# Ranking the composers - a list generated based on personal preference of 56 TC member



## Art Rock

For the thread describing the process, see here.

*The Results - Post 1, overall statistics

The results will be split over a number of posts. To make it easy to see these in the thread, allowing for comments in between, these results posts are in bold.

Alright, as promised, before we go into the scores per composer(s), some statistics.

We had a great response. I asked for at least 30 participants, and the end number is 56. Of these, 40 submitted a ranked list (37 going for a full 30 composers) and 16 submitted a non-ranked list (15 going for a full 30 composers).

On the ranked lists, 12 different composers made the #1 spot. Only 5 lists had the traditional "Big three" (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart in any sequence) on the first three positions.

In total 214 different composers got mentioned. Of these, 86 were in one list, 30 were in two lists, and the rest in three or more, which ensured that they made the final ranking of 98 composers. Not a single composer made every list, the best performance in this respect was 54 out of 56.

Before the first submissions came in I announced that only composers occurring in at least three lists would make the final ranking. I decided to make one small change: two composers with two mentions, but scoring highest in their category (and higher than some composers that made three lists), were include as well as #99 and #100. Simply because 100 is a nice number. 

For the ranking evaluation, I transferred all lists to a spreadsheet. I checked for each list whether the total points matched what it should be. In addition, after finalizing all data, I picked ten lists at random for a double-check, but found no deviations from the initial data transfer.

The next post (later today or tomorrow) will list the composers who were mentioned, but did not make the ranked list.

Feel free to comment, discuss, and speculate about what the results will be. 

*


----------



## Art Rock

Question for discussion: there are two ways to come to a list of 100 composers. The one listed above (all composers mentioned 3 times or more are in, with the 2 highest scoring composers mentioned twice filling in at #99 and #100), or deviating from the original idea, simply the 100 highest scoring composers regardless of numbers of mentions (meaning three composers mentioned three times won't make the list - all scoring less points than many composers mentioned twice). As I assume no-one made their lists with this in the back of their minds, we can still change it. I'm open for suggestions.


----------



## Nereffid

I'd say 3 composers is a sensible cutoff (out of curiosity, how many composers appeared 4 times? or 5?).

I'm guessing my #5 composer was one of those not included on any other lists. It would be unreasonable, I think, to allow such outliers onto the final rankings.


----------



## Bulldog

I also prefer the 3-cutoff.


----------



## mmsbls

Art Rock said:


> Question for discussion: there are two ways to come to a list of 100 composers. The one listed above (all composers mentioned 3 times or more are in, with the 2 highest scoring composers mentioned twice filling in at #99 and #100), or deviating from the original idea, simply the 100 highest scoring composers regardless of numbers of mentions (meaning three composers mentioned three times won't make the list - all scoring less points than many composers mentioned twice). As I assume no-one made their lists with this in the back of their minds, we can still change it. I'm open for suggestions.


Can you post both results and maybe have an asterisk for composers with 2 mentions and 2 asterisks for those with one mention?


----------



## Art Rock

I will list the composers mentioned once, and the composers mentioned twice, before I come to the top 100. The top 100 will have the composer names, their total points, and how often they were mentioned.


----------



## Art Rock

*The Results - Post 2, "close but no cigar" (composers mentioned only once):

Abrahamsen
Alkan
Arnold
Bach, WF
Balfe
Beach
Berwald
Bliss
Bloch
Boyce
Bruch
Catalani
Cherubini
Ciconia
Cilea
Cimarosa
Clementi
Couperin, L.
Crumb
Czerny
d'Indy
Daugherty
Davies, PM
De Vitry
Dean, B
Dennehy
Dhomont
Dohnanyi
Dukas
Duparc
Farrenc
Fibich
Flotow
Froberger
Geminiani
Giordano
Gordon, M
Gounod
Grainger
Grisey
Hanson
Haydn, M
Herrmann, B
Hildegard von Bingen
Hovhaness
Hummel
Johansson, J
Kabalevsky
Kalman
Kats-Chernin
Kodaly
Kraus
Lalo
Landini
Lang, D
Lehar
Leoncavallo
Lindberg, M
MacMillan
Magnard
Marschner
Massenet
Mayer, E
Moeran
Nancarrow
Offenbach
Rautavaara
Richter, M
Riley
Sarasate
Saygun
Schmidt
Sculthorpe
Simpson
Steinberg, M
Stockhausen
Strauss, J II
Suk
Thalberg
Tubin
Vinci, L
Wallace
Weill
Willaert
Wolfe, J
Xenakis*


----------



## Art Rock

There will be a handful ex aequo positions in the top 100 (mainly in the bottom half of course). I intend to rank those based on a tiebreaker (the single highest score). Of course, the points totals will be listed so you can see where this happens.


----------



## JAS26

I'm not clear where the idea came from to base the final rankings on the number of times (3 or whatever) each composer is mentioned in the individual submissions. Was it something discussed in the original thread? If so, I missed it. I thought you were simply going to attach weights to each composer according to their ranking in the individual lists, or for non-ranked lists some kind of average weight would be given. The latter seems a preferable procedure to me.


----------



## Art Rock

The ranking is primarily based on the weight system. In the original thread I posted that in addition there will be a cut-off: composers have to be mentioned at least three times to qualify for the final list. This will only affect a few places in the 91-100 range.


----------



## JAS26

Art Rock said:


> The ranking is primarily based on the weight system. In the original thread I posted that in addition there will be a cut-off: composers have to be mentioned at least three times to qualify for the final list. This will only affect a few places in the 91-100 range.


I was confused because in your post #2 above you seem to be proposing ditching the weights system set out in the original thread in favour of a new procedure based on the number of times a composer is listed 3 times (or 2 to bring the number up 100). But now you seem to have reverted to the original plan.


----------



## Art Rock

JAS26 said:


> I was confused because in your post #2 above you seem to be proposing ditching the weights system set out in the original thread in favour of a new procedure based on the number of times a composer is listed 3 times (or 2 to bring the number up 100). But now you seem to have reverted to the original plan.


That's not what I was proposing.

I'll try to make things more clear. Based on the points attached to the ranked positions of submitted lists and the fixed points for unranked lists, I come to a ranking from #1 to # 214.

Originally, I stated that I would only consider composers with at least three mentions for the final list. That would be 98, largely corresponding to the top 98 of the above mentioned ranking from #1 to # 214. But not completely, because some composers mentioned only twice scored more points than the lowest scoring composers mentioned three times.

Since 100 is a nice number that we're already very close to, I want to produce our top 100.

Possibility 1: we stick to the original condition that composers should be mentioned at least three times. That defines the ranking 1-98. The positions 99-100 I would fill with the highest scoring composers mentioned two times, ranking them below composers who actually gathered less points than them.

Possibility 2: we ditch the original condition that composers should be mentioned at least three times. The top 100 would be the 100 highest ranking composers of the aforementioned overall ranking from #1 to # 214, meaning a few composers who did get mentioned three times will not get into the top100.

As stated, I am open for either method. Reactions so far favour possibility 1.


----------



## Enthusiast

As with many games there are posters who choose the more obscure or minor over the (widely acknowledged) towering greats and it can often seem like they are generally more motivated to participate in attempts like this and games (I often find myself dropping out of games when they are clearly racing towards "crazy" results!) so the results tend to be skewed towards such composers. I must confess I suspect such upvoting of the more minor (or "the more neglected") is often motivated by a desire to feel (or be seen as) more sophisticated. But, to be fair, it is probably just that they seek something very different to me from their music. My point, though, is that a sampling method based on people voting for their favourites will tend to attract an unrepresentative group of people with a desire (however motivated) to promote the more obscure or minor. Meanwhile many of those who are broadly happy with status quo (the canon or whatever you want to call it) don't feel an interest in participating - why would they?

I also think that coming to even tentative conclusions about the more modern (say the music of the last 50-70 years) is a different exercise. History is filled with composers who enjoyed huge reputations when their music was relatively fresh but are now nearly totally forgotten.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Despite the immensely sad fact that four of my 30 were only mentioned by myself (Kodaly, Magnard, Suk and Tubin - I'm used to wasting my vote, did so here in the UK on December 12th!), I'd suggest option 1 is the most sensible. We can't have any kind of "he who shouts loudest......" system 

Just for interest's sake, did any of these once-mentioned score higher than any of the thrice-mentioned? How would one compare a single 4th place for Kodaly against three 29th places for Ligeti (purely hypothetical examples, btw)?


----------



## Art Rock

(reacting to Enthusiast)

The result of this exercise is the ranking of top 100 favourite composers, as based on the personal preferences of the participants. Nothing more, nothing less. I have no idea whether you're right in your assumptions, and you have no way to demonstrate that it is more than just your assumptions.

This ranking exercise was run in the general Classical forum, to have maximum exposure. Anyone willing to send in a list could do so, and a lot of members have. I see no reason to assume that those who personally prefer all the established names would not bother to send in their list.


----------



## Art Rock

CnC Bartok's reaction makes it 4-0 for the original approach. Done.


----------



## Art Rock

*The Results - Post 3, "even closer but still no cigar" (composers mentioned only twice):

Albeniz
Albinoni
Bax
Berio
Bortkiewicz
Boulez
Bridge
Buxtehude
Byrd
Cage
Cavalli
Dowland
Dutilleux
Falla
Feldman
Glazunov
Holmboe
Khachaturian
Kurtag
Lassus
Mascagni
Medtner
Nyman
Penderecki
Roussel
Satie
Tippett
Zelenka

This obviously does not include the two highest ranked composers with two mentions, who will be #99 and #100 on the list.

In about 20 hours from now I will be posting the first part of the ranked list (91-100). I will probably post two batches of ten per day, and the top 10 one by one.*


----------



## Razumovskymas

I am the only one who mentioned Alkan and Clementi!!

I am shocked!


----------



## Enthusiast

Art Rock said:


> (reacting to Enthusiast)
> 
> The result of this exercise is the ranking of top 100 favourite composers, as based on the personal preferences of the participants. Nothing more, nothing less. I have no idea whether you're right in your assumptions, and you have no way to demonstrate that it is more than just your assumptions.
> 
> This ranking exercise was run in the general Classical forum, to have maximum exposure. Anyone willing to send in a list could do so, and a lot of members have. I see no reason to assume that those who personally prefer all the established names would not bother to send in their list.


Thanks for the "reaction". I am sorry you feel my contribution is just an attack rather than a discussion about what ranking involves. By specifying that you are drawing on only 56 members views you are indeed representing the result accurately. But I guess I am thinking that a ranking that represents the views of those who participate is not so meaningful. It seems to tell us something about the participants but not the music.

But, ultimately, ranking bothers me almost as much as the likelihood of some lesser composers being ranked higher than some great ones in your exercise. How can one choose between Mozart and Beethoven and Bach? Even if all you are doing is stating preferences they will seem to me as preferences that result from inadequate understanding of and familiarity with the lower ranked ones. I think you probably can produce broad ranks - greatest, great, good, mediocre - with lots of names in each. Incidentally, I think doing that might lead to something recognisable (because most of us can recognise the merit of music even when we don't like it). I think that exercise might lead to interesting discussion but I don't think I can recognise or value a suggestion that "composer ranked 49" is preferred (on average by 56 people) to "composer ranked 50". I'm sorry but I don't get it. That's why I'm raising these questions.


----------



## Art Rock

This thread is for the list I am producing based on the many submitted personal preferences. Clearly, the people who participated will at least be interested, even if you are not. I'd rather not have this turn into a general discussion on the pros and cons of ranking. Please open a separate thread for that if you want to discuss it.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Razumovskymas said:


> I am the only one who mentioned Alkan and Clementi!!
> 
> I am shocked!


I'm mildly surprised with Alkan - he does have something of a cult following here, but there are some notables who probably weren't picked at all. I myself chose three which were only chosen by me. :lol:


----------



## Art Rock

Given how well Bax is doing in many games in the games forum, I'm surprised that only one other participant picked him in the personal composers list. Dutilleux is another one I had expected to do better, but then again, although personally I like 21st and late 20th century music, just a handful of composers from that time made my top 30. Maybe I should have gone for a top100 after all for all participants.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

elgars ghost said:


> I'm mildly surprised with Alkan - he does have something of a cult following here, but there are some notables who probably weren't picked at all. I myself chose three which were only chosen by me. :lol:


Four times I was the only one to list a composer. WF Bach, M Haydn, Geminiani and Boyce.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Enthusiast said:


> As with many games there are posters who choose the more obscure or minor over the (widely acknowledged) towering greats and it can often seem like they are generally more motivated to participate in attempts like this and games (I often find myself dropping out of games when they are clearly racing towards "crazy" results!) so the results tend to be skewed towards such composers. I must confess I suspect such upvoting of the more minor (or "the more neglected") is often motivated by a desire to feel (or be seen as) more sophisticated. But, to be fair, it is probably just that they seek something very different to me from their music. My point, though, is that a sampling method based on people voting for their favourites will tend to attract an unrepresentative group of people with a desire (however motivated) to promote the more obscure or minor. Meanwhile many of those who are broadly happy with status quo (the canon or whatever you want to call it) don't feel an interest in participating - why would they?
> 
> I also think that coming to even tentative conclusions about the more modern (say the music of the last 50-70 years) is a different exercise. History is filled with composers who enjoyed huge reputations when their music was relatively fresh but are now nearly totally forgotten.


Did you submit a list? Which minor or obscure composer do you think got too many votes?


----------



## CnC Bartok

Ranking of aggrievedness so far:

1. Me! (4 Insignificants + 1 slightly less Insignificant)
2. Johnnie B (4 Insignificants)
3. Elgar's Ghost (3 Insignificants)
4. Razumovskymas (2 Insignificants)

:devil::devil::devil:


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

CnC Bartok said:


> Ranking of aggrievedness so far:
> 
> 1. Me! (4 Insignificants + 1 slightly less Insignificant)
> 2. Johnnie B (4 Insignificants)
> 3. Elgar's Ghost (3 Insignificants)
> 4. Razumovskymas (2 Insignificants)
> 
> :devil::devil::devil:


And I gave Albinoni his second vote.


----------



## elgar's ghost

CnC Bartok said:


> Ranking of aggrievedness so far:
> 
> 1. Me! (4 Insignificants + 1 slightly less Insignificant)
> 2. Johnnie B (4 Insignificants)
> 3. Elgar's Ghost (3 Insignificants)
> 4. Razumovskymas (2 Insignificants)
> 
> :devil::devil::devil:


I have one slightly less significant as well.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Revised table of outrage and aggrievedness:

1. = Me! (4 Insignificants + 1 slightly less Insignificant)
1. = Johnnie B (4 Insignificants + 1 slightly less Insignificant)
3. Elgar's Ghost (3 Insignificants + 1 slightly less Insignificant)
4. Razumovskymas (2 Insignificants)

Level of playful silliness in this post remains constant at 3 devils.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

CnC Bartok said:


> Revised table of outrage and aggrievedness:
> 
> 1. = Me! (4 Insignificants + 1 slightly less Insignificant)
> 1. = Johnnie B (4 Insignificants + 1 slightly less Insignificant)
> 3. Elgar's Ghost (3 Insignificants + 1 slightly less Insignificant)
> 4. Razumovskymas (2 Insignificants)
> 
> Level of playful silliness in this post remains constant at 3 devils.


The 4 of us picked 13 of the composer's who got just one vote. The other 52 only did so 73 times.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Johnnie Burgess said:


> The 4 of us picked 13 of the composer's who got just one vote. The other 52 only did so 73 times.


Yeah, but I am sure some conventionalityophobe will knock us both off top spot......:tiphat:


----------



## Nereffid

CnC Bartok said:


> Yeah, but I am sure some conventionalityophobe will knock us both off top spot......:tiphat:


I score 8 Insignificants! (Plus 2 others...)


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Nereffid said:


> I score 8 Insignificants! (Plus 2 others...)


May I ask who the 8 were?


----------



## CnC Bartok

Johnnie Burgess said:


> May I ask who the 8 were?


Indeed. Once we have consulted VAR, the list can be updated. Sorry, Johnnie, looks like we've lost top spot.


----------



## Bulldog

I'm a little sad that I was the only soul who picked Louis Couperin. However, Louis is not in the "canon" and he's definitely not an obscure favorite on TC.


----------



## Nereffid

Johnnie Burgess said:


> May I ask who the 8 were?


Arnold, Crumb, Dennehy, Gordon, Grainger, Lang, MacMillan, Wolfe. (Though I suppose it could be argued that Gordon/Lang/Wolfe are a package deal!)


----------



## Fabulin

I had Emilie Mayer (RIP), Bernard Herrmann (RIP), and Edouard Lalo (ok, fair enough :tiphat as 3 solitary mentions

Carl Czerny, Sergei Bortkiewicz, and Aram Khachaturian were my 3 duo mentions. I am actually quite shocked that anyone else picked Czerny and Bortkiewicz.

But to my greatest delight, it would seem that both Erich W. "third rate Wagner" Korngold, and John "not a classical composer" Williams made the list. Good to see them heard.

Can't wait to see the end result. It's got to be interesting and unique.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Updated table of outrage and aggrievedness:

1. Nereffid (8 Insignificants + 2 slightly less Insignificant)
2. = Me (4 Insignificants + 1 slightly less Insignificant)
2. = Johnnie B (4 Insignificants + 1 slightly less Insignificant)
4. Fabulin (3 Insignificants + 3 slightly less Insignificant)
5. Elgar's Ghost (3 Insignificants + 1 slightly less Insignificant)
6. Razumovskymas (2 Insignificants)
7. Bulldog (1 poor Insignificant)

Level of playful silliness in this post increases to 4 devils.


----------



## Xisten267

Bulldog said:


> I'm a little sad that I was the only soul who picked Louis Couperin. However, Louis is not in the "canon" and he's definitely not an obscure favorite on TC.


I'm aware of François and he is currently one of my favorite baroque composers, but Louis is unexplored territory for me. Could you please recommend me some pieces you like by him?


----------



## Bulldog

Allerius said:


> I'm aware of François and he is currently one of my favorite baroque composers, but Louis is unexplored territory for me. Could you please recommend me some pieces you like by him?


My favorite is the Suite in D major, but all the solo harpsichord music is excellent. I'd recommend a Naxos disc performed by Laurence Cummings; Leonhardt and Rousset are also winners.


----------



## Blancrocher

Bulldog said:


> My favorite is the Suite in D major, but all the solo harpsichord music is excellent. I'd recommend a Naxos disc performed by Laurence Cummings; Leonhardt and Rousset are also winners.


Leonhardt's L. Couperin is desert-island material for me, and I like the others you mention. I'd also mention Kolesnikov's recent piano version, though I personally can't get used to this composer on the modern instrument.


----------



## Portamento

Poor Stockhausen. In many cases, his (unsavory) reputation precedes the actual music.


----------



## JAS26

None of my 30 ranked selections has yet been mentioned. I'm pretty sure they'll all turn up over the next few days well inside the top 100.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Stop holding out! I want to see the list already...


----------



## Art Rock

*The Results - Post 4, numbers 91-100

091 Heitor Villa-Lobos (49 points, 3 mentions)
092 Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach (47 points, 3 mentions)
093 John Coolidge Adams (46 points, 3 mentions)
094 Witold Lutosławski (46 points, 3 mentions)
095 Kaija Saariaho (40 points, 3 mentions)
096 George Gershwin (39 points, 3 mentions)
097 Per Nørgård (36 points, 3 mentions)
098 Domenico Scarlatti (33 points, 3 mentions)
099 Thomas Tallis (61 points, 2 mentions)*
100 John Williams (48 points, 2 mentions)*

* The cut-off requirement was at least 3 mentions; these were the composers with the highest points among the twice mentioned, so I added them to come to a nice round number.*


----------



## Art Rock

Of course, in the bottom half differences tend to be small, and are definitely not statistically significant. So, to answer a question posed earlier, no, it is of course not important that a composer ends up at #96 or #97. It just looks more elegant (at least to me) than a cloud of names. You'll see differences becoming more marked as we go up to the top of the list.

By the way, had we gone for option 2, Gershwin, Nørgård and Scarlatti would not have made the list, but Zelenka, Medtner and Nyman would have.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> But I guess I am thinking that a ranking that represents the views of those who participate is not so meaningful.


A ranking that represents the views of those who *don't *participate is, presiumably, much more meaningful?



Enthusiast said:


> But, ultimately, ranking bothers me almost as much as the likelihood of some lesser composers being ranked higher than some great ones in your exercise. How can one choose between Mozart and Beethoven and Bach? Even if all you are doing is stating preferences they will seem to me as preferences that result from inadequate understanding of and familiarity with the lower ranked ones.


Absolutely. It was my subversive aim to ensure that the lesser, mediocre composers got a shot at knocking the World Renowned Triumvirate off their collective pedestal. However, without plotting with the other 55 members who posted, my plan was destined to fail.

Richter and Johansson was me - and I was one of the two Roussel and Satie. All I can say is, let's hear it for the 'mediocre'!

Oh, and many thanks to Art Rock for doing the work!


----------



## Art Rock

*The Results - Post 5, numbers 81-90

081 Arcangelo Corelli (63 points, 3 mentions)
082 Nikolai Myaskovsky (63 points, 4 mentions)
083 Heinrich Ignaz Franz Biber (60 points, 3 mentions)
084 Giovanni Battista Pergolesi (60 points, 3 mentions)
085 Carlo Gesualdo (57 points, 3 mentions)
086 Henry Purcell (56 points, 3 mentions)
087 Gustav Holst (54 points, 5 mentions)
088 Gerald Finzi (53 points, 3 mentions)
089 Sofia Gubaidulina (52 points, 4 mentions)
090 Jean-Philippe Rameau (49 points, 3 mentions)*


----------



## Art Rock

I will be posting three sets of ten per day instead of two as originally planned. The third one for today will be up in a few hours.

Some thoughts on the current ten:
- Holst, sometimes erroneously marked as a one hit composer, did well to make five lists
- Finzi, delighted to see him make the top100
- Rameau, not my favourite, but I had expected to see him higher
- Gubaidulina and Myaskovsky, two of my choices, making it


----------



## Art Rock

Some thoughts on the numbers 91-100 (link):

- CPE Bach, I had expected him to do better
- four living composers in these ten
- all in all, a nice eclectic mix, from old to new


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> A ranking that represents the views of those who *don't *participate is, presiumably, much more meaningful?
> 
> Absolutely. It was my subversive aim to ensure that the lesser, mediocre composers got a shot at knocking the World Renowned Triumvirate off their collective pedestal. However, without plotting with the other 55 members who posted, my plan was destined to fail.
> 
> Richter and Johansson was me - and I was one of the two Roussel and Satie. All I can say is, let's hear it for the 'mediocre'!
> 
> Oh, and many thanks to Art Rock for doing the work!


ah tactical voting eh?


----------



## JAS26

Art Rock said:


> *The Results - Post 5, numbers 81-90
> 
> 081 Arcangelo Corelli (63 points, 3 mentions)
> 082 Nikolai Myaskovsky (63 points, 4 mentions)
> 083 Heinrich Ignaz Franz Biber (60 points, 3 mentions)
> 084 Giovanni Battista Pergolesi (60 points, 3 mentions)
> 085 Carlo Gesualdo (57 points, 3 mentions)
> 086 Henry Purcell (56 points, 3 mentions)
> 087 Gustav Holst (54 points, 5 mentions)
> 088 Gerald Finzi (53 points, 3 mentions)
> 089 Sofia Gubaidulina (52 points, 4 mentions)
> 090 Jean-Philippe Rameau (49 points, 3 mentions)*


Would I be correct in my estimation that the total points for all the composers mentioned so, including the composers from No 81-100, amount to no more than about 10-15% of the total cast by all 56 voters for all 214 composers?

I would expect this cumulative percentage to increase very rapidly as we get closer to the top composers, making those that have been mentioned thus far look like "minnows" in the overall popularity stakes.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Art Rock said:


> *The Results - Post 4, numbers 91-100
> 
> 091 Heitor Villa-Lobos (49 points, 3 mentions)
> 092 Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach (47 points, 3 mentions)
> 093 John Coolidge Adams (46 points, 3 mentions)
> 094 Witold Lutosławski (46 points, 3 mentions)
> 095 Kaija Saariaho (40 points, 3 mentions)
> 096 George Gershwin (39 points, 3 mentions)
> 097 Per Nørgård (36 points, 3 mentions)
> 098 Domenico Scarlatti (33 points, 3 mentions)
> 099 Thomas Tallis (61 points, 2 mentions)*
> 100 John Williams (48 points, 2 mentions)*
> 
> * The cut-off requirement was at least 3 mentions; these were the composers with the highest points among the twice mentioned, so I added them to come to a nice round number.*


CPE at 92

OK lets see how many classical era names go ahead of a composer the board seem to hold in high regard


----------



## Art Rock

JAS26 said:


> Would I be correct in my estimation that the total points for all the composers mentioned so, including the composers from No 81-100, amount to no more than about 3-4% of the total cast by all 56 voters for all 214 composers?
> 
> I would expect this cumulative percentage to increase very rapidly as we get closer to the top composers, making those that have been mentioned thus far look like "minnows" in the overall popularity stakes.


The math is correct (it's about 3%, for comparison, the top10 accounts for about 34%). The designation "minnows" I do not like. These are composers that 3-4 of the voting members like sufficiently to name them in their top 30 (personally, I would need more than 100 spots to include all the composers I really like).


----------



## Guest

I can't help pointing out to those objecting to methodology that this is a poll of personal preferences, and "It's what it is". I direct them to the meaning of this expression in Scorsese's The Irishman.


----------



## JAS26

Art Rock said:


> The math is correct (it's about 3%, for comparison, the top10 accounts for about 34%). The designation "minnows" I do not like. These are composers that 3-4 of the voting members like sufficiently to name them in their top 30 (personally, I would need more than 100 spots to include all the composers I really like).


What is the total number of points for all 56 voters across all 214 composers, and how many points were achieved in total by those below rank 100 (i.e. 101-214)?

By "minnows", I thought it was clear that I meant in the context of the overall popularity stakes as measured by this poll.


----------



## Art Rock

JAS26 said:


> What is the total number of points for all 56 voters across all 214 composers?


34025 points.



> By "minnows", I thought it was clear that I meant in the context of the overall popularity stakes as measured by this poll.


No problem.


----------



## JAS26

Art Rock said:


> 34025 points.
> 
> No problem.


I had calculated a total of 34420 points based on a bit of guesswork, so I wasn't far out.

Can you please provide the total just for those between 101-214, which I did ask for previously.


----------



## Art Rock

JAS26 said:


> Can you please provide the total just for those between 101-214, which I did ask for previously.


You edited that in after my answer, that's why I did not reply. It's 2436 points.


----------



## Ethereality

PlaySalieri said:


> CPE at 92. OK lets see how many classical era names go ahead of a composer the board seem to hold in high regard


91 composers they hold in higher regard.


----------



## JAS26

Art Rock said:


> You edited that in after my answer, that's why I did not reply. It's 2436 points.


Thanks. I had estimated a total of 2760 points for composers between No 101 to 214, so again I wasn't far out.

If the actual points total for these composers is 2436 then that's just slightly over 7% of the overall total.

Taking these sub-100 composers together with those in the set of 81-100 gives a points total of 3454, which amounts to slightly over 10% of the overall total for all composers. This is inside the range of 10-15% I had estimated as reported above.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Ethereality said:


> 91 composers they hold in higher regard.


classical er names though

cpe seems to be ranked after mozart and haydn


----------



## JAS26

Regards my earlier reference to very low ranked composers (i.e. those itemised thus far) as being "minnows" I hope that no-one is offended in any way if they happen to regard any of these composers very highly. My comment was meant purely in the context of the results of this poll. 

As we've seen thus far, all of the composers from No 81-214 taken together only account for about 10% of the total votes cast. This of course is partly attributable to the weighting system that has been adopted for the purpose of this poll. For ranked votes, a voter's composer in the No 1 spot gets 40 points and it then declines until the No 30 gets only 6. 

In other words, there is an inbuilt quite rapid decline in importance among composers based purely on the arbitrary weighting system adopted. This is not a criticism of the weighting system, merely pointing out one of its implications, namely that it's likely to produce a lot of "minnows" given that the majority of voters provided ranked lists, and indeed were given a "bonus" for so doing in comparison with a non-ranked list.


----------



## Art Rock

Personally, I think it's also fair, as I expect that most people would rate their #1 choice much higher than their #30 choice. The weighting method chosen (40->6) is already more favourable to the lower ranks than the standard approach for lists like this, which would be 30->1. But of course, any other weighing system can be applied. It's also one of the reasons why I defined the weighing system upfront.


----------



## Malx

Can people not take the list as what it is - a view at a point in time of the preferred composers of those posters who took the trouble to submit their 'current' preferences.

Thanks for the time and effort you have put into the task Art Rock.


----------



## Ethereality

Not only is one's #1 choice much more valued, but it's usually much more certain than the others. And that certainty manifests as a very strong value towards that composer, compared to others. After someone's Top 10, the composers typically chosen are going to be more unsure and interchangeable.

Edit: so I have much favor towards this list's design.


----------



## CnC Bartok

None of my remaining 25 has been ranked as yet, so I am feeling more conventional in my tastes than I had feared.

For the moment anyway...

Art Rock, this is a labour of love clearly, and the results are being watched closely. Good stuff, old chap, and many thanks too.


----------



## Art Rock

Thanks for the positive feedback, people. Appreciated!

And now the third (and last) set of ten for today. Three more tomorrow.

*The Results - Post 6, numbers 71-80

071 Ottorino Respighi (75 points, 5 mentions)
072 Arvo Pärt (75 points, 6 mentions)
073 Vincenzo Bellini (71 points, 4 mentions)
074 Johannes Ockeghem (69 points, 4 mentions)
075 Gaetano Donizetti (69 points, 4 mentions)
076 Erich Wolfgang Korngold (68 points, 3 mentions)
077 Alexander Borodin (68 points, 4 mentions)
078 Leonard Bernstein (67 points, 4 mentions)
079 William Walton (66 points, 4 mentions)
080 Alexander von Zemlinsky (64 points, 3 mentions)

*


----------



## Art Rock

Comment on 71-80:

- once more, a nice mix from old and new
- no big surprises here I think
- well, maybe Zemlinsky, but he has become more popular in recent decades


----------



## JAS26

Among the 30 composers from rank 71-100, it seems that 16 of them are in drawn positions in terms of points achieved. Normally this would result in shared ranks. I realise that the number of "mentions" varies in some of these cases but this factor is not strictly relevant given the criteria you set out in the initial thread for ranking the composers. In any case the order in which you have given some seems perverse with regard to the points/mentions.

According to my calculations, the total points allocated to all of the composers from No 71-214 is still very small at about 12%. 

So far, only one of my top composers, Holst, has been mentioned at rank No 87. None has been knocked out. I'm quite optimistic that many of my remaining 29 will appear in the next tranches from 1-70.


----------



## Malx

JAS26 said:


> Among the 30 composers from rank 71-100, it seems that 16 of them are in drawn positions in terms of points achieved. Normally this would result in shared ranks. I realise that the number of "mentions" varies in some of these cases but this factor is not strictly relevant given the criteria you set out in the initial thread for ranking the composers. In any case the order in which you have given some seems perverse with regard to the points/mentions.
> 
> According to my calculations, the total points allocated to all of the composers from No 71-214 is still very small at about 12%.
> 
> So far, only one of my top composers, Holst, has been mentioned at rank No 87. None has been knocked out. I'm quite optimistic that many of my remaining 29 will appear in the next tranches from 1-70.


Geez - shakes head


----------



## JAS26

Malx said:


> Geez - shakes head


Is there anything about my comments you disagree with?


----------



## JAS26

Malx said:


> Can people not take the list as what it is - a view at a point in time of the preferred composers of those posters who took the trouble to submit their 'current' preferences.
> 
> Thanks for the time and effort you have put into the task Art Rock.


I assumed that Art Rock has presented the results of this poll in a staggered fashion in order to encourage more comment than would normally be the case. It seems reasonable to me to offer comments on any aspect of the results that may be of interest to individual members, especially those, like me, who contributed to the poll in a positive way. Therefore, if you have nothing to say of any relevance to the results as they unfold, why don't you keep out of it, and stop posting irrelevant comments like the one above and the snarky comment you made above.


----------



## Art Rock

As I already stated earlier in the thread, when composers end up with the same points, I use a tiebreaker: the highest score they received. This is purely for aesthetic reasons. I'm sure that you'll agree that ending up at 75 or 76 does not make any real difference, given the numbers involved. In the top half, there is only one occasion where this happens.

I have no problem with your detailed attention to the numbers, but I object against using sentences like "In any case the order in which you have given some seems perverse with regard to the points/mentions." I have clearly lined out the process from start to finish, and I do not make random (let alone perverse) choices.


----------



## Malx

JAS26 said:


> Is there anything about my comments you disagree with?


Personally I really don't find the need to micro-analyse Art Rock's system - but I'm sure your are entitled to make such comments on this forum as I am to find them mildly irritating. Just my opinion of course.

I am happy to disagree but still respect your right to make the comments.


----------



## Malx

JAS26 said:


> I assumed that Art Rock has presented the results of this poll in a staggered fashion in order to encourage more comment than would normally be the case. It seems reasonable to me to offer comments on any aspect of the results that may be of interest to individual members, especially those, like me, who contributed to the poll in a positive way. Therefore, if you have nothing to say of any relevance to the results as they unfold, why don't you keep out of it, and stop posting irrelevant comments like the one above and the snarky comment you made above.


Yessir - I will take my leave of the thread.


----------



## Art Rock

Malx said:


> Yessir - I will take my leave of the thread.


As the thread starter, I encourage you to stay in the thread, and make comments as you see fit.

I also would like to point out that it is not done to ask people not to post in a thread, certainly not if it is not your thread.


----------



## JAS26

Enthusiast said:


> Thanks for the "reaction". I am sorry you feel my contribution is just an attack rather than a discussion about what ranking involves. By specifying that you are drawing on only 56 members views you are indeed representing the result accurately. But I guess I am thinking that a ranking that represents the views of those who participate is not so meaningful. *It seems to tell us something about the participants but not the music. *
> 
> But, ultimately, ranking bothers me almost as much as the likelihood of some lesser composers being ranked higher than some great ones in your exercise. How can one choose between Mozart and Beethoven and Bach? Even if all you are doing is stating preferences they will seem to me as preferences that result from inadequate understanding of and familiarity with the lower ranked ones. I think you probably can produce broad ranks - greatest, great, good, mediocre - with lots of names in each. Incidentally, I think doing that might lead to something recognisable (because most of us can recognise the merit of music even when we don't like it). I think that exercise might lead to interesting discussion but I don't think I can recognise or value a suggestion that "composer ranked 49" is preferred (on average by 56 people) to "composer ranked 50". I'm sorry but I don't get it. That's why I'm raising these questions.


I meant to respond to this post earlier.

Regards your first paragraph, I rather agree with your implied point that in any poll of this nature there is almost bound to be the problem of "_self-selection bias_". Even though 56 is a respectable enough number for a sample, if the participants are not randomly selected then the results are less trustworthy than would otherwise be the case.

Art Rock has avoided one source of potential bias by asking for contributions in secret, but even so there could still be others of major magnitude. For example, I don't believe for one moment that the sample of 56 represents from this poll a fair cross-section of classical music fans in general. The contributors here, on the whole, are probably a much more sophisticated and learned group of people than in general. Therefore, this poll can do no more than give an indication of how a small number of T-C members rate composers.

On your second paragraph, there can be little doubt that what you say is most likely to be true. The difference in points between composers ranked as closely as 49 and 50, to use your example, is not likely to be statistically significant. The same can be said for even bigger gaps in the computed ranks. The individual rankings as such should therefore to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. The ranks probably slightly become more robust at the top end of the range with the most popular composers.

In saying this, it's not meant to be controversial in any way, but is simply stock opinion on the kind of problems facing polls of this nature.


----------



## Bulldog

JAS26 said:


> Among the 30 composers from rank 71-100, it seems that 16 of them are in drawn positions in terms of points achieved. Normally this would result in shared ranks. I realise that the number of "mentions" varies in some of these cases but this factor is not strictly relevant given the criteria you set out in the initial thread for ranking the composers. In any case the order in which you have given some seems perverse with regard to the points/mentions.
> 
> According to my calculations, the total points allocated to all of the composers from No 71-214 is still very small at about 12%.


I also find your statistical gymnastics rather annoying as well as academic.


----------



## Bulldog

I had hoped that Zemlinsky would fare better than no. 80, but he's somewhat in "no-man's" land.


----------



## JAS26

Art Rock said:


> As I already stated earlier in the thread, when composers end up with the same points, I use a tiebreaker: the highest score they received. This is purely for aesthetic reasons. I'm sure that you'll agree that ending up at 75 or 76 does not make any real difference, given the numbers involved. In the top half, there is only one occasion where this happens.
> 
> I have no problem with your detailed attention to the numbers, but I object against using sentences like "In any case the order in which you have given some seems perverse with regard to the points/mentions." I have clearly lined out the process from start to finish, and I do not make random (let alone perverse) choices.


Yes, of course, I fully agree that it makes no difference whether a composer finishes up at 75 or 76.

Simply for clarification of your ranking procedure, I was asking why, for example, you decided to place Respighi at 71 and Pärt at 72 when they both received 75 points but Pärt received 6 mentions and Respighi 5. That's what I used the term "perverse", as I would have thought that if you were seeking a tie-breaker based on mentions given the same points by each of two composers then you would have the two composers in question ranked the other way round. I did not mean this term in a pejorative sense. There are other examples of the same thing elsewhere in the 71-100 list.


----------



## Art Rock

JAS26 said:


> Therefore, this poll can do no more than give an indication of how a small number of T-C members rate composers.


Did you look at the title of the thread?

*I would appreciate if we can limit the discussion in this thread from now on to the results.* I'm fully aware (as probably the participants as well) that this exercise has its natural shortcomings, that are also not easily overcome by the way. As someone stated: It is what it is, and not more than that.


----------



## JAS26

Bulldog said:


> I also find your statistical gymnastics rather annoying as well as academic.


There is nothing remotely "gymnastic" about my statistical comments and queries on the results of this poll announced so far. They are very elementary queries and intended only to seek clarification of the results and methodology for scoring.

If you have trouble following my statistical queries and comments, I can only express surprise given the way you and your friends have deluged this Forum over several years with many "polls" involving all manner of voting procedures.

Your comment and that of the gentleman from Scotland give me the impression that this place is a very cliquey club of long-serving members dedicated to congratulating each other on their latest venture, and backing up each when outsiders like me dare to make any comments or raise queries about any of their initiatives.


----------



## JAS26

Art Rock said:


> Did you look at the title of the thread?
> 
> *I would appreciate if we can limit the discussion in this thread from now on to the results.* I'm fully aware (as probably the participants as well) that this exercise has its natural shortcomings, that are also not easily overcome by the way. As someone stated: It is what it is, and not more than that.


Can you please answer my question about how you arrived at the ranking of Respighi and Pärt?


----------



## Byron

JAS26 said:


> There is nothing remotely "gymnastic" about my statistical comments and queries on the results of this poll announced so far. They are very elementary queries and intended only to seek clarification of the results and methodology for scoring.
> 
> If you have trouble following my statistical queries and comments, I can only express surprise given the way you and your friends have deluged this Forum over several years with many "polls" involving all manner of voting procedures.
> 
> Your comment and that of the gentleman from Scotland give me the impression that this place is a very cliquey club of long-serving members dedicated to congratulating each other on their latest venture, and backing up each when outsiders like me dare to make any comments or raise queries about any of their initiatives.


Welcome back, Partita


----------



## Art Rock

JAS26 said:


> Can you please answer my question about how you arrived at the ranking of Respighi and Pärt?


I already did. Twice.


----------



## JAS26

Art Rock said:


> I already did. Twice.


I don't think you have. Both got 72 points. Pärt got 6 mentions and Respighi 5, so why have you placed Respighi ahead of Pärt?

I agree that it doesn't matter a monkeys, but I simply want to know how you managed to reverse the order, based on your own methodology.


----------



## CnC Bartok

JAS26 said:


> Can you please answer my question about how you arrived at the ranking of Respighi and Pärt?


We refer the honourable gentleman to the original post, and the little "here" in blue in the first sentence. I am finding the ranking pretty straightforward, although admittedly I am jolly jolly clever.

On Nos.71 to 80, I will admit to some surprise that Lenny's so high up. Zemlinsky's a Marmite composer as far as I see him, so a few advocates have done him good, fair enough. Had Borodin not spent all his time looking after cats and condensing aldehydes, and composed a bit more, no doubt he'd be a lot higher! He just missed out on my top 30, almost purely on quantity, or lack thereof.....


----------



## CnC Bartok

JAS26 said:


> I don't think you have. Both got 72 points. Pärt got 6 mentions and Respighi 5, so why have you placed Respighi ahead of Pärt?
> 
> I agree that it doesn't matter a monkeys, but I simply want to know how you managed to reverse the order, based on your own methodology.


BECAUSE ONE VOTER PLACED THE ITALIAN HIGHER THAN ANYONE ELSE PLACED THE ESTONIAN. As the meerkats say, "simples"

See post No.8. "ex aequo" is an expression which means "equal" if that's the stumbling point?


----------



## Art Rock

JAS26 said:


> I don't think you have. Both got 72 points. Pärt got 6 mentions and Respighi 5, so why have you placed Respighi ahead of Pärt?
> 
> I agree that it doesn't matter a monkeys, but I simply want to know how you managed to reverse the order, based on your own methodology.


You know, I've been far more patient with you than you deserve, in spite of your tone and your general attitude that you display in this thread. If you can't be bothered to read through the thread to read how I use a tiebreaker (which I've stated and repeated in reply to one of your questions), I can't be bothered to discuss further with you. Of course, in your mind that will mean that you are right and that I'm part of the long-term members conspiracy out to get you, but personally I can live with that. Don't bother to post any further questions, I will not answer them.

*All others, please let's get back to discussing the results so far, and if you like speculating about things to come.*


----------



## Fabulin

Discussion will really start when we see the whole list. There is not much to say now, because we don't know what's above (and also because all the placements so far are the result of votes of just a handful of individuals, each time different ones, so few can relate to them).


----------



## JAS26

Art Rock said:


> Did you look at the title of the thread?
> 
> *I would appreciate if we can limit the discussion in this thread from now on to the results.* I'm fully aware (as probably the participants as well) that this exercise has its natural shortcomings, that are also not easily overcome by the way. As someone stated: It is what it is, and not more than that.


That's exactly what I have tried to do. I've been following your posts with interest, and have only attempted to ask what appeared to me to be relevant questions about the methodology and to offer some comment on the results, which I thought was lacking in your presentation. For example, we were left completely in the dark about how significant are the group of composers ranked 101-214. It turns out that they amount to only 7% of the total, which is an interesting fact in itself.

In my opinion it would have been far better to have presented all the results in one post, and to have offered a spreadsheet setting out the detailed results.


----------



## Razumovskymas

JAS26 is clearly on to something very important. I suggest we let him do his further investigations so the truth of this ranking can finally be exposed and Art Rock can be held responsible for the mistakes he made.

I also suggest we suspend any comments on the results themselves until things are thoroughly investigated!


----------



## JAS26

Art Rock said:


> You know, I've been far more patient with you than you deserve, in spite of your tone and your general attitude that you display in this thread. If you can't be bothered to read through the thread to read how I use a tiebreaker (which I've stated and repeated in reply to one of your questions), I can't be bothered to discuss further with you. Of course, in your mind that will mean that you are right and that I'm part of the long-term members conspiracy out to get you, but personally I can live with that. Don't bother to post any further questions, I will not answer them.
> 
> *All others, please let's get back to discussing the results so far, and if you like speculating about things to come.*


That's not a very nice response to a reasonable question I have put to you about your methodology. I cannot understand why you refuse to answer my specific question, which seems to contradict what you have said in general about your system of ranking.


----------



## CnC Bartok

These guys will sort 'em out!









Vive le Netflix!!

Been watching this Belgian stuff obsessively over the past few weeks!


----------



## JAS26

Razumovskymas said:


> JAS26 is clearly on to something very important. I suggest we let him do his further investigations so the truth of this ranking can finally be exposed and Art Rock can be held responsible for the mistakes he made.
> 
> I also suggest we suspend any comments on the results themselves until things are thoroughly investigated!


As I've repeatedly said, the specific issues I have referred to are not important. I couldn't care less what results emerge from this entire exercise. All I am trying to do is to establish clearly the methodology that has been used. The specific questions I have raised have not been answered properly. I've simply been fobbed off with a variety of evasive answers, aided and abetted by one or two others with their sarky comments, just like yours.


----------



## Razumovskymas

What do you mean "not important"?

I think it's very important and I'll hope you'll get to the bottom of this!


----------



## Guest

JAS26 said:


> As I've repeatedly said, the specific issues I have referred to are not important. I couldn't care less what results emerge from this entire exercise. All I am trying to do is to establish clearly the methodology that has been used. The specific questions I have raised have not been answered properly. I've simply been fobbed off with a variety of evasive answers, aided and abetted by one or two others with their sarky comments, just like yours.


If you're not interested in the results, why would you be interested in the methodology?


----------



## Art Rock

*Request to all: can we please stop this side discussion altogether.*


----------



## JAS26

MacLeod said:


> If you're not interested in the results, why would you be interested in the methodology?


Because I don't care what specific set of ranks results from the exercise provided I understand the procedure by which those ranks are produced, and consider that procedure to be sensible and to have been executed consistently and accurately.


----------



## xankl

I'm enjoying the results, comparing my list with what's come up so far, one outside the 100 and only one in these lower reaches. I do have to refer to my list to remember who is on it and in doing so I realise how fickle my taste can be. Great fun thanks Art Rock. Looking forward to the next batch.


----------



## JAS26

Art Rock said:


> *Request to all: can we please stop this side discussion altogether.*


I don't understand why you consider this to be "a side discussion". It is surely a more in-depth discussion about the your results and their significance. You have been simply rattling off headline results in a piecemeal fashion, and not offering any analysis of your findings that one might expect others to find of interest. These matters have had to be teased out of you, e.g. the percentage of votes afforded to each group, and you seemingly resent this questioning. It doesn't make sense to me why you can't do a much better job of it.


----------



## Portamento

Will you eventually post your spreadsheet so others can tinker with the methodology?


----------



## DBLee

xankl said:


> Great fun


Finally, someone who sees the point!


----------



## SuperTonic

The most notable thing for me so far in the "bottom 30" is the dearth of Classical and Romantic composers. I count 1 Classical composer (CPE Bach, very surprised to see him so low at 92), and 3 Romantic composers (Bellini, Donizetti, and Borodin). I'm guessing that the top of the list will be dominated by those periods, which would not surprise me at all. There are also only 3 "early" composers (Ockeghem, Gesualdo, and Tallis), but I suspect we will only see at most one or two more (Josquin?, Palestrina?) in the rest of the list just because early music doesn't seem to get much attention on this site.

To round out the bottom 30, Baroque composers have 6 entries and Modern/Contemporary have 17. There are still quite a few big names from these eras that we haven't seen yet, so I expect to see more of them in the top 70. 

Thank you Art Rock for doing this. I'm looking forward to the remaining results.


----------



## D Smith

Let me add my thanks again Art Rock for doing this. It's a lot of fun which was the whole point and I didn't feel TOO slighted when I got one insignifcant and semi-insignificants in the final tally :lol:


----------



## tdc

JAS26 reminds me of another member who recently stopped posting that went by the handle partita. Both have posted on the topic of rankings and methodologies ad infinitum.


----------



## CypressWillow

Very much enjoying this thread, *Art Rock* (ignoring the side issues, of course.) Looking forward to the rest of the list with great anticipation.


----------



## mmsbls

I think it will be interesting to see how this group of, presumably, reasonably representative members of TC views the wide range of classical composers. There are some, such as those with many "insignificants", whose tastes may deviate from the average. Others, such as myself, tend to have tastes much more in line with the average. I will look at the final list to see what composers' ranks surprise me - surprise not in that the ranks will differ from mine, but rather surprise in that I thought TC members viewed the composers differently. 

I also wish to thank Art Rock for working through this exercise. I think many here appreciate that work.


----------



## Art Rock

Portamento said:


> Will you eventually post your spreadsheet so others can tinker with the methodology?


No, because the spreadsheet contains the names of the submittors (who may or may not agree with having their names attached) and the points are already fixed when I put the lists in.

If someone really wants to have a go at it, I will post a link to all lists received. This is extra work (56 times copy/paste), so only if there is real interest.


----------



## Art Rock

And on we go.

The Results - Post 7, numbers 61-70

*061 Guillaume de Machaut (93 points, 5 mentions)
062 Max Reger (88 points, 5 mentions)
063 Guillaume Dufay (86 points, 4 mentions)
064 Georges Bizet (82 points, 6 mentions)
065 Frederick Delius (81 points, 5 mentions)
066 Paul Hindemith (80 points, 6 mentions)
067 Steve Reich (78 points, 4 mentions)
068 Mieczysław Weinberg (78 points, 3 mentions)
069 Christoph Willibald Gluck (77 points, 4 mentions)
070 Hugo Wolf (76 points, 3 mentions)*


----------



## Art Rock

Some thoughts on 61-70:
- the differences are still small, meaning the ranking in this part is still more for fun than meaningful
- Wolf and Delius are two names I was not expecting in the 100, but great to see them
- I really need to check out Weinberg more than I've done so far

Thanks for all the support in previous posts.


----------



## Art Rock

By the way, I will continue to post the results in sets of ten, also because it still requires work to prepare these posts (looking up correct spelling in some cases, and adding up the number of mentions for each composer manually from the spreadsheet - that can probably be done more cleverly but this works for me), and I want to spread that out over a few days.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

OMG, how can Gluck be so low?

j/k :devil:


----------



## Bulldog

Gluck and Reger did much better than I expected.


----------



## Guest

I like the countdown approach, and looking forward to seeing the final top set.

TBH, there are names appearing in each set so far that are much lower than I might have anticipated (eg Satie, Bizet, Holst, Purcell), given that there are some at higher rankings I've never heard of (Weinberg)...but perhaps that's just my ignorance and, as Art Rock says, at this low level of 'mentions' less significant.


----------



## Nereffid

I've been comparing the results to my own polls and various other lists. Didn't think Wolf, Bernstein, Myaskovsky, Finzi, Williams would make it into the top 100, and I'm surprised/pleased to see Machaut and Dufay relatively high.


----------



## Art Rock

*The Results - Post 8, numbers 51-60

051 Anton Webern (122 points, 7 mentions)
052 Samuel Barber (119 points, 7 mentions)
053 Carl Maria von Weber (114 points, 6 mentions)
054 Georg Philipp Telemann (114 points, 8 mentions)
055 Charles Ives (112 points, 7 mentions)
056 Bohuslav Martinů (111 points, 6 mentions)
057 César Franck (108 points, 7 mentions)
058 Philip Glass (107 points, 7 mentions)
059 György Ligeti (99 points, 5 mentions)
060 Toru Takemitsu (95 points, 6 mentions)

*


----------



## Art Rock

Some thoughts on 51-60:

As we complete the bottom half, differences between two adjacent composers are still small. However, as you will see in the next set (which will be up in a few hours), the jump from #51 to #50 in terms of points is more substantial. I'm glad to see a personal favourite like Takemitsu make the list. I would have thought Ligeti could have ended up higher, and given the negativity often expressed about his works, the position of Philip Glass is a welcome surprise.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Two more of "mine" have appeared this morning, suggesting - if my maths is correct - I'll have 23 in the top 50. 

I am surprised Hindemith made it to No.66, I don't sense much warmth for his music very often here, which is a real shame.
Conversely, Martinů at only 56th, when there seems to be a smallish number of big fans here on TC, thought Bohouš would do better. First of my top 10 to fall.....

OMG, how can Gluck be so low?

j/k 

I'd say the same, only replacing the word "low" with the word "high" :devil::tiphat: sorry MatthewW!


----------



## Bulldog

My biggest surprise of the 50's group is Weber. I might have had him in my list of 30, but I thought he'd be lucky to make the top 100.


----------



## Ethereality

I like revisiting these composers who have a low number of mentions but scored high.

Also, if you take how many times a composer is #1 on a list, multiply that by 3, then add it to how many times a composer is #2 on a list, that might make a pretty cool alternative list. A Top 20 or 30 that shows more esoteric entries as favorites. It can sometimes be useful to look at the perspective of more esoteric opinions. Or maybe it won't in certain cases.


----------



## 1996D

Art Rock said:


> *The Results - Post 8, numbers 51-60
> 
> 051 Anton Webern (122 points, 7 mentions)
> 052 Samuel Barber (119 points, 7 mentions)
> 053 Carl Maria von Weber (114 points, 6 mentions)
> 054 Georg Philipp Telemann (114 points, 8 mentions)
> 055 Charles Ives (112 points, 7 mentions)
> 056 Bohuslav Martinů (111 points, 6 mentions)
> 057 César Franck (108 points, 7 mentions)
> 058 Philip Glass (107 points, 7 mentions)
> 059 György Ligeti (99 points, 5 mentions)
> 060 Toru Takemitsu (95 points, 6 mentions)
> 
> *


Wow, so far it's going great.

Every big name made the top 50.


----------



## Art Rock

Speaking of the top 50.... final post for today.

*The Results - Post 9, numbers 41-50

041 Francis Poulenc (195 points, 13 mentions)
042 Camille Saint-Saëns (187 points, 13 mentions)
043 Carl Nielsen (177 points, 9 mentions)
044 Gioachino Rossini (165 points, 9 mentions)
045 Josquin des Prez (158 points, 8 mentions)
046 Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina (157 points, 10 mentions)
047 Edvard Grieg (147 points, 11 mentions)
048 Alfred Schnittke (146 points, 9 mentions)
049 Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov (142 points, 7 mentions) :trp:
050 Modest Mussorgsky (140 points, 10 mentions)

The trumpet denotes first place in at least one ranked list.*


----------



## Art Rock

Note the 18 points jump from #51 to #50. To me that means that the top 50 names are reasonably solid (within the constraints of this exercise etc). We're also entering the part where many composer appear in 10 lists or more. And once more, a nice distribution over time, from Josquin to Schnittke.


----------



## Art Rock

Anybody want a stab at predicting the top 10? I'll make a game out of it. Post your entries in the thread in the next 18 hours. You'll get 1 point for every correct name and one bonus point for every name on the correct position. The winner will be announced after the top 10 has been shared (Sunday evening CET).


----------



## Fabulin

Let's try:

1. Beethoven
2. Mahler
3. Brahms
4. Bach
5. Mozart
6. Tchaikovsky
7. Haydn
8. Mendelssohn
9. Shostakovich
10. Prokofiev


----------



## CnC Bartok

How about
1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Bach.
4. Schubert
5. Mahler
6. Brahms
7. Wagner
8. Tchaikovsky
9. Sibelius
10. Haydn

I reckon I'll get 3 points for that!!!

Three more of mine have appeared in 41-50. Of those, I am pleasantly surprised at how high Poulenc has ended up (is he a lot of people's "guilty pleasure"?) At the same time I would have thought both Nielsen and Mussorgsky would have been higher, I especially thought the latter would beat Rimsky-Korsakov...

I have 20 in the top 40 then....


----------



## Nereffid

Before #50-41 were revealed I had narrowed my predictions for the top 50 down to 47 certainties and 7 reasonably likely. #50-41 include 7 of the certainties and 3 of the others, so I think at this stage my 40 certainties will correspond to the top 40. So, some surprises in terms of names that weren't mentioned at all.

Top 10? Tricky... 
1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Mozart
4. Schubert
5. Mahler
6. Brahms
7. Debussy
8. Sibelius
9. Haydn
10. Tchaikovsky


----------



## CnC Bartok

Nereffid said:


> Before #50-41 were revealed I had narrowed my predictions for the top 50 down to 47 certainties and 7 reasonably likely. #50-41 include 7 of the certainties and 3 of the others, so I think at this stage my 40 certainties will correspond to the top 40. So, some surprises in terms of names that weren't mentioned at all.


Mmmmm. I'm down to 43 or 44 certainties, which suggests to me that some really big names didn't get a single vote. This'll be interesting,....


----------



## Art Rock

CnC Bartok said:


> Mmmmm. I'm down to 43 or 44 certainties, which suggests to me that some really big names didn't get a single vote. This'll be interesting,....


I'd be interested if people who find at the end that some big names did not get even one vote would share them. Having seen the whole list obviously, there's only one name that came to my mind as a composer that I expected in the top100, but received zero response.


----------



## Xisten267

Art Rock said:


> Anybody want a stab at predicting the top 10? I'll make a game out of it. Post your entries in the thread in the next 18 hours. You'll get 1 point for every correct name and one bonus point for every name on the correct position. The winner will be announced after the top 10 has been shared (Sunday evening CET).


Here I go:

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


----------



## Room2201974

Art Rock said:


> And on we go.
> 
> The Results - Post 7, numbers 61-70
> 
> *061 Guillaume de Machaut (93 points, 5 mentions)
> 062 Max Reger (88 points, 5 mentions)
> 063 Guillaume Dufay (86 points, 4 mentions)
> 064 Georges Bizet (82 points, 6 mentions)
> 065 Frederick Delius (81 points, 5 mentions)
> 066 Paul Hindemith (80 points, 6 mentions)
> 067 Steve Reich (78 points, 4 mentions)
> 068 Mieczysław Weinberg (78 points, 3 mentions)
> 069 Christoph Willibald Gluck (77 points, 4 mentions)
> 070 Hugo Wolf (76 points, 3 mentions)*


Machaut at 61! There is an old poll somewhere in TC that had him at 111. I'm making headway here, but my work in this forum is not done!


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

My prediction for the top 10:

1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Mozart
4. Brahms
5. Schubert
6. Mahler
7. Debussy
8. Sibelius
9. Tchaikovsky
10. Wagner

All with trumpets, except perhaps Sibelius and Tchaik.

Shostakovich at 11, Chopin at 12.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

By the way, only 3 of my selections have been mentioned: Reger (62), Franck (57), and Palestrina (46). The last was admittedly a bit of a cheat entry as I would probably not personally count Palestrina among my top 30 favorites but felt he would be underrepresented compared to where I felt he should belong. Sorry, Art Rock.

Seeing as I had no single or double mentions that means 27 of my top 30 (including Scriabin!) are in TC's top 40. A bit surprising, but believable.


----------



## 1996D

1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Mahler
4. Brahms
5. Mozart
6. Wagner
7. Haydn
8. Schubert 
9. Schumann
10. Debussy

Chopin, Liszt, Stravinsky, Handel can also make it in depending on taste. Is Tchaikovsky well liked here?


----------



## KenOC

I'll just use an old TC list for my prediction:

1 - Beethoven
2 - Bach
3 - Mozart
4 - Wagner
5 - Mahler
6 - Tchaikovsky
7 - Schubert
8 - Stravinsky
9 - Brahms
10 - Haydn


----------



## pjang23

Based on forum tastes, I'm expecting something like:

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


----------



## Razumovskymas

THE most interesting question in my opinion is who will be no 4:

Wagner, Schubert or Brahms?

Second most interesting question: Will there be a Russian in the rest 4 places and will Haydn be in these 4 places too?


----------



## Razumovskymas

And on a more personal level: where will Liszt, Schumann, Händel and Prokofiev end up.

I hope at least top 20.


----------



## DBLee

My stab at the top 10:

1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Mahler
4. Mozart
5. Brahms
6. Schubert
7. Wagner
8. Sibelius
9. Debussy
10. Tchaikovsky

Alternates: Haydn, Stravinsky, Dvorak


----------



## Bulldog

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


----------



## elgar's ghost

Quite impressed with Poulenc's position - he did not quite make my own list but I'm happy as I expected him to be much further down than he was.


----------



## Tchaikov6

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


----------



## Tchaikov6

Very interesting results so far, I’m excited to see the rest! Thanks Art Rock for the fun project!
I might do a Composer Hall of Fame for whoever wins this, I wonder if anyone is interested as the first one should be finishing up soon.


----------



## SuperTonic

1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Mozart
4. Brahms
5. Mahler
6. Schubert
7. Debussy
8. Dvorak
9. Shostakovich
10. Tchaikovsky


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

1) Beethoven
2) Bach
3) Mozart
4) Brahms
5) Schubert
6) Mahler
7) Tchaikovsky
8) Wagner
9) Haydn
10) Debussy


----------



## Ethereality

1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Mozart
4. Brahms
5. Mahler
6. Wagner
7. Schubert
8. Sibelius
9. Tchaikovsky
10. Ravel


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Top 10 guess based on preferences I've seen expressed in the forum:
1. J.S. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Mozart
4. Mahler
5. Brahms
6. Schubert
7. Haydn
8. Wagner
9. Sibelius
10. Tchaikovsky


----------



## Art Rock

I think by now everyone has had the opportunity to guess the top 10, so let's close this game and move on. We'll go up to #11 today, with the top 10 revealed tomorrow.
*
The Results - Post 10, numbers 31-40

031 Antonio Vivaldi (317 points, 16 mentions)
032 Giuseppe Verdi (299 points, 15 mentions)
033 Giacomo Puccini (293 points, 15 mentions)
034 Claudio Monteverdi (292 points, 15 mentions) :trp:
035 Leoš Janáček (287 points, 16 mentions)
036 Edward Elgar (284 points, 16 mentions)
037 Olivier Messiaen (271 points, 13 mentions)
038 Aaron Copland (217 points, 13 mentions)
039 Benjamin Britten (209 points, 13 mentions)
040 Alban Berg (201 points, 11 mentions)

The trumpet denotes first place in at least one ranked list.*


----------



## Art Rock

We' re now reaching the composers who are in roughly 25% of the lists. By now, of course no big surprise names can be expected. Puccini is the only one who was in my list.


----------



## 1996D

Art Rock said:


> I think by now everyone has had the opportunity to guess the top 10, so let's close this game and move on. We'll go up to #11 today, with the top 10 revealed tomorrow.
> *
> The Results - Post 10, numbers 31-40
> 
> 031 Antonio Vivaldi (317 points, 16 mentions)
> 032 Giuseppe Verdi (299 points, 15 mentions)
> 033 Giacomo Puccini (293 points, 15 mentions)
> 034 Claudio Monteverdi (292 points, 15 mentions) :trp:
> 035 Leoš Janáček (287 points, 16 mentions)
> 036 Edward Elgar (284 points, 16 mentions)
> 037 Olivier Messiaen (271 points, 13 mentions)
> 038 Aaron Copland (217 points, 13 mentions)
> 039 Benjamin Britten (209 points, 13 mentions)
> 040 Alban Berg (201 points, 11 mentions)
> 
> The trumpet denotes first place in at least one ranked list.*


Vivaldi on top of the following three Italians is shocking.


----------



## Art Rock

*The Results - Post 11, numbers 21-30

021 George Frideric Handel (601 points, 27 mentions) :trp:
022 Anton Bruckner (598 points, 30 mentions)
023 Richard Strauss (501 points, 28 mentions)
024 Franz Liszt (496 points, 24 mentions)
025 Ralph Vaughan Williams (455 points, 22 mentions)
026 Sergei Rachmaninoff (416 points, 22 mentions)
027 Hector Berlioz (399 points, 21 mentions)
028 Gabriel Fauré (395 points, 21 mentions)
029 Arnold Schoenberg (339 points, 19 mentions)
030 Alexander Scriabin (330 points, 18 mentions)

The trumpet denotes first place in at least one ranked list.*


----------



## Art Rock

Well, we're nearing the top, with two composers making more than half of the submitted lists. Handel outside the top20 might come as a shock for many here, but "it is what it is". I'm pleasantly surprised with Fauré in the top30, and Scriabin did better than I expected. The third and final installment for today will be up in a few hours.


----------



## Nereffid

I'm assuming at this stage that Smetana didn't get a single vote, which is interesting to me because in my "Which of these composers do you like?" polls he scored an impressive 65%, making him roughly as popular as Copland, Elgar and Janacek. Obviously there can be a significant difference between being liked and being loved!

I've been looking at the correlation between the _number of mentions_ in ArtRock's list and the _% score_ in my list, and until we got to the top 50 it was weak. Now it's a moderate 0.59 and I suspect it will get stronger. When comparing actual rankings between this and various other lists, the rankings show a weaker correlation, demonstrating yet again that we shouldn't obsess about the fine details.


----------



## Art Rock

Indeed Smetana was not mentioned at all. It is maybe telling that I did not "miss" him, he's not the name that came to my mind when we talked about missing composers. Indeed, there's a big difference between liked and loved. There are plenty of composers whom I enjoy listening to, but who did not make my top 30.


----------



## Razumovskymas

Slightly disappointed in my buddies Händel and Liszt. It means my promotional work for these two is not at an end!!


----------



## Art Rock

The names in the top 20 should really not be a surprise to anyone, so we can talk about names missing altogether a bit more. The one that caught my eye is Boccherini, because in a recent game he came out as the most popular Italian composer.


----------



## Razumovskymas

top 20 is increasingly interesting because chances are that a bigger part of the work of each of these composers is well known to the TC members who contributed and as a consequence these rankings are far more "reliable" then the lower ones in terms of "subjective" judgement in quality.

Makes sense?


----------



## Razumovskymas

maybe a post of ranking 20 to 100 would be somewhat useful.


----------



## Ethereality

Razumovskymas said:


> Slightly disappointed in my buddies Händel and Liszt.


You've really lost your Händel on this Liszt!


----------



## Art Rock

Summary so far:

021 George Frideric Handel (601 points, 27 mentions) 
022 Anton Bruckner (598 points, 30 mentions)
023 Richard Strauss (501 points, 28 mentions)
024 Franz Liszt (496 points, 24 mentions)
025 Ralph Vaughan Williams (455 points, 22 mentions)
026 Sergei Rachmaninoff (416 points, 22 mentions)
027 Hector Berlioz (399 points, 21 mentions)
028 Gabriel Fauré (395 points, 21 mentions)
029 Arnold Schoenberg (339 points, 19 mentions)
030 Alexander Scriabin (330 points, 18 mentions)

031 Antonio Vivaldi (317 points, 16 mentions)
032 Giuseppe Verdi (299 points, 15 mentions)
033 Giacomo Puccini (293 points, 15 mentions)
034 Claudio Monteverdi (292 points, 15 mentions) 
035 Leoš Janáček (287 points, 16 mentions)
036 Edward Elgar (284 points, 16 mentions)
037 Olivier Messiaen (271 points, 13 mentions)
038 Aaron Copland (217 points, 13 mentions)
039 Benjamin Britten (209 points, 13 mentions)
040 Alban Berg (201 points, 11 mentions)

041 Francis Poulenc (195 points, 13 mentions)
042 Camille Saint-Saëns (187 points, 13 mentions)
043 Carl Nielsen (177 points, 9 mentions)
044 Gioachino Rossini (165 points, 9 mentions)
045 Josquin des Prez (158 points, 8 mentions)
046 Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina (157 points, 10 mentions)
047 Edvard Grieg (147 points, 11 mentions)
048 Alfred Schnittke (146 points, 9 mentions)
049 Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov (142 points, 7 mentions) 
050 Modest Mussorgsky (140 points, 10 mentions)

051 Anton Webern (122 points, 7 mentions)
052 Samuel Barber (119 points, 7 mentions)
053 Carl Maria von Weber (114 points, 6 mentions)
054 Georg Philipp Telemann (114 points, 8 mentions)
055 Charles Ives (112 points, 7 mentions)
056 Bohuslav Martinů (111 points, 6 mentions)
057 César Franck (108 points, 7 mentions)
058 Philip Glass (107 points, 7 mentions)
059 György Ligeti (99 points, 5 mentions)
060 Toru Takemitsu (95 points, 6 mentions)

061 Guillaume de Machaut (93 points, 5 mentions)
062 Max Reger (88 points, 5 mentions)
063 Guillaume Dufay (86 points, 4 mentions)
064 Georges Bizet (82 points, 6 mentions)
065 Frederick Delius (81 points, 5 mentions)
066 Paul Hindemith (80 points, 6 mentions)
067 Steve Reich (78 points, 4 mentions)
068 Mieczysław Weinberg (78 points, 3 mentions)
069 Christoph Willibald Gluck (77 points, 4 mentions)
070 Hugo Wolf (76 points, 3 mentions)

071 Ottorino Respighi (75 points, 5 mentions)
072 Arvo Pärt (75 points, 6 mentions)
073 Vincenzo Bellini (71 points, 4 mentions)
074 Johannes Ockeghem (69 points, 4 mentions)
075 Gaetano Donizetti (69 points, 4 mentions)
076 Erich Wolfgang Korngold (68 points, 3 mentions)
077 Alexander Borodin (68 points, 4 mentions)
078 Leonard Bernstein (67 points, 4 mentions)
079 William Walton (66 points, 4 mentions)
080 Alexander von Zemlinsky (64 points, 3 mentions)

081 Arcangelo Corelli (63 points, 3 mentions)
082 Nikolai Myaskovsky (63 points, 4 mentions)
083 Heinrich Ignaz Franz Biber (60 points, 3 mentions)
084 Giovanni Battista Pergolesi (60 points, 3 mentions)
085 Carlo Gesualdo (57 points, 3 mentions)
086 Henry Purcell (56 points, 3 mentions)
087 Gustav Holst (54 points, 5 mentions)
088 Gerald Finzi (53 points, 3 mentions)
089 Sofia Gubaidulina (52 points, 4 mentions)
090 Jean-Philippe Rameau (49 points, 3 mentions)

091 Heitor Villa-Lobos (49 points, 3 mentions)
092 Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach (47 points, 3 mentions)
093 John Coolidge Adams (46 points, 3 mentions)
094 Witold Lutosławski (46 points, 3 mentions)
095 Kaija Saariaho (40 points, 3 mentions)
096 George Gershwin (39 points, 3 mentions)
097 Per Nørgård (36 points, 3 mentions)
098 Domenico Scarlatti (33 points, 3 mentions)
099 Thomas Tallis (61 points, 2 mentions)
100 John Williams (48 points, 2 mentions)

Bubbling under (2 mentions):

Albeniz
Albinoni
Bax
Berio
Bortkiewicz
Boulez
Bridge
Buxtehude
Byrd
Cage
Cavalli
Dowland
Dutilleux
Falla
Feldman
Glazunov
Holmboe
Khachaturian
Kurtag
Lassus
Mascagni
Medtner
Nyman
Penderecki
Roussel
Satie
Tippett
Zelenka

Bubbling under (1 mention):

Abrahamsen
Alkan
Arnold
Bach, WF
Balfe
Beach
Berwald
Bliss
Bloch
Boyce
Bruch
Catalani
Cherubini
Ciconia
Cilea
Cimarosa
Clementi
Couperin, L.
Crumb
Czerny
d'Indy
Daugherty
Davies, PM
De Vitry
Dean, B
Dennehy
Dhomont
Dohnanyi
Dukas
Duparc
Farrenc
Fibich
Flotow
Froberger
Geminiani
Giordano
Gordon, M
Gounod
Grainger
Grisey
Hanson
Haydn, M
Herrmann, B
Hildegard von Bingen
Hovhaness
Hummel
Johansson, J
Kabalevsky
Kalman
Kats-Chernin
Kodaly
Kraus
Lalo
Landini
Lang, D
Lehar
Leoncavallo
Lindberg, M
MacMillan
Magnard
Marschner
Massenet
Mayer, E
Moeran
Nancarrow
Offenbach
Rautavaara
Richter, M
Riley
Sarasate
Saygun
Schmidt
Sculthorpe
Simpson
Steinberg, M
Stockhausen
Strauss, J II
Suk
Thalberg
Tubin
Vinci, L
Wallace
Weill
Willaert
Wolfe, J
Xenakis


----------



## Nereffid

Nereffid said:


> I've been looking at the correlation between the _number of mentions_ in ArtRock's list and the _% score_ in my list, and until we got to the top 50 it was weak. Now it's a moderate 0.59 and I suspect it will get stronger.


ArtRock posted #21-30 as I was typing the previous comment. The correlation for #21-100, in terms of number of mentions vs % score in my polls, is now a healthy 0.69.

17 of my polls' top 20 are in the new top 20, as are 15 of the top 20 produced by Charles Smith for his Classical Music Navigator, and 16 of the top 20 composers listed by Phil Goulding for his "50 Greatest Composers" book.


----------



## Bulldog

Art Rock said:


> The names in the top 20 should really not be a surprise to anyone, so we can talk about names missing altogether a bit more. The one that caught my eye is Boccherini, because in a recent game he came out as the most popular Italian composer.


Although Boccherini is my favorite Italian composer, he wasn't in my top 30.


----------



## Art Rock

Come to think of it, Joachim Raff is another one that I would have expected to see mentioned.


----------



## Ethereality

Another interesting point to take into consideration. You can tally this data in a variety of ways. One way will yield the most _agreeable_ list possible that the average person in the 50-something people feels the most comfortable voting for, even though it may not be the most _accurate_ representation of these 50-something people. That's because of how conformity works. Think of this just as a side-question / puzzle: How would one take the final results of 50-something contributors and make the most agreeable sequence? as in, an organization that may not be accurate to the 50, but that the 50 would most vote for altogether (a backwards restructuring)? I don't think a simple tally would yield this, as it has more something to do with quantity of mentions and likelihood of order acceptance.


----------



## CnC Bartok

I'm down to 15 left standing of my 30. Biggest faller this morning for me is Janáček, I had him down at No.4 in my own list.

Very surprised by how well Faure has done, kudos! Not on my list, obviously on enough others', though.

I am now n.a.d. 100% confident of the top 20, not the order obviously....! So as far as I am aware the biggest who got no mention whatsoever must be Smetana, as mentioned above, Enescu, Szymanowski and Carl Orff.

Confession: I had a horrid feeling the biggest name to be totally overlooked was going to be Monteverdi. Glad to see him come in safely, and only a couple of places behind his grandson Giuseppe.


----------



## Art Rock

The final results for today:

The Results - Post 12, numbers 11-20

*011 Richard Wagner (891 points, 35 mentions) :trp:
012 Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (807 points, 34 mentions) :trp:
013 Sergei Prokofiev (791 points, 39 mentions)
014 Joseph Haydn (785 points, 34 mentions) :trp:
015 Maurice Ravel (775 points, 38 mentions)
016 Antonín Dvořák (722 points, 35 mentions)
017 Igor Stravinsky (695 points, 32 mentions)
018 Frédéric Chopin (625 points, 33 mentions)
019 Felix Mendelssohn (621 points, 29 mentions)
020 Béla Bartók (620 points, 32 mentions) :trp:

The trumpet denotes first place in at least one ranked list.*


----------



## Art Rock

You can deduce the names of the top10 by now of course. For me the main surprise was Wagner not making the top10 (although as we will see tomorrow he came close). Prokofiev came in higher than I expected.

I had planned to post the top 10 one by one tomorrow for suspense, but I realize that with the different time zones that's not practical anyway. I'll be doing it in three posts: 10-7, 6-4, 3-1, also because there is a substantial jump in points between 7 and 6.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Art Rock said:


> Come to think of it, Joachim Raff is another one that I would have expected to see mentioned.


And he's not in the top 20??? You've spoiled the surprise now (!) :devil:


----------



## Ethereality

More than anything I'm surprised that the only 12 favorites are close to the top of the average. I've met all kinds of people with different favorite composers. I expected a lot more variety of tastes...


----------



## Fabulin

Bach
Beethoven
Brahms
Debussy
Mahler
Mozart
Schubert 
Schumann
Shostakovich
Sibelius

Composing is a road of pain. If you want to be in the top 10, your surname must begin with a B, D, S, or M.


----------



## Ethereality

Those could be music school grades. I got a B in Woodwind Ensemble, I was very happy to get a D in composition!


----------



## Art Rock

Eight living composers in the top 100, highest position for Philip Glass.

Two female composers in the top 100, both living.


----------



## Ethereality

Art Rock said:


> Two female composers in the top 100, both living.


So using this list alone, we can deduce that women live longer than men.


----------



## Fabulin

Art Rock said:


> Eight living composers in the top 100, highest position for Philip Glass.
> 
> Two female composers in the top 100, both living.


They have been mentioned, but they are all quite low, despite having been around for a fair bit of time.

058 Philip Glass [82] (107 points, 7 mentions) -> 15,3 pts / mention
067 Steve Reich [83] (78 points, 4 mentions) -> 19,5 pts / mention
072 Arvo Pärt [84] (75 points, 6 mentions) -> 12,5 pts / mention
089 Sofia Gubaidulina [88] (52 points, 4 mentions) -> 13 pts / mention
093 John Coolidge Adams [72] (46 points, 3 mentions) -> 15,3 pts / mention
095 Kaija Saariaho [67] (40 points, 3 mentions) -> 13,3 pts / mention
097 Per Nørgård [87] (36 points, 3 mentions) -> 12 pts / mention
100 John Williams [87] (48 points, 2 mentions) -> 24 pts / mention

So, among those who do love these modern composers:

John Williams (avg. of 2: 12th)
Steve Reich (avg. of 4: 16th)
Philip Glass (avg. of 7: 21st)
John Coolidge Adams (avg. of 3: 21st)
Kaija Saariaho (avg. of 3: 23rd)
Sofia Gubaidulina (avg. of 4: 23rd)
Arvo Pärt (avg. of 6: 24th)
Per Nørgård (avg. of 3: 24th)


----------



## CnC Bartok

Nine Brits in the top 100, ten if you count Handel as British.

Not bad for the country without music......


----------



## janxharris

CnC Bartok said:


> Nine Brits in the top 100, ten if you count Handel as British.
> 
> Not bad for the country without music......


The country without music?


----------



## CnC Bartok

Not a phrase you've come across?

“The Land without Music” was an anti-English polemic, penned in 1904 by Oskar Adolf Hermann Schmitz, who didn’t seem to have noticed that this was already no longer true. However, when the idea - that England was the only cultured country without its own music - was first mooted in 1866, it held more than a grain of truth. England, probably too busy with the Industrial Revolution and what-have-you, seemed to have tucked its indigenous “classical” music away in the cloisters.


----------



## janxharris

CnC Bartok said:


> Not a phrase you've come across?
> 
> "The Land without Music" was an anti-English polemic, penned in 1904 by Oskar Adolf Hermann Schmitz, who didn't seem to have noticed that this was already no longer true. However, when the idea - that England was the only cultured country without its own music - was first mooted in 1866, it held more than a grain of truth. England, probably too busy with the Industrial Revolution and what-have-you, seemed to have tucked its indigenous "classical" music away in the cloisters.


Very interesting, ta.

Perhaps related - it seems we continue to be busy doing other things rather than spending money on classical performances:

"Nearly half of the UK's classical musicians don't earn enough to live on, says the Musicians' Union."'

It is really quite depressing. Also noteworthy - the standard of amateur orchestras in the UK seems way below that of such orchestras in the US.


----------



## 1996D

Art Rock said:


> The final results for today:
> 
> The Results - Post 12, numbers 11-20
> 
> *011 Richard Wagner (891 points, 35 mentions) :trp:
> 012 Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (807 points, 34 mentions) :trp:
> 013 Sergei Prokofiev (791 points, 39 mentions)
> 014 Joseph Haydn (785 points, 34 mentions) :trp:
> 015 Maurice Ravel (775 points, 38 mentions)
> 016 Antonín Dvořák (722 points, 35 mentions)
> 017 Igor Stravinsky (695 points, 32 mentions)
> 018 Frédéric Chopin (625 points, 33 mentions)
> 019 Felix Mendelssohn (621 points, 29 mentions)
> 020 Béla Bartók (620 points, 32 mentions) :trp:
> 
> The trumpet denotes first place in at least one ranked list.*


Fantastic work man it really paid off, came out very well. Shostakovich and Sibelius making the top 10 are the only surprises.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Observations:

3 of my top 30 were in the 31-40 range (Monteverdi, Elgar, Messiaen). That means 24 of my top 30 made this list's top 30. I wonder if anyone can beat that?

Scriabin at 30 is (pleasantly) surprising.
Faure at 28 is (pleasantly) surprising.
Schumann in the top 10 is (pleasantly) surprising.
All 3 did better than I expected.

Chopin at 18 is (for me, not so pleasantly) surprising.


----------



## Art Rock

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> That means 24 of my top 30 made this list's top 30.


Which means that you have a very average taste.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Art Rock said:


> Which means that you have a very average taste.


Yay, I can finally call myself a conformist about something!


----------



## Room2201974

Art Rock said:


> Which means that you have a very average taste.


I'm pretty close to that number myself.

The "average" of greatness. Theodore Sturgeon's Law to the extreme. I'll take it.


----------



## CnC Bartok

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Observations:
> 
> 3 of my top 30 were in the 31-40 range (Monteverdi, Elgar, Messiaen). That means 24 of my top 30 made this list's top 30. I wonder if anyone can beat that?
> 
> Scriabin at 30 is (pleasantly) surprising.
> Faure at 28 is (pleasantly) surprising.
> Schumann in the top 10 is (pleasantly) surprising.
> All 3 did better than I expected.
> 
> Chopin at 18 is (for me, not so pleasantly) surprising.


I'm on 20 in the last 40, 19 in the last 30, 15 in the last 20, and 9 in the top 10. That makes me marginally less adventurous than you, or maybe marginally more adventurous, not sure.

The one missing from the top 10 from me is Bach. I will not doubt be one of the two ignorant peasants who didn't give him a single point. :tiphat:

Other than that, here's to having average taste!! :cheers::cheers:


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

.......Cancelled.......


----------



## janxharris

CnC Bartok said:


> I'm on 20 in the last 40, 19 in the last 30, 15 in the last 20, and 9 in the top 10. That makes me marginally less adventurous than you, or maybe marginally more adventurous, not sure.
> 
> The one missing from the top 10 from me is Bach. I will not doubt be one of the two ignorant peasants who didn't give him a single point. :tiphat:
> 
> Other than that, here's to having average taste!! :cheers::cheers:


You're not alone in failing to quite get Bach - though I would have given him some points (if I had voted).


----------



## Beethoven14

.....edit......


----------



## Beethoven14

.....edit......


----------



## Beethoven14

.....edit......


----------



## Art Rock

Sorry, but can we keep this thread for the discussion of the results, and not for sharing videos? Thanks.


----------



## Art Rock

The only one in the top 10 that did not make my top 30 is Schumann (Beethoven made it by his fingernails at #30).


----------



## Art Rock

The highest ranked composer in my list that did not make the top100 by the way is Bax at #15.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

CnC Bartok said:


> I'm on 20 in the last 40, 19 in the last 30, 15 in the last 20, and 9 in the top 10. That makes me marginally less adventurous than you, or maybe marginally more adventurous, not sure.
> 
> The one missing from the top 10 from me is Bach. I will not doubt be one of the two ignorant peasants who didn't give him a single point. :tiphat:
> 
> Other than that, here's to having average taste!! :cheers::cheers:


My stats:
All 30 in the top 70.
29 in the top 60 (Reger was my lowest placing, at 62).
28 in the top 50
27 in the top 40
24 in the top 30
19 in the top 20 (Dvorak missing)
10 in the top 10.


----------



## Beethoven14

Through participation in this exercise I have learned about trust and honesty.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Art Rock said:


> The highest ranked composer in my list that did not make the top100 by the way is Bax at #15.


My highest total failure was Tubin, who I had at No.22.


----------



## janxharris

CnC Bartok said:


> My highest total failure was Tubin, who I had at No.22.


Never heard of Tubin - what would you recommend?


----------



## Ethereality

Tubin's Trio for 2 Tubas and Tubular Bells

I kid :tiphat::trp:


----------



## Littlephrase

janxharris said:


> Never heard of Tubin - what would you recommend?


Definitely seek out his ten symphonies. There's not a superfluity of recordings, but Neeme Jarvi has a fine complete set.


----------



## CnC Bartok

janxharris said:


> Never heard of Tubin - what would you recommend?


Indeed, the Symphonies are the best place to start. Two sets out there, Jarvi and Volmer, swings and roundabouts as to the better of the two. Try Symphony No.2 as a starter, it was Saturday Symphony here a few weeks ago, and went down very well it seems.

There are some fine Concertos too, including one for Double Bass, and one for Balalaika (!), a moving Requiem for Fallen Soldiers, and a couple of operas worth hearing, but they can be hard to get hold of.

His nicest work is the delightful Sinfonietta on Estonian Motifs. His ballet Kratt is well worth getting to know as well


----------



## hammeredklavier

Byron said:


> Welcome back, Partita





tdc said:


> JAS26 reminds me of another member who recently stopped posting that went by the handle partita. Both have posted on the topic of rankings and methodologies ad infinitum.


I wonder what JAS26 thinks of Schubert:



Bulldog said:


> Partita said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bach just made more of as dog's breakfast of the whole thing, by over-extending it to a quite ludicrous length.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go. Pump up the Schubert mass by disparaging Bach's.
Click to expand...

I remember Partita calling Bach's B minor a *dog*'s breakfast and Bull*dog*'s reaction to it. Priceless


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> I remember Partita calling Bach's B minor a *dog*'s breakfast and Bull*dog*'s reaction to it. Priceless


Yes, my response was spot-on.


----------



## Razumovskymas

CnC Bartok said:


> I'm on 20 in the last 40, 19 in the last 30, 15 in the last 20, and 9 in the top 10. That makes me marginally less adventurous than you, or maybe marginally more adventurous, not sure.
> 
> The one missing from the top 10 from me is Bach. I will not doubt be one of the *two ignorant peasants* who didn't give him a single point. :tiphat:
> 
> Other than that, here's to having average taste!! :cheers::cheers:


Nice to meet you :tiphat:


----------



## pjang23

Prokofiev, Scriabin, Faure, Nielsen and Machaut doing better than I expected were pleasant surprises. 

Weber is lower than usual, though I guess this is due to limiting the votes to 30 (same with most of the honorable mentions). Poor Hummel -- I need to acquaint more people with his piano trios and piano concertos.

Debussy making the top 10 is also great, as I think he belongs there, while these polls tend to put him in the teens. Haydn not making the top 10 is surprising. 

Mahler, Sibelius, and Shostakovich making the top 10 is not too surprising given the strong orchestral preference of this forum.


----------



## Bulldog

Littlephrase1913 said:


> Definitely seek out his ten symphonies. There's not a superfluity of recordings, but Neeme Jarvi has a fine complete set.


I have been impressed with the Tubin symphony cycle on the Alba label conducted by Arvo Volmer. However, it could be that these recordings are no longer in print. By the way, Volmer also recorded Tubin's unfinished symphony no. 11.


----------



## 1996D

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> My stats:
> All 30 in the top 70.
> 29 in the top 60 (Reger was my lowest placing, at 62).
> 28 in the top 50
> 27 in the top 40
> 24 in the top 30
> 19 in the top 20 (Dvorak missing)
> 10 in the top 10.


Why is Shostakovich so popular here?


----------



## Bulldog

1996D said:


> Why is Shostakovich so popular here?


His music is highly accessible and a lot of TC folks love sarcasm (maybe).


----------



## 1996D

Bulldog said:


> His music is highly accessible and a lot of TC folks love sarcasm (maybe).


I think he has talent but what he conveys is just not something you'd want to listen to unless you were living in communist Russia. He is another that is hugely political, he basically represents what he lived.

A lot of masochists here?


----------



## Zama

1996D said:


> I think he has talent but what he conveys is just not something you'd want to listen to unless you were living in communist Russia. He is another that is hugely political, he basically represents what he lived.
> 
> A lot of masochists here?


Are you serious? Really?


----------



## Littlephrase

1996D said:


> I think he has talent but what he conveys is just not something you'd want to listen to unless you were living in communist Russia. He is another that is hugely political, he basically represents what he lived.
> 
> A lot of masochists here?


Perhaps... maybe... it's because he wrote great... ah, forget it. Masochism is the answer.


----------



## Malx

CnC Bartok said:


> My highest total failure was Tubin, who I had at No.22.


Holmboe at 8 was my biggest miss!


----------



## 1996D

Littlephrase1913 said:


> Perhaps... maybe... it's because he wrote great... ah, forget it. Masochism is the answer.


He does have talent but music is about the package. If you enjoy feeling what he conveys that says something about you, either you lack sensitivity or enjoy feeling pain.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> Why is Shostakovich so popular here?


Is the last word in your sentence the most important? Or are you really just wondering why he is popular at all?



1996D said:


> If you enjoy feeling what he conveys that says something about you, either you lack sensitivity or enjoy feeling pain.


Well of course I enjoy feeling what he conveys...but it's not necessarily the same as he conveys to you, is it?


----------



## Bulldog

1996D said:


> I think he has talent but what he conveys is just not something you'd want to listen to unless you were living in communist Russia.


In a way, you are correct. Shostakovich's music transports me to Russia.


----------



## 1996D

MacLeod said:


> Is the last word in your sentence the most important? Or are you really just wondering why he is popular at all?
> 
> Well of course I enjoy feeling what he conveys...but it's not necessarily the same as he conveys to you, is it?


It's not like we're of a different species, hell even a dog's emotions are similar to ours. If you've been with chimpanzees you'll understand it even more.



Bulldog said:


> In a way, you are correct. Shostakovich's music transports me to Russia.


And you somehow enjoy that.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> It's not like we're of a different species, hell even a dog's emotions are similar to ours. If you been with chimpanzees you'll understand it even more.


I'm not sure either dogs or chimpanzees would have much of a reaction to the works of DSCH, but I suppose a test could be devised to find out if they get 'transported' to Russia.

Obviously, we are different species, musically speaking. I like DSCH, you, apparently, less so.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure either dogs or chimpanzees would have much of a reaction to the works of DSCH, but I suppose a test could be devised to find out if they get 'transported' to Russia.
> 
> Obviously, we are different species, musically speaking. I like DSCH, you, apparently, less so.


It's important to check with the lower animals before expressing a liking for music. I'm fortunate in that my goldfish respond with great enthusiasm to Wagner; the way they grin and splash about assures me that his music is not evil and that I'm neither insensitive nor masochistic just because I enjoy listening to the gods burn to a crisp.


----------



## 1996D

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure either dogs or chimpanzees would have much of a reaction to the works of DSCH, but I suppose a test could be devised to find out if they get 'transported' to Russia.
> 
> Obviously, we are different species, musically speaking.* I like DSCH, you, apparently, less so.*


That is true, but I don't think we feel any different emotions listening to his music, you just enjoy feeling a way that I don't.

I guess it could be relieving in a way because you know that there is much worse that what you're living, I just never get into those headspaces to begin with. Maybe when I was in my early teens I did; relating is not hard if you can remember a time when you experienced it.

There is a nihilism about his music, and it's at times nonsensical on purpose. It lacks maturity and an understanding of the world and its workings - it's in the bubble of communism - just like teenagers live in their own bubbles of extreme emotions.


----------



## Littlephrase

1996D said:


> There is a nihilism about his music, and it's at times nonsensical on purpose. It lacks maturity and an understanding of the world and it's workings - it's in the bubble of communism - just like teenagers live in their own bubbles of extreme emotions.


How does the music of Mozart, for example, possess an understanding of "the world and it's workings"?


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> That is true, but I don't think we feel any different emotions listening to his music, you just enjoy feeling a way that I don't.
> 
> I guess it could be relieving in a way because you know that there is much worse that what you're living, I just never get into those headspaces to begin with. Maybe when I was in my early teens I did; relating is not hard if you can remember a time when you experienced it.
> 
> There is a nihilism about his music, and it's at times nonsensical on purpose. It lacks maturity and an understanding of the world and its workings - it's in the bubble of communism - just like teenagers live in their own bubbles of extreme emotions.


How can you possibly know what I feel and think, if your only evidence is what _you_ feel and think?

As for what teenagers feel and think, it's a long time since I was one, and I have no desire to turn the clock back to those dark years to relive the experience


----------



## Bulldog

1996D said:


> And you somehow enjoy that.


I sure do. I'd rather be musically transported to Russia than DisneyLand. :lol:


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> It's important to check with the lower animals before expressing a liking for music. I'm fortunate in that my goldfish respond with great enthusiasm to Wagner; the way they grin and splash about assures me that his music is not evil and that I'm neither insensitive nor masochistic just because I enjoy listening to the gods burn to a crisp.


Perhaps you should put the water back in their bowl. And don't wait for the music to end -- the poor things will never last that long.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

1996D said:


> Why is Shostakovich so popular here?


Shostakovich would have probably been cut from my list had I named, say, my top 20, but I enjoy him enough to consider him among my top 30. I agree with Bulldog that his music tends to be rather accessible (especially compared to others of his era) and in addition to orchestral writing he excels in chamber music and has written masterpieces for solo piano as well (the op. 87 set of preludes + fugues must be among the greatest 20th century piano repertoire), making him more versatile than the likes of Sibelius or Mahler.

Regarding your assertion that DSCH's music is analogous to "teenagers living in their own bubbles of extreme emotions", I find this statement slightly absurd and very presumptuous. Perhaps you can point to an example or two that illustrates your point?


----------



## 1996D

Littlephrase1913 said:


> How does the music of Mozart, for example, possess an understanding of "the world and it's workings"?


Mozart represents order and emotional restraint and control, while also trying to reach beauty. In his time the idea of the civilized man--as far away from the animalistic as possible--was the ideal. If you look at paintings of the time you can see it as well, it was an obsession. The misbehaving and crudeness of Mozart pales by today's or Shostakovich's standards of deviancy, as much as it likes to be mentioned.

His music is extremely rational, with that alone he is giant compared to the former. He will be in the top 5 for a legitimate reason.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Malx said:


> Holmboe at 8 was my biggest miss!


Ah! The other fool who backed Holmboe! (I had him at No.30....)


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> It's important to check with the lower animals before expressing a liking for music. I'm fortunate in that my goldfish respond with great enthusiasm to Wagner; the way they grin and splash about assures me that his music is not evil and that I'm neither insensitive nor masochistic just because I enjoy listening to the gods burn to a crisp.


It's beautiful though that Wagner didn't make the top 10 and Shostakovich did, don't you think?


----------



## Ethereality

CnC Bartok said:


> Ah! The other fool who backed Holmboe! (I had him at No.30....)











Ah ah ah. Holmboe's not the magic word. Ah ah ah. That's not a legitimate entry - Ah ah ah.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> It's beautiful though that Wagner didn't make the top 10 and Shostakovich did, don't you think?


I have no feeling about it one way or the other.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> That is true, but I don't think we feel any different emotions listening to his music, you just enjoy feeling a way that I don't.


Different people DO feel different emotions listening to the same music, and no theory is needed to show this. Just ask them! The possibilities are not unlimited; they're limited by the characteristics of the music - fast or slow, loud or soft, consonant or dissonant, etc., etc., etc. - by the cultural context and personal experience of the listener, and by the possible variation in human cognitive and emotional makeup. But that variation is very wide. Any claim to knowing exactly what music is "about," how others "ought" to respond to it, and what their responses "say about them," ought to be advanced with great caution and humility, at the very least.

I don't care greatly for most of Shostakovich's music - I sense both depressive and bitterly ironic sides to his personality which I don't generally respond to - but I'd be a donkey to diagnose those who do like it as insensitive or masochistic. For me, those elements may be too conspicuous and may block me from enjoying other qualities that might be perceived in the music. Another person may identify more with those qualities more than I do and feel personally affirmed by the music, while a third person may hear them but find them overshadowed or put into perspective by other qualities they find pleasurable. And a fourth person may hear the very same musical features and interpret them in a different way altogether.


----------



## Ethereality

So much of these debates come down to vague and subjective terminology, that I wish we would just _music-duel _with one another, where we send 20 second clips of pieces back-and-forth until someone finally gives in. There's no logic, it's just, what you like, and what you can be convinced of musically. Maybe hammeredklavier and I will start the trend that way more; he posts a lot of music as arguments, and that's not too bad. I like a good battle.


----------



## Littlephrase

1996D said:


> Mozart represents order and emotional restraint and control, while also trying to reach beauty. In his time the idea of the civilized man--as far away from the animalistic as possible--was the ideal. If you look at paintings of the time you can see it as well, it was an obsession. The misbehaving and crudeness of Mozart pales by today's or Shostakovich's standards of deviancy, as much as it likes to be mentioned.
> 
> His music is extremely rational, with that alone he is giant compared to the former. He will be in the top 5 for a legitimate reason.


Didn't really answer my question. Why is the "rationality" of Mozart more valid and representative of the workings of the world than the "irrationality" of Shostakovich?


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> Different people DO feel different emotions listening to the same music, and no theory is needed to show this. Just ask them! The possibilities are not unlimited; they're limited by the characteristics of the music - fast or slow, loud or soft, consonant or dissonant, etc., etc., etc. - by the cultural context and personal experience of the listener, and by the possible variation in human cognitive and emotional makeup. But that variation is very wide. Any claim to knowing exactly what music is "about," how others "ought" to respond to it, and what their responses "say about them," ought to be advanced with great caution and humility, at the very least.
> 
> I don't care greatly for most of Shostakovich's music - I sense both depressive and bitterly ironic sides to his personality which I don't generally respond to - but I'd be a donkey to diagnose those who do like it as insensitive or masochistic. For me, those elements may be too conspicuous and may block me from enjoying other qualities that might be perceived in the music. *Another person may identify more with those qualities more than I do and feel personally affirmed by the music, while a third person may hear them but find them overshadowed or put into perspective by other qualities they find pleasurable. And a fourth person may hear the very same musical features and interpret them in a different way altogether.*


Of course but the exact cause or factors of why that is are very easily identifiable, it's not some mystery. You've read too much postmodernism, you're in your own way of seeing things as they are.


----------



## 1996D

Littlephrase1913 said:


> Didn't really answer my question. Why is the "rationality" of Mozart more valid and representative of the workings of the world than the "irrationality" of Shostakovich?


Shostakovich's music is a huge irony in that it's technically intellectual but emotionally irrational, just completely anti-reason, and in that way it represents communism perfectly.

If you enjoy being transported into that reality then that's something that tells me quite a bit about yourself.


----------



## Littlephrase

1996D said:


> Shostakovich's music is a huge irony in that it's technically intellectual but emotionally irrational, just completely anti-reason, and in that way it represents communism perfectly.
> 
> If you enjoy being transported into that reality then that's something that tells me quite a bit about yourself.


What are you even talking about? This is such absurd language to use with music.


----------



## Ethereality

Littlephrase1913 said:


> This is such absurd language to use with music.


Someone could do it.


----------



## Beethoven14

This critique of Shostakovich reminds me especially of Nabakov's incorrect critique of _Don Quixote_ but also of Tolstoy's incorrect critique of _King Lear_. I too have a natural tendency to compare art through search for moral values, but this method is incorrect, it is more correct and worthwhile to study at the level of invention. Any defense of the rationality of Mozart over the irrationality of Shostakovich must be of the form that Mozart's compositional process and interests allowed for more varied and exuberant invention; the defense cannot be of the form that Shostakovich's irrationality implies a lesser morality and conduct of life.

It is strange that 1996D accuses Woodduck of postmodern tendencies since one of the worst aspects of the postmoderns is their search for political purpose in art, a search exemplified by 1996D. But 1996D is no postmodern and I think has genuine desire to live and see like the classic political philosophers; this is a pursuit I praise, but I warn against an overly simplistic reading of Socrates' war against Homer.


----------



## KenOC

1996D said:


> Shostakovich's music is a huge irony in that it's technically intellectual but emotionally irrational, just completely anti-reason, and in that way it represents communism perfectly...


For a long time Shostakovich was considered a stooge of the Communist Party. But he was much more than that. He was an appointed apparatchik of the Party at its highest levels - he served in the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR from 1947 and then was elected to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union in 1962, serving there until his death.

So when we think about the suffering masses in that part of the world being ground beneath the iron-shod heels of coarse and brutal commissars*, Shostakovich was no mere victim - he was wearing those boots! 

But yes, he wrote some really good music.

*A situation somewhat analogous to the relationship between the mods and the members of this forum, as I'm sure many of us have noticed.  (second smiley)


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Of course but the exact cause or factors of why that is are very easily identifiable, it's not some mystery. You've read too much postmodernism, you're in your own way of seeing things as they are.


Horse pucky. You can't identify the "exact cause or factors" that determine anyone's musical responses, including your own. And you haven't a clue what I've read; in fact I detest postmodernism and avoid it like the plague.

If your presumptuous pronouncements about other people here weren't so frequent and egregious, we'd all avoid _them_ like the plague too.


----------



## Fabulin

Yeah, Shostakovich had such a good life, trampling others and living luxuriously as a high dignitary. Anyone can hear it in his music! :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Shostakovich's music is a huge irony in that it's technically intellectual but emotionally irrational, just completely anti-reason, and in that way it represents communism perfectly.
> 
> If you enjoy being transported into that reality then that's something that tells me quite a bit about yourself.


More horse pucky. "Technically intellectual but emotionally irrational, just completely anti-reason" is a ridiculous way to describe music. It sounds suspiciously like recycled Ayn Rand, not the most authoritative commentator in matters musical (not to mention other matters). And there is no such thing as music that "represents communism perfectly."

A person's claim to enjoy a composer's music tells you nothing about the "reality" that they're "transported into." But your presumption that it does says something very clear about the limitations of your thinking, and the lack of limitations on your know-it-all-ness.


----------



## bz3

Beethoven14 said:


> This critique of Shostakovich reminds me especially of Nabakov's incorrect critique of _Don Quixote_ but also of Tolstoy's incorrect critique of _King Lear_. I too have a natural tendency to compare art through search for moral values, but this method is incorrect, it is more correct and worthwhile to study at the level of invention. Any defense of the rationality of Mozart over the irrationality of Shostakovich must be of the form that Mozart's compositional process and interests allowed for more varied and exuberant invention; the defense cannot be of the form that Shostakovich's irrationality implies a lesser morality and conduct of life.
> 
> It is strange that 1996D accuses Woodduck of postmodern tendencies since one of the worst aspects of the postmoderns is their search for political purpose in art, a search exemplified by 1996D. But 1996D is no postmodern and I think has genuine desire to live and see like the classic political philosophers; this is a pursuit I praise, but I warn against an overly simplistic reading of Socrates' war against Homer.


The last thing I'd call Woodduck is 'postmodern,' you can probably disregard everything that comes after such a statement. The same can be said of Nabokov's opinions of other writers - I don't know if he just liked to ruffle feathers or whether he really was as resentful as his statements suggest but in either case it does nothing but cast doubt upon any of his opinions.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> Shostakovich's music is a huge irony in that it's technically intellectual but emotionally irrational, just completely anti-reason, and in that way it represents communism perfectly.


Please apply your thesis to, say, DSCH's Symphony No 11, with precise illustration so that we may all understand what on earth you are talking about.

Thank you.


----------



## Art Rock

*The Results - Post 13, number 10-7

007 Dmitri Shostakovich (986 points, 43 mentions)
008 Jean Sibelius (931 points - tie with #9, 40 mentions)
009 Robert Schumann (931 points - tie with #8, 40 mentions)
010 Claude Debussy (905 points, 42 mentions)

No trumpets in this group........*


----------



## Bulldog

I'm pleasantly surprised with Shostakovich and Schumann making the top ten.


----------



## Art Rock

Schumann in the top 10 was unexpected for me.

For the little game we've played (predict the top 10) I put Schumann and Sibelius both at 8 and 9 for the points.


----------



## Razumovskymas

Happy with Schumann!


----------



## Art Rock

*The Results - Post 14, number 6-4

004 Gustav Mahler (1265 points, 48 mentions) :trp:
005 Johannes Brahms (1198 points, 44 mentions) :trp:
006 Franz Schubert (1195 points, 47 mentions)

The trumpet denotes first place in at least one ranked list.

*


----------



## Art Rock

Well, now we're talking. My #2-4 composers (in that order) ending up just below the big three. There's an amazing gap of over 200 points to #7.

The order of the big three will be revealed in about an hour.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Art Rock said:


> Well, now we're talking. My #2-4 composers (in that order) ending up just below the big three. There's an amazing gap of over 200 points to #7.
> 
> The order of the big three will be revealed in about an hour.


well Im pretty much certain Mozart will be at no 3 as usual


----------



## Malx

CnC Bartok said:


> Ah! The other fool who backed Holmboe! (I had him at No.30....)


Guilty as charged - and proud to be so.
Fantastic Symphonies and a set of String Quartets that I am still getting to know well.


----------



## Art Rock

*The Results - Post 15, number 3-1

001 Ludwig van Beethoven (1599 points, 54 mentions) :trp:
002 Johann Sebastian Bach (1436 points, 49 mentions) :trp:
003 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1348 points, 46 mentions) :trp:

The trumpet denotes first place in at least one ranked list.*


----------



## Art Rock

For me the main surprise in the top 3 is not the names, nor the ranking order, but the clear difference in points received. Within the constraints of this exercise, Ludwig is the clear winner. Congratulations to all those who love his work.

Thanks all for sending in your lists! I found it fun facilitating this exercise.


----------



## Art Rock

And considering our little top 10 game: I had expected many of the 15 players to tie for first, but actually there is one clear winner with 13 out of 20 possible points: DBLee. Congrats! :clap:


----------



## Art Rock

And here is our complete top100:

001 Ludwig van Beethoven (1599 points, 54 mentions) 
002 Johann Sebastian Bach (1436 points, 49 mentions) 
003 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1348 points, 46 mentions) 
004 Gustav Mahler (1265 points, 48 mentions) 
005 Johannes Brahms (1198 points, 44 mentions) 
006 Franz Schubert (1195 points, 47 mentions)
007 Dmitri Shostakovich (986 points, 43 mentions)
008 Jean Sibelius (931 points - tie with #9, 40 mentions)
009 Robert Schumann (931 points - tie with #8, 40 mentions)
010 Claude Debussy (905 points, 42 mentions)

011 Richard Wagner (891 points, 35 mentions) 
012 Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (807 points, 34 mentions) 
013 Sergei Prokofiev (791 points, 39 mentions)
014 Joseph Haydn (785 points, 34 mentions) 
015 Maurice Ravel (775 points, 38 mentions)
016 Antonín Dvořák (722 points, 35 mentions)
017 Igor Stravinsky (695 points, 32 mentions)
018 Frédéric Chopin (625 points, 33 mentions)
019 Felix Mendelssohn (621 points, 29 mentions)
020 Béla Bartók (620 points, 32 mentions) 

021 George Frideric Handel (601 points, 27 mentions)
022 Anton Bruckner (598 points, 30 mentions)
023 Richard Strauss (501 points, 28 mentions)
024 Franz Liszt (496 points, 24 mentions)
025 Ralph Vaughan Williams (455 points, 22 mentions)
026 Sergei Rachmaninoff (416 points, 22 mentions)
027 Hector Berlioz (399 points, 21 mentions)
028 Gabriel Fauré (395 points, 21 mentions)
029 Arnold Schoenberg (339 points, 19 mentions)
030 Alexander Scriabin (330 points, 18 mentions)

031 Antonio Vivaldi (317 points, 16 mentions)
032 Giuseppe Verdi (299 points, 15 mentions)
033 Giacomo Puccini (293 points, 15 mentions)
034 Claudio Monteverdi (292 points, 15 mentions)
035 Leoš Janáček (287 points, 16 mentions)
036 Edward Elgar (284 points, 16 mentions)
037 Olivier Messiaen (271 points, 13 mentions)
038 Aaron Copland (217 points, 13 mentions)
039 Benjamin Britten (209 points, 13 mentions)
040 Alban Berg (201 points, 11 mentions)

041 Francis Poulenc (195 points, 13 mentions)
042 Camille Saint-Saëns (187 points, 13 mentions)
043 Carl Nielsen (177 points, 9 mentions)
044 Gioachino Rossini (165 points, 9 mentions)
045 Josquin des Prez (158 points, 8 mentions)
046 Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina (157 points, 10 mentions)
047 Edvard Grieg (147 points, 11 mentions)
048 Alfred Schnittke (146 points, 9 mentions)
049 Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov (142 points, 7 mentions)
050 Modest Mussorgsky (140 points, 10 mentions)

051 Anton Webern (122 points, 7 mentions)
052 Samuel Barber (119 points, 7 mentions)
053 Carl Maria von Weber (114 points, 6 mentions)
054 Georg Philipp Telemann (114 points, 8 mentions)
055 Charles Ives (112 points, 7 mentions)
056 Bohuslav Martinů (111 points, 6 mentions)
057 César Franck (108 points, 7 mentions)
058 Philip Glass (107 points, 7 mentions)
059 György Ligeti (99 points, 5 mentions)
060 Toru Takemitsu (95 points, 6 mentions)

061 Guillaume de Machaut (93 points, 5 mentions)
062 Max Reger (88 points, 5 mentions)
063 Guillaume Dufay (86 points, 4 mentions)
064 Georges Bizet (82 points, 6 mentions)
065 Frederick Delius (81 points, 5 mentions)
066 Paul Hindemith (80 points, 6 mentions)
067 Steve Reich (78 points, 4 mentions)
068 Mieczysław Weinberg (78 points, 3 mentions)
069 Christoph Willibald Gluck (77 points, 4 mentions)
070 Hugo Wolf (76 points, 3 mentions)

071 Ottorino Respighi (75 points, 5 mentions)
072 Arvo Pärt (75 points, 6 mentions)
073 Vincenzo Bellini (71 points, 4 mentions)
074 Johannes Ockeghem (69 points, 4 mentions)
075 Gaetano Donizetti (69 points, 4 mentions)
076 Erich Wolfgang Korngold (68 points, 3 mentions)
077 Alexander Borodin (68 points, 4 mentions)
078 Leonard Bernstein (67 points, 4 mentions)
079 William Walton (66 points, 4 mentions)
080 Alexander von Zemlinsky (64 points, 3 mentions)

081 Arcangelo Corelli (63 points, 3 mentions)
082 Nikolai Myaskovsky (63 points, 4 mentions)
083 Heinrich Ignaz Franz Biber (60 points, 3 mentions)
084 Giovanni Battista Pergolesi (60 points, 3 mentions)
085 Carlo Gesualdo (57 points, 3 mentions)
086 Henry Purcell (56 points, 3 mentions)
087 Gustav Holst (54 points, 5 mentions)
088 Gerald Finzi (53 points, 3 mentions)
089 Sofia Gubaidulina (52 points, 4 mentions)
090 Jean-Philippe Rameau (49 points, 3 mentions)

091 Heitor Villa-Lobos (49 points, 3 mentions)
092 Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach (47 points, 3 mentions)
093 John Coolidge Adams (46 points, 3 mentions)
094 Witold Lutosławski (46 points, 3 mentions)
095 Kaija Saariaho (40 points, 3 mentions)
096 George Gershwin (39 points, 3 mentions)
097 Per Nørgård (36 points, 3 mentions)
098 Domenico Scarlatti (33 points, 3 mentions)
099 Thomas Tallis (61 points, 2 mentions)
100 John Williams (48 points, 2 mentions)


----------



## CnC Bartok

This has all been immense fun, and while I am sure that there will remain controversy over the methodology used, and continued personal insult that a commie hack made the top ten, resulting in the odd heated argument or two, it is of no consequence.

I am not going to be alone in appreciating the efforts put in here.

Heel erg bedankt, oude kerel!


----------



## Zama

No great surprises in the top but really interesting and funny post.

Congrats and thanks for your great job. Waiting for another one :tiphat:


----------



## janxharris

Well done Art Rock.


----------



## Malx

CnC Bartok said:


> This has all been immense fun, and while I am sure that there will remain controversy over the methodology used, and continued personal insult that a commie hack made the top ten, resulting in the odd heated argument or two, it is of no consequence.
> 
> I am not going to be alone in appreciating the efforts put in here.
> 
> Heel erg bedankt, oude kerel!


Hear, hear....!


----------



## hammeredklavier

Film score composers stealing Wagner's place again.. Extreme bias of TC at work again.. 
Of course Wagner could have composed a string quartet if he really wanted to, 
something with crappy part-writing as Shostakovich's 8th string quartet would have been no brainer.
All those over-long sustained tones and funny-sounding ostinatos in the viola and cello going in unison pages after pages, producing "sound effects for horror films" - can't match the sublime harmonies displayed by Wagner in his Preludes such as Lohengrin.
It's no wonder why Shostakovich had so much difficulty with the string quartet form, he confessed himself: "after all, the quartet is one of the most difficult musical genres."






I don't care for TC rankings anyway, I rarely ever participate in them. I just hope nobody imposes on me logic like: 
"TC thinks X is better than Y, so you have to accept that X being better than Y is an objective truth."


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> More horse pucky. "Technically intellectual but emotionally irrational, just completely anti-reason" is a ridiculous way to describe music. It sounds suspiciously like recycled Ayn Rand, not the most authoritative commentator in matters musical (not to mention other matters). And there is no such thing as music that "represents communism perfectly."
> 
> A person's claim to enjoy a composer's music tells you nothing about the "reality" that they're "transported into." But your presumption that it does says something very clear about the limitations of your thinking, and the lack of limitations on your know-it-all-ness.


I don't know why you keep bringing up Ayn Rand, I've never read a word of hers, actually had to google the name.


----------



## 1996D

Beethoven14 said:


> This critique of Shostakovich reminds me especially of Nabakov's incorrect critique of _Don Quixote_ but also of Tolstoy's incorrect critique of _King Lear_. I too have a natural tendency to compare art through search for moral values, but this method is incorrect, it is more correct and worthwhile to study at the level of invention. Any defense of the rationality of Mozart over the irrationality of Shostakovich must be of the form that Mozart's compositional process and interests allowed for more varied and exuberant invention; the defense cannot be of the form that Shostakovich's irrationality implies a lesser morality and conduct of life.
> 
> It is strange that 1996D accuses Woodduck of postmodern tendencies since one of the worst aspects of the postmoderns is their search for political purpose in art, a search exemplified by 1996D. But 1996D is no postmodern and I think has genuine desire to live and see like the classic political philosophers; this is a pursuit I praise, but I warn against an overly simplistic reading of Socrates' war against Homer.


Whether or not he read or likes postmodernism is not the real point, he is influenced by it regardless. His way of intellectual exploration has very little direction, very little judgment, and value to what is good is not properly given. If this was mathematics he would take the infinite road to the solution, he would have pages and pages of his reasonings written down but no conclusion, no solution. This is how postmoderns want things to be - all knowledge and truth corrupted as to seem like there is no right and wrong, no rationality and irrationality, no masculine and feminine - of course this only succeeds partially, but it's enough to keep the most complex truths hidden - it adds extra hurdles to get there. He might not be a postmodern but he has fallen in their trap.

You must forget all of that and read ancient philosophy, every modern version of philosophy or its afterbirth 'psychology' is a corrupted version of the knowledge of the past to give the current proponent money and power. That's what Freud and Jung did so successfully - renamed a fair amount of terms and concepts already known to give themselves influence over the gullible people of their day. There is nothing new, everything about the workings of man is known and has been known for a long time; corruption of knowledge is political to move along the cycles. Art plays a role in that.

As far as what should be or what will be, I'm satisfied with where we are and where we're going, if Woodduck's mentality is what's needed to move along society then I'm fine with that. All these exchanges are very reassuring in that way, everything seems to be going as it should.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> I just hope nobody imposes on me logic like:
> "TC thinks X is better than Y, so you have to accept that X being better than Y is an objective truth."


That's easy. Don't be imposed upon. And of course, you won't impose 'objective truths' on anyone else either.

Oh, wait a minute...



> Film score composers stealing Wagner's place again.. Extreme bias of TC at work again..


Opinions presented as facts?



Art Rock said:


> For me the main surprise in the top 3 is not the names, nor the ranking order, but the clear difference in points received. Within the constraints of this exercise, Ludwig is the clear winner. Congratulations to all those who love his work.
> 
> Thanks all for sending in your lists! I found it fun facilitating this exercise.


And many thanks to you for your facilitation.


----------



## Razumovskymas

Thanks Art Rock for all the work.

It's an interesting list and I think it has it's value. It's the result of the personal preference of 56 individuals who are passionate about music and willing to share and receive each others opinions and thoughts about music and I think are prepared to broaden their horizon now and then (or at least try to do).

And of course if my man wouldn't be on the top of this list it would've been totally worthless!! ;-)


----------



## Ethereality

I'll be Franck, this is a great Liszt! I can't Strauss the importance of it. Ives yet to see one Berlioz good as this-- it's Mozart I'd put on my playlist. Thanks ArtRock for working out the Tallis, you must've been Bizet. I'm Janáček it out some more tomorrow, so Holst a bit and I hope to see you all Bach next year! Dufay a big one for Art Rock and thumb him up!


----------



## Fabulin

This is one of the most agreeable lists I've seen, at least the higher up we get.
My favourite list was (at the time):

Tchaikovsky
Shostakovich
Mozart
Beethoven
Williams J.
Wagner
Puccini
Korngold
Schubert
Bach
Chopin
Mahler
Mayer E.
Mendelssohn
Schoenberg

Herrmann B.
Lalo
Dvorak
Bruckner
Brahms
Czerny
Saint-Saens
Ravel
Debussy
Prokofiev
Holst
Khachaturian
Haendel
Bizet
Bortkiewicz

Now, a month later, I would replace Bortkiewicz, Czerny, and Lalo with Telemann, Scriabin, and Knipper, and shift the general order a bit.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Woodduck said:


> It's important to check with the lower animals before expressing a liking for music. _I'm fortunate in that my goldfish respond with great enthusiasm to Wagner; the way they grin and splash about_ assures me that his music is not evil and that I'm neither insensitive nor masochistic just because I enjoy listening to the gods burn to a crisp.


Perhaps they are reincarnated Rheinmaidens?


----------



## CnC Bartok

Woodduck said:


> It's important to check with the lower animals before expressing a liking for music. I'm fortunate in that my goldfish respond with great enthusiasm to Wagner; the way they grin and splash about assures me that his music is not evil and that I'm neither insensitive nor masochistic just because I enjoy listening to the gods burn to a crisp.


Either that, or you have been breeding anti-Semitic goldfish? :devil:


----------



## Room2201974

Sidebar characteristic observation: developing variations does well in the upper part of the list!

Thanks Art Rock. I now have a list that supports my confirmation bias.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Thanks very much, Art Rock, for providing a fascinating and most enjoyable experience! :tiphat::cheers:


----------



## DBLee

I suppose it shouldn't be too surprising seeing Shostakovich and Schumann making the top 10, but seeing them beat out some other big names (e.g., Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Haydn, Dvořák, Stravinsky) was unexpected for me.

This has been interesting--Thanks for the work, Art Rock!


----------



## Beethoven14

....Falstaff...


----------



## Beethoven14

.......B.......


----------



## Bulldog

Congratulations to Art Rock for developing and running an excellent project. His handling of the extraneous postings was especially appreciated; I would likely have blown-up if I was in his position.


----------



## Littlephrase

I’ll echo the sentiments of the choir: thanks for your work, Art Rock!


----------



## 1996D

No Franz Schreker, that was a surprise, he didn't make my top 30 but he's certainly top 100.

Instead a lot of modern and contemporary composers who are not listened to at all were in the bottom 50.


----------



## Bulldog

1996D said:


> Instead a lot of modern and contemporary composers who are not listened to at all were in the bottom 50.


Do you have a theory as to how composers not listened to at all made it into the bottom 50?


----------



## 1996D

Bulldog said:


> Do you have a theory as to how composers not listened to at all made it into the bottom 50?


Yes, there are niche groups here. Another that barely made it and was in my top 30 was Scarlatti, who Horowitz performs beautifully.

I had to search very many of the bottom 50 only to find that many times it wasn't music at all. A niche within a niche withing yet another.


----------



## mmsbls

Again, thanks to Art Rock for a well run and interesting project.

The only composer in my top 30 that did not make the TC top 50 was Telemann who came in at 54. The highest TC composer that I did not have in my top 30 was Bartok at 20. 

I was a bit surprised that Shostakovich and Sibelius came in so high. I had them fairly high as well, but I didn't realize that TC members overall liked them that much. I'm not surprised at Wagner since I think most opera loving TC members tend not to vote in these projects. 

Probably the composer who is highest on the TC list that I would have significantly lower was Scriabin at 30. My main takeaway from the project is to listen to more piano works by Scriabin.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Woooo thanks so much Art Rock great list! I would have liked to see Mozart and Bach be first but Beethoven of course is excellent.

Nicely done!


----------



## mmsbls

1996D said:


> Instead a lot of modern and contemporary composers who are not listened to at all were in the bottom 50.


I'll second Bulldog's perplexity in wondering about this statement especially since I've often enjoyed the music of each of the top 100 composers. I know TC members have often written about these composers, and I would assume each has a TC composer guestbook although I didn't check that.


----------



## Tchaikov6

lol it’s kind of funny reading all the comments complaining about this list. Chill, guys, no one is claiming this is the official canon of greatest composers, it’s a fun list that gives us some perspective on TC’s taste. It’ll be a great and important listening guide for me and at worst for the people who dislike it it’s a harmless project.


----------



## Art Rock

Bulldog said:


> Congratulations to Art Rock for developing and running an excellent project. His handling of the extraneous postings was especially appreciated; I would likely have blown-up if I was in his position.


I had to restrain myself a number of times. And yes, it was not easy. :devil:


----------



## 1996D

mmsbls said:


> I'll second Bulldog's perplexity in wondering about this statement especially since I've often enjoyed the music of each of the top 100 composers. I know TC members have often written about these composers, and I would assume each has a TC composer guestbook although I didn't check that.


Per Nørgård, Kaija Saariaho, Sofia Gubaidulina - Schreker can replace any of them even if I don't really listen to him - at least it's music.


----------



## Fabulin

Tchaikov6 said:


> lol it's kind of funny reading all the comments complaining about this list. Chill, guys, no one is claiming this is the official canon of greatest composers, it's a fun list that gives us some perspective on TC's taste. It'll be a great and important listening guide for me and at worst for the people who dislike it it's a harmless project.


This is the official canon of the planet Earth and anyone who disagrees will have their radio confiscated.


----------



## 1996D

Fantastic orchestrator, I learned a great deal from him.


----------



## Ethereality

I did not submit a list, but mine looks about like this:

1. Borodin
2. Williams, J
3. Mahler
4. Dvorak
5. Debussy
6. Beethoven
7. Stravinsky
8. Mussorgsky
9. Tchaikovsky
10. Brahms
11. Mozart
12. Ravel
13. Rimsky-Korsakov
14. Bach
15. Chopin
16. Wagner
17. Grieg
18. Prokofiev
19. Saint-Saens
20. Sibelius
21. Schumann
22. Schubert
23. Haydn
24. Elgar
25. Bartok
26. Mendelssohn
27. Shostakovich
28. Corelli
29. Rachmaninoff
30. Liszt


----------



## Bulldog

1996D said:


> Yes, there are niche groups here. Another that barely made it and was in my top 30 was Scarlatti, who Horowitz performs beautifully.
> 
> I had to search very many of the bottom 50 only to find that many times it wasn't music at all. A niche within a niche withing yet another.


Maybe a time will come that you will accept that a lot of TC members love the music you refer to as not being music. Your musical taste must be quite conservative.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Ethereality said:


> I did not submit a list, but mine looks about like this:
> 
> 1. Borodin
> 2. Williams, J
> 3. Mahler
> 4. Dvorak
> 5. Debussy
> 6. Beethoven
> 7. Stravinsky
> 8. Mussorgsky
> 9. Tchaikovsky
> 10. Brahms
> 11. Mozart
> 12. Ravel
> 13. Rimsky-Korsakov
> 14. Bach
> 15. Chopin
> 16. Wagner
> 17. Grieg
> 18. Prokofiev
> 19. Saint-Saens
> 20. Sibelius
> 21. Schumann
> 22. Schubert
> 23. Haydn
> 24. Elgar
> 25. Bartok
> 26. Mendelssohn
> 27. Shostakovich
> 28. Corelli
> 29. Rachmaninoff
> 30. Liszt


Damn! You should have submitted. Bartok would then have beaten Mendelssohn, 19th is better than 20th!


----------



## 1996D

Bulldog said:


> Maybe a time will come that you will accept that a lot of TC members love the music you refer to as not being music. Your musical taste must be quite conservative.


The methods they use are good to express a certain feeling at times, but we're talking about complete pieces of the same thing. If this was a top 1000 they would have a place, but there are simply too many better than them just from a pure technical standpoint.


----------



## Fabulin

Ethereality said:


> I did not submit a list, but mine looks about like this:
> 
> 1. Borodin
> 2. Williams, J
> 3. Mahler
> 4. Dvorak
> 5. Debussy
> 6. Beethoven
> 7. Stravinsky
> 8. Mussorgsky
> 9. Tchaikovsky
> 10. Brahms
> 11. Mozart
> 12. Ravel
> 13. Rimsky-Korsakov
> 14. Bach
> 15. Chopin
> 16. Wagner
> 17. Grieg
> 18. Prokofiev
> 19. Saint-Saens
> 20. Sibelius
> 21. Schumann
> 22. Schubert
> 23. Haydn
> 24. Elgar
> 25. Bartok
> 26. Mendelssohn
> 27. Shostakovich
> 28. Corelli
> 29. Rachmaninoff
> 30. Liszt


Borodin, is that you? You missed the opportunity to get Williams 35 places higher with one vote!


----------



## CnC Bartok

Fabulin said:


> Borodin, is that you? You missed the opportunity to get Williams 35 places higher with one vote!


....and Borodin up 20. Art Rock, you've got a Chemistry background haven't you? Cna we do something for the greatest chemist/composer? He wrote better stuff than some of those bottom 50 dudes that dont even sound like proper music. Can't we have a recount. :devil::angel::devil:


----------



## Art Rock

Nah, my chemistry days are over since I took early retirement in 2012.

It only goes to show that the bottom 50 of the list are to be taken with a grain of salt. Especially the composers that in fact did not even make music at all.


----------



## 1996D

Luigi Dallapiccola
Charles Gounod 
Enrique Granados
Jean Lully
Giacomo Meyerbeer
Darius Milhaud
Jules Massenet


All much better craftsmen than most of the 80-100. Also Schnittke, Glass, Ligeti, Poulenc, and others are ridiculously ranked.

The more you analyze the list the more ridiculous it gets.


----------



## CnC Bartok

1996D said:


> Luigi Dallapiccola
> Charles Gounod
> Enrique Granados
> Jean Lully
> Giacomo Meyerbeer
> Darius Milhaud
> Jules Massenet
> 
> All much better craftsmen than most of the 80-100. Also Schnittke, Glass, Ligeti, Poulenc, and others are ridiculously ranked.
> 
> The more you analyze the list the more ridiculous it gets.


Indeed. I'll fully agree with your diagnosis of Schnittke, but would take you to court over Poulenc.

What actually IS ridiculous is your inability to read the original post and thread title. It's based on 56 PERSONAL PREFERENCES. Why do you have to attack people's personal preferences? Or do you lack the ability to distinguish from a ranking of the composers by out and out greatness???


----------



## senza sordino

Thanks for putting this list together. There aren’t really any surprises for me. 

Of my list of 30, 29 made it to the top 100. And it’s my thirtieth ranked that didn’t make it, he had two mentions. Of my top ten, four made it to the final top ten list. 

The highest ranked who wasn’t on my list at all was Schubert. I like a couple of his pieces, but I don’t listen to lieder nor piano sonatas much, and I haven’t really got into his orchestral music. 

I like the music of Shostakovich, I ranked him in the top ten. 

Wagner wasn’t on my list because I don’t listen to opera.


----------



## Art Rock

CnC Bartok said:


> What actually IS ridiculous is your inability to read the original post and thread title. It's based on 56 PERSONAL PREFERENCES. Why do you have to attack people's personal preferences? Or do you lack the ability to distinguish from a ranking of the composers by out and out greatness???


This. In spades.


----------



## 1996D

CnC Bartok said:


> Indeed. I'll fully agree with your diagnosis of Schnittke, but would take you to court over Poulenc.
> 
> What actually IS ridiculous is your inability to read the original post and thread title. It's based on 56 PERSONAL PREFERENCES. Why do you have to attack people's personal preferences? Or do you lack the ability to distinguish from a ranking of the composers by out and out greatness???


Pointing it out is not necessarily attacking it. One thing that did happen is that the choices were made with no reference or peer pressure whatsoever, so that kind of lets you know the extent of the quirkiness of people.

The top 30 came out pretty decent but beyond that all bets are off, it's like the freaks took over. But thinking more about it if everyone gave their top 30, it makes sense that only the combined top 30 will make sense and not beyond that.

A submission of a personal top 100 should correct that.


----------



## Art Rock

Beyond 30 the freaks took over?

031 Antonio Vivaldi (317 points, 16 mentions)
032 Giuseppe Verdi (299 points, 15 mentions)
033 Giacomo Puccini (293 points, 15 mentions)
034 Claudio Monteverdi (292 points, 15 mentions)
035 Leoš Janáček (287 points, 16 mentions)
036 Edward Elgar (284 points, 16 mentions)
037 Olivier Messiaen (271 points, 13 mentions)
038 Aaron Copland (217 points, 13 mentions)
039 Benjamin Britten (209 points, 13 mentions)
040 Alban Berg (201 points, 11 mentions)

Freaks indeed. ROFL.


----------



## Bulldog

1996D said:


> The more you analyze the list the more ridiculous it gets.


I think it's a fine list, but you can continue your biased analysis.


----------



## 1996D

Art Rock said:


> Beyond 30 the freaks took over?
> 
> 031 Antonio Vivaldi (317 points, 16 mentions)
> 032 Giuseppe Verdi (299 points, 15 mentions)
> 033 Giacomo Puccini (293 points, 15 mentions)
> 034 Claudio Monteverdi (292 points, 15 mentions)
> 035 Leoš Janáček (287 points, 16 mentions)
> 036 Edward Elgar (284 points, 16 mentions)
> 037 Olivier Messiaen (271 points, 13 mentions)
> 038 Aaron Copland (217 points, 13 mentions)
> 039 Benjamin Britten (209 points, 13 mentions)
> 040 Alban Berg (201 points, 11 mentions)
> 
> Freaks indeed. ROFL.


No it's gradual 30 to 40 is still decent. 40 to 50 is also not bad, Poulenc is very good just a little high.

It gets worse progressively that's definitely the pattern.


----------



## Bulldog

1996D said:


> No it's gradual 30 to 40 is still decent. 40 to 50 is also not bad, Poulenc is very good just a little high.
> 
> It gets worse progressively that's definitely the pattern.


You just contradicted what you said in post 297. You're making this stuff up as you go along.


----------



## CnC Bartok

1996D said:


> No it's gradual 30 to 40 is still decent. 40 to 50 is also not bad, Poulenc is very good just a little high.
> 
> It gets worse progressively that's definitely the pattern.


A ranking goes from "best to less good"? Wow, whatever next??

Poulenc is a little low, in my humble opinion......:tiphat:


----------



## 1996D

CnC Bartok said:


> A ranking goes from "best to less good"? Wow, whatever next??


Many are omitted I've named a few that are highly respected.



Bulldog said:


> *You just contradicted what you said in post 297.* You're making this stuff up as you go along.


It's just lazy writing.


----------



## KenOC

Very interesting results overall. Perhaps the most interesting outcome was finding a commie (yes, a real Party member!) hiding among our top ten. Speaking as a child of the 50s, this sort of leftist infiltration shows that we still have a long ways to go in fighting the bolshies. Today they pretend to be just like you and me. But once they’re in your neighborhood, mark my words: You’ll soon find Uncle Fred and Aunt Grace out in the street at midnight, vacant-eyed, loading seed pods into trucks for distribution to nearby towns.

43 votes? Maybe it’s time for the mods to take strong action to purify this forum’s precious bodily fluids! :cheers:


----------



## Art Rock

1996D said:


> Poulenc is very good just a little high.


Must be something he smoked.



> It gets worse progressively that's definitely the pattern.


Glad you notice it yourself.


----------



## 1996D

Art Rock said:


> Must be something he smoked.
> 
> Glad you notice it yourself.


You do get what I'm saying right? Superior craftsmen are omitted the higher you go on the list, it gets worse in that way.


----------



## 1996D

A lot of users had their top 30 with the same composers that made the overall top 30, then there is variation and that ends up making 30 to 50 and 50 to 60, but after that 60 to 100 was pretty much left for the unorthodox people to decide, that's why it's so funny. The people with weird lists got to decide.

If there was a list where everyone submitted their top 100 this problem would not arise.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> A lot of users had their top 30 with the same composers that made the overall top 30, then there is variation and that ends up making 30 to 50 and 50 to 60, but after that 60 to 100 was pretty much left for the unorthodox people to decide, that's why it's so funny. The people with weird lists got to decide.
> 
> If there was a list where everyone submitted their top 100 this problem would not arise.


The problem is all in your imagination.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> The problem is all in your imagination.


The only "problem" is that somebody disagrees with the consensus opinion of others. And that's only a problem for one person.


----------



## 1996D

MacLeod said:


> The problem is all in your imagination.


The problem is legitimate, it explains why the list is what it is. It's okay it just needed to be said - clarifies a lot of things.

I'm watching football right now and the game is going to OT, this is a nice distraction from the suspense.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> The only "problem" is that somebody disagrees with the consensus opinion of others. And that's only a problem for one person.


Except it's not a consensus opinion. That would have required 56 members to confer and agree. They didn't, though it might be fun to feed the conspiracy theory that this was all designed to promote a particular musical agenda. :devil:


----------



## Art Rock

MacLeod said:


> Except it's not a consensus opinion. That would have required 56 members to confer and agree. They didn't, though it might be fun to feed the conspiracy theory that this was all designed to promote a particular musical agenda. :devil:


Actually no-one sent in a top 30. I just made everything up myself. Why do you think I refused to answer all the details JAS26 was asking. He really was onto something.


----------



## Xisten267

A very interesting project in my opinion, it was very fun for me to participate of it and watch it's progress. The most unexpected result for me was Richard Wagner not making the top ten while Shostakovich making it, and some personally good surprises were Beethoven doing so well and Vivaldi having the highest score of all italian composers. Coincidentally, five composers received the same positions in the final list of this project and in my own - Beethoven at #1, Brahms at #5, Schubert at #6, Debussy at #10 and Chopin at #18. Somehow, I expected Berlioz to do better.

Thanks Art Rock for all the hard work making this for us! :tiphat:


----------



## Razumovskymas

I knew it!!

The top 3 is especially designed to arouse no suspicion but from there on it's just some hidden agenda! It's all just a matter of time before Art-Rocks' real agenda is exposed.


----------



## Room2201974

KenOC said:


> Very interesting results overall. Perhaps the most interesting outcome was finding a commie (yes, a real Party member!) hiding among our top ten. Speaking as a child of the 50s, this sort of leftist infiltration shows that we still have a long ways to go in fighting the bolshies. Today they pretend to be just like you and me. But once they're in your neighborhood, mark my words: You'll soon find Uncle Fred and Aunt Grace out in the street at midnight, vacant-eyed, loading seed pods into trucks for distribution to nearby towns.
> 
> 43 votes? Maybe it's time for the mods to take strong action to purify this forum's precious bodily fluids! :cheers:


This list is the end product of years of compositional fluoridation in TC. Do you know what Clemenceau said about composition? He said it was too important to leave to the composers. Mandrake, have you ever noticed that the decline of western art music coincides exactly with the increase of fluoridation that causes a loss of essence???? That and only that is the true reason there is a loss of compositional skill at the top of the list!!!!!


----------



## Bulldog

1996D said:


> I'm watching football right now and the game is going to OT, this is a nice distraction from the suspense.


There's one thing we have in common. This year's wild-card weekend has been the best I've ever seen!!


----------



## Littlephrase

Bulldog said:


> There's one thing we have in common. This year's wild-card weekend has been the best I've ever seen!!


Before the start of the season, I half-ironically predicted the Vikings to win the Super Bowl. So this was a great moment. Plus, as a (miserable) Redskins fan, it is nice to see Kirk Cousins succeed.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Littlephrase1913 said:


> Before the start of the season, I half-ironically predicted the Vikings to win the Super Bowl. So this was a great moment. Plus, as a (miserable) Redskins fan, it is nice to see Kirk Cousins succeed.


You have now successfully completely confounded every member to the east of Newfoundland.....


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Except it's not a consensus opinion. That would have required 56 members to confer and agree...


True. An amalgam of opinion? Whatever, it is what it is. If constructed without error it can hardly be "wrong."


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> True. An amalgam of opinion? Whatever, it is what it is. If constructed without error it can hardly be "wrong."


An aggregate of opinions?


----------



## CnC Bartok

MacLeod said:


> An aggregate of opinions?


Yeah, except some people seem to think that away goals count double.....


----------



## Littlephrase

CnC Bartok said:


> You have now successfully completely confounded every member to the east of Newfoundland.....


You Easterners better get used to it. Sooner or later, there will be an NFL team in London. The American Religion shall be spread to the ends of the earth.


----------



## CnC Bartok

It's debatable as to whether there's an Association Football team in London at present, let alone an American one. But true, I have noticed that there has been the occasional rugby-with-padding-and-advertising going on in London....

.....one day we'll get our revenge and force cricket on you lot. :tiphat:


----------



## elgar's ghost

Littlephrase1913 said:


> You Easterners better get used to it. Sooner or later, there will be an NFL team in London. The American Religion shall be spread to the ends of the earth.


In the 1990s there were the London Monarchs who were part of the NFL Europe set-up. They were history within ten years.


----------



## Bulldog

It's likely that the NFL team slated for Tehran will be postponed for a few months.


----------



## bz3

Nice project, thanks Art Rock. 

Mahler at 4 and Shosty in top 10 surprised me - both of those being top 25 would have surprised me but both being 10 was a shock and either one beating Brahms/Haydn seems very anachronistic. Schumann not as much, seems like this place has a lot of Schumann fans (for good reason IMO). Some baroque heavy hitters were fairly low but that didn't surprise me.

All in all, an interesting addition to the lists and polls - which always seem to chafe some users.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

So here is the list I sent to Art Rock. I think my picks are pretty well represented - only Farenc is totally absent, and I may be responsible for John Williams making it to no. 100 (I have no regrets). 

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Brahms
4. Sibelius
5. Tchaikovsky
6. Schubert
7. Mendelssohn
8. J.S. Bach
9. R. Strauss
10. Bruckner
11. Schumann
12. Wagner
13. J. Strauss II
14. Rossini
15. Copland
16. Haydn
17. Dvorak
18. Nielsen
19. Farrenc
20. John Williams
21. Holst
22. Vivaldi
23. Prokofiev
24. Scriabin
25. Bizet
26. Liszt
27. Rachmaninov
28. Grieg
29. Phillip Glass
30. Vaughan Williams 

If I were to re-do it today, I would likely move Haydn up to 8, bumping everyone 8-16 down a spot. But of course such a survey is a snapshot of present opinions - and a useful one I think (for instance, I left Mahler off entirely, which I know goes against the grain here, and which may have prevented him from surpassing Mozart. But whatevs, he just hasn't clicked for me yet. And Mahler over Mozart seems insane to me). 

Thank you Art Rock for going to the effort


----------



## BachIsBest

Room2201974 said:


> This list is the end product of years of compositional fluoridation in TC. Do you know what Clemenceau said about composition? He said it was too important to leave to the composers. Mandrake, have you ever noticed that the decline of western art music coincides exactly with the increase of fluoridation that causes a loss of essence???? That and only that is the true reason there is a loss of compositional skill at the top of the list!!!!!


Pretty soon, we're gonna need a compositional doomsday device to clear this whole mess up.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Could you post the top 3 and how many no 1s each got


----------



## Art Rock

PlaySalieri said:


> Could you post the top 3 and how many no 1s each got


I'll do all of them:

Beethoven: 12
Bach: 8
Mozart: 5
Mahler: 3
Wagner: 3
Brahms: 2
Tchaikovsky: 1
Rimsky-Korsakov: 1
Monteverdi: 1
Haydn: 1
Bartok: 1
Handel: 1
Berlioz: 1

I missed Berlioz in the overview of #1 scorers (he should have gotten a trumpet in the list), but the total points are correct. It was one of the last lists I received, and I failed to update my separate notes about the number of #1's.


----------



## 1996D

MatthewWeflen said:


> So here is the list I sent to Art Rock. I think my picks are pretty well represented - only Farenc is totally absent, and I may be responsible for John Williams making it to no. 100 (I have no regrets).
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Mozart
> 3. Brahms
> 4. Sibelius
> 5. Tchaikovsky
> 6. Schubert
> 7. Mendelssohn
> 8. J.S. Bach
> 9. R. Strauss
> 10. Bruckner
> 11. Schumann
> 12. Wagner
> 13. J. Strauss II
> 14. Rossini
> 15. Copland
> 16. Haydn
> 17. Dvorak
> 18. Nielsen
> 19. Farrenc
> 20. John Williams
> 21. Holst
> 22. Vivaldi
> 23. Prokofiev
> 24. Scriabin
> 25. Bizet
> 26. Liszt
> 27. Rachmaninov
> 28. Grieg
> 29. Phillip Glass
> 30. Vaughan Williams
> 
> If I were to re-do it today, I would likely move Haydn up to 8, bumping everyone 8-16 down a spot. But of course such a survey is a snapshot of present opinions - and a useful one I think (for instance, I left Mahler off entirely, which I know goes against the grain here, and which may have prevented him from surpassing Mozart. But whatevs, he just hasn't clicked for me yet. And Mahler over Mozart seems insane to me).
> 
> Thank you Art Rock for going to the effort


You left Mahler out just to keep him out of the top 3? That's manipulating the results, you were expected to be honest.

This is why these things show inexactitude to begin with... The two women showing up as well as some contemporaries were probably also planned out.

It's nice of you to come forward with it though.


----------



## mmsbls

Thread closed by request of OP.


----------

