implication from what Tommasini wrote that if Wagner had been an even bigger jerk, he wouldn't have made no.9 either.
> 
> _No.9 is Bartók. True, this guy isn't quite in the same league as Wagner, but Wagner stole my last Rolo, for God's sake! He's a monster!_
> 
> I had to laugh at what Tommasini wrote about Schubert: _You have to love the guy, who died at 31, ill, impoverished and neglected except by a circle of friends who were in awe of his genius._
> However true it is, it could just has easily be a description of an obscure cult leader.; not sufficient grounds to "love the guy".


Reasonable point. The writing standard is more appropriate for a high school magazine than the NYT, and I don't know why the normally urbane Tomassini did that.


----------



## Guest

What a strange thread to have resurrected, but since it's alive again, I'd like to quote something from Tommasini that I think is a good reason for never talking about greatness at all, ever:

"As a longtime champion of contemporary music, I was gratified to receive so many objections to my decision to eliminate living composers from consideration. Still, for me there was no other way. We are too close to living composers to have perspective. Besides, assessing greatness is the last thing on your mind when you are listening to an involving, exciting or baffling new piece."

We are not too close to living composers to enjoy their music. Perspective is either possible (which is what I think) or it's all my grandmother's eye (which is what I more than suspect). But that's as may be. Assessing greatness is the last thing on your mind when you are listening to an involving, exciting or baffling new piece. And I think that it should be the last thing on one's mind when listening to any piece. Indeed, it shouldn't even be the last thing. It should be no thing.

If you are involved (see what I did there with _that_ bit of perspective?), then you won't be "assessing greatness" at all. It will seem, if anyone else brings it up, a major distraction. What the holy hand grenade does "assessing greatness" have to do with listening to music? If you're going it right--now there's a dangerous limb to go out on--then you're completely engaged with those unique, distinct sounds. They are all that exist. Only if they're not all that unique or distinct does the question arise, and then it could be the relatively positive "hey, that sounds like ...," or the relatively negative "that's already been done." The former could be vertical (this is better than that) though it needn't be. (Horizontal would be "this is different from that" or "this is similar to that.") The latter is by definition always vertical, so that's the only one that would apply to making ranked, ordered lists.

That is, making a ranked, ordered list always comes from a negative place, by definition. It always contains the meaning that something is not as good as something else. Bartok not as good as Wagner? In what universe could that string of words possibly have any meaning at all? Same would be true, I hope you realize, as the string Wagner is not as good as Bartok. Wagner and Bartok are different. They did different things. Even Verdi and Wagner did different things. They may seem, at first glance, to be more similar than Wagner and Bartok, but they're not, not really. "Both wrote a sh*tload of operas" does not identify as much of a similarity as it might seem at first glance.


----------



## haydnfan

I suppose my personal 10 in no particular order would be Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Brahms, Shostakovich, Dvorak, Mahler, Stravinsky, Bartok.


----------



## Woodduck

some guy said:


> What a strange thread to have resurrected, but since it's alive again, I'd like to quote something from Tommasini that I think is a good reason for never talking about greatness at all, ever:
> 
> "As a longtime champion of contemporary music, I was gratified to receive so many objections to my decision to eliminate living composers from consideration. Still, for me there was no other way. We are too close to living composers to have perspective. Besides, assessing greatness is the last thing on your mind when you are listening to an involving, exciting or baffling new piece."
> 
> We are not too close to living composers to enjoy their music. Perspective is either possible (which is what I think) or it's all my grandmother's eye (which is what I more than suspect). But that's as may be. Assessing greatness is the last thing on your mind when you are listening to an involving, exciting or baffling new piece. And I think that it should be the last thing on one's mind when listening to any piece. Indeed, it shouldn't even be the last thing. It should be no thing.
> 
> If you are involved (see what I did there with _that_ bit of perspective?), then you won't be "assessing greatness" at all. It will seem, if anyone else brings it up, a major distraction. What the holy hand grenade does "assessing greatness" have to do with listening to music? If you're going it right--now there's a dangerous limb to go out on--then you're completely engaged with those unique, distinct sounds. They are all that exist. Only if they're not all that unique or distinct does the question arise, and then it could be the relatively positive "hey, that sounds like ...," or the relatively negative "that's already been done." The former could be vertical (this is better than that) though it needn't be. (Horizontal would be "this is different from that" or "this is similar to that.") The latter is by definition always vertical, so that's the only one that would apply to making ranked, ordered lists.
> 
> That is, making a ranked, ordered list always comes from a negative place, by definition. It always contains the meaning that something is not as good as something else. Bartok not as good as Wagner? In what universe could that string of words possibly have any meaning at all? Same would be true, I hope you realize, as the string Wagner is not as good as Bartok. Wagner and Bartok are different. They did different things. Even Verdi and Wagner did different things. They may seem, at first glance, to be more similar than Wagner and Bartok, but they're not, not really. "Both wrote a sh*tload of operas" does not identify as much of a similarity as it might seem at first glance.


I can't help thinking that in your desire to approach music on its own terms, without preconception or prejudice, you are setting up a strawman and torching him. I agree that rating composers in terms of the perceived quality of their work is not an essential part of listening to it. But who has ever said that it is or should be?

Thinking about "greatness" probably isn't high on anyone's list of priorities. I can't imagine anyone devoting much time to it or imagining that they'd accomplish much by doing so. But surely it would be very odd not to find music more or less impressive as well as more or less enjoyable, sometimes staggeringly impressive and sometimes very much the opposite, and not to have thoughts about the reasons for this. Impressiveness tends to move people to look for superlatives of language. There is something about art that can move humans to call it "great," and sometimes to feel that even that is a very feeble word to do justice to the experience of it.

There is no single or absolute standard for measuring the impressiveness of one composer against that of another, and I think most of us know this. To a great extent we are, as you say, measuring incommensurable things, and we'll always be talking about ourselves as much as the composers we're evaluating. But we know that nothing hangs on our choices and lists, and often comparisons are a wonderful, maybe even a necessary, stimulus to fruitful discussion. Why are Bach, Mozart and Beethoven so easy for so many people to identify as "greatest" composers? Why do Brahms and Berlioz engender more argument? Why is it more difficult to evaluate contemporary music? Debating the merits of artists and art may be a game and may prove nothing much in the end, but if it sharpens our awareness and makes us think during the times we aren't listening I can't see it as wholly lacking in validity or value.

I suppose your concern is that such comparisons may have disvalue - that they may somehow interfere with the actual experience of music, perhaps that they might act as a sort of "gatekeeper" which admits only approved "great" music to the premises. All I can say to that is that there will always be criteria brought to bear on what people think is worth their time. But do you really think that the abstract concept of "greatness" is standing in the way of most people's musical curiosity? I know that it has played no part whatsoever in the exercise of mine. But that can't stop me from being impressed by some music more, often much more, than by other music, from wanting to understand why that is, and from expressing, from time to time, the judgments I've formed. As you say, the thought of a work's quality or value in relation to other works is not an intrinsic part of listening to it. But it may be part of my experience of it as it remains with me, and forms me, beyond the act of listening, and it has provided a launching pad for some animated and fruitful conversation.

Competition and debate sharpen perception and skill. We learn to hit a tennis ball much better in the competition of a match than by hitting it against a wall. I say let the games proceed. I'm enough of a kid to get at least a tiny kick out of them.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> I can't help thinking that in your desire to approach music on its own terms, without preconception or prejudice, you are setting up a strawman and torching him. I agree that rating composers in terms of the perceived quality of their work is not an essential part of listening to it. But who has ever said that it is or should be?
> 
> Thinking about "greatness" probably isn't high on anyone's list of priorities. I can't imagine anyone devoting much time to it or imagining that they'd accomplish much by doing so. But surely it would be very odd not to find music more or less impressive as well as more or less enjoyable, sometimes staggeringly impressive and sometimes very much the opposite, and not to have thoughts about the reasons for this. Impressiveness tends to move people to look for superlatives of language. *There is something about art that can move humans to call it "great," and sometimes to feel that even that is a very feeble word to do justice to the experience of it.*
> There is no single or absolute standard for measuring the impressiveness of one composer against that of another, and I think most of us know this. To a great extent we are, as you say, measuring incommensurable things, and we'll always be talking about ourselves as much as the composers we're evaluating. But we know that nothing hangs on our choices and lists, and often comparisons are a wonderful, maybe even a necessary, stimulus to fruitful discussion. Why are Bach, Mozart and Beethoven so easy for so many people to identify as "greatest" composers? Why do Brahms and Berlioz engender more argument? Why is it more difficult to evaluate contemporary music? Debating the merits of artists and art may be a game and may prove nothing much in the end, but if it sharpens our awareness and makes us think during the times we aren't listening I can't see it as wholly lacking in validity or value.
> 
> I suppose your concern is that such comparisons may have disvalue - that they may somehow interfere with the actual experience of music, perhaps that they might act as a sort of "gatekeeper" which admits only approved "great" music to the premises. All I can say to that is that there will always be criteria brought to bear on what people think is worth their time. But do you really think that the abstract concept of "greatness" is standing in the way of most people's musical curiosity? I know that it has played no part whatsoever in the exercise of mine. But that can't stop me from being impressed by some music more, often much more, than by other music, from wanting to understand why that is, and from expressing, from time to time, the judgments I've formed. As you say, the thought of a work's quality or value in relation to other works is not an intrinsic part of listening to it. But it may be part of my experience of it as it remains with me, and forms me, beyond the act of listening, and it has provided a launching pad for some animated and fruitful conversation.
> 
> *Competition and debate sharpen perception and skill. We learn to hit a tennis ball much better in the competition of a match than by hitting it against a wall. I say let the games proceed. I'm enough of a kid to get at least a tiny kick out of them.*


Aptitude, ability, intelligence, discernment, health, beauty, imagination, enterprise, honesty, integrity, compassion, heroism- all of these things are great.

They make our lives vital, vivid, and worth living.

Its not a complete matter of indifference to us whether or not they exist.

Music that elicits these qualities in people is great. The composers who create it are the salt of the earth. . . well, 'the salt of Olympus,' actually.


----------



## Nereffid

Woodduck said:


> I can't help thinking that in your desire to approach music on its own terms, without preconception or prejudice, you are setting up a strawman and torching him. I agree that rating composers in terms of the perceived quality of their work is not an essential part of listening to it. But who has ever said that it is or should be?
> 
> Thinking about "greatness" probably isn't high on anyone's list of priorities. I can't imagine anyone devoting much time to it or imagining that they'd accomplish much by doing so. But surely it would be very odd not to find music more or less impressive as well as more or less enjoyable, sometimes staggeringly impressive and sometimes very much the opposite, and not to have thoughts about the reasons for this. Impressiveness tends to move people to look for superlatives of language. There is something about art that can move humans to call it "great," and sometimes to feel that even that is a very feeble word to do justice to the experience of it.


I've always understood "thinking about greatness" to be something one does when one _isn't_ listening to music, simply a way of examining one's own experiences and trying to learn from them. But anyway, there's surely nothing odd in a listener thinking "this is _great_" while listening (regardless of whether they mean this as "I like this" or "this is, objectively, music for the ages") - I don't see how one could completely divorce one's in-the-moment listening experience from one's previous experiences.
Comparisons are inevitable; that's how our brains work.
Producing a list - whether it's 5 favourite living composers, or 1,001 recordings to hear before you die, or whatever - is a way of organising thoughts, an attempt somehow to describe a reality that's nebulous but nonetheless real. Everyone knows it's not "scientific", everyone knows it's arbitrary and capricious and imperfect, everyone knows it doesn't make sense to compare Adams and Zumsteeg. But still, when we say "no.145, Adams; no.146, Zumsteeg" we're communicating our experiences. It's a weird shorthand, but it's communication all the same.


----------



## Bulldog

I think the list is fine in that every composer cited is a giant in the world of classical music. It wouldn't be my list, but I can't expect anyone else's list to correspond to mine.


----------



## OperaChic

The list is what it is. I don't know the critic's other work, but this particular article and his reasoning and critique come across as superficial. He's obviously dumbing down the criteria and the evaluative process to appeal to a mass audience, but it doesn't contain any solid insights, or anything of real interest honestly.


----------



## Elen

Really, the list of 10 composers is too short, composers wrote not for a competitions. 
It doesn't make sense to compare a music from different countries and centuries.


----------



## Bulldog

OperaChic said:


> The list is what it is. I don't know the critic's other work, but this particular article and his reasoning and critique come across as superficial. He's obviously dumbing down the criteria and the evaluative process to appeal to a mass audience, but it doesn't contain any solid insights, or anything of real interest honestly.


It is just an article in a newspaper; it's pretty much what I would expect in terms of depth.


----------



## tdc

I think its a decent list but don't agree with Beethoven ranking higher than Mozart and don't think Verdi should rank higher than Wagner, personally I would just replace Verdi. Ravel or Mahler or Monteverdi are all worthy candidates.


----------



## Morimur

I'd love for someone on TC to come up with their own list and give credible reasons for their choices. I doubt they would best Tommasini.


----------



## Faustian

Morimur said:


> I'd love for someone on TC to come up with their own list and give credible reasons for their choices. I doubt they would best Tommasini.


I see more intelligent discussion and more worthwhile appraisal of composers and their works on a daily basis on this forum than in this piece of frivolous journalism.


----------



## jmaloney

1. Beethoven
2= Bach
Mozart
4. Schubert
5. Wagner
6. Haydn
7. Stravinsky
8. Brahms
9. Handel
10. Debussy


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Someone in that list was Haydn.


----------



## Guest

Verdi and Wagner are in it for the opera lovers, so I would personally leave them out. Bartok imo is not top 10, maybe just maybe top 20. Tchaikovsky deserves a place.


----------



## Epilogue

Ha, I remember when this was published.

- He _so_ wanted to leave Mozart out of the top three but didn't have the guts to do it.

- God, I _wish_ Debussy were better than Stravinsky and Brahms and Verdi better than Wagner.

- His attempt at justification for leaving out Chopin is interestingly weird.

- The text accompanying the choice of Bartók - clearly out of his league here - might as well have read in its entirety "I'm still scared of Schoenberg."


----------



## Haydn man

Making lists of top 10's is always fraught with problems.
The first 3 or 4 are usually easy then the next group get a bit harder, the problem comes with the last few choices as the realisation dawns about who is not making the list.
So my list is Haydn and any 9 others so as not to make my brain hurt


----------



## tdc

Epilogue said:


> - The text accompanying the choice of Bartók - clearly out of his league here - might as well have read in its entirety "I'm still scared of Schoenberg."


Some of the finest String Quartets, Concertos, Orchestral music and Opera of the 20th century (if not all centuries) personally, I'm not so convinced Bartok is out of his league here.



Haydn man said:


> Making lists of top 10's is always fraught with problems.
> The first 3 or 4 are usually easy then the next group get a bit harder, the problem comes with the last few choices as the realisation dawns about who is not making the list.
> So my list is Haydn and any 9 others so as not to make my brain hurt


Yes, I agree the first few choices are easier, the problem is I think that there are at least 20 composers that one could make a strong argument for to fill out the rest of the list, so inevitably a lot of it will come down to personal preference.


----------



## violadude

tdc said:


> Some of the finest String Quartets, Concertos, Orchestral music and Opera of the 20th century (if not all centuries) personally, I'm not so convinced Bartok is out of his league here.
> 
> Yes, I agree the first few choices are easier, the problem is I think that there are at least 20 composers that one could make a strong argument for to fill out the rest of the list, so inevitably a lot of it will come down to personal preference.


And if your personal preference is partial towards all 20 then you're downright f***ed.


----------



## Guest

So is anyone besides me seeing the utility of not making lists? Ranked, ordered lists.

There may still be some utility to other kinds.


----------



## science

some guy said:


> So is anyone besides me seeing the utility of not making lists? Ranked, ordered lists.
> 
> There may still be some utility to other kinds.


I'm sure you're not the only one who looks down on such activities.


----------



## science

I'm not opposed to lists or rankings or whatever - I'm convinced that no one takes them as seriously as their critics claim. 

But I don't see so much usefulness in ranking composers. Ranking works or recordings is much more useful.


----------



## KenOC

Man is the animal that makes lists.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Man is the animal that makes lists.


I _love_ lists. Making lists for me is an expression of order and reason; the concreteness of it clarifies the mind. A good list is a work of art, almost sensual in its beauty. It also ensures that I don't forget to buy the eggs.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> I _love_ lists. Making lists for me is an expression of order and reason; the concreteness of it clarifies the mind. A good list is a work of art, almost sensual in its beauty. It also ensures that I don't forget to buy the eggs.


Just don't leave the harbor without a port list.


----------



## Steatopygous

Marschallin Blair said:


> Just don't leave the harbor without a port list.


I list to port many an evening, if well-lubricated. (though not, usually, with port.)


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Steatopygous said:


> I list to port many an evening, if well-lubricated. (though not, usually, with port.)


Cheers to maximum fun, but too much wine and French bread can leave you portly with a loathe of bread.


----------



## Blancrocher

Woodduck said:


> I _love_ lists. Making lists for me is an expression of order and reason; the concreteness of it clarifies the mind. A good list is a work of art, almost sensual in its beauty. It also ensures that I don't forget to buy the eggs.


Apart from the aesthetic (and nutritional) value of making lists, I can hardly explain the feeling of satisfaction and well-being that follows when a poster with "Haydn" in his/her name places Joseph Haydn in the number one slot.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> I'm convinced that no one takes them as seriously as their critics claim.


And I'm convinced that you are mistaken.

Now what? Who gets to win and why?


----------



## Woodduck

Blancrocher said:


> Apart from the aesthetic (and nutritional) value of making lists, I can hardly explain the feeling of satisfaction and well-being that follows when a poster with "Haydn" in his/her name places Joseph Haydn in the number one slot.


Such a person needn't even bother with lists to clarify his mind. Similarly, a person with "egg" in his name (such as the Norwegian composer Klaus Egge) will never come home without the eggs. Such clever persons are at liberty to inhabit a permanent state of listlessness. I do suppose, though, that a certain Romantic composer of piano music will never make their top ten.


----------



## Blancrocher

Woodduck said:


> I do suppose, though, that a certain Romantic composer of piano music will never make their top ten.


Unless it's a _chopin liszt_?

OK, you can go ahead and report me to the mods for that one.


----------



## Guest

Blancrocher said:


> Unless it's a _chopin liszt_?
> 
> OK, you can go ahead and report me to the mods for that one.


Don't worry, I have.

Twice.


----------



## Dim7

Blancrocher said:


> Unless it's a _chopin liszt_?
> 
> OK, you can go ahead and report me to the mods for that one.


I think the forum software automatically gives you infraction points for that.


----------



## Steatopygous

Blancrocher said:


> Unless it's a _chopin liszt_?
> 
> OK, you can go ahead and report me to the mods for that one.


I recently asked for technical advice on how to ignore. Much more important, how do I report you to the moderators? That's so execrable that it's really good!


----------



## Dr Johnson

For those who feel that their list addiction is becoming a problem, there is a solution.


----------



## hpowders

Oh! The New York Times! Then it must be gospel.


----------



## Becca

Being that it's a Monday, I feel totally list-less today ... not that any of the other 6 days are any different.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Dr Johnson said:


> For those who feel that their list addiction is becoming a problem, there is a solution.


Mother of holy **** so there _is_ a solution????? But only one? I need to know the 10 best solutions to this problem as ranked by everyone on TC before I pick which one to trial.


----------



## science

some guy said:


> And I'm convinced that you are mistaken.
> 
> Now what? Who gets to win and why?


I doubt your sincerity; but as to who wins and why, I do, and because of course I do. Now, if my wife gets on here, she will win!


----------

