# Your Top 10 Composers... Other than the Obvious Ones!



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

I'm new here, but I've already seen many, many _Top X composers_, _Top X works_, etc. polls across the forum. I think we all know the drill - we can't help listing at least some of the most famous composers. And so every list we make ends up having at least a few names like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven... The usual suspects. Which, after a while, makes for boring reading of the poll thread.

Why not try to list our favorite composers *other than the usual suspects?* I believe this could lead to some interesting discoveries for all of us. Naturally, the "usual suspects" vary from person to person. So that we don't get bogged down discussing who is and who isn't famous enough, I'll just define them for the purposes of this poll :devil:

So, on easy mode: name your top 10 composers other than... Adams (John Coolidge), Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Byrd, Cage, Chopin, Couperin (Francois), Debussy, Elgar, Franck, Glass, Handel, Haydn (Joseph), Hildegard von Bingen, Josquin, Lassus, Ligeti, Liszt, Lully, Machaut, Mahler, Mendelssohn, Messiaen, Monteverdi, Mozart, Mussorgsky, Palestrina, Perotin, Puccini, Rachmaninoff, Rameau, Ravel, Reich, Rossini, Scarlatti (Domenico), Schoenberg, Schubert, Schumann, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Stockhausen, Stravinsky, Tallis, Tchaikovsky, Verdi, Vivaldi, Wagner, or Zelenka.

And on hard mode, for those of you who're into more obscure parts of repertoire, you're also not allowed to mention... Alkan, Barber, Bartok, CPE Bach, JC Bach, WF Bach, Barber, Berg, Berlioz, Biber, Boulez, Bull, Buxtehude, Cherubini, Ciconia, Clementi, Corelli, Couperin (Louis), Donizetti, Dowland, Dufay, Dunstaple, Feldman, Field, Frescobaldi, Gesualdo, Gibbons, Glinka, Gombert, Haydn (Michael), Ives, Kraus, La Monte Young, Landini, Lawes, Leonin, Lutoslawski, Massenet, Meyerbeer, Obrecht, Ockeghem, Offenbach, Pachelbel, Pärt (Arvo), Power, Rautavaara, Riley, Rimsky-Korsakov, Saariaho, Satie, Scarlatti (Alessandro), Scelsi, Schutz, Soler, Telemann, Vaughan Williams, Weber, Webern, Weiss, Xenakis, or Zipoli.

For example, my top 10 on easy mode could be... CPE Bach, Pachelbel, Webern, Kraus, Frescobaldi, Feldman, Dunstaple, Couperin (Louis), Satie, and Gibbons... in no particular order.

And my top 10 on hard mode could be... Kapsberger, Wolf (Ernst Wilhelm), Donatoni, Grisey, Domeniconi, Chambonnieres, Trabaci, Valentini (Giovanni, 17th century), Schlick (Arnolt), and Tournemire. Again, in no particular order.

Hopefully this won't be too hard, and also hopefully people won't exploit any (un)intentional omissions I (may) have made.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Easy Mode:

In no particular order. 

Webern
Bartok
Boulez
Berg
Berio
Nono
Berlioz
Scelsi
Murail
Dufay


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

This will probably be difficult for me...

So, I'll do "hard mode"; top 10 are
- Medtner
- Poulenc
- Prokofiev
- John Luther Adams*
- Albeniz
- Gorecki
- Busoni
- Scriabin
- Faure
- Reger

*[assuming you're excluding John Adams the opera composer]


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

William Schuman, Vincent Persichetti, Peter Mennin, Charles Ives, Dmitri Shostakovich, Guiseppi Verdi, Pietro Mascagni, Franz Schmidt, Roy Harris, Paul Creston.

The only mode I know is the "fondness" mode. These are the composers I love.

Bach was left off since OP wanted it that way. For me Bach will always be number one.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> *[assuming you're excluding John Adams the opera composer]


Oops! Embarassing. Of course I meant him, I'll edit the original post.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

hpowders said:


> William Schuman, Vincent Persichetti, Peter Mennin, Charles Ives, Dmitri Shostakovich, Guiseppi Verdi, Pietro Mascagni, Franz Schmidt, Roy Harris, Paul Creston.
> 
> The only mode I know is the "fondness" mode. These are the composers I love.
> 
> Bach was left off since OP wanted it that way.


I appreciate the list - impressive to see Persichetti on someone's favorites list! - but why leave Bach off if you kept Shostakovich and Verdi?.. Or do you just love him less?


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Berg
Boulez
Fauré
Grisey
Josquin
Nielsen
Nono
Poulenc
Sciarrino
Xenakis


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

1. Roger Sessions (1896-1985). Has passages with a mysterious mood I love and lots of quasi-serialist polyphony, which as a fan of polyphony and creepy music (sorry if that description offends someone) I like as well.

2. William Schuman (1910-1992). I mostly listen to his 10th symphony, but I enjoy all of his late works, including the ballet Judith. Dark in his late works and doesn't sound like any other composer I've heard.

3. Unsuk Chin (1961-). I may be cheating here. I imagine she might get a few mentions if people don't think she's too well known. Sort of uncompromising contemporary music but in the main concertos at least, nothing too outrageous. If you like atonal aesthetics and the kinds of mood that are created in such music, you'll probably find a lot to like about, e.g., her piano concerto and cello concerto. She does have electronic music as well, which I'm not very familiar with.

4. Per Nørgård (1932-). Another one that might count as an omission on your part. I'll say the same as above (not very deep of me, but applies to much of his music). He does have a wider palette than you might expect even in his late works, I guess postmodernists often do in comparison to serialist and quasi-serialist modernists.

5. Hilding Rosenberg (1892-1985). The first great Swedish modernist. I like his late string quartets. If you wish there was more music along the lines of late Bartok string quartets, you may appreciate the Rosenberg.

6. Andrzej Panufnik (1914-1991). Relatively simple music compared with the composers so far. Someone I'm still exploring. I can recommend the fifth and eighth symphonies.

7. Sebastian Currier (1959-). Has the distinction of having composed one of my top 20 pieces of all time or something (the first movement of the violin concerto Time Machines). No knighting, just the occasional mention on talkclassical.

8. Michael Tippett (1905-1998). He went through some different styles during his long life. Need to explore more, but the 4th symphony from his late period is great.

9. Ernst Krenek (1900-1991). His ouvre eludes easy chronologies and categories, I tend to like the more atonal stuff, of which I know and can recommend the 7th and 8th string quartets and, for something a little different, his Lamentations.

10. Nancy Van De Vate (1930-). Just something I don't remember anyone else mentioning on these forums recently. I recall enjoying the violin concerto. This thread reminds me I want to explore some of her other works.


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

Johnn Luther Adams
Harold Budd
Jürg Frey
Peter Garland
Lou Harrison
Daniel Lentz
Michael Nyman
Harry Partch
Salvatore Sciarrino
Scott Worthington


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2016)

Hard mode is way too easy 

Perhaps I'll go for my favorite composers from my poll list that only 10% or less of the voters in my polls have even heard.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

None of these seem to be on either list but I guess it errs towards the 'easy': 

Bernstein, Britten, Hindemith, Janáček, Reger, Schnittke, Simpson, Skryabin, Weill, von Zemlinsky.


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

Chordalrock said:


> 10. Nancy Van De Vate (1930-). Just something I don't remember anyone else mentioning on these forums recently. I recall enjoying the violin concerto. This thread reminds me I want to explore some of her other works.


It's nice to see her name mentioned. Her orchestral works are very well made, but I prefer the chamber works. They give me warm feelings for some reason, though they are not always very sweet.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Heitor Villa-Lobos
Edison Denisov
Toru Takemitsu
Alfred Schnittke
Peter Maxwell Davies
Lorenzo Palomo
Marlos Nobre
Poul Ruders
Magnus Lindberg
Anna Thorvaldsdottir


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2016)

^ It's always good to see Denisov get attention. I wish he were better recorded on better labels.


----------



## Zlatorog (May 31, 2014)

In no particular order:
Saint Saens
Prokofiev
Nielsen
Purcell
Richard Strauss
Janacek
Faure
Borodin
Dvorak
Grieg

How many of these were the OP's (un)intentional omissions...


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

de Cabezon
Trabaci
Froberger
Tanyev
Myaskovsky
Weinberg
Gade
Creston
Zipoli
Scheidemann


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Myriadi said:


> I appreciate the list - impressive to see Persichetti on someone's favorites list! - but why leave Bach off if you kept Shostakovich and Verdi?.. Or do you just love him less?


Because you said the "easy mode" is too obvious. But Bach is always number one for me.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

Wow, great replies so far! I haven't expected to see so many names new to me. Especially William Schuman, whose name I've never heard, and here he's mentioned twice. I'd like to offer special thanks to Chordalrock for the detailed answer and to tortkis for mentioning some of my favorite 20th century names.

About the "(un)intentional omissions" bit, I'll comment on that a bit later.

@nathanb: I'm sorry if its so easy that it isn't fun. It was hard to select composers in a way that allows everyone to participate, not simply people with an interest for paths less travelled.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2016)

Myriadi said:


> @nathanb: I'm sorry if its so easy that it isn't fun. It was hard to select composers in a way that allows everyone to participate, not simply people with an interest for paths less travelled.


I'm just a grouchy ballbuster who put in way too many hours this weekend. For the record, I guess under the current circumstances, my list would probably be dominated by Darmstadts and such.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Myriadi said:


> Wow, great replies so far! I haven't expected to see so many names new to me. Especially William Schuman, whose name I've never heard, and here he's mentioned twice. I'd like to offer special thanks to Chordalrock for the detailed answer and to tortkis for mentioning some of my favorite 20th century names.
> 
> About the "(un)intentional omissions" bit, I'll comment on that a bit later.
> 
> @nathanb: I'm sorry if its so easy that it isn't fun. It was hard to select composers in a way that allows everyone to participate, not simply people with an interest for paths less travelled.


William Schuman was an esteemed American composer from the 1940's-1960's.
He was primarily a symphonist and was president of the famed Juilliard School of Music in NYC.
His Third Symphony is basic repertoire. His Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth are very fine too.
His works are modern, but approachable-tonal with some dissonance.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Zlatorog said:


> How many of these were the OP's (un)intentional omissions...


I didn't even bother to check if Strauss or Dvorak were on the list just because I assumed they were!


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

György Kurtág
Olivier Greif
Brian Ferneyhough
Richard Barrett
Michael Hersch
Georg Friedrich Haas
Michael Finnissy
George Benjamin
James Dillon
Sofia Gubaidulina


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Ligeti 
Lutoslawski
Takemitsu
Hartmann
Rihm
Bacewicz
Krenek
Dutilleux
Gubaidulina
Zappa


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Edgard Varèse
Carlos Salzedo
Ernest Bloch
Harry Partch
Dane Rudhyar
Lou Harrison
Elliott Carter
Aaron Copland
Henry Cowell
Arthur Honegger


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Morimur said:


> György Kurtág
> Olivier Greif
> Brian Ferneyhough
> Richard Barrett
> ...


I thought we were requested not to list a tiresome list of favorites.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2016)

hpowders said:


> I thought we were requested not to list a tiresome list of favorites.


Is this some kind of subtle jibe? Of course you would know that those composers comprise no more a "tiresome list of favorites" for Morimur than any mentions of Persichetti and Schuman by you, so I don't think I know what you're getting at.


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

Albéric Magnard
Anton Zemlinsky
Gerald Finzi
Francis Poulenc
Bohuslav Martinů
Allan Pettersson
Alfred Schnittke
John Luther Adams
Unsuk Chin
Georg Friedrich Haas


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

10 _of_:

Georg Böhm - 



François-Joseph Gossec - 



Giovanni Paisiello - 



Emmanuel Chabrier - 



Reynaldo Hahn - 



Henry Cowell - 



Robert Ashley - 



Éliane Radigue - 



William Duckworth - 



Charlemagne Palestine - 




I omit Fauré, because I don't think he can be considered obscure. (Chabrier is already pushing it.) I omit Grisey and Murail because, though in absolute terms they are quite obscure, if you know anything about spectral music, you know they're les grandes fromages.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I'm going to assume some I might have picked should be at least on the hard list to avoid: *Prokofiev, Dvorak, R. Strauss, Respighi, Rimsky-Korsakov, Saint-Saens, Grieg* and maybe *Nielsen*. Oh - and *Holst*! And *Copland*.

So excluding those as well, here's my hard list, roughly alphabetical:

F. Berwald
B. Britten
G. Enescu
Bernard Hermann
P. Hindemith
J. Kraus*
B. Martinu* 
Carl Reinecke
F. Ries
J. Turina

*these two might rank near the top, Martinu above Kraus somewhat.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

Weston said:


> I'm going to assume some I might have picked should be at least on the hard list to avoid: *Holst*!
> 
> B. Britten


I would have picked Holst if you hadn't said that as he is really only evaluated on the basis of one (albeit Magnificent) work whilst the rest of his superb output is sidelined and almost forgotten.

And I have left out Britten as I would place him firmly in the A list category

I was going to write a little about each composer but have decided to mention a favourite composition of each instead as going out in a little while 

Andrzej Panufnik (listen to Sinfonia Sacra)
Georg Haas (Limited Approximations or Cello Concerto)
Edmund Rubbra (Any of his Symphonies - No.6 is a good start)
George Dyson (Canterbury Pilgrims)
John Taverner (tudor) (Missa Gloria Tibi Trintas)
Marcel Dupre (Symphony-Passion)
Willam Mathias (Symphony No.3)
Gerald Finzi (Cello Concerto)
Maurice Durufle (Requiem)
Harrison Birtwistle (Gawain - Opera)


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

I'm really surprised no ones has mentioned William Walton, his stuff is amazing if seemingly old fashioned. He'd be at the top of my list of non-traditional favorites... 

Hindemith wasn't on either of your lists so I'll list him even though in reality he is one of my all time favorites. 

Edmond Rubbra, glad to see he was mentioned at least once, I'm growing to love some of his symphonies...

Brian Havergal, I don't quite know what to make of his music, probably because there is so much to go through and he's very underperformed but I haven't seen his name yet on this thread and I've been trying to get into him so I've listed him.

Alfred Schnittke, very interesting stuff and I'm a sucker for Russian stuff.

Boris Tishchenko, while we're on the subject of Russia...

Allan Pettersson, dark but thoroughly compelling..

Milton Babbitt, Wallingford Riegger, & William Schuman.. all American, all excellent composers.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

Fugue Meister said:


> I'm really surprised no ones has mentioned William Walton, his stuff is amazing if seemingly old fashioned. He'd be at the top of my list of non-traditional favorites...


Ahh - I presumed Walton was on the hard list. I agree - he should have been on my list then.

and Yay Rubbra


----------



## Johnhanks (Feb 21, 2016)

Fugue Meister said:


> Brian Havergal, I don't quite know what to make of his music, probably because there is so much to go through and he's very underperformed but I haven't seen his name yet on this thread and I've been trying to get into him so I've listed him.


As you've listed all the others forename first, I'm going to suggest (diffidently) that you might have Havergal Brian's name the wrong way round. Have to say my youthful enthusiasm for his music hasn't lasted.

Edmund Rubbra, on the other hand, remains (for me) a master symphonist.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Johnhanks said:


> As you've listed all the others forename first, I'm going to suggest (diffidently) that you might have Havergal Brian's name the wrong way round. Have to say my youthful enthusiasm for his music hasn't lasted.
> 
> Edmund Rubbra, on the other hand, remains (for me) a master symphonist.


Shows you how little I really know about him.. Well I've listened to a few of his late symphonies (late 20's and early 30's, he wrote 32 or 33!)and I didn't turn them off so I'm sure I'll revisit them soonish..


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Easy mode: Moeran, Alwyn, Bax, Faure*, Gubaidulina, Nielsen*, Raff, Respighi, Saint-Saens*, Sallinen, Suk, Takemitsu, Vasks
Hard mode: Moeran, Alwyn, Bax, Faure*, Gubaidulina, Nielsen*, Raff, Respighi, Saint-Saens*, Sallinen, Suk, Takemitsu, Vasks

* went for 13 because these 3 are really well-known.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I'll go with:
Villa-Lobos
Martinu
Poulenc
D'Indy
Respighi
Khachaturian
Hovhaness
Bloch
Bliss
Glinka


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

MagneticGhost said:


> I would have picked Holst if you hadn't said that as he is really only evaluated on the basis of one (albeit Magnificent) work whilst the rest of his superb output is sidelined and almost forgotten.
> 
> And I have left out Britten as I would place him firmly in the A list category


Maybe I should have allowed Holst on the basis of his other, less known works.



Johnhanks said:


> As you've listed all the others forename first, I'm going to suggest (diffidently) that you might have Havergal Brian's name the wrong way round. Have to say my youthful enthusiasm for his music hasn't lasted.


I do this inversion all the time with Brian. It's frustrating. As for his music, I've only heard I think the massive first symphony. Can't say I remember much about it except liking it well enough.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Hard mode:

Albinoni
Atterberg
Bizet
Bruch
Crusell
Gounod
Grieg
Hummel
Kozeluch
Litolff


----------



## sloth (Jul 12, 2013)

my top 10 composers of the hour (may vary later)

guillaume dufay
leonardo vinci
carl stamitz
giovanni sgambati
carl orff
alexander scriabin
salvatore sciarrino
gerard grisey
tristan murail
natalia prokopenko


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

'Easy' version:

1. Webern
2. Britten
3. Berg
4. Bartók
5. Kurtág
6. Fauré
7. Bridge
8. Zemlinsky
9. Delius
10. Hindemith

(11-15 Poulenc, Vaughan Williams, Nielsen, Busoni and Wolf)


'Hard' version: (also counting Britten, Delius, Fauré, Hindemith, Prokofiev, Dvořák, R. Strauss, Respighi, Rimsky-Korsakov, Saint-Saens, Grieg, Nielsen, Holst, Villa-Lobos and Copland as at least 2nd tier 'obvious').


1. Kurtág
2. Bridge
3. Zemlinsky
4. Poulenc
5. Busoni
6. Wolf
7. Koechlin
8. Bacewicz
9. Bax
10 Gubaidulina

(11-15 Ferneyhough, Birtwhistle, Ligeti, Martinů and Szymanowski)


----------



## Johnhanks (Feb 21, 2016)

Weston said:


> I do this inversion all the time with Brian. It's frustrating. As for his music, I've only heard I think the massive first symphony. Can't say I remember much about it except liking it well enough.


The one piece of his for which I retain serious affection is the Sinfonia Tragica (no.6) - try it if you get the chance. No. 1 I admire in theory, but I can rarely persuade myself to set aside nearly two hours to listen to it.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

Thanks again for the replies, everyone. This thread has given me many new names to explore, and I hope will do that for at least a few more people.

I guess now I can state something clearer about the omissions. I wish there was a spoiler tag on this forum, so that I wouldn't spoil things for those who will come later, but seeing as that won't be too many people, I think... Anyway. From the beginning, there were many ways to do this poll. You could look into the reasons I outlined, and list your favorite obscure, or semi-obscure, music. Or you could do that, but also notice some glaring omission from the lists and add that composer to your list. And you could simply make your list out of the more obvious omissions. Or any combination thereof, and so on. Speaking of intentional omissions, they included Prokofiev, Strauss, and Dvořák... and de la Rue, Brumel, and Taverner... and Binchois with Busnois... So that each period would have a few of the bigger names missing. Here I have to confess that I've made a few unintentional errors, some of which are quite shameful to me - I completely forgot about Nielsen, for instance, and Janáček. And the intentional ones could have been selected better, I now understand, particularly if I made less of them. I thought the poll would be too hard! But I think they still ended up doing good, because they gave us some interesting food for thought. Such as:

- Perhaps the most fascinating find, for me, was that very few Classical era composers were mentioned. On easy mode, you could have CPE Bach, Kraus, and Clementi, and nobody mentioned those two. On hard mode, you could have Sammartini, Dittersdorf, Boccherini, Graun, Janitsch, Abel... Nope. I suppose this highlights the divide that exists in the public mind between Mozart and Haydn, and all of their influences? 

- It was also intriguing to see how many people listen to 20th century classical music. So many selections were from that era! Even disregarding Purcell, Graupner, and Telemann (who you could have on easy mode), you could have a whole bunch of wonderful Baroque composers such as Sainte-Colombe, Froberger, Mondonville, any number of French harpsichordists. And Lawes was available on easy mode! I think just one poster was selecting much from this vast repertoire. The Renaissance is similarly underrepresented, but that is to be expected, gven the period's relative popularity compared e.g. to the Romantic era. The same goes for organ composers, guitar composers, and other repertoire that is simply not too popular. 

- And speaking about the Romantic era, and slightly beyond that: weren't there many options to choose from? People like Heller, de Séverac, Dukas... all those Romantic piano concerto composers from the Hyperion series... this isn't my forte, but surely there were at least all kinds of people doing interesting piano collections inspired by the likes of Schumann et al.?

And so, that's the story behind the omissions. I hope I haven't offended anyone - this was not intended at all.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Myriadi said:


> - It was also intriguing to see how many people listen to 20th century classical music. So many selections were from that era!


Makes sense to me. We haven't yet had time to forget the lesser talents.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Makes sense to me. We haven't yet had time to forget the lesser talents.


One does hear talk of the death of classical music all the time, though. If people are not only still listening, but still listening to even the lesser known of their (near-)contemporaries, that's a great thing.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Myriadi said:


> One does hear talk of the death of classical music all the time, though. If people are not only still listening, but still listening to even the lesser known of their (near-)contemporaries, that's a great thing.


There's also just a lot more talent around today than back in Mozart's time where if you could notate your doodlings you were suddenly a respected composer.

Today, population size is incredibly much bigger, and our culture as a whole is more steeped in music, thanks to recordings and music being everywhere. Both factors combine to create a vaster pool of potentially noteworthy composers.

These days you're nothing if you can't compose on the level of a Clementi when you're ten. There are probably tons of five year olds who compose better music than minor classical period composers.

All this taken together, and combined with people's ignorance about contemporary music, it makes sense that most of the recommendations concern post-war music.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Chordalrock said:


> There's also just a lot more talent around today than back in Mozart's time where if you could notate your doodlings you were suddenly a respected composer.


 If you could notate your doodlings _and_ come up with a good tune, maybe. But that's always been true, at least since the early Italian opera composers invented commercial music.

For composers who had to get by mostly on apparent technical ability, it was harder then than it is now, because then there was much less ambiguity with regard to what counted as plain and simple technical incompetence.



Chordalrock said:


> These days you're nothing if you can't compose on the level of a Clementi when you're ten. There are probably tons of five year olds who compose better music than minor classical period composers.


Our biggest stars can't compose on the level of Clementi - John Coolidge Adams, Osvaldo Golijov, David Lang, Julia Wolfe, Nico Muhly, Caroline Shaw - and most of them are old. (Philip Glass and Arvo Pärt can, maybe. Thomas Adès has the technique but maybe not the talent.)



Chordalrock said:


> Today, population size is incredibly much bigger, and our culture as a whole is more steeped in music, thanks to recordings and music being everywhere. Both factors combine to create a vaster pool of potentially noteworthy composers.


But since we maybe don't have a greater number of noteworthy composers, and definitely don't have any Josquins, Wagners, or Stravinskies, maybe the lesson here is that growing your population just increases the supply of mediocre people.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Harold in Columbia said:


> But since we maybe don't have a greater number of noteworthy composers, and definitely don't have any Josquins, Wagners, or Stravinskies, maybe the lesson here is that growing your population just increases the supply of mediocre people.


Increasing the population also increases the number of exceptional people because of the bell curve. There's no controversy about this at all. You'll have to come up with some other argument for explaining your lack of interest in contemporary classical music.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Eric Whitacare

:lol:


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

Chordalrock said:


> These days you're nothing if you can't compose on the level of a Clementi when you're ten.


Clementi's level was that of a composer whose music was admired and studied by one of the most highly regarded composers in history (Beethoven), whose music was found good enough to borrow from by the leading composer of his time (Mozart), and whose works were found interesting and worthy of playing by the most famous performers (Horowitz, Michelangeli) - some 200 years after it was composed. It was also the level of a composer who makes considerable contributions to the evolution and development of his chosen instrument, and leaves didactic materials widely used for at least century after his death.

I don't think that's something you can easily claim for any living or recently diseased composer. I admire polemical zeal as much as anybody, but this is a bit too much.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Chordalrock said:


> Increasing the population also increases the number of exceptional people because of the bell curve. There's no controversy about this at all.


Well, maybe not insofar as "controversy" implies animated discussion, since the division in this case is between you and everybody whose only question when they hear "the bell curve" is whether to laugh or head for the bathroom.



Chordalrock said:


> You'll have to come up with some other argument for explaining your lack of interest in contemporary classical music.


I had exactly the same number of composers born after 1930 on my list as you did (4). You'll have to come up with some other argument for explaining your lack of interest in 18th century classical music.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Myriadi said:


> Clementi's level was that of a composer whose music was admired and studied by one of the most highly regarded composers in history (Beethoven),


I'm not a Beethoven expert, but if Beethoven "admired" Clementi, then there was something wrong with his critical faculties. I do recall Beethoven having trouble thinking of a single composer alive worth mentioning other than himself, and finally settling on Cherubini. Perhaps Beethoven's problem was that there just weren't great composers around other than Mozart, so if he wanted to study contemporary music he had to settle for what he could find - and he would easily overrate it for that same reason.

Today we have an super-abundance of excellent music, so composers aren't as likely to praise a nobody like Clementi as they were in Clementi's own time.



Myriadi said:


> worthy of playing by the most famous performers (Horowitz, Michelangeli) - some 200 years after it was composed.


That's easily explained: they wanted to play music from the classical period that absolutely everyone else wasn't already playing to death, and since the only excellent music composed for the piano during that period was by Mozart and Beethoven (and maybe a few pieces by Haydn), they had to choose second-rate music.



Myriadi said:


> It was also the level of a composer who makes considerable contributions to the evolution and development of his chosen instrument, and leaves didactic materials widely used for at least century after his death.


Which has nothing to do with his excellence or lack of as a creative force of nature.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Chordalrock said:


> I'm not a Beethoven expert, but if Beethoven "admired" Clementi, then there was something wrong with his critical faculties.


It's becoming increasingly obvious that you've never actually heard Clementi's music.



Chordalrock said:


> Perhaps Beethoven's problem was that there just weren't great composers around other than Mozart...


Beethoven's problem was that he knew little or nothing by the greatest of his younger contemporaries, and he was too uptight to enjoy the second greatest.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Well, maybe not insofar as "controversy" implies animated discussion, since the division in this case is between you and everybody whose only question when they hear "the bell curve" is whether to laugh or head for the bathroom.


Let me quote a scientist I happen to know:

"Intelligence is a complex polygenic trait. Its heritability in adulthood is ~80% [Molecular Psychiatry (2015) 20, 98-108; doi:10.1038/mp.2014.105]. There are numerous genes linked to intelligence [Nature Neuroscience 19, 173-175 (2016); doi:10.1038/nn.4226] : 983 genes in M1 gene regulatory network and 135 genes in M3 gene regulatory network [Nature Neuroscience 19, 223-232 (2016); doi:10.1038/nn.4205]. Genetic basis for intelligence is highly polygenic and with high degree of epistasis, no single gene in isolation significantly affects intelligence. However, genetic basis for intelligence is beyond doubt. Heritability of intelligence is caused by many genes of small effect."

I'm afraid the science on this issue has moved on from the 1960s, which is where you appear to be stuck on. The bell curve is real, and the only controversy about it exists in the minds of politically correct ideologues.

If there's no more talent and creativity around today than previously, then those traits would have to be unrelated to intelligence, which I very much doubt.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Chordalrock said:


> I'm afraid the science on this issue has moved on from the 1960s, which is where you appear to be stuck on.


https://www.facebook.com/scienceisawesome/



Chordalrock said:


> If there's no more talent and creativity around today than previously, then those traits would have to be unrelated to intelligence, which I very much doubt.


Why? Plenty of artistic geniuses are blithering idiots.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Someone has a major problem with Clementi... I take issue with several things in your post but you are crazy if you really believe this...



Chordalrock said:


> Today we have an super-abundance of excellent music, so composers aren't as likely to praise a nobody like Clementi as they were in Clementi's own time.


Where is this supposed "super abundance" of excellent music come from exactly? What are you on about? and why are you picking on Clementi?


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

Chordalrock said:


> If there's no more talent and creativity around today than previously, then those traits would have to be unrelated to intelligence, which I very much doubt.


That the 20th century produced a wealth of exceptional, wonderful, fascinating music is beyond questioning, I believe, although I'd have to consider everything, not just the various continuations of the Western orchestral/chamber tradition. Of course this had to do with the population growth, but it also had to do with the availability of education for more people than before, the availability of instruments for more people than before, etc. This really is a large topic not easily summarized in a paragraph or two.

That said, your disparagement of Haydn's, Mozart's, and Beethoven's contemporaries is very bizzare to behold. Could we have some particulars, such as why you would consider something like 



 or 



 to be so second-rate that numerous people can produce it without much effort (which was your implication, I believe, in the original "10-year old" post). Since Clementi got the short end of the straw, I'm using examples from him, although a stronger case could be made with someone else. CPE Bach, for instance, with e.g. 



, or the structural aspects of the Wq 43 concertos.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Fugue Meister said:


> Where is this supposed "super abundance" of excellent music come from exactly?


From Sebastian Currier and Unsuk Chin, evidently: http://www.talkclassical.com/42812-your-top-10-composers.html#post1040318


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Beethoven: "Whoever studies Clementi thoroughly has simultaneously also learned Mozart and other authors; inversely, however, this is not the case." This is Beethoven's only mention of Clementi that I know of. However, it was reported by Schindler, whose veracity is always in doubt.

Mozart himself had a different opinion. "Clementi is a charlatan, like all Italians. He marks a piece presto but plays only allegro."

Can't make everybody happy, I guess!


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Beethoven: "Whoever studies Clementi thoroughly has simultaneously also learned Mozart and other authors; inversely, however, this is not the case." This is Beethoven's only mention of Clementi that I know of. However, it was reported by Schindler, whose veracity is always in doubt.


The same paragraph had the following words: "Among all the masters who have written for pianoforte, Beethoven assigned to Clementi the very foremost rank. He considered his works excellent as studies for practice, for the formation of a pure taste, and as truly beautiful subjects for performance." Looking at some of Clementi's works, you can see how they could influence Beethoven at some stage, and of course they worked together in publishinhg Beethoven's works in England.



KenOC said:


> Mozart himself had a different opinion. "Clementi is a charlatan, like all Italians. He marks a piece presto but plays only allegro."


And yet, and yet...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Yes, just found that para in Wiki. But here's something evidently not from Schindler: "Ludwig van Beethoven, in particular, had the highest regard for Clementi. Beethoven often played Clementi sonatas and often a volume of them was on his music stand. Beethoven recommended these works to many people including his nephew Karl."


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Harold in Columbia said:


> From Sebastian Currier and Unsuk Chin, evidently: http://www.talkclassical.com/42812-your-top-10-composers.html#post1040318


We don't only have the music of the last two generations, we also have more music from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance than Beethoven had available to him. We know more Baroque composers than he did, and we know a lot more music from even J.S. Bach than did Beethoven. In addition, we have everything that came after Beethoven, from Chopin through Wagner to this day. And it seems that Beethoven no longer had interest in Clementi in his later years, so even Beethoven grew out of it.

Why would anyone even want to contest the point I made? Isn't it pretty obvious that the main reasons why Beethoven praised Clementi and why composers today do not praise him, are that Beethoven's purview was very limited compared with ours? Beethoven had that excuse, what's yours?


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Myriadi said:


> That the 20th century produced a wealth of exceptional, wonderful, fascinating music is beyond questioning, I believe, although I'd have to consider everything, not just the various continuations of the Western orchestral/chamber tradition. Of course this had to do with the population growth, but it also had to do with the availability of education for more people than before, the availability of instruments for more people than before, etc. This really is a large topic not easily summarized in a paragraph or two.


I already mentioned or alluded to those factors earlier, they were just left out of an aspect of the conversation because they weren't relevant to that particular aspect that was being discussed in the last message.



Myriadi said:


> That said, your disparagement of Haydn's, Mozart's, and Beethoven's contemporaries is very bizzare to behold. Could we have some particulars, such as why you would consider something like
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't have any interest in attempting some sort of musical analysis. I've never seen anyone who was able to say why some piece of music was great and why some other piece of music wasn't by giving some sort of a close analysis of it. If you can't hear the lameness and mediocrity of Clementi, then there's nothing I can do.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Beethoven: "Whoever studies Clementi thoroughly has simultaneously also learned Mozart and other authors; inversely, however, this is not the case." This is Beethoven's only mention of Clementi that I know of. However, it was reported by Schindler, whose veracity is always in doubt.
> 
> Mozart himself had a different opinion. "Clementi is a charlatan, like all Italians. He marks a piece presto but plays only allegro."
> 
> Can't make everybody happy, I guess!


You've reminded me of Mozart's comments about Clementi, which are obviously a lot more perceptive than Beethoven's, as far as posterity is concerned.

A lot of historical composers suffered from a narrow purview. It's rarely worthwhile to read their commentary on other composers.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Well I can only imagine a great wrong was done to you with Clementi being played in the background... 

I'm not a huge fan of Clementi, he's not someone I put on a great deal but he is a valid entry into the ocean of music available to us and I'm sure his contribution is greater than any music you or I will ever conceive... so why go about casting stones?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> You've reminded me of Mozart's comments about Clementi, which are obviously a lot more perceptive than Beethoven's, as far as posterity is concerned.


I'm sure you noticed that Mozart was talking about Clementi's playing, not his music.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

KenOC said:


> I'm sure you noticed that Mozart was talking about Clementi's playing, not his music.


Yeah, I noticed. That's why I said you reminded me of Mozart's comments about Clementi. As I recall, he didn't only dislike the man and his playing and the educational value of his music, but also the artistic quality of the music, though perhaps I was reading between the lines. Not that it matters.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Chordalrock said:


> Isn't it pretty obvious that the main reasons why Beethoven praised Clementi and why composers today do not praise him, are that Beethoven's purview was very limited compared with ours?


The main reason why Beethoven praised Clementi was that, unlike you, he knew his music.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Harold in Columbia said:


> The main reason why Beethoven praised Clementi was that, unlike you, he knew his music.


There's nothing to know, except other works so that one can evaluate what one hears via comparison. Clementi doesn't make the cut for me. Sorry if that annoys a passionate fan such as you. Me, I'd rather listen to my crude compositions from the time when I had little musical education of any kind. I like to diss Clementi because even I can compose music that is more interesting to listen to - in fact, I don't think I know any talkclassical dabbler who can't.

Regarding your earlier comment about the number of worthwhile composers, we can compare the composers born in and after 1932, corresponding to the period from Haydn's birth to 1816, for which period I perceive three worthwhile composers born then & active then: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven (Schubert hadn't yet produced notable works).

So, as major figures, we have at least the following - and these are just what I know, others could probably double or triple the size of the list:

Per Nørgård
Krzysztof Penderecki
Alfred Schnittke
Kaija Saariaho
Wolfgang Rihm
James MacMillan
Unsuk Chin
Jennifer Higdon

That's three times as many composers, just from the little that ignorant me knows.

Below, other noteworthy composers, some of them possibly major composers, the rest either popular or above second-rate classical period composers in my opinion:

Aulis Sallinen
Steve Reich
Charles Wuorinen
Corigliano
Peteris Vasks
John C. Adams
Kalevi Aho
Esa-Pekka Salonen
Magnus Lindberg
Sebastian Currier
Nicolas Bacri
Sebastian Fagerlund

Taken together, these lists have seven times as many composers as the list with Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. This less strict list is something some others could easily quadruple or even raise to hundreds of names, possibly thousands if we are only talking about composers who are superior to Clementi.

And before you say Clementi was popular too - to the extent that he was popular, his popularity seems to have been mainly about his skill as a pianist: back then, performers were expected to compose or improvise their own music, and their demand as performers was often simply demand for their virtuosity, which was apparently as rare at the time as imaginative composers.

The composers on those two 20th-century lists are known only as composers, so if I included some of them based on popularity alone (and there are only a few), this popularity isn't comparable to the meaningless popularity of Clementi as a pianist-composer.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Saariaho and Rihm on your short list, and Murail and Lachenmann nowhere? Ya lousy kids...


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

I don't know why I still respond to these list threads....

Hard mode, in the order they occurred to me; trying to avoid obvious ones, but probably failing:

Nikolai Medtner 
Antonio Soler
Tomas Luis de Victoria
Henry Purcell
Edward MacDowell
Enrique Granados
Isaac Albeniz
Antonio de Cabezon
Bedrich Smetana
Jan Pieterzoon Sweelinck


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

@Klavierspieler: Thank you for mentioning Sweelinck! I was wondering if anybody liked him enough to list as a favorite. I've been a fan for a long time, ever since I heard Gould's old recording of one of the fantasias.


----------



## Gouldanian (Nov 19, 2015)

In no particular order:

Kalinnikov
Alkan
Debussy
Saint-Saens
Grieg
Bartok
Webern
Krenek
Berg
Schumann


----------



## Heliogabo (Dec 29, 2014)

10 (more or less) rare composers that I consider to be favorites:
Zelenka
Biber
Forqueray
Charpentier
Buxtehude
Roussel
Albeniz
Blasco de nebra
Alkan
Sorabji


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

The 'hard mode' is easy for me.
All I had to do was remove Giacinto Scelsi from my existing favorite composers.

1. Charles Koechlin
[former #2. Giacinto Scelsi (removed)]
2. Andre Jolivet
3. Aarre Merikanto
4. Richard Rodney Bennett
5. Karol Szymanowski
6. Maurice Ohana
7. Arne Nordheim
8. Jon Leifs
9. Meyer Kupferman
10. Toru Takemitsu


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Myriadi said:


> And on hard mode, for those of you who're into more obscure parts of repertoire, you're also not allowed to mention ... Clementi


What about Aldo Clementi?


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

I'm surprised that *Myriadi* permits Szymanowski & Takemitsu within the hard mode


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

In no particular order, my next tier (after tier one greatest) include,

CPE bach, JC Bach, Telemann, Scarlatti (father & son), Vivaldi, Michael Haydn, Hummel, Hasse, Graun brothers, Abel etc.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

Prodromides said:


> I'm surprised that *Myriadi* permits Szymanowski & Takemitsu within the hard mode


Takemitsu was an intentional omission (see above), but I can't say Szymanowski is an obvious choice for famous+popular. You're only the second person to mention him here. I don't think I've ever met someone who considered him one of their favorite composers. I may be wrong in the former statement, of course, and unlucky for the second one.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> In no particular order, my next tier (after tier one greatest) include,
> 
> CPE bach, JC Bach, Telemann, Scarlatti (father & son), Vivaldi, Michael Haydn, Hummel, Hasse, Graun brothers, Abel etc.


Ah, finally somebody mentions quite a few Classical era composers. Thank you! CPE Bach is among my favorites too


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

I did mention Paisiello...


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Myriadi said:


> Takemitsu was an intentional omission (see above), but I can't say Szymanowski is an obvious choice for famous+popular. You're only the second person to mention him here. I don't think I've ever met someone who considered him one of their favorite composers. I may be wrong in the former statement, of course, and unlucky for the second one.


Ah ... but there has been a lot of recordings on music both by Takemitsu or by Szymanowski.
If record producers and labels offer consumers a composer's body of works over multiple albums, then I'd consider that composer to have a significant following.


----------

