# Ranking composers by levels (Tier 1, tier 2, etc.)



## Brahmsianhorn

See if you agree with mine:

*Tier 1*

Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Brahms, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Verdi, Wagner

*Tier 2*

Handel, Haydn, Debussy, Stravinsky, Mahler, Shostakovich, Chopin, Puccini

*Tier 3*

Mendelssohn, Schumann, Bartok, Liszt, R. Strauss, Dvorak, Prokofiev, Ravel, Rachmaninoff

*Tier 4*

Berlioz, Elgar, Sibelius, Bruckner, Vivaldi, Vaughan Williams, Grieg, Rossini

*Tier 5*

Monteverdi, Saint-Saens, Britten, Mussorgsky, Josquin, Schoenberg, Barber, Janacek, Palestrina

*Tier 6*

Faure, Rimsky-Korsakov, Bizet, Copland, Berg, Donizetti, J. Strauss, Poulenc, Franck

*Tier 7*

Purcell, Nielsen, Byrd, Hindemith, Massenet, Borodin, Tallis, Ives

*Tier 8*

Gershwin, Smetana, Albeniz, Bruch, Holst, Respighi, D. Scarlatti, Bernstein


----------



## DaveM

Not too bad, but I would move Mendelssohn, Schumann and Berlioz to Tier 2. I'm conflicted over whether Verdi & Puccini should be in 1 or 2, except that I think they should be in the same Tier.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DaveM said:


> Not too bad, but I would move Mendelssohn, Schumann and Berlioz to Tier 2. I'm conflicted over whether Verdi & Puccini should be in 1 or 2, except that I think they should be in the same Tier.


Puccini is a touch call. Verdi's overall output was greater, and then he also had the Requiem to boot. But the Puccini "quartet" of La Boheme, Tosca, Madama Butterfly, and Turandot is formidable.


----------



## Agamemnon

I generally agree but I would place R. Strauss and Berg one tier higher. I also miss some composers: as a start I would like to add Messiaen en Berio both in tier 3.


----------



## Omicron9

Brahmsianhorn said:


> See if you agree with mine:
> 
> *Tier 1*
> 
> Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Brahms, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Verdi, Wagner
> 
> *Tier 2*
> 
> Handel, Haydn, Debussy, Stravinsky, Mahler, Shostakovich, Chopin, Puccini
> 
> *Tier 3*
> 
> Mendelssohn, Schumann, Bartok, Liszt, R. Strauss, Dvorak, Prokofiev, Ravel, Rachmaninoff
> 
> *Tier 4*
> 
> Berlioz, Elgar, Sibelius, Bruckner, Vivaldi, Vaughan Williams, Grieg, Rossini
> 
> *Tier 5*
> 
> Monteverdi, Saint-Saens, Britten, Mussorgsky, Josquin, Schoenberg, Barber, Janacek, Palestrina
> 
> *Tier 6*
> 
> Faure, Rimsky-Korsakov, Bizet, Copland, Berg, Donizetti, J. Strauss, Poulenc, Franck
> 
> *Tier 7*
> 
> Purcell, Nielsen, Byrd, Hindemith, Massenet, Borodin, Tallis, Ives
> 
> *Tier 8*
> 
> Gershwin, Smetana, Albeniz, Bruch, Holst, Respighi, D. Scarlatti, Bernstein


What is this obsession on this forum with ranking and who/what is "best?" Can't we just enjoy the art without trying to make it into baseball statistics?

Just one person's opinion. Feel free to rank my opinion as you see fit.


----------



## Klassik

I'm not sure what you're ranking here. Level of your enjoyment? Level of respect? Level of how frequently listen to them? Size of endowment? 

All I know is that anyone who is in my 8th tier is someone who probably isn't even worth discussing! :lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain

Purcell in the second to last tier? Bonkers.


----------



## Art Rock

Everyone has their own tiers, so what's the point?


----------



## JeffD

Wow. I had only three tiers, favorite, and try outs for favorite, and barely listenable.

These things are so fluid. I remember that Bach towards the end of his life was already considered old fashioned and then became almost forgotten for like 100 years till Mendelssohn said "dude, you gotta hear this."

I am not knowledgeable enough to rank based on "importance" but I can see that might be a useful intellectual exercise.

There is also the distorting influence of time. Later composers use the materials that exist at the time, and so Bach has had much more influence only because he came before so many others. And we don't know the influence some of the more recent composers will have.

If you rank based on delightful and interesting listening, I would put Respighi and Scarlatti and Faure much higher. 

Something to think about.


----------



## wolkaaa

I'd combine Tier 2 & 3.


----------



## Art Rock

My personal tiers are:

1. 1 composer
2. 3 composers
3. 9 composers
4. 27 composers
5. 81 composers
6. rest

works for me. I won't bother with names, as that is personal taste anyway.


----------



## DaveM

Omicron9 said:


> What is this obsession on this forum with ranking and who/what is "best?" Can't we just enjoy the art without trying to make it into baseball statistics?
> 
> Just one person's opinion. Feel free to rank my opinion as you see fit.


One could apply the 'Can't we just enjoy the art' to perhaps a majority of topics on TC. That would result in one dead forum.


----------



## hpowders

OP: Really now. This is simply one man's opiñion and no two posters on TC most likely will come anywhere close to your "tier" groupings.

However, it was interesting to read your groupings.


----------



## Xaltotun

I don't think it's too bad! If I count the composers where I really disagree (=would move two tiers or more up or down), that's something like... eight composers, perhaps?


----------



## 20centrfuge

8 tiers seems like a lot. 4 or 5 would be my choice. Maybe something along these lines:

Great Composers
Major International Significance
Minor International Significance
National or Lesser Significance
Regional or Slight Significance

Bach, Mozart, Beethoven would make the top level for sure. Others debatable.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

> Ranking composers by levels (Tier 1, tier 2, etc.) See if you agree with mine:


This will all end in tiers, mark my words...


----------



## Bulldog

I'd go with four tiers:

Tier One - Just Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.
Tier Two - Most other famous composers plus a few personal favorites such as Myaskovsky and Weinberg.
Tier Three - Composers whose music I listen to every few years (Rossini, Barber, etc.)
Tier Four - Never composers such as Vivaldi and Stockhausen.


----------



## lextune

hpowders said:


> However, it was interesting to read your groupings.


I think this is the real fun/value....

Here are my tiers:

Tier One: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Wagner

Tier Two: Chopin, Schumann, Liszt, Debussy, Scriabin

Tier Three: Alkan, Brahms, Prokofiev, Shostakovich

....I'll stick with that for now.


----------



## silentio

Seriously! I would put Dufay, Josquin, and Byrd in tier one. Come on! 

Tchaikovsky should be moved down to tier two. 

Schumann and Monteverdi must be up to tier two.

Mussorgsky should be up to level three at least!

Puccini, tier three or four at most.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

silentio said:


> Seriously! I would put Dufay, Josquin, and Byrd in tier one. Come on!
> 
> Tchaikovsky should be moved down to tier two.
> 
> Schumann and Monteverdi must be up to tier two.
> 
> Mussorgsky should be up to level three at least!
> 
> Puccini, tier three or four at most.


We're not all early music aficionados. Most people can't name a single piece by those composers. I sing early music and I can only name one for each (Missa l'homme arme, Missa pange lingua, and the Masses for 3, 4 and 5 voices). You cannot therefore objectively put them in Tier One.

Bruckner is one of my 5 favorite composers, but I would not put him in Tier 1 or even 2.

You can have personal preferences while also being attuned to general consensus. That is what I was trying to do and the reason I was interested in feedback.


----------



## Pugg

Art Rock said:


> My personal tiers are:
> 
> 1. 1 composer
> 2. 3 composers
> 3. 9 composers
> 4. 27 composers
> 5. 81 composers
> 6. rest
> 
> works for me. I won't bother with names, as that is personal taste anyway.


Not to mention that its changes every week.


----------



## Klavierspieler

I swear we've had this exact same thread before....


----------



## Nereffid

Brahmsianhorn said:


> We're not all early music aficionados. Most people can't name a single piece by those composers. I sing early music and I can only name one for each (Missa l'homme arme, Missa pange lingua, and the Masses for 3, 4 and 5 voices). You cannot therefore objectively put them in Tier One.
> 
> Bruckner is one of my 5 favorite composers, but I would not put him in Tier 1 or even 2.
> 
> You can have personal preferences while also being attuned to general consensus. That is what I was trying to do and the reason I was interested in feedback.


Well, yeah, but you can't _objectively_ put any composer anywhere. I agree there's a general consensus, but it's _general_, many people share roughly the same idea of how you determine who's the "greatest" but there's no single way of deciding, and when trying to attune to that consensus there's an awful lot of second-guessing go on.
Any attempt such as yours to rank composers can be perceived as being varying degrees of likely or unlikely, but it's never going to be "right". As one more data point in the unending and impossible task of trying to answer this vague question, it's still interesting though.


----------



## Tallisman

Two tiers:

1. Bach
2. The Rest


----------



## Art Rock

There is no consensus that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are the greatest composers of all time. 

There is consensus that if you average the opinions of many classical music lovers, these three tend to come out on top.


----------



## Zhdanov

Art Rock said:


> Everyone has their own tiers, so what's the point?


who cares if so?


----------



## Zhdanov

Art Rock said:


> There is no consensus that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are the greatest composers of all time.


their greatness became obvious with time, only then came the consensus as result of it.


----------



## larold

I created a system a few years ago based on musicological guides and came up with something a bit different than tiers (points) to wit:

Mozart 145
Beethoven 116
Bach 98

Brahms 67
Haydn 66
Tchaikovsky 66
Handel 62
Schubert 60

Schumann 52
Wagner 51
Verdi 50

R. Strauss 48
Dvorak 45
Prokofiev 45
Shostakovich 41
Sibelius 40

Stravinsky 39
Mendelssohn 38
Ravel 36
Britten 36
Chopin 34
Debussy 33
Liszt 32
Vaughan Williams 32
Rachmaninoff 32
Elgar 32

Mahler 29
Puccini 29
Rossini 27
Saint Saens 25
Berlioz 22
Bartok 22
Walton 21
Strauss family 21
Monteverdi 21
Donizetti 21
Hindemith 20
Messiahn 20

The list went on through 99 composers.


----------



## David Phillips

I remember a magazine poll a few years ago which asked who were the greatest musicians of the previous millennium. Michael Jackson came first and J.S. Bach trotted in at number six.


----------



## Phil loves classical

The best works by many composers put them all at the tier 1 level, while the average works by the same composers put them at tier 2 or 3 level. There can no systematic rating of composers.


----------



## Art Rock

larold said:


> vaughan williams 32
> rachmaninoff 32
> elgar 32
> 
> mahler 29


rofl..................................


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Phil loves classical said:


> The best works by many composers put them all at the tier 1 level, while the average works by the same composers put them at tier 2 or 3 level. There can no systematic rating of composers.


Your post disproves your own point. The only way to equalize composers is to isolate either their best or their most average works. But if you look at the totality of their work you cannot avoid the objective truth that Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach put together a body of work that is unsurpassed. You may not like the best of those composers as much as the best of another composer, but the number of great works across such a wide spectrum of composition types - concertos, symphonies, chamber music, choral, opera, etc. - is objectively undeniable.

I think the Bruckner's 8th symphony is arguably the greatest orchestral piece ever written. That alone doesn't put Bruckner on the same plane as Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, or Schubert.


----------



## Klassik

Brahmsianhorn said:


> *But if you look at the totality of their work you cannot avoid the objective truth that Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach put together a body of work that is unsurpassed.* You may not like the best of those composers as much as the best of another composer, but the number of great works across such a wide spectrum of composition types - concertos, symphonies, chamber music, choral, opera, etc. - is objectively undeniable.


I'm subjectively agreeing with your statement about the big 3, but how can you possibly prove that Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach are objectively unsurpassed?


----------



## Art Rock

"Objective truth"
"Objectively undeniable"

Good luck with that.


----------



## jdec

Tallisman said:


> Two tiers:
> 
> 1. Bach
> 2. The Rest


I could take your tier 2 and be happy for the rest of my life.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

This is unscientific but interesting nonetheless. Here are the composers ranked by current number of in print recordings: (according to ArkivMusic.com)

1. Bach, Johann Sebastian (6,692) 
2. Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus (6,222) 
3. Beethoven, Ludwig van (5,145)
4. Brahms, Johannes (3,813)
5. Schubert, Franz (3,568)
6. Tchaikovsky, Peter Ilyich (3,115)
7. Schumann, Robert (2,856) 
8. Verdi, Giuseppe (2,642)
9. Handel, George Frideric (2,637) 
10. Mendelssohn, Felix (2,524) 
11. Chopin, Frédéric (2,429)
12. Debussy, Claude (2,396) 
13. Liszt, Franz (2,206) 
14. Haydn, Franz Joseph (2,167)
15. Ravel, Maurice (1,952) 
16. Vivaldi, Antonio (1,902) 
17. Wagner, Richard (1,879) 
18. Strauss, Richard (1,754)
19. Dvorák, Antonín (1,750)
20. Puccini, Giacomo (1,646)
21. Prokofiev, Sergei (1,591)
22. Shostakovich, Dmitri (1,528)
23. Rachmaninov, Sergei (1,507)
24. Saint-Saëns, Camille (1,484) 
25. Rossini, Gioachino (1,455)
26. Mahler, Gustav (1,299) 
27. Fauré, Gabriel (1,259) 
28. Bizet, Georges (1,195) 
29. Stravinsky, Igor (1,187) 
30. Grieg, Edvard (1,179) 
31. Donizetti, Gaetano (1,032) 
32. Britten, Benjamin (1,017)
33. Gounod, Charles (998) 
34. Elgar, Sir Edward (947) 
35. Massenet, Jules (946) 
36. Bartók, Béla (936)
37. Sibelius, Jean (926) 
38. Gershwin, George (898) 
39. Franck, César (865) 
40. Telemann, Georg Philipp (849)
41. Mussorgsky, Modest (822) 
42. Vaughan Williams, Ralph (820)
43. Rimsky-Korsakov, Nikolai (812) 
44. Bruckner, Anton (804)
45. Strauss Jr., Johann (794) 
46. Berlioz, Hector (786) 
47. Purcell, Henry (785) 
48. Poulenc, Francis (765) 
49. Falla, Manuel de (693)
50. Weber, Carl Maria von (667) 
51. Bernstein, Leonard (617) 
52. Bellini, Vincenzo (604)
53. Scarlatti, Domenico (597)
54. Copland, Aaron (586) 
55. Barber, Samuel (585)
56. Villa-Lobos, Heitor (584) 
57. Hindemith, Paul (566)
58. Gluck, Christoph W. (554) 
59. Albeniz, Isaac (552) 
60. Monteverdi, Claudio (552)
61. Scriabin, Alexander (535) 
62. Paganini, Niccolò (518) 
63. Offenbach, Jacques (512)


----------



## Klassik

Brahmsianhorn said:


> This is unscientific but interesting nonetheless. Here are the composers ranked by current number of in print recordings: (according to ArkivMusic.com)


If we go off sales, Boléro would be one of the finest pieces of classical music out there. Maybe even the finest! Of course, the quality of Boléro is subjective.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Your post disproves your own point. The only way to equalize composers is to isolate either their best or their most average works. But if you look at the totality of their work you cannot avoid the objective truth that Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach put together a body of work that is unsurpassed. You may not like the best of those composers as much as the best of another composer, but the number of great works across such a wide spectrum of composition types - concertos, symphonies, chamber music, choral, opera, etc. - is objectively undeniable.
> 
> I think the Bruckner's 8th symphony is arguably the greatest orchestral piece ever written. That alone doesn't put Bruckner on the same plane as Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, or Schubert.


The the big 3 wrote prolifically, but I would say none compares with the profundity and impact as Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, or Wagner's Tristan and Isolde (in my opinion), not even Beethoven's 9th (the only real candidate). Tchaikovsky and Schubert best works is not halfway as profound as these. In my view one great work by a composer is more valuable than 200 good works by another. I will add Henze, Scriabin to this list of composing at least 1 great work that surpasses all the works by the big 3. I know my views may not be typical, but if you get many of people similar to me, then the consensus of the best composers would get normalized.


----------



## Nereffid

Klassik said:


> If we go off sales, Boléro would be one of the finest pieces of classical music out there. Maybe even the finest! Of course, the quality of Boléro is subjective.


On the micro level - individual compositions or composers - it's easy to argue that the Arkiv recordings data are meaningless. But on the macro level - say, looking at the top 100 composers, or which Mozart piano concertos are very popular and which are relatively unpopular - they're useful pointers. The ranked list of composers based on Arkiv recordings correlates reasonably well with, say, a ranking based on the length of the composers' _New Grove_ entry, and both correlate reasonably well with the results of various voting games and polls on TC. They all reflect an underlying truth that can never be properly quantified (and certainly not objectively!).


----------



## Woodduck

I have my own rather loose personal rankings and what I believe are reasonable criteria for making them. I'm even willing to argue that, say, Berlioz is a greater composer than Saint-Saens, if not a better one (and the difference between "greater" and "better" is interesting in itself). Artistic excellence is not entirely a matter of opinion and taste, and the importance of a composer in the history of music is probably as objective as any other historical question. 

The usefulness of this sort of discussion lies not in any need to establish rankings, but in what we can learn from thinking about the qualities that make art do what it does for us. Thus we all have our own rankings, and we're entitled to them, but there's no need to expect general agreement. Where there actually is widespread agreement, we may learn something from it.

Personally, I concur with the widespread consensus that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven occupy a privileged position in the musical pantheon, with Wagner, as an original and pivotal force difficult to compare as a "pure" composer, in a little shrine of his own. Just off to the side is Schubert, who should have lived longer (Artur Schnabel, I believe, opined that he was the greatest natural musician ever born). Then there are the other usual suspects (Handel, Haydn, Mendelssohn, Brahms...). These I find reasonable, but beyond these, ranking is a pretty arbitrary exercise, and not important to me.

EDIT: Yeah, OK, Messiaen is greater than Ethelbert Nevin. Actually, I think I might be too.


----------



## Woodduck

Phil loves classical said:


> The the big 3 wrote prolifically, but I would say none compares with the profundity and impact as Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, or Wagner's Tristan and Isolde (in my opinion), not even Beethoven's 9th (the only real candidate).


The _Rite of Spring_ has been called a lot of things, but profound? - and more profound than Beethoven's 9th? I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that.


----------



## Nereffid

Phil loves classical said:


> I know my views may not be typical, but if you get many of people similar to me, then the consensus of the best composers would get normalized.


Having done my polls to see which composers are liked by the most people, I suspect that some small part of the apparently unassailable position of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven as the Holy Trinity is due to received wisdom. By which I mean, many people might say _well, they're not my top 3, but obviously they're in the top 3 overall_ - but there is no "official" top 3, so this is at best an educated guess about what other people thing. Maybe, indeed, it's more common than people realise for BMB not to be in individuals' top 3. 
Also, part of their dominance is undoubtedly due to the fact that there's so little agreement on who's no.4.


----------



## larold

<<The Rite of Spring has been called a lot of things, but profound? - and more profound than Beethoven's 9th? I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that.>>

The Rite was profound insofar as it broke new ground, caused a riot at its premier, and helped usher in a new epoch of music we used to call "modern." It was for many years considered the first piece of "modern" music alongside Pierrot Lunaire. But I don't believe it puts its author, Stravinksy, up with the greatest composers on the basis of that. Berlioz broke all sorts of new ground with Symphonie Fantastique and the branches of composers loosely known as Second Viennese School and avant-garde did same but none of them would be on most people's list of best or greatest or most profound or anything of the like composers.


----------



## Klassik

Nereffid said:


> On the micro level - individual compositions or composers - it's easy to argue that the Arkiv recordings data are meaningless. But on the macro level - say, looking at the top 100 composers, or which Mozart piano concertos are very popular and which are relatively unpopular - they're useful pointers. The ranked list of composers based on Arkiv recordings correlates reasonably well with, say, a ranking based on the length of the composers' _New Grove_ entry, and both correlate reasonably well with the results of various voting games and polls on TC. *They all reflect an underlying truth that can never be properly quantified (and certainly not objectively!)*.


But is a composer popular _because_ they are popular or because they are "the best?" The data is interesting and can offer insights, but I would be careful with drawing any conclusions from them aside from the obvious ones like which composer has the most recordings on Arkiv.


----------



## larold

<<But is a composer popular because they are popular or because they are "the best?" >>

Anyone that wrote music in 1960 and is no longer listened to, played in concert, or heard of the radio probably is no longer relevant. Anyone that did that in 1860 or 1760 or 1660 that is listened to, played in concert and on the radio and discussed in forums like this one probably is relevant in the 21st century. If the composer is recorded, played or heard more often than others, isn't that composer "more" relevant? And, if so, isn't that testimony to the composer's music's staying power throughout centuries? Isn't that a mark of greatness?


----------



## Klassik

larold said:


> <<But is a composer popular because they are popular or because they are "the best?" >>
> 
> Anyone that wrote music in 1960 and is no longer listened to, played in concert, or heard of the radio probably is no longer relevant. Anyone that did that in 1860 or 1760 or 1660 that is listened to, played in concert and on the radio and discussed in forums like this one probably is relevant in the 21st century. If the composer is recorded, played or heard more often than others, isn't that composer "more" relevant? And, if so, isn't that testimony to the composer's music's staying power throughout centuries? Isn't that a mark of greatness?


Relevance is one question, but who is the "best" is another. Even then, there are pretty big differences in what classical radio listeners want versus what people on this forum want. Also, the popularity of certain composers has vacillated over the years. Maybe not Beethoven and Mozart, but there were times where Bach's stock had fallen. Someone like Vivaldi, who is very popular today, went through a prolonged period of irrelevance.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Woodduck said:


> The _Rite of Spring_ has been called a lot of things, but profound? - and more profound than Beethoven's 9th? I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that.


Just a personal view. I feel I've seen behind the curtain of Beethoven's mighty Oz. I was a big fan of his before, but most of his works feel contrived to me after many listenings. But not so with Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. Just the introduction gets me enthralled and lost in it, the work of a real wizard.


----------



## jdec

Brahmsianhorn said:


> This is unscientific but interesting nonetheless. Here are the composers ranked by current number of in print recordings: (according to ArkivMusic.com)


If we go off music search on Amazon.com:

Mozart - 44,066 results for CD & Vinyl
Bach - 41789 results for CD & Vinyl
Beethoven - 38,418 results for CD & Vinyl


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Nereffid said:


> Having done my polls to see which composers are liked by the most people, I suspect that some small part of the apparently unassailable position of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven as the Holy Trinity is due to received wisdom. By which I mean, many people might say _well, they're not my top 3, but obviously they're in the top 3 overall_ - but there is no "official" top 3, so this is at best an educated guess about what other people thing. Maybe, indeed, it's more common than people realise for BMB not to be in individuals' top 3.
> Also, part of their dominance is undoubtedly due to the fact that there's so little agreement on who's no.4.


But you can not prove this. What if most people do but Bach, Mozart and Beethoven in their top 3. They are in the top 3 in total of cd's of music recorded.


----------



## arpeggio

Omicron9 said:


> What is this obsession on this forum with ranking and who/what is "best?" Can't we just enjoy the art without trying to make it into baseball statistics?
> 
> Just one person's opinion. Feel free to rank my opinion as you see fit.


I agree with your sentiments but to be fair these types of threads may be helpful to many.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Omicron9 said:


> What is this obsession on this forum with ranking and who/what is "best?" Can't we just enjoy the art without trying to make it into baseball statistics?
> 
> Just one person's opinion. Feel free to rank my opinion as you see fit.


What is your obsession for going into threads like this and stating your displeasure. If you hate threads like this so much why not stop reading them. Or by your constant complaining about this show that you think your view on this should trump other peoples view on this.


----------



## Roger Knox

I support ranking. This tight format doesn't really do justice to ranking the best composers. That requires a sustained thought process and some reasonable arguments, as well as the exercise of taste formed by experience and feeling.


----------



## helenora

That's really a supermarket thread. what tier is this? what tier is that?


----------



## Bulldog

Roger Knox said:


> I support ranking. This tight format doesn't really do justice to ranking the best composers. That requires a sustained thought process and some reasonable arguments, as well as the exercise of taste formed by experience and feeling.


Good luck with all of that. By the way, WELCOME TO TC!


----------



## Nereffid

Johnnie Burgess said:


> But you can not prove this. What if most people do but Bach, Mozart and Beethoven in their top 3. They are in the top 3 in total of cd's of music recorded.


Actually I suspect that if it were somehow possible to get literally everyone's opinion, it would turn out that BMB are indeed the top 3, and things like the Arkiv data reflect how classical listeners in general feel about BMB. But my point is that not only can I not prove it one way, but nobody can prove it either way. We just have to infer from incomplete evidence, and _some part_ (a small part) of the evidence is a feedback loop arising from our conviction that the statement "Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are the top 3 composers" is true.


----------



## Nereffid

Klassik said:


> But is a composer popular _because_ they are popular or because they are "the best?" The data is interesting and can offer insights, but I would be careful with drawing any conclusions from them aside from the obvious ones like which composer has the most recordings on Arkiv.


I think being popular and being "the best" are closely linked, but I kind of don't see it as one being the cause of the other. Rather, they're both manifestations of the music. Bach is one of the most popular composers because he's one of the best _at producing music that people want to listen to_. But the audience is a crucial factor. Someone like Schoenberg isn't popular with the general public, because he wasn't good at producing music (or, more correctly, he _didn't produce_ music) that the general public wants to listen to and therefore as far as the general public's concerned he's not one of the best composers; but he's more popular with a more specialised audience because he was very good at producing music _they_ want to listen to and therefore he's among the best.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

1. Relativists amuse me. Havergal Brian and Johannes Brahms are of equal stature because who am I to say otherwise? Whatever.

2. There is a utility in having reference points. Not everyone has the time or patience to sample each and every composer in the history of music. For example, someone curious about exploring Renaissance music may be told to sample Josquin's Missa pange lingua, Palestrina's Missa papae marcelli, and Tallis's Spem in alium. Are these the only Renaissance works of value? Of course not, but they are useful reference points.


----------



## Art Rock

Brahmsianhorn said:


> 1. Relativists amuse me. Havergal Brian and Johannes Brahms are of equal stature because who am I to say otherwise? Whatever..


There are people though who prefer Brian over Brahms (not me, but e.g. I prefer Brahms over Beethoven, which is a big no-no as well according to some). Whatever indeed.


----------



## Roger Knox

Bulldog said:


> Good luck with all of that. By the way, WELCOME TO TC!


Thanks Bulldog. My comments are idealistic. But this thread is certainly the best I've seen for ranking in classical music! It is much better than the flashy Ranker.com.


----------



## DaveM

I'm always surprised that some people are unable to separate their personal favorites from an objective ranking of some of the giants of classical music composition. Just because someone has been entranced by a given work of a composer lower down on the scale doesn't mean that that composer suddenly gets elevated above, say, Beethoven. I went through a period of being particularly taken by Dvorak's Piano Concerto. For a time, I preferred listening to it over the Beethoven Piano Concertos. But, I never, for a moment, thought that Dvorak was a greater composer than LVB or even that Dvorak's Piano Concerto was superior.

There is plenty of objective evidence to support the placement of the most profoundly talented and influential composers in the top tiers, give or take a disagreement over a tier or two as one moves beyond the top 3 or 4. The premise that all of this is subjective is just silliness. The test of time, history and study has certified Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt as some of the greatest presidents in history. Likewise, Van Gogh and Picasso are some of the greatest painters, Galileo and Einstein some of the greatest scientists.

Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, when all the objective variables are evaluated have influenced classical music more than any other composers. Their music has influenced the less sophisticated and the more sophisticated listeners, musicologists and other composers more than any other composers in history. Haydn, Handel, Brahms, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Mahler Verdi, Puccini, Wagner, Debussy and Ravel (in no particular order and I may have missed one or 2) followed not too distantly behind. While their standing might be considered to vary by a Tier or two, that doesn't change the fact of the relative influence of these composers over a long period of time. Any serious music student, composer or listener will be more than familiar with these composers. And these are the composers whose music has been programmed and recorded more than most others.


----------



## Nereffid

Brahmsianhorn said:


> 1. Relativists amuse me. Havergal Brian and Johannes Brahms are of equal stature because who am I to say otherwise? Whatever.


I have seen this claim made about relativists far more often than I have seen relativists make the supposed claim.

Relativism in this context is about saying that all judgements have an element of subjectivity to them; it doesn't mean that everyone is "of equal stature", just that a composer's "stature" (or "greatness", etc) cannot be defined 100% objectively.


----------



## Art Rock

Nereffid said:


> I have seen this claim made about relativists far more often than I have seen relativists make the supposed claim.
> 
> Relativism in this context is about saying that all judgements have an element of subjectivity to them; it doesn't mean that everyone is "of equal stature", just that a composer's "stature" (or "greatness", etc) cannot be defined 100% objectively.


Actually, I have NEVER seen a so-called relativist make this claim. The opposing fraction makes it all the time though.


----------



## Ingélou

Brahmsianhorn said:


> See if you agree with mine:
> 
> *Tier 1*
> 
> Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Brahms, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Verdi, Wagner
> 
> *Tier 2*
> 
> Handel, Haydn, Debussy, Stravinsky, Mahler, Shostakovich, Chopin, Puccini
> 
> *Tier 3*
> 
> Mendelssohn, Schumann, Bartok, Liszt, R. Strauss, Dvorak, Prokofiev, Ravel, Rachmaninoff
> 
> *Tier 4*
> 
> Berlioz, Elgar, Sibelius, Bruckner, Vivaldi, Vaughan Williams, Grieg, Rossini
> 
> *Tier 5*
> 
> Monteverdi, Saint-Saens, Britten, Mussorgsky, Josquin, Schoenberg, Barber, Janacek, Palestrina
> 
> *Tier 6*
> 
> Faure, Rimsky-Korsakov, Bizet, Copland, Berg, Donizetti, J. Strauss, Poulenc, Franck
> 
> *Tier 7*
> 
> Purcell, Nielsen, Byrd, Hindemith, Massenet, Borodin, Tallis, Ives
> 
> *Tier 8*
> 
> Gershwin, Smetana, Albeniz, Bruch, Holst, Respighi, D. Scarlatti, Bernstein


One obviously can't rank everyone - even if one listened to a composer's complete oeuvre every couple of days, one wouldn't live long enough. 
*But where are Rameau and Lully - or Boccherini? * 

I suppose most people would put Beethoven, Bach & Mozart in the top tier, for cultural, historical and technical reasons, whether they like them or not, but it just doesn't seem terribly helpful to me, this 'exam-marking schoolteacher' approach to music. I've retired now & I'm just going to sashay around and listen to what I like and think about why I like it, rather than grade it.


----------



## Bulldog

Ingélou said:


> One obviously can't rank everyone - even if one listened to a composer's complete oeuvre every couple of days, one wouldn't live long enough. But where are Rameau and Lully - or Boccherini?
> 
> I suppose most people would put Beethoven, Bach & Mozart in the top tier, for cultural, historical and technical reasons, whether they like them or not, but it just doesn't seem terribly helpful to me, this 'exam-marking schoolteacher' approach to music. I've retired now & I'm just going to mosey around and listen to what I like and think about why I like it, rather than grade it.


I give your response an A+.


----------



## Omicron9

DaveM said:


> One could apply the 'Can't we just enjoy the art' to perhaps a majority of topics on TC. That would result in one dead forum.


If you're to quote me, please quote the entire sentence, as your snipped quote takes it out of context.

On the contrary: I love the discussion that transpires here. My comments apply only to the attempt to statisticize and assign numerical ranks to pieces and composers. (And again: just my opinion; rank it as you will.)

Or perhaps we should take this approach to everything in art. Let's rank which color is best.


----------



## Bulldog

Omicron9 said:


> If you're to quote me, please quote the entire sentence, as your snipped quote takes it out of context.
> 
> On the contrary: I love the discussion that transpires here. My comments apply only to the attempt to statisticize and assign numerical ranks to pieces and composers. (And again: just my opinion; rank it as you will.)
> 
> Or perhaps we should take this approach to everything in art. Let's rank which color is best.


I'm confident we would do just that if this was a painting website.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DaveM said:


> I'm always surprised that some people are unable to separate their personal favorites from an objective ranking of some of the giants of classical music composition. Just because someone has been entranced by a given work of a composer lower down on the scale doesn't mean that that composer suddenly gets elevated above, say, Beethoven. I went through a period of being particularly taken by Dvorak's Piano Concerto. For a time, I preferred listening to it over the Beethoven Piano Concertos. But, I never, for a moment, thought that Dvorak was a greater composer than LVB or even that Dvorak's Piano Concerto was superior.
> 
> There is plenty of objective evidence to support the placement of the most profoundly talented and influential composers in the top tiers, give or take a disagreement over a tier or two as one moves beyond the top 3 or 4. The premise that all of this is subjective is just silliness. The test of time, history and study has certified Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt as some of the greatest presidents in history. Likewise, Van Gogh and Picasso are some of the greatest painters, Galileo and Einstein some of the greatest scientists.
> 
> Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, when all the objective variables are evaluated have influenced classical music more than any other composers. Their music has influenced the less sophisticated and the more sophisticated listeners, musicologists and other composers more than any other composers in history. Haydn, Handel, Brahms, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Mahler Verdi, Puccini, Wagner, Debussy and Ravel (in no particular order and I may have missed one or 2) followed not too distantly behind. While their standing might be considered to vary by a Tier or two, that doesn't change the fact of the relative influence of these composers over a long period of time. Any serious music student, composer or listener will be more than familiar with these composers. And these are the composers whose music has been programmed and recorded more than most others.


Here is the thing - while we can say that some things are subjective (i.e. according to individual taste), at the same time there is a "collective subjectivity" which I find to be fascinating. That is in essence what threads like this are about. Sure we all have our individual tastes shaped by our backgrounds and environments. But where do we find agreement? And why? That is what I find fascinating. Brahms, Beethoven, Mahler and Bruckner are my four favorite composers. But I am not interested in that. I know myself well enough. I am interested in where there is "collective agreement" about certain things. It taps into that subconscious part of us that makes music communicative in the first place. Otherwise we'd all just be talking to ourselves in the dark.


----------



## Marc

Omicron9 said:


> What is this obsession on this forum with ranking and who/what is "best?" Can't we just enjoy the art without trying to make it into baseball statistics?
> 
> Just one person's opinion. Feel free to rank my opinion as you see fit.


Why can't we just enjoy the art without writing about it in a Talk Classical Forum?

Ranking is human.
Is ranking music/art/literature a useful activity?
Nah.
Blabbering about things we like is human, too.
Is blabbering in a forum like TC useful?
Nah. Not really.
Do these useless activities make the ranking and blabbering people happy, though?
Apparantly.

So, no problem for me...

Oh, my 'first tier' is Bach. The rest of the bunch has got some merits, too.


----------



## DaveM

Omicron9 said:


> If you're to quote me, please quote the entire sentence, as your snipped quote takes it out of context.
> 
> On the contrary: I love the discussion that transpires here. My comments apply only to the attempt to statisticize and assign numerical ranks to pieces and composers. (And again: just my opinion; rank it as you will.)
> 
> Or perhaps we should take this approach to everything in art. Let's rank which color is best.


What are you talking about? I quoted your entire post above my comment. Readers here are smart enough to see the context of the part I emphasized in my post.

But you just reinforced the reason why I responded. IMO, in a forum like this, any subject that inspires interest is valuable. Why single out statistics and ranking? Btw, I wouldn't be surprised if painting artists quibble over which colors are best for certain subjects. Maybe there's a forum where they've ranked them.


----------



## Marc

Ingélou said:


> [...]
> *But where are Rameau and Lully - or Boccherini? *
> [...]


Yeah.
Or Lassus, Victoria, Frescobaldi, Couperin, Buxtehude? :tiphat:


----------



## Mandryka

Ranking is for rankers.


----------



## Art Rock

Indeed, rankers gonna rank!


----------



## Mandryka

What a bunch of rankers you all are!


----------



## Guest

Edit: Nevermind


----------



## DaveM

All this negativity about ranking and yet, all theses naysayers (likely) went to *grade* school.


----------



## AfterHours

David Phillips said:


> I remember a magazine poll a few years ago which asked who were the greatest musicians of the previous millennium. Michael Jackson came first and J.S. Bach trotted in at number six.


Naturally. It was probably with Thriller where it became most clear that Michael Jackson had reached the summit of all art, overshadowing the likes of the Mass in B Minor, St. Matthew Passion, Goldberg Variations, Art of Fugue and WTC, thus rendering Bach irrelevant in one fell swoop.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Brahmsianhorn said:


> This is unscientific but interesting nonetheless. Here are the composers ranked by current number of in print recordings: (according to ArkivMusic.com)


What? No Schoenberg?


----------



## Lisztian

As long as there is even ONE person in the world who has the ear/mental capacity to comprehend the music of certain composers (lets say Beethoven and Schoenberg), prefers/is stimulated more by Schoenberg...Beethoven can no longer be considered greater than Schoenberg. Different music expresses different things, and one finding favour with more humans is irrelevant.

I'm aware there are more things to consider when determining greatness, but I think my point taken on its own may have merit.


----------



## David OByrne

Tier 1

Stravinsky, Varese, Boulez, Ferneyhough, Mahler


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Klavierspieler said:


> What? No Schoenberg?


I only ranked the ones with 500 or more recordings. Schoenberg has 459.


----------



## Woodduck

Lisztian said:


> As long as there is even ONE person in the world who has the ear/mental capacity to comprehend the music of certain composers (lets say Beethoven and Schoenberg), prefers/is stimulated more by Schoenberg...Beethoven can no longer be considered greater than Schoenberg. Different music expresses different things, and one finding favour with more humans is irrelevant.
> 
> I'm aware there are more things to consider when determining greatness, but I think my point taken on its own may have merit.


I don't see its merit. Can you support it?


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

Woodduck said:


> I don't see its merit. Can you support it?


That is precisely the point, you can't support subjective opinions. You don't have to agree with what someone believes is "great", there is no objective way to measure anything or even compare things that are trying to achieve different aesthetic approaches.

Daniel


----------



## Woodduck

Daniel Atkinson said:


> That is precisely the point, you can't support subjective opinions. You don't have to agree with what someone believes is "great", there is no objective way to measure anything or even compare things that are trying to achieve different aesthetic approaches.


The opinion in question was stated as a fact. I don't find interesting or worthwhile opinions for which no basis whatever is given.

It's tiresome being told that there are no criteria whatsoever for artistic excellence, with the implication that even talking about it is a waste of time. Some artists have accomplished extraordinary things and been benefactors of humanity and glories of civilization. Others have produced trite, simple-minded, depraved trash. Anyone who can't perceive objectively existing differences of quality should have a little humility and not be making grandiose philosophical proclamations on the nature of art.


----------



## Lisztian

Woodduck said:


> The opinion in question was stated as a fact. I don't find interesting or worthwhile opinions for which no basis whatever is given.


It is, of course, just an opinion: and one that I'm not even entirely sure of. So yes, your response is valid.



Woodduck said:


> It's tiresome being told that there are no criteria whatsoever for artistic excellence, with the implication that even talking about it is a waste of time. Some artists have accomplished extraordinary things and been benefactors of humanity and glories of civilization. Others have produced trite, simple-minded, depraved trash. Anyone who can't perceive objectively existing differences of quality should have a little humility and not be making grandiose philosophical proclamations about art.


I personally don't think it's a waste of time listing composers and talking about what makes us find certain composers so special: it is indeed a useful reference point. I don't, however, think it is appropriate OR necessary to 'objectively rank' to begin with. We 'relativists' admit that it obviously isn't completely subjective; our point is that there never any convincing arguments that even come close to suggesting that it is anywhere near completely objective, no matter what the rankings generally say. Which is why these threads always go around in circles.

Because of this it seems to me that it is impossible to actually rank things 'objectively.' You can attempt to but there will always be problems, usually very many problems. On the other hand it is very possible and indeed interesting to give subjective tier lists...


----------



## Woodduck

Lisztian said:


> I personally don't think it's a waste of time listing composers and talking about what makes us find certain composers so special: it is indeed a useful reference point. I don't, however, think it is appropriate OR necessary to 'objectively rank' to begin with. We 'relativists' admit that it obviously isn't completely subjective; our point is that it seems impossible to come close to a convincing argument that is anywhere close to suggesting that it is completely objective, no matter what the rankings generally say. Which is why these threads always go around in circles.


With this modified assertion I can agree. We can't rank composers numerically as to quality, since there are too many criteria, and where different composers' artistic goals are different there is no direct comparability. We can say that some artistic goals are of higher human value than others, and we can show many ways in which artists succeed or fail in reaching their objectives. We can also point to levels of technical skill. Other aesthetic qualities can be perceived but not easily described, or described at all, which however doesn't make them nonexistent. It's all very complicated, but that shouldn't scare people into claiming that artistic values are "all subjective." In many cases it's simply a matter of being _able_ to perceive them, which offends egalitarians but is a hard truth about human nature. We can all improve our ability to appreciate qualities that are actually, objectively present in works of art.


----------



## Lisztian

Woodduck said:


> With this modified assertion I can agree. We can't rank composers numerically as to quality, since there are too many criteria, and where different composers' artistic goals are different there is no direct comparability. We can say that some artistic goals are of higher human value than others, and we can show many ways in which artists succeed or fail in reaching their objectives. We can also point to levels of technical skill. Other aesthetic qualities can be perceived but not easily described, or described at all, which however doesn't make them nonexistent. It's all very complicated, but that shouldn't scare people into claiming that artistic values are "all subjective." In many cases it's simply a matter of being _able_ to perceive them, which offends egalitarians but is a hard truth about human nature. We can all improve our ability to appreciate qualities that are actually, objectively present in works of art.


I generally agree: which is interesting because I am 'arguing for the other side.' Perhaps we should all be a tad less rigid and perhaps there is a nice place in the middle ground where we can all get along...


----------



## Woodduck

Lisztian said:


> I generally agree: which is interesting because I am 'arguing for the other side.' Perhaps we should all be a tad less rigid and perhaps there is a nice place in the middle ground where we can all get along...


Optimist. ...................


----------



## Lisztian

Lisztian said:


> I generally agree: which is interesting because I am 'arguing for the other side.' Perhaps we should all be a tad less rigid and perhaps there is a nice place in the middle ground where we can all get along...


Which basically means those who lean towards objectivism should not object when we who lean the other way play the game based on what we believe in (and vise-versa). Of course if a thread really states from the start that it implies a belief in a certain side, the other side could just not respond.


----------



## Lisztian

Woodduck said:


> Optimist. ...................


I'm a pessimist who tries to be optimistic.


----------



## Larkenfield

In general, I intensely despair rankings. It's too mental (for me) and it's just not important if one enjoys a wide variety of composers. Who thinks of Rimsky-Korsakov while listening to Mahler? Peas and carrots. Does the enjoyment of one cancel out the other? Rank Handel against Gershwin? Why? But it can be an interesting experience to observe which composers one plays more than others, though I'd still say that's different.

The attempt to apply objective standards can sometimes be useful, but objective standards develop out of a collection of _subjective_ opinions by the so-called expert majority over time, and I see no reason why the individual must adhere to it, except as a convenient starting point for deciding on what composers are out there and worth exploring. Perhaps such a broader point of view develops as one gets older. ♬


----------



## DaveM

Lisztian said:


> As long as there is even ONE person in the world who has the ear/mental capacity to comprehend the music of certain composers (lets say Beethoven and Schoenberg), prefers/is stimulated more by Schoenberg...Beethoven can no longer be considered greater than Schoenberg. Different music expresses different things, and one finding favour with more humans is irrelevant.
> 
> I'm aware there are more things to consider when determining greatness, but I think my point taken on its own may have merit.


A parent might be more moved by the picture painted by his/her 8 year child than a Van Gogh painting so that makes the child a better artist? You are confusing the preferences of one or few individuals at a given time with thousands upon thousands of individuals over centuries. Rankings such as these are not meant to instruct individuals on who they should prefer. They are meant to describe what individuals have tended to prefer over or above others consistently over a long period of time.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

Woodduck said:


> The opinion in question was stated as a fact. I don't find interesting or worthwhile opinions for which no basis whatever is given.
> 
> It's tiresome being told that there are no criteria whatsoever for artistic excellence, with the implication that even talking about it is a waste of time. Some artists have accomplished extraordinary things and been benefactors of humanity and glories of civilization. Others have produced trite, simple-minded, depraved trash. Anyone who can't perceive objectively existing differences of quality should have a little humility and not be making grandiose philosophical proclamations on the nature of art.


You seem like you have a Utopian kind of ideology

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

DaveM said:


> A parent might be more moved by the picture painted by his/her 8 year child than a Van Gogh painting so that makes the child a better artist?


I don't like Vincent van Gogh's paintings

Daniel


----------



## Nereffid

Woodduck said:


> It's tiresome being told that there are no criteria whatsoever for artistic excellence


Speaking as a relativist, I don't think "there are no criteria whatsoever". There are plenty of criteria, but none of them can be truly objective, and therefore the forcefulness with which some claims are made can look very dubious depending on one's perspective.

I look at the question "who is the greatest composer?" the same way as the question "who is the greatest gymnast?" - there's a set of criteria laid down, by which gymnasts are judged; there's a certain arbitrariness to some of the criteria, but everyone's agreed to them; the judgements attempt to adhere to the criteria but inevitably have a subjective element; and when the scores are added up, a result is produced that will be regarded as a fair one by pretty much everyone involved. The total relativist's argument would be "there are no criteria for judging gymnastic excellence, therefore a coma patient is as good a gymnast as the current Olympic champion", but such relativists exist only in some people's fevered imaginations. A closer depiction of reality is along the lines of "if we used _this_ set of criteria rather than _that_ set of criteria, a different Olympic finalist might become champion".

Of course the big difference is that in judging composers there are no "official" criteria, in fact the unending debate over modern music makes it clear that there's no agreement on what some of the criteria might even be. So whenever someone claims that it's indisputible that X is the greatest composer, the question must be asked: how did you make that judgement, and how likely is it that everyone will agree with you? A claim like "Bach is definitely one of the greatest composers" doesn't need to be challenged given the weight of evidence from collective opinion, but "Bach is definitely a greater composer than Mozart" is a dubious assertion.


----------



## Anankasmo

Honestly I think there are tree tiers which should look like this:

1) Bach, Mozart, Beethoven (not discussable, set in stone)
2) Every major composer up to the number 50 (e.g. Mahler, Brahms, Faure, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Debussy, Ravel, Saint-Saens, Rimsky-Korsakov, etc. --> mainly cause all these composers have their unique style which imo can not be compared at all)
3) Composers who are mainly One-Hit-Wonders or really skilled but not too inspired ones (Reinecke, Paganini, Leoncavallo, Mascagnini, Hummel, Scharwenka, Field, Medtner, Lorie etc.)


----------



## Lenny

Anankasmo said:


> Honestly I think there are tree tiers which should look like this:
> 
> 1) Bach, Mozart, Beethoven (not discussable, set in stone)
> 2) Every major composer up to the number 50 (e.g. Mahler, Brahms, Faure, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Debussy, Ravel, Saint-Saens, Rimsky-Korsakov, etc. --> mainly cause all these composers have their unique style which imo can not be compared at all)
> 3) Composers who are mainly One-Hit-Wonders or really skilled but not too inspired ones (Reinecke, Paganini, Leoncavallo, Mascagnini, Hummel, Scharwenka, Field, Medtner, Lorie etc.)


I like this way of thinking. I also think there's a bunch of "immortals", then a lot of master composers, and then not-so-masters.

My list of "masters" is on constant movement, it just depends on what I'm interested in that particular moment.


----------



## Lisztian

Why isn't it discussable that Bach/Mozart/Beethoven are the three best? It really seems unusual to me that in over 1000 years of music the 'undebatable, set in stone top 3' were all active within 50 years of each other.


----------



## Lisztian

DaveM said:


> Rankings such as these are not meant to instruct individuals on who they should prefer. They are meant to describe what individuals have tended to prefer over or above others consistently over a long period of time.


This I absolutely agree with. I don't agree that this tendency means that the preferred composers are objectively greater (which may start the circle again, but I elucidated my view a bit more on the previous page ).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I will state again that what I find interesting is the "collective subjectivity," the things that most of us agree on. For example that most agree that Beethoven, Mozart and Bach are on another level. You are in denial if you don't see this. Does it mean you have to personally agree? Of course not! I personally prefer Mahler and Brahms to all three of them. But that's not the point.

There are individual opinions, and there are shared opinions. When I see polls done on favorite works or composers in a particular genre, I can usually predict who will get the most votes. It doesn't mean I have to agree with the "collective opinion."


----------



## Art Rock

Yes, whatever polling system is used, in these ranking contests usually BMB come out on top. I would not go so far that this means that they are on another level though. Others like Schubert, Mahler and Wagner come close to these three in these contests, and occasionally sneak into the top 3.


----------



## Sonata

I love Puccini, but I don't see him as a higher tier than Haydn. 
I would move Haydn to top tier, Puccini down to 2.

I find it interesting that Schubert and Schumann are two tiers apart, I would expect them to be in the same tier or just one apart, based on general reputation. However I don't listen to either on a regular basis, so that's not a personal opinion, just a curiosity.

Mendelssohn I would move up a rung, I would also move Richard Strauss and Ravel up a rung. My personal taste would move Wagner down one, but from a level of composer ability I intellectually understand he belongs in the top.

another consideration is that you have two of the three major Bel canto opera composers in but missed Bellini. he wrote one of the most highly regarded operas in Norma. Tier 5 perhaps, you'd have him sandwiched right in between Rossini and Donizetti.

And lastly, I was pleased to see you rank Verdi in Tier 1


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Sonata said:


> I love Puccini, but I don't see him as a higher tier than Haydn.
> I would move Haydn to top tier, Puccini down to 2.
> 
> I find it interesting that Schubert and Schumann are two tiers apart, I would expect them to be in the same tier or just one apart, based on general reputation. However I don't listen to either on a regular basis, so that's not a personal opinion, just a curiosity.
> 
> Mendelssohn I would move up a rung, I would also move Richard Strauss and Ravel up a rung. My personal taste would move Wagner down one, but from a level of composer ability I intellectually understand he belongs in the top.
> 
> another consideration is that you have two of the three major Bel canto opera composers in but missed Bellini. he wrote one of the most highly regarded operas in Norma. Tier 5 perhaps, you'd have him sandwiched right in between Rossini and Donizetti.
> 
> And lastly, I was pleased to see you rank Verdi in Tier 1


Thanks for the feedback. I often view Haydn in terms of comparison to Mozart, Schumann in comparison to Schubert, and Handel in comparison to Bach. I guess that is why I don't have them quite as high. Uniqueness is an important trait. For example, no one composed opera melodies as effortlessly and brilliantly as Puccini, so I have him at 2. And Chopin is the same with regard to the piano. However, Verdi and Beethoven in Tier 1 achieved greater depth. Stravinsky is in Tier 2 because he was so unique and groundbreaking. Mendelssohn is not in Tier 2 because he didn't add anything that unique.


----------



## Roger Knox

The relativists seem to assume an individual, atomized experience of classical music, where the choices are made subjectively and value judgments are not welcome. Say a small group of classical music lovers are deciding together on concerts/operas to go to, recordings to listen to, or extension courses to take. Wouldn't some ranking process supported by reasons and experiences help them reach a consensus? Whereas just stating what they like could lead to different choices and no basis for consensus? The latter offers no way forward, becoming repetitive and unpleasant; people argue and learn nothing in staunchly asserting themselves!


----------



## DaveM

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I will state again that what I find interesting is the "collective subjectivity," the things that most of us agree on. For example that most agree that Beethoven, Mozart and Bach are on another level. You are in denial if you don't see this. Does it mean you have to personally agree? Of course not! I personally prefer Mahler and Brahms to all three of them. But that's not the point.
> 
> There are individual opinions, and there are shared opinions. When I see polls done on favorite works or composers in a particular genre, I can usually predict who will get the most votes. It doesn't mean I have to agree with the "collective opinion."


In my experience, creating a Tier-based list, whatever the subject matter, usually means that it is based on as objective information as possible. I am getting ready for a fanatasy football draft in 6 weeks. The draftable players are graded in Tiers by different entities, but even though there are minor differences in who is in what Tier, the entities are all trying to use the most objective data available. If someone drafts players just because they 'like' this or that player and ignores these Tiers, they will lose.


----------



## Art Rock

For the "objective" tiers supporters: just exactly what should one do with them once they have been "established"?


----------



## Pugg

Roger Knox said:


> The relativists seem to assume an individual, atomized experience of classical music, where the choices are made subjectively and value judgments are not welcome. Say a small group of classical music lovers are deciding together on concerts/operas to go to, recordings to listen to, or extension courses to take. Wouldn't some ranking process supported by reasons and experiences help them reach a consensus? Whereas just stating what they like could lead to different choices and no basis for consensus? The latter offers no way forward, becoming repetitive and unpleasant; people argue and learn nothing in staunchly asserting themselves!


Very good point, however fasten your seatbelt, you are in for a bumpy ride.


----------



## mmsbls

Art Rock said:


> For the "objective" tiers supporters: just exactly what should one do with them once they have been "established"?


I don't believe our rankings are objective, but I do agree that Brahmsianhorn's idea of "collective subjectivity" is useful. I think it's useful in determining musical canons, music course content, lists of recommendations. I'm not sure if you were asking a slightly different question.


----------



## Nereffid

mmsbls said:


> I don't believe our rankings are objective, but I do agree that Brahmsianhorn's idea of "collective subjectivity" is useful. I think it's useful in determining musical canons, music course content, lists of recommendations.


And also, of course, "proving" that some people have poor taste in music. /cynicism


----------



## Art Rock

mmsbls said:


> I don't believe our rankings are objective, but I do agree that Brahmsianhorn's idea of "collective subjectivity" is useful. I think it's useful in determining musical canons, music course content, lists of recommendations. I'm not sure if you were asking a slightly different question.


No, I was specifically addressing those who do believe that such an objective ranking/tiers filling can be done.


----------



## Razumovskymas

I'm imagining myself a comparable thread about the most tasteful food and how funny discussions about which food is tastier and which is not would be.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Nereffid said:


> And also, of course, "proving" that some people have poor taste in music. /cynicism


I like them all. I own over 2500 classical CDs from all genres. There is not a single composer in my rankings that I don't enjoy listening to. The point of the rankings is not to denigrate.


----------



## Roger Knox

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I like them all. I own over 2500 classical CDs from all genres. There is not a single composer in my rankings that I don't enjoy listening to. The point of the rankings is not to denigrate.


Brahmsianhorn: Yes, all of these ranked composers are worth hearing. In Tier 1, Tchaikovsky seemed iffy to me; in the West one hundred years ago ranking him with BMB would have been considered outrageous! But: his ballet scores as both music and ballet are best. With surtitles his operas (especially _Onegin_) are more appreciated now, as is his vocal music. Overall he has works that stick with you, wonderful melodies, dramatic orchestral music, concertos that are staples -- I support him in Tier 1.


----------



## Lenny

Of course there are objective rankings, but then of course the criteria can (and must) be clearly indicated. So for example, based on sales (popularity). Or maybe there is a way to scientifically study references, influences, sitations (I'm sorry if this souds childish, because I really don't about this...).

So I'd think there actually is a way to rank composers objectively, but that ranking is obviously subject to slow fluctuation, because of the feedback mechanism of the ranking itself. In a way this is similar to any public opinion (polling). It truly presents public opinion, but at the same time it creates public opinion.


----------



## Casebearer

Brahmsianhorn, don't know where you got it but you should do away with your cristal ball for looking in the past. Mine reads entirely differently, it's more myopic.

Tier 1
Bartók, Ligeti, Messiaen, Mahler, Schnittke, Bach, Gubaidulina

Tier 2
Berio, Wagner, Liszt, Brahms, Stockhausen, Monteverdi

Tier 3 
Prokofiev, Henze, Boulez, Beethoven, Mozart


----------



## DaveM

Casebearer said:


> Brahmsianhorn, don't know where you got it but you should do away with your cristal ball for looking in the past. Mine reads entirely differently, it's more myopic.
> 
> Tier 1
> Bartók, Ligeti, Messiaen, Mahler, Schnittke, Bach, Gubaidulina
> 
> Tier 2
> Berio, Wagner, Liszt, Brahms, Stockhausen, Monteverdi
> 
> Tier 3
> Prokofiev, Henze, Boulez, Beethoven, Mozart


Myopic? Hmm, I think so.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> See if you agree with mine:


No, I don't. Eight tiers? I'm presuming someone already asked what criteria you're using to rank in this way and how you're able to discern 8 levels of difference?


----------



## DeepR

Tier 1: All my favorite composers
Tier 2: All composers who aren't favorites (yet)


----------



## Bulldog

Based on my many years of membership on various classical discussion sites, it's clear to me that most folks start out with personal preferences. Subsequently, they try to find objective reasons to justify/promote their subjective preferences.


----------



## Fabulin

I have always assessed composers (whenever such idea came to my mind) based on their peak. The peak is more independent of stupid factors and representative of a composer's ability than the total body of work. It's like with intelligence tests: everyone can score below their real ability on a bad day, but no-one can score above it even on the best day---because human performance _always_ has sub-optimal factors at play.
The real hard thing is to gauge how some composers worked much, much faster than others at a given level and so graced us with more works of a certain quality. There is also a question of innovation. Some people drive what they see around to perfection and _so _innovate, while others break the paradigm and push quite far with a new one which might or might not get further developed by others or, alternatively, take advantage of someone else's experimentation and become succesful second adopters.

I would say that Bach could probably replicate/match anything anyone after or before him had done if given a modest gift of time for study and preparation.
Nothing else is certain.


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> I have always assessed composers (whenever such idea came to my mind) based on their peak. The peak is more independent of stupid factors and representative of a composer's ability than the total body of work. It's like with intelligence tests: everyone can score below their real ability on a bad day, but no-one can score above it even on the best day---because human performance _always_ has sub-optimal factors at play.
> The real hard thing is to gauge how some composers worked much, much faster than others at a given level and so graced us with more works of a certain quality. There is also a question of innovation. Some people drive what they see around to perfection and _so _innovate, while others break the paradigm and push quite far with a new one which might or might not get further developed by others or, alternatively, take advantage of someone else's experimentation and become succesful second adopters.
> 
> I would say that Bach could *probably replicate*/match anything anyone after or before him had done if given a modest gift of time for study and preparation.
> Nothing else is *certain*.


Not even that is *certain* as you have stated that Bach could "probably replicate ..."

It's a very bold statement to make anyway. For people who don't care much for Bach's style of music, some might say it's unlikely he could replicate the kind of music they like.

Intuitively, it doesn't seem obvious or at all likely to me that Bach as a master of baroque could be expected to be a master of the music of all other time periods if the had been born in a different era. It would like suggesting that if Bach had been born in the latter part of the 19th C 1900 he would have been king of the 2nd Viennese School.

I'm afraid we're stuck with assessing composers on what's known about them, which immediately throws up problems of comparing different styles according to the time period in which they operated, and this involves different preferences among listeners.


----------



## haydnguy

I can't see Liszt being below a Tier 2.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Partita said:


> Not even that is *certain* as you have stated that Bach could "probably replicate ..."
> 
> It's a very bold statement to make anyway. For people who don't care much for Bach's style of music, some might say it's unlikely he could replicate the kind of music they like.
> 
> Intuitively, it doesn't seem obvious or at all likely to me that Bach as a master of baroque could be expected to be a master of the music of all other time periods if the had been born in a different era. It would like suggesting that if Bach had been born in the latter part of the 19th C 1900 he would have been king of the 2nd Viennese School.
> 
> I'm afraid we're stuck with assessing composers on what's known about them, which immediately throws up problems of comparing different styles according to the time period in which they operated, and this involves different preferences among listeners.


Well said. I love Bach (in fact IMO he's the most gifted composer ever and tied with Beethoven for the greatest), but the statement that he could have "replicated" anyone else given time to study it is just ridiculous. There's no way Bach could've replicated, e.g., late Beethoven or Schubert, even if given time to study their works. Even in his own time, I don't think he could've replicated, say, Handel's music. Everyone is different.

I also agree that it doesn't seem intuitive that a great composer of one era or style would have been a master of another. It's something I think about from time to time...


----------



## hammeredklavier

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Well said. I love Bach (in fact IMO he's the most gifted composer ever and tied with Beethoven for the greatest), but the statement that he could have "replicated" anyone else given time to study it is just ridiculous. There's no way Bach could've replicated, e.g., late Beethoven or Schubert, even if given time to study their works. Even in his own time, I don't think he could've replicated, say, Handel's music. Everyone is different.
> 
> I also agree that it doesn't seem intuitive that a great composer of one era or style would have been a master of another. It's something I think about from time to time...


But the fact remains some were better than others at copying techniques. And throughout the classical music tradition, the best way composers learned to compose was assimilating the techniques and styles of their predecessors into their own arsenal - "copying" in other words. 
All the composers we consider "great" built their skills through copying.
Which is why I keep saying "being able to copy" is also a valuable skill. That's basically what "musical talent" is. In order for an artist to come up with his own work, he must first absorb the pre-existing techniques and styles. All the "greats" were ones just better than doing this than "lesser" composers. If an artist is proficient at A, B, C, D, E, F he would come up with a lot more skillful combinations and variants than an artist who only knows how to do A, B. 
And since we generally consider Bach more skillful and prolific than Chopin - it's reasonable to think Chopin would have had harder time copying Bach than Bach would have had copying Chopin. You could still argue, "Chopin sounds nothing like Bach." The main reason why Bach sounds different is because there is a 150 year span between both.






"First published in 1861, this waltz was thought to be composed by Chopin. It was however discovered in 2012, that it was originally composed by Charles Mayer (1799 ~1862 )."






I get the impression it's usually Romantic music enthusiasts who like to indulge in this wishful thinking "Romantic composers did not copy other composers' styles. Each of them had had their own individuality". To me, this sounds like Paul McCartney's misguided utterances:
"knowledge is not important. Ignorance is bliss." the statement that best describes the characteristics of non-classical genres such as pop that differ from those of the classical music tradition.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> But the fact remains some were better than others at copying techniques. And throughout the classical music tradition, the best way composers learned to compose was assimilating the techniques and styles of their predecessors into their own arsenal - "copying" in other words.
> All the composers we consider "great" built their skills through copying.
> Which is why I keep saying "being able to copy" is also a valuable skill. That's basically what "musical talent" is. In order for an artist to come up with his own work, he must first absorb the pre-existing techniques and styles. All the "greats" were ones just better than doing this than "lesser" composers. .
> ...


You are confusing 'being influenced by' with copying. When it comes to the 'greats', if it were copying, it would be hard to tell the earlier works of composers from the predecessor(s) they are allegedly copying. Even if the earliest works of the great composers remind of an earlier composer, these composers are great because even these works have their unique stamp. It was true of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms etc.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> You are confusing 'being influenced by' with copying. When it comes to the 'greats', if it were copying, it would be hard to tell the earlier works of composers from the predecessor(s) they are allegedly copying. Even if the earliest works of the great composers remind of an earlier composer, these composers are great because even these works have their unique stamp. It was true of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms etc.


Well, it depends on however you want to put it. For example, I appreciate Mozart Missa Longa K262 



, but people like Woodduck think stuff like that as cheap pastiche of Mozart's predecessors. On the other hand, the first movement of Beethoven's Op.111 



 is often thought as of as one of Beethoven's greatest moments but in my view, it sounds more like Episode II of his own Appassionata (which I admire more) and Pathetique, and and also similar to Mozart's K475 and K546 



 / 



, but not quite reaching the same level of emotion to me.
Some things can sound like pastiche or innovation depending on your personal preference and bias. I'm just using the expression "copy" to describe these things generally.


----------



## ORigel

Tier 1: Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, Haydn, Schubert

Tier 2: Mahler, Handel, Monteverdi, Stravinsky, Bartok, Wagner, Verdi, Schoenberg

Tier 3: Shostakovich, Felix Mendelssohn, Dvorak, Chopin, Schumann, Sibelius, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Berg

Tier 4: Berlioz, Purcell, Lully, Josquin, Byrd, Schnittke, Xenakis, Part, Rameau, Debussy, Ravel, Corelli, Ives, Gluck, Smetana
.
.
Tier Infinity: Glass


----------



## Art Rock

If I were to prepare a distribution over tiers, I'd limit it to 3-4 tiers, in a pyramid shape.

For instance:

Tier 1 (5)
Tier 2 (25)
Tier 3 (125)
Tier 4 (rest)

With 155, I could at least capture most of the composers I like. I could fill in Tiers 1 and 2 right now, based on the top30 composers I prepared at the end of last year. Tier 1 would be Bach, Mahler, Brahms, Schubert, Shostakovich by the way.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I honestly can't go much lower than Tier 3 because I have a roughly equal estimation of the composers in my 20-50 range, but here's how I would arrange my cream of the crop of favorite composers:

Tier 1: *Bach*, Brahms, Sibelius

Tier 2: Schubert, Chopin, Mahler, Beethoven, Dvorak, Bruckner

Tier 3: Mozart, Haydn, Debussy, Ravel, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Faure, Wagner


----------



## Ethereality

haydnguy said:


> I can't see Liszt being below a Tier 2.


Is he that guy who almost everyone copied? Wagner, Debussy, Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Prokofiev, Dvorak, Rachmaninoff, Ravel, Mussorgsky.


----------



## Beebert

Tier 1: Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Schubert
Tier 2: Schumann, Brahms, Debussy, Chopin, Verdi, Webern, Mahler, Haydn


----------



## SONNET CLV

*Ranking composers by levels (Tier 1, tier 2, etc.) *

It seems to me there are really only two Tiers: those composers who are rank, and those who are not. And these tiers remain highly subjective as in, I will listen to composers I consider not to be rank while ignoring the music of those I think rank.


----------



## ZeR0

While your tier list idea is no doubt interesting, especially for seeing what others opinions of composers are, it's certainly not for me. One thing I can definitively say is that even the composers in your tier 8 have contributed far more to my life than I could ever hope to contribute to others. My strategy is much simpler: if I listen to a work and it makes me feel and think in ways that I normally do not, or is otherwise enjoyable and interesting, then it has value to me personally. This is doubly true for the works that I take time to listen to many times over the course of months or even years. Thus, I think any composer that has written anything I've enjoyed, particularly over a period of time must be considered something akin to your top tier. So, I suppose in a sense I have a top tier, for everything I like, but I do not have any other tiers because even if I don't enjoy something, that doesn't mean it is worthless. For another individual it may make an impact on their life, just as the works I do like have made an impact on mine.


----------

