# The Ten Greatest Composers - Do You Agree?



## Bach

*1. Ludwig Van Beethoven - 1770-1827

2. Johann Sebastian Bach - 1685-1750

3. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - 1756-1791

4. Richard Wagner - 1813-1883

5. Joseph Haydn - 1732-1809

6. Johannes Brahms - 1833-1897

7. Franz Schubert - 1797-1828

8. Igor Stravinsky - 1882-1971

9. George Frideric Handel - 1685-1759

10. Claude Debussy - 1862-1918 *

This is my list of the ten greatest based on influence, originality, and of course - musical excellence.

Would you rearrange it? Are there names which you are offended not to see?

Suggest corrections for my list, or just tell me it's marvelous.


----------



## PostMinimalist

Palestrina, Purcell and Monteverdi also spring to mind.... though it's difficult to see who to kick off the list.


----------



## Bach

Purcell? Not sure if he quite qualifies as greatest - he was influential and he wrote a lot of beautiful music - but I wouldn't put him in the list.

Palestrina - same story really.. I also think Byrd is greater.

Monteverdi - hugely influential, but I genuinely dislike his music. It sounds very embryonic.


----------



## PostMinimalist

I would kick out Handel and put Palestrina in his place. For the other two you might be justified.


----------



## Bach

You think Palestrina is greater than Debussy?


----------



## PostMinimalist

No, but Handel yes!


----------



## Bach

So you think Palestrina should be 10. and Debussy 9.and that's the only adjustment you'd make.


----------



## PostMinimalist

It will also be difficult for some (not me) not to see Mahler up there.


----------



## PostMinimalist

Stravinsky Handel and Debussy wil come under attack, I think.


----------



## PostMinimalist

I guess I'd put Palestrina further up, 5 or 6 maybe?

It's even tougher when you have to place them in order. I'm not sure you'll get concensus even with the top 3 like this!


----------



## Bach

I think Mahler just misses out really.. he's not quite original or influential enough.

Debussy was completely original and came out of nowhere - Stravinsky's early ballets completely defined the 20th century rhythmic sound-world and Handel is just an old classic that everyone loves.


----------



## Bach

If it were up to me, I'd have Wagner knock Mozart off three


----------



## Nicola

Bach said:


> This is my list of the ten greatest based on influence, originality, and of course - musical excellence.
> 
> Would you rearrange it? Are there names which you are offended not to see?
> 
> Suggest corrections for my list, or just tell me it's marvelous.


From which Classical Music Forum did you purloin this list from, with a slight re-arrangement here and there?

Let me guess. It was DDD. Right? I recognise the layout.


----------



## PostMinimalist

Nicola said:


> From which Classical Music Forum did you purloin this list from, with a slight re-arrangement here and there?
> 
> Let me guess. It was DDD. Right? I recognise the layout.


Can you really be so busted that easily?


----------



## Bach

Nicola said:


> From which Classical Music Forum did you purloin this list from, with a slight re-arrangement here and there?
> 
> Let me guess. It was DDD. Right? I recognise the layout.


Yes, it was faster than re-typing something I agreed with - avec all the relevant information. Was that supposed to be a gibe? 

I have rearranged it quite substantially.


----------



## jhar26

It's undeniably a great list. There's nobody in that top 10 who shouldn't be. There's probably a few others who deserve to be included as well, but there's only room for ten composers in a top 10.


----------



## Weston

I can't argue with that list. I might have lowered Schubert off of it entirely to include Shostakovich and put Wagner a bit father down the list.


----------



## Bach

No - As one of the most influential men (not only composer) of the 19th century, Wagner is vastly underrated in the public eye - he's only as low down as he is because of the unbreachable nature of the big three. Personally, I think he is greater than Mozart and should join Bach and Beethoven in the top ranked position. 

Shostakovich is not a particularly great composer - he did very little to further 20th century music. He's like a rubbish Mahler with an unhealthy dose of soviet utilitarianism.


----------



## Nicola

Bach said:


> Yes, it was faster than re-typing something I agreed with - avec all the relevant information. Was that supposed to be a gibe?
> 
> I have rearranged it quite substantially.


I wouldn't have said that your top 10 is all that different from the original DDD list. Here's their top 20 in order to put things in context:

1. Ludwig Van Beethoven - 1770-1827
2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - 1756-1791
3. Johann Sebastian Bach - 1685-1750
4. Richard Wagner - 1813-1883
5. Joseph Haydn - 1732-1809
6. Johannes Brahms - 1833-1897
7. Franz Schubert - 1797-1828
8. Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky - 1840-1893
9. George Frideric Handel - 1685-1759
10. Igor Stravinsky - 1882-1971
11. Robert Schumann - 1810-1856
12. Frederic Chopin - 1810-1849
13. Felix Mendelssohn - 1809-1847
14. Claude Debussy - 1862-1918
15. Franz Liszt - 1811-1886
16. Antonin Dvorak - 1841-1904
17. Giuseppe Verdi - 1813-1901
18. Gustav Mahler - 1860-1911
19. Hector Berlioz - 1803-1869
20. Antonio Vivaldi - 1678-1741

This compares with the once quite famous *Phil Goulding* List as follows:

"IMMORTAL"

1. Bach
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven

"DEMI-GOD"
4. Wagner
5. Haydn
6. Brahms
7. Schubert
8. Schumann
9. Handel
10. Tchaikovsky

"GENIUS"

11. Mendelssohn
12. Dvorak
13. Liszt
14. Chopin
15. Stravinsky
16. Verdi
17. Mahler
18. Prokofiev
19. Shostakovich
20. R. Strauss
...........

As for my list of the top 10 greatest composers, I would select:

1. Ludwig Van Beethoven - 1770-1827
2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - 1756-1791
3. Johann Sebastian Bach - 1685-1750
4 Joseph Haydn - 1732-1809
5. Johannes Brahms - 1833-1897
6. Franz Schubert - 1797-1828
7. George Frideric Handel - 1685-1759
8. Robert Schumann - 1810-1856
9. Richard Wagner - 1813-1883
10. Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky - 1840-1893

It is similar to both lists above except that I have demoted Wagner back to where he was originally, on the previous DDD list. I have promoted Schumann a few notches because he was an excellent all round composer who did much to promote the Romantic movement. I have had to move Stravinsky out of the top 10 because I consider that Mr T tops him. My reason for demoting Wagner is based on the fact that I don't believe that he has such a large following as the others, and his repertoire is limited in range. There were several members of DDD at the time of those discussions who considered that Wagner at the No 4 spot was too high. That has been the general flavour of comments posted by others after the lists were completed some 18 months ago.


----------



## jhar26

Bach said:


> No - As one of the most influential men (not only composer) of the 19th century, Wagner is vastly underrated in the public eye - he's only as low down as he is because of the unbreachable nature of the big three. Personally, I think he is greater than Mozart and should join Bach and Beethoven in the top ranked position.


I wouldn't say that a number four ranking on a all-time list is low. But in my opinion Mozart deserves his position in the top three because he was excellent in virtually all 'genres' (opera, symphonic, chamber, choral, etc.). Personally I would have him at number one actually, but it's not that important whether he's number one or three, as long as he's in that top three.


----------



## Bach

Wagner's influence is incredibly permeating. He is in a different league of human intellect and thought to Tchaikovsky, Schubert, Schumann, Handel and perhaps even Mozart. Despite their excellent musicianship. As Mahler rightly points out: Wagner is the only composer since Beethoven to show a real development in the art of music. 

Wagner is one of western civilisation's most powerful, influential and definitive artists and he is responsible for some of the highest creations of mankind. In the same league as Shakespeare, Beethoven and Leonardo Da Vinci.


----------



## jhar26

Bach said:


> Wagner's influence is incredibly permeating. He is in a different league of human intellect and thought to Tchaikovsky, Schubert, Schumann, Handel and perhaps even Mozart. Despite their excellent musicianship.
> 
> Wagner is one of western civilisation's most powerful, influential and definitive artists and he is responsible for some of the highest creations of mankind. In the same league as Shakespeare, Beethoven and Leonardo Da Vinci.


Sure, you won't get an argument against Wagner from me. But ranking composers of this level of genius is really a matter of splitting hairs and personal preferences will always play a part, even if we try to avoid it.


----------



## Bach

That's certainly true.


----------



## sam richards

Bach should be No.1 and Shostakovich should be in the list imo.



Bach said:


> Wagner's influence is incredibly permeating. He is in a different league of human intellect and thought to Tchaikovsky, Schubert, Schumann, Handel and perhaps even Mozart. Despite their excellent musicianship. As Mahler rightly points out: Wagner is the only composer since Beethoven to show a real development in the art of music.


Agreed.


----------



## nahkaiser

I would put WAMozart on first because he composed a lot of marvelous pieces that still last until today and he didn't have that long to live. Beethoven is great with the deaf stuff and all but at least he still has, to some extent, a functioning brain.


----------



## bdelykleon

I thought the days of Beethoven adulation were gone for good before the WWI, but curiously I find he firmly encroached in first place, although I surely recognize he is an all-time great, I do fail to see why is he ahead of Bach and Mozart. And I also thing the influence is a hard word to tackle, Mozart seem to have let the "hard work" to be done by Haydn in the 1770's, but the influence of Mozart's music in as pervasive as Beethoven's, even though in a more subtle way. It was Mozart, not Beethoven, hte main influence of composers like Chopin and Mendelssohn, two of the three (alongside Schumann) most important composer of the first Romanticism.

I would give a daring first place to Mozart because he is one of my favorites and because of the dazzling versatility and quality of his output. He succeeded in all music genres except song, his achievents in dramatic music and concerto are unrivalled by none, and he has great masterpieces in all musical genres at his disposal.

And Wagner is a great composer but I think his attempts in a more "pure" music show that he lacked the formal and large-scale vision of Brahms, that's why I put him down.

Mozart-Bach-Beethoven-Brahms-Haydn-Handel-Wagner-Bartók-Monteverdi-Schubert.


----------



## Bach

bdelykleon said:


> I thought the days of Beethoven adulation were gone for good before the WWI, but curiously I find he firmly encroached in first place, although I surely recognize he is an all-time great, I do fail to see why is he ahead of Bach and Mozart.


Because he was absurdly original (from the reinvention of practically every genre he touched to the founding of the avant-garde), his scope was huge, his emotional range is unfathomable - just one late quartet dwarfs the entire oeuvre of Mozart. The Grosse Fuge and the Hammerklavier fugue give Bachian counterpoint several new dimensions of meaning.



bdelykleon said:


> And Wagner is a great composer but I think his attempts in a more "pure" music show that he lacked the formal and large-scale vision of Brahms, that's why I put him down.


Give me an example of such 'pure' music - you can't quote the symphony he wrote when he was eighteen. This is an irrelevant comparison - they were working in different fields. Wagner was far more influential and far more original - Brahms did no more to develop the symphony (for example) past Beethoven but Wagner invented his own form of art - and his influence continues to permeate contemporary thought (long after that of Brahms has died) from film scoring (the leitmotif) to politics, nationalism and western identity. He was a man of epic proportions!


----------



## Herzeleide

Lists are silly things that do nothing to increase understanding or appreciation of particular composers and/or periods of music history.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> I think Mahler just misses out really.. he's not quite original or influential enough.


You think influencing the whole Second Viennese School, Boulez, Stockhausen, Berio, Britten (_inter alia_) is not being influential enough?


----------



## bdelykleon

I don think so, Bach.

Mozart's achievements at concerto and opera are unequalled by Beethoven and actually one of the greatest achievments in human art, period. You can't say the Emperor has the same quality of the K. 466 or the 488, or even of the K. 271. And Mozart's emotional range is as large as Beethoven's, name one work by Beethoven which show the restlessness and the anguish of the K. 516? 

Ok on wagenr a pure music in the sense of Brahms is hard to find, But I do think when Wagner works without a libretto, he loses a bit of the direction, I'm thinking on the Siegfried's Idyll. And the discussion is about music, and all amusicl influences of Wagner are quite uninteresting to me. If so, J.J. Rousseau should be in this list, he was a composer (a very lousy one) and his influence in later thought is greater than Wagner's. And mentioning the symphonies of Brahms is not a good example, everyone knows he succeeded in chamber music, setting new standarts, creating new formations, quoting past composers, in the most important cycle of XIXth century music: his chamber music, Wagner migh be more chromatic, but his mastery of harmony and form has at least since Webern and Schoenberg been acknowledged as the most meaningful and expressive.


----------



## Herzeleide

post-minimalist said:


> Palestrina, Purcell and Monteverdi also spring to mind.... though it's difficult to see who to kick off the list.


Machaut, Dufay, Ockeghem and Josquin also spring to mind.


----------



## bdelykleon

Herzeleide said:


> Lists are silly things that do nothing to increase understanding or appreciation of particular composers and/or periods of music history.


Lists are nice! they are useful to deploy silly discussions as this one, and it is amusing do make them.  It's only a matter of not taking it seriously.


----------



## Herzeleide

bdelykleon said:


> Lists are nice! they are useful to deploy silly discussions as this one, and it is amusing do make them.  It's only a matter of not taking it seriously.


It's a parochial, crude approach to music, akin in many respects to sport where there are winners and losers and people get ranked. It is totally alien to my experience of music. Say if I'm listening to, for example, consort music by John Jenkins, an anonymous medieval mass, or some late-period Ligeti, I appreciate these things for _what they are_. I don't think "oh drat, I could be listening to a number one or two composer!" These things are analogous to the pop charts.

Don't get me wrong, I fully accept the greatness of the obvious composers, as well as great composers about whom people around here appear totally incognizant. But ranking great composers as far as I'm concerned is like trying to make tomatoes square so that they'll fit more comfortably into a box - it has a ruinous effect on the tomatoes' individuality (apologies about the daft metaphor!)


----------



## Mirror Image

Lists like these are impossible to answer in my opinion. Music is not a competition. I also don't agree with the original list of who's the greatest.


----------



## Bach

bdelykleon said:


> I don think so, Bach.
> 
> Mozart's achievements at concerto and opera are unequalled by Beethoven and actually one of the greatest achievments in human art, period..


I don't disagree with that.



> I'm thinking on the Siegfried's Idyll


A beautiful work. Which is definitely programmatic.



> You think influencing the whole Second Viennese School, Boulez, Stockhausen, Berio, Britten (inter alia) is not being influential enough?


I don't hear the influence. Mahler admitted that he didn't understand Schoenberg's first string quartet.



> And Mozart's emotional range is as large as Beethoven's


In the most part, it isn't.


----------



## bdelykleon

Bach said:


> I don't hear the influence. Mahler admitted that he didn't understand Schoenberg's first string quartet.


Mahler's influence in the Second Viennese School is pervasive and hard no to notice: Wozzeck's entire second Act is a very Mahlerian Symphony. Mahler even helped Webern conducting some of his works, and who can deny the Passacalgia op. 1 is the more Mahlerian than Shostakovich's raw imitations? And the Gurrelieder, which are their relatives, the Wesendonck Lieder or Mahler's symphonic lieder cycles?


----------



## Bach

Yes, early Schoenberg, Berg and Webern is Mahlerian - but the serialism isn't. And I can't hear even a trace of his influence in Boulez, Stockhausen or Berio


----------



## bdelykleon

Doesn't Berio's Symphny spring to anyones mind?


----------



## Bach

Not exactly influence.. not musical influence, anyway..


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> Yes, early Schoenberg, Berg and Webern is Mahlerian - but the serialism isn't. And I can't hear even a trace of his influence in Boulez, Stockhausen or Berio


Stockhausen's notorious introduction to Henry-Louis de La Grange's biography of Mahler, as well as extolling the virutes of Mahler, claims that reading the book will turn you into Mahler! 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'the serialism isn't'? The method of composition is inextricably bound to the result. And the result in Berg's _Lulu_ (not early Berg - late Berg) quite clearly owes a lot to Mahler. Besides which, I'm sure Schoenberg as well as his pupils would argue that Mahler showed them the way to total chromaticism, which itself led to the twelve-tone technique. The use of the orchestra in chamber ensembles by Mahler clearly exercised a great influence on the Second Viennese School, and was developed and refined greatly by Webern as his primary mode of orchestral writing.

I've already pointed out before that Boulez specifically names Mahler as an influence in his expansion of form. Some commentators (such as Robin Maconie) has suggested, given Stockhausen's enthusiasm, that he is also influenced by Mahler in a similar way to Boulez.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> Not exactly influence.. not musical influence, anyway..


Can one get more influenced by someone than borrowing an entire movement from this person and interspersing it throughout one's own symphonic movement?


----------



## Bach

Yes, but it's almost a parody - a respectful parody, but a parody nonetheless. The music of Berio bares no relation to Mahler - they stood for a completely different aesthetic.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> Yes, but it's almost a parody - a respectful parody, but a parody nonetheless. The music of Berio bares no relation to Mahler - they stood for a completely different aesthetic.


It's not a parody, it's (almost) a verbatim quotation which is cut up.

More of a homage than parody - there's no comical exaggeration or ****-take. It just flows through the movement amidst lots of other quotations.


----------



## Bach

Anyway, I've just re-listened to the fifth of Mahler and it's not for me. Horrible drawn-out phrases - the adagietto is like being on a musical torture rack where your emotional-intestines are slowly being drawn out of your cerebral-abdomen. No lightness of touch, no charm - it's like a suicidal dirge. 

Compare with the consummate, colourful chromaticism of Strauss's Metamorphosen - well, there is no comparison. That goes for all of Mahler's 'you must take me seriously' slow movements. Yucky self-indulgent composer - colourless as well - if Shostakovich is battleship grey then Mahler is soil, muddy brown from beginning to end.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> No lightness of touch, no charm -


There's not meant to be. These are redundant criticisms.


----------



## Bach

His music sounds like whining. Egocentric, pretentious whining.


----------



## bdelykleon

J.S. is not totally wrong, to me, the best Mahler is the more lightweight, as in the second and third movements of the second symphony, the inner songs of the Song of the Earth. But even the uneven Mahler is a great composer, one of the greatest of its era.


----------



## Tapkaara

Bach said:


> *1. Ludwig Van Beethoven - 1770-1827
> 
> 2. Johann Sebastian Bach - 1685-1750
> 
> 3. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - 1756-1791
> 
> 4. Richard Wagner - 1813-1883
> 
> 5. Joseph Haydn - 1732-1809
> 
> 6. Johannes Brahms - 1833-1897
> 
> 7. Franz Schubert - 1797-1828
> 
> 8. Igor Stravinsky - 1882-1971
> 
> 9. George Frideric Handel - 1685-1759
> 
> 10. Claude Debussy - 1862-1918 *
> 
> This is my list of the ten greatest based on influence, originality, and of course - musical excellence.
> 
> Would you rearrange it? Are there names which you are offended not to see?
> 
> Suggest corrections for my list, or just tell me it's marvelous.


Where is Sibelius?


----------



## Bach

Remaining as far from the list as possible?


----------



## Tapkaara

bach said:


> remaining as far from the list as possible?


heretic!!!


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> Anyway, I've just re-listened to the fifth of Mahler and it's not for me. Horrible drawn-out phrases - the adagietto is like being on a musical torture rack where your emotional-intestines are slowly being drawn out of your cerebral-abdomen. No lightness of touch, no charm - it's like a suicidal dirge.
> 
> Compare with the consummate, colourful chromaticism of Strauss's Metamorphosen - well, there is no comparison. That goes for all of Mahler's 'you must take me seriously' slow movements. Yucky self-indulgent composer - colourless as well - if Shostakovich is battleship grey then Mahler is soil, muddy brown from beginning to end.


If you feel that strongly about Mahler, then why is Wagner on your list? His operas are some of the most drawn-out, overly emotional pieces I've ever heard and I don't even listen to opera! 

I think the problem is that you're not giving Mahler a chance. You're completely dismissing him based on the same old criticisms that have been raging for a long time, even during his lifetime.

Instead of dismissing a composer, like you do a lot, how about just filing him in your "I don't understand him yet" category and spare us with the criticism?

Mahler is one of the most recorded composers in history. Just look at any record label's website and type in Mahler in their album search and see what comes up. You would be astonished. I would even wager that he has been performed more than most of the composers on your list with the exception of Beethoven and Mozart.

I think this alone speaks volumes. He certainly deserves to be on that list. No question about it. His influence upon the 20th Century is undeniable.


----------



## Nicola

The main problem with this thread, which has been evident from the outset, is that it artificially limits consideration of the best composers to the top 10 only. A much more appropriate figure would have been the top 20, as this kind of figure probably far better represents most mature listeners' range of composers in whom they have developed an interest.

There are bound to be a number of composers who are highly esteemed by members but who are not sufficiently highly rated by the poster in question to warrant a place in their top 10, but who may however be located somewhere in the 11-20 range. Without this information on the 11-20 ranks, it can create the wrong impression to other members that they dislike certain composers and thus lead to futile discussions.

The DDD list of greatest composers purports to be objective, although cearly it is subjective to some extent as there are no precisely defined definitions of "greatness". Members of that Board at least tried to be objective in this difficult area, and I reckon overall the resulting top 100 list is not that bad. I have been familiar with it (and various other lists produced on that Board) for some time. I found it useful because it guided my inquiry into new composers whom I hadn't previously paid much regard to. 

Regarding Mahler and Sibelius, as will be seen from my post no 19, Mahler is included at the No 18 spot in the DDD list which is the source from which the 10 in the OP were so clearly cribbed. Not shown in that list, Sibelius is at the No 28 spot.

As for the comment earlier in this thread that Mahler is very popular among the record labels, I believe that this factor was part of the DDD assessment. Looking at the ArkivMusic site, Mahler's count of alternative versions is not that fantastic compared with several others. Mahler's output was also limited both in quantity and in range, and he was not that influential according to some sources. Personally, I don't care for his brand of music as I find it too drawn out and slushy. But I don't deny him a rightful place at the lower end of the top 20. Sibelius at No 28 seems about right to me as there are many equally good if not better composers in that part of the spectrum, e.g. Vivaldi, Richard Strauss, Prokofiev, Bartok, Bruckner, Monteverdi, to mention only a few.


----------



## Mirror Image

Nicola said:


> The main problem with this thread, which has been evident from the outset, is that it artificially limits consideration of the best composers to the top 10 only. A much more appropriate figure would have been the top 20, as this kind of figure probably far better represents most mature listeners' range of composers in whom they have developed an interest.
> 
> There are bound to be a number of composers who are highly esteemed by members but who are not sufficiently highly rated by the poster in question to warrant a place in their top 10, but who may however be located somewhere in the 11-20 range. Without this information on the 11-20 ranks, it can create the wrong impression to other members that they dislike certain composers and thus lead to futile discussions.
> 
> The DDD list of greatest composers purports to be objective, although cearly it is subjective to some extent as there are no precisely defined definitions of "greatness". Members of that Board at least tried to be objective in this difficult area, and I reckon overall the resulting top 100 list is not that bad. I have been familiar with it (and various other lists produced on that Board) for some time. I found it useful because it guided my inquiry into new composers whom I hadn't previously paid much regard to.
> 
> Regarding Mahler and Sibelius, as will be seen from my post no 19, Mahler is included at the No 18 spot in the DDD list which is the source from which the 10 in the OP were so clearly cribbed. Not shown in that list, Sibelius is at the No 28 spot.
> 
> As for the comment earlier in this thread that Mahler is very popular among the record labels, I believe that this factor was part of the DDD assessment. Looking at the ArkivMusic site, Mahler's count of alternative versions is not that fantastic compared with several others. Mahler's output was also limited both in quantity and in range, and he was not that influential according to some sources. Personally, I don't care for his brand of music as I find it too drawn out and slushy. But I don't deny him a rightful place at the lower end of the top 20. Sibelius at No 28 seems about right to me as there are many equally good if not better composers in that part of the spectrum, e.g. Vivaldi, Richard Strauss, Prokofiev, Bartok, Bruckner, Monteverdi, to mention only a few.


Have you ever heard the phrase "quality, not quantity"? This applies to so many composers. How many works composed by a composer has nothing to do with how influential their music is.

Your comments regarding Mahler are ridiculous. Go online to any record label's website and Mahler is clearly the frontrunner of composers that are performed on that label, especially Decca, EMI, and Deutsche Grammophon. This is only further proof of the mystique, the wonder, and the excitement of Mahler's music is one of the most influential in the history of music.

Despite what you say, Mahler should be in the top 10. His music is performed and recorded more today than any other composer's music. Mahler is one of the most brilliant composers of all-time.

As I said, these lists prove NOTHING.


----------



## Nicola

Mirror Image said:


> Have you ever heard the phrase "quality, not quantity"? This applies to so many composers. How many works composed by a composer has nothing to do with how influential their music is.
> 
> Your comments regarding Mahler are ridiculous. Go online to any record label's website and Mahler is clearly the frontrunner of composers that are performed on that label, especially Decca, EMI, and Deutsche Grammophon. This is only further proof of the mystique, the wonder, and the excitement of Mahler's music is one of the most influential in the history of music.
> 
> Despite what you say, Mahler should be in the top 10. His music is performed and recorded more today than any other composer's music. Mahler is one of the most brilliant composers of all-time.
> 
> As I said, these lists prove NOTHING.


I realise that it is sometimes a bit tough to accept that one's favourite composers may not be seen with equal esteem by others who have attempted to produce a list of the greatest based on objective criteria rather than mere personal prejudice.

However, the fact is that that Mahler didn't write all that much, and what he did write is largely concentrated on orchestral music. I realise that at your juvenile stage of musical development you are still very much mired in this genre, which is rather sad because you tend to send out all the wrong signals to newbies seeking advice on how to gain a greater appreciation of classical music . Perhaps it would have been better if, as you indicated earlier, you had taken time out to broaden your musical interests, and listened to some decent opera, chamber music, piano solo, lieder. That way you might one day have developed a more rounded view of things, rather than the purely orchestral focus which so obviously comes out of your myriad posts.

As I said, Mahler was not that influential, except perhaps in respect of one or two Second Viennese School members, but they aren't worth wasting time on because the whole bunch of them are mere second-raters in terms of the grand scheme of things. Only a few roll-your-own, long-haired, jumped-up musical nerds who hang about internet message boards like this one tend to like all that "stuff", for want of a better word.

And, bye the way, Ravel is No 29 on the DDD list of greatest composers. I thought this fact would cheer you up. He was pipped by Sibelius at No 28. At the No 27 spot is Monteverdi whose many beautiful works I can heartily recommend. Good luck with it.


----------



## Mirror Image

Nicola said:


> I realise that it is sometimes a bit tough to accept that one's favourite composers may not be seen with equal esteem by others who have attempted to produce a list of the greatest based on objective criteria rather than mere personal prejudice.
> 
> However, the fact is that that Mahler didn't write all that much, and what he did write is largely concentrated on orchestral music. I realise that at your juvenile stage of musical development you are still very much mired in this genre, which is rather sad because you tend to send out all the wrong signals to newbies seeking advice on how to gain a greater appreciation of classical music . Perhaps it would have been better if, as you indicated earlier, you had taken time out to broaden your musical interests, and listened to some decent opera, chamber music, piano solo, lieder. That way you might one day have developed a more rounded view of things, rather than the purely orchestral focus which so obviously comes out of your myriad posts.
> 
> As I said, Mahler was not that influential, except perhaps in respect of one or two Second Viennese School members, but they aren't worth wasting time on because the whole bunch of them are mere second-raters in terms of the grand scheme of things. Only a few roll-your-own, long-haired, jumped-up musical nerds who hang about internet message boards like this one tend to like all that "stuff", for want of a better word.
> 
> And, bye the way, Ravel is No 29 on the DDD list of greatest composers. I thought this fact would cheer you up. He was pipped by Sibelius at No 28. At the No 27 spot is Monteverdi whose many beautiful works I can heartily recommend. Good luck with it.


So a person who likes orchestral music better than say opera or chamber work is juvenile in your assessment?

I like what I like "Nicola" and I get tired of people, like you, implying to me that I'm not a full-fledged classical listener because I don't embrace opera or chamber works. I do enjoy some chamber music.

Anyway, like I said a list of who's greatest, means NOTHING. Forget about it. You can't possibly make a list like that. Who's the greatest is merely subjective.

I also like how you practically smeared anyone who comes on a forum to discuss classical music as being "long-haired, jumped-up musical nerds."


----------



## Nicola

Mirror Image said:


> So a person who likes orchestral music better than say opera or chamber work is juvenile in your assessment?
> 
> I like what I like "Nicola" and I get tired of people, like you, implying to me that I'm not a full-fledged classical listener because I don't embrace opera or chamber works. I do enjoy some chamber music.
> 
> Anyway, like I said a list of who's greatest, means NOTHING. Forget about it. You can't possibly make a list like that. Who's the greatest is merely subjective.


That is clearly not what I said nor intended to say. My point is that orchestral music is but one of several genres, and it's not correct to base a list of the "greatest" composers merely on the strength of their orchestral achievements. Obviously, if that's the only kind of music they have written then it can't be based on anything more, but this would be a relevant limiting factor in the overall ranking of that composer. It's one of the reasons why Chopin didn't score higher in the DDD rankings: a brilliant writer for piano but that's about all. In my opinion, Wagner is too highly rated at No 4 because of his narrow focus, which is not everyone's cup of tea, but on the other hand he was immensely influential and wrote new music of very high quality. One has ony to read some of the memoirs of later composers to appreciate what a towing figure he was.

Regarding your experience level, I thought you had clearly stated elsewhere that you have only recently begun to take an active interest in classical music. If that is the case, I can't see why you try to project yourself as some kind of expert. It wouldn't be surprising that you are so enthusiastic about orchestral music only, as this is usually what most newbies, once they have past the initial encounters, tend to go for. Some seem to go way OTT. It takes time for the novelty to wear off and to seek new sources of musical enjoyment. Some people however seem to be incredibly slow in widening their knowledge, and spend donkeys years admiring one or two composers, and then suddenly discover a new one and tell us all about it (as if we are ignorant) when we already know. There are one two prominent cases here who stand out for this.

Unlike you, I find lists of what are generally considered to be the "greatest" in classical music - whether it be composers or their works - to be very useful, however imperfect such lists may be. In themselves the lists are far more instructional than all the blather that passes off for advice on other forums, and if one cares to investigate the actual discussions that took place around these lists I found them to be generally immeasurably more informative than material on traditional message boards.


----------



## Mirror Image

Nicola said:


> That is clearly not what I said nor intended to say. My point is that orchestral music is but one of several genres, and it's not correct to base a list of the "greatest" composers merely on the strength of their orchestral achievements. Obviously, if that's the only kind of music they have written then it can't be based on anything more, but this would be a relevant limiting factor in the overall ranking of that composer. It's one of the reasons why Chopin didn't score higher in the DDD rankings: a brilliant writer for piano but that's about all. In my opinion, Wagner is too highly rated at No 4 because of his narrow focus, which is not everyone's cup of tea, but on the other hand he was immensely influential and wrote new music of very high quality. One has ony to read some of the memoirs of later composers to appreciate what a towing figure he was.
> 
> Regarding your experience level, I thought you had clearly stated elsewhere that you have only recently begun to take an active interest in classical music. If that is the case, I can't see why you try to project yourself as some kind of expert. It wouldn't be surprising that you are so enthusiastic about orchestral music only, as this is usually what most newbies, once they have past the initial encounters, tend to go for. Some seem to go way OTT. It takes time for the novelty to wear off and to seek new sources of musical enjoyment. Some people however seem to be incredibly slow in widening their knowledge, and spend donkeys years admiring one or two composers, and then suddenly discover a new one and tell us all about it (as if we are ignorant) when we already know. There are one two prominent cases here who stand out for this.
> 
> Unlike you, I find lists of what are generally considered to be the "greatest" in classical music - whether it be composers or their works - to be very useful, however imperfect such lists may be. In themselves the lists are far more instructional than all the blather that passes off for advice on other forums, and if one cares to investigate the actual discussions that took place around these lists I found them to be generally immeasurably more informative than material on traditional message boards.


Interesting post. 

I have, since January, began to seriously listen to classical music. I did, however, grow up around classical music all of my life, so I think your implications of my experience are quite laughable especially due to the fact that you know nothing about me and continue to make things personal with me.

Who said I was some kind of classical expert? I think you're the only one who thinks this and why would you say that anyway? You're resorting to some kind of defense that's unnecessary and has nothing to do with the actual discussion.

You can continue to try and act polite, "Nicola," but the bottomline is you can't even say anything remotely positive without resorting to some kind of hateful or disrespectful remarks.

If you want to continue to make false accusations about me and insult me, then please continue. I'll just return here and report every message that is a personal insult to Krummhorn, so by all means keep it up.


----------



## Nicola

Mirror Image said:


> Interesting post.
> 
> I have, since January, began to seriously listen to classical music. I did, however, grow up around classical music all of my life, so I think your implications of my experience are quite laughable especially due to the fact that you know nothing about me and continue to make things personal with me.
> 
> Who said I was some kind of classical expert? I think you're the only one who thinks this and why would you say that anyway? You're resorting to some kind of defense that's unnecessary and has nothing to do with the actual discussion.
> 
> You can continue to try and act polite, "Nicola," but the bottomline is you can't even say anything remotely positive without resorting to some kind of hateful or disrespectful remarks.
> 
> If you want to continue to make false accusations about me and insult me, then please continue. I'll just return here and report every message that is a personal insult to Krummhorn, so by all means keep it up.


Sorry if my observations about your opinions cause you some trouble, but I think that my comments have been highly germane to this thread. You have been (i) denigrating the value of "greatest" lists, whilst (ii) at the the same time advancing the cause of Mahler, saying that he should be in the top 10.

In reply I have stated that a rank for Mahler of 18, as accorded by DDD (from which outfit "Bach" got his list in the opening post), is more appropriate given his low volume of material, narrow range and his not terribly important influence on later composers.

As for your personal credentials to comment on these matters, I have simply pointed out that orchestral music is only one genre, and this is the only area you know anything about, by your own admission. Very high quality composers have demonstrated their skills across a much broader platform than you evidently know anything about. You have also admitted several times that you have only recently taken up an active interest in classical music. I didn't make this up, or twist it in any way.


----------



## JoeGreen

*Rameau* anyone? In my opinion he was harmonically influential to French composition.


----------



## David C Coleman

Bach said:


> *1. Ludwig Van Beethoven - 1770-1827
> 
> 2. Johann Sebastian Bach - 1685-1750
> 
> 3. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - 1756-1791
> 
> 4. Richard Wagner - 1813-1883
> 
> 5. Joseph Haydn - 1732-1809
> 
> 6. Johannes Brahms - 1833-1897
> 
> 7. Franz Schubert - 1797-1828
> 
> 8. Igor Stravinsky - 1882-1971
> 
> 9. George Frideric Handel - 1685-1759
> 
> 10. Claude Debussy - 1862-1918 *
> 
> This is my list of the ten greatest based on influence, originality, and of course - musical excellence.
> 
> Would you rearrange it? Are there names which you are offended not to see?
> 
> Suggest corrections for my list, or just tell me it's marvelous.


I think I would probably agree with this list. Not to be confused with my own personal favourite composers list which would probably go like this :-

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Bruckner
4. Mahler
5. Schubert 
6. Sibelius
7. Dvorak
8. Handel
9. Berlioz
10. Bach

I wonder how many others favourite list correspond with the "greatness" of them!..


----------



## Tapkaara

Why does everything have to be limited to a list, anyway? Classical music (or much of anything, for that matter) cannot be summed up perfectly in any one list. Something as big and varied as classical music cannot be limited to ten entries.


----------



## wolf

David C Coleman said:


> ...I wonder how many others favourite list correspond with the "greatness" of them!..


Very true. My hero is the greatest and most amazing genius of them all - W.A. Mozart. But influential, and original was he not really. Although much greater than Haydn, papa had more influence.

1. Mozart
2. Bach
3. Beethoven
4. Wagner
5. Verdi
6. Schubert
7. Händel
8. Brahms
9. R Strauss
10. Bruckner

These are my favorites - although there is a hard struggle of th 10th place, Chopin, Berg, even Tchaikovski and Puccini! But influence and originality:

1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Wagner
4. Haydn
5. Schubert
6. Brahms
7. Händel
8. Schönberg
9. Chopin
10. Liszt

can Mozart come even 8th? You can almost think him out of musical history as it were. Yesyes pianoconcerto but honestly? Haydn (or Liszt) would never come on my fav list, he reminds one of Mozart sometimes but Moz is so much better in everything..Liszt had so much influence on Wagner, Grieg, new music, concerto technique. But his own works - although good in their way - I cannot consider really great.


----------



## mbib

How about 2009 who is the greatest composer?


----------



## Bach

Greatest living composer? Boulez or Birtwistle.


----------



## Bach

wolf said:


> Very true. My hero is the greatest and most amazing genius of them all - W.A. Mozart. But influential, and original was he not really. Although much greater than Haydn, papa had more influence.
> 
> 1. Mozart
> 2. Bach
> 3. Beethoven
> 4. Wagner
> 5. Verdi
> 6. Schubert
> 7. Händel
> 8. Brahms
> 9. R Strauss
> 10. Bruckner
> 
> These are my favorites - although there is a hard struggle of th 10th place, Chopin, Berg, even Tchaikovski and Puccini! But influence and originality:
> 
> 1. Bach
> 2. Beethoven
> 3. Wagner
> 4. Haydn
> 5. Schubert
> 6. Brahms
> 7. Händel
> 8. Schönberg
> 9. Chopin
> 10. Liszt
> 
> can Mozart come even 8th? You can almost think him out of musical history as it were. Yesyes pianoconcerto but honestly? Haydn (or Liszt) would never come on my fav list, he reminds one of Mozart sometimes but Moz is so much better in everything..Liszt had so much influence on Wagner, Grieg, new music, concerto technique. But his own works - although good in their way - I cannot consider really great.


Mozart had a huge influence on Beethoven - listen to the 24th piano concerto. He also had a great influence on the development of opera and techniques of orchestration - an often overlooked factor at which he excelled - which was not really acknowledged until Berlioz. Compare Mozart's orchestration to Beethoven's - the difference in timbral clarity and balance is huge.


----------



## wolf

Bach said:


> Mozart had a huge influence on Beethoven - listen to the 24th piano concerto. He also had a great influence on the development of opera.


I know that Beethoven was stunned by the geniality of the 24th, but I think his admiration for Mzt was surprisingly small on the whole. I think that the piano concerto would more or less had been developed in the same way withouth Mozart, thanks to C.P.E Bach and others. Of course Mozart had some influence but considering his greatness...? Mozarts operas were revolutionary in their characterizations alone - but who has really BUILT on them? Some music historians consider not only Haydn and Beethoven far more influential than Mzt, but even Gretry, Rameau and Gluck in opera history.

Mozarts piano concertos are absolutely wonderful, the best ever, but - Beethovens admiration for the 24th notwithstanding - they were seldom played during the 19th century, only the 20th K466, typically enough, as it was 'demonic' enough. Even the 24th was considered to austere. All the geniality of these other masterpieces, K449, 453, 459, 467,482, 488, 503 and 595 were all but ignored. Strange...


----------



## Bach

His influence on general musicianship was also enormous. He redefined the capabilities of nascent ability and set a bar so high that debatably it has never been overcome - in any field.


----------



## Bach

> I think his admiration for Mzt was surprisingly small on the whole.


It was greater than his admiration for Haydn - remember who he journeyed to Vienna for.


----------



## Bach

> but who has really BUILT on them?


Wagner, definitely - and then Strauss and even Birtwistle!


----------



## wolf

Bach said:


> His influence on general musicianship was also enormous. He redefined the capabilities of nascent ability and set a bar so high that debatably it has never been overcome - in any field.


THAT I totally agree on, lol. Perhaps that is why I feel that he stands alone, 'out of' musical history on the whole. As for Beethovens Vienna trip - although he was only 16 at the time - I wonder what had happened if he hadn't been forced to go back. Somehow I can't see Beethoven sitting admiringly listening while Mozart 'taught', lol. In my heart I wonder if my hero wasn't a lousy teacher...? Yes he certainly admired Mozart more than Haydn - he preferred Salieri and it was in the end in name only he 'studied' for Haydn, I believe.

I have read Wagners views on Mozart, he was both critical and admiring, on the whole I do think that Wagner would have written about the same kind of operas without Mozart. Beethovens 9th was in a way more important to him. Well that is my view and some music historians agree, most don't. What has always fascinated me, is where Mzt would have been if he had been alive at 90 in 1846. Somehow I can't see him walloping in romantic music...


----------



## Bach

Music would be completely different - that's for sure. Fascinating to imagine how, but goodness me - it would have been different.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> Greatest living composer? Boulez or Birtwistle.


Ever heard any Elliott Carter?


----------



## jhar26

David C Coleman said:


> I wonder how many others favourite list correspond with the "greatness" of them!..


Strauss and Puccini would make my top 10 FAVOURITES list.


----------



## jhar26

wolf said:


> Very true. My hero is the greatest and most amazing genius of them all - W.A. Mozart. But influential, and original was he not really. Although much greater than Haydn, papa had more influence.


Haydn was of course both influential AND great, but influence doesn't always necessarily equal greatness. Stamitz for example was influential, but although I don't want to take anything away from his achievements, nobody would include him on an all time greats list.


----------



## Bach

Herzeleide said:


> Ever heard any Elliott Carter?


Yeah, not his greatest fan - his string quartets are rather excellent but he doesn't quite have the same unique serialist voice of Boulez.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> Yeah, not his greatest fan - his string quartets are rather excellent but he doesn't quite have the same unique serialist voice of Boulez.


Well, he's not a serialist, no. (But) His voice is unique.

I can recommend his Concerto for Orchestra, conducted by Oliver Knussen. Truly one of the great twentieth-century masterpieces.


----------



## Bach

That's one peculiarity of Carter - he sounds like a serialist but isn't.. could you explain that to me?


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> That's one peculiarity of Carter - he sounds like a serialist but isn't.. could you explain that to me?


How does one sound like a serialist? The sound worlds of Berg and Webern are miles apart. Serialism is just a method that one can use to produce a myriad of different sounds.

I could explain but I'm short on time. I can recommend _The Music of Elliott Carter_ by David Schiff - cheap versions available on amazon.


----------



## Bach

I mean post-Webern really.. post 1950 serialism.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> I mean post-Webern really.. post 1950 serialism.


Ah yes... Well, maybe. I think that was the problem... serialism became associated with a particular aesthetic. Oliver Knussen in some of his more recent works has used a method of serialism based on rotations à la Krenek and late-period Stravinsky.

Regarding serialism, this is undoubtedly the best book:










It's a historical survey which also discusses all the various techniques composers have used.


----------



## Herzeleide

Herzeleide said:


> Oliver Knussen in some of his more recent works has used a method of serialism based on rotations à la Krenek and late-period Stravinsky.


I forgot to mention... he uses this method and the results are significantly different to those of the post-WWII serialists.


----------



## jamzky

This is hard but here goes....

in no particular order:

debussy
messiaen
takemitsu
bach
beethoven

mozart
mahler
stravinsky
sibelius
prokofiev


----------



## JAKE WYB

I think in terms of influence on today's and future composers SIBELIUS is a great candidate for one of histories more enduring musical figures, i think the more musical taste matures appreciation for his music will crystallise into something even more special than appears today. He seems to be a choef inflene on many of today's composers rather than the old classical composers that usually come top of the list- because they came first i rather suspect. 

Sibelius's greatest music has the disadvantage of needing a greater level of apppreaciation than more accessible but more uninspired works of his which tend to identify his output to people - and that of more arousing works of mahler and bruckner etc... 

he certainly deserves a place amongst the top 10 or 15 - not that there is sucha thing forit is indeed subjective.


----------



## Tapkaara

JAKE WYB said:


> I think in terms of influence on today's and future composers SIBELIUS is a great candidate for one of histories more enduring musical figures, i think the more musical taste matures appreciation for his music will crystallise into something even more special than appears today. He seems to be a choef inflene on many of today's composers rather than the old classical composers that usually come top of the list- because they came first i rather suspect.
> 
> Sibelius's greatest music has the disadvantage of needing a greater level of apppreaciation than more accessible but more uninspired works of his which tend to identify his output to people - and that of more arousing works of mahler and bruckner etc...
> 
> he certainly deserves a place amongst the top 10 or 15 - not that there is sucha thing forit is indeed subjective.


From one devoted Sibelian to another, welcome to this forum!

I could not agree more. Sibelius is a composer of incredible talent and astonishing insight. He is ne of the few composers who owns his very own sound world where you cannot mistake him for anyone else. I think that is the mark a truly great composer.

Sibelius was all the rage right up to about the end of WWII in many parts of the world, in particular, in the US and UK. But as more "modern" musical styles began to take over, Sibelius was largely abandoned for much of the mid part of the 20th century. Luckily, within the last 15 to 20 years, it seems that his star is rising again and, I agree, in time, he will be looked upon with greater reverence than he is even now.

His sound world is not always the most accessible. But once you are in, I think the rewards are many.

And I agree with the idea that if one only knows one of his "less inspired" works, such as Finlandia, Valse Triste or the Karelia Suite, you may think he is only a nationalist composer who wrote "picture postcard" works much like Grieg. One needs to get into the 7 symphonies and the great tone poems (Tapiola, in particular) to understand that this man was much more than Finland's musical tour guide (as he was sometimes wont to be) but also a composer of the world, whose output, most of it, is world class and without comparison.


----------



## confuoco

Bach said:


> *1. Ludwig Van Beethoven - 1770-1827
> 
> 2. Johann Sebastian Bach - 1685-1750
> 
> 3. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - 1756-1791
> 
> 4. Richard Wagner - 1813-1883
> 
> 5. Joseph Haydn - 1732-1809
> 
> 6. Johannes Brahms - 1833-1897
> 
> 7. Franz Schubert - 1797-1828
> 
> 8. Igor Stravinsky - 1882-1971
> 
> 9. George Frideric Handel - 1685-1759
> 
> 10. Claude Debussy - 1862-1918 *


I would replace Handel with Bartók, Mahler or Sibelius.


----------



## Bach

What's with the Handel-hating? He was an immensely versatile composer! Excelling in as many genres as Mozart!


----------



## jhar26

Bach said:


> What's with the Handel-hating? He was an immensely versatile composer! Excelling in as many genres as Mozart!


Handel belongs in that top 10 - I agree.


----------



## wolf

jhar26 said:


> Handel belongs in that top 10 - I agree.


If Händel is not among the 10 greatest, then who is?! He cannot help that he lived in the Bach era, he deserves admiration for his own works - which are marvellous, many of them - not contempt just because Bach happened to be a bigger counterpoint expert...

He is certainly both on my favorite 10 list AND on my Influence/Importance list.


----------



## confuoco

Bach said:


> What's with the Handel-hating? He was an immensely versatile composer! Excelling in as many genres as Mozart!


1. The big amount of Handel's music is not his original
2. Handel was more craftsman than artist

Both of these things were nothing exceptional in the baroque era and I am not going to tell that he wasn't the great composer, no way, because he was, but I just think Bartók deserves more to be in the top 10, he was very original, uncompromising, highly talented composer with work of the great depth, his string quartets have match with the late quartets of Beethoven.

Speak nothing of the order, if this list was intented to be in the order, my would be quite different.


----------



## jhar26

Bartok was indeed a great composer. As a composer of string quartets I would rank him at number three just behind Beethoven and Haydn - and there's the piano concertos, violin concerto, Bluebeard's Castle, the Concerto for Orchestra and so on. Definitely the resume of a truly great composer. I don't understand how anyone can say that Handel was not exceptional though - let alone that he was not an artist. So we're gonna have to agree to disagree there.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

I believe Tchaikovsky should definately be on the list.


----------



## bdelykleon

I'm pretty sure he shouldn't.


----------



## tahnak

*The Ten Greatest Composers*

1. Piotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
2. Hector Berlioz
3. Ludwig Van Beethoven
4. Johannes Brahms
5. Richard Wagner
6. Anton Bruckner
7. Johann Sebastian Bach
8. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
9. Jean Sibelius
10. Gustav Mahler


----------



## livemylife

Rachmaninoff.


----------



## Lisztfreak

The 10 most influential, IMHO:

Bach
Haydn
Beethoven
Chopin
Liszt
Wagner
Mahler
Debussy
Schoenberg
Stravinsky

Rank them as you wish.

The 10 greatest for the profession:

Bach
Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
Schubert
Brahms
Ravel
Debussy
Schoenberg
Stravinsky

... also rank them as you wish.

The 10 greatest for me (order is irrelevant):

Beethoven
Schumann
Schubert
Brahms
Liszt
Debussy
Sibelius
Vaughan Williams
Shostakovich

+ the five most original for me: Beethoven, Liszt, Debussy, Janáček, Schoenberg.


----------



## Air

Lisztfreak said:


> The 10 greatest for me (order is irrelevant):
> 
> Beethoven
> Schumann
> Schubert
> Brahms
> Liszt
> Debussy
> Sibelius
> Vaughan Williams
> Shostakovich


Great composers, Lisztfreak! I'm a huge Schumann fan as well. I've always felt that his piano oeuvre is almost unrivalled, at least better than (ahem) Liszt's. (same exceptions as usual, don't need to name them)

What do you like by Robert?


----------



## Lisztfreak

airad2 said:


> Great composers, Lisztfreak! I'm a huge Schumann fan as well. I've always felt that his piano oeuvre is almost unrivalled, at least better than (ahem) Liszt's. (same exceptions as usual, don't need to name them)
> 
> What do you like by Robert?


Oh, almost everything! But if you asked me to go somewhere in the mountains for a month and take only some Schumann with me, I'd go for Symphonic Etudes, Fantasie (that one is my favourite piano work of his), Piano Sonata No.2, Kreisleriana, Dichterliebe (my favourite overall work of his), Piano Concerto, Piano Quintet and Symphony No.4.


----------



## Mongoose

I would certainly add Elgar and Vaughan Williams to the list,but to rate composers in their 'greatness' is not for me. Everyone has his merits,and not all of their compositions are 'great'. I would also add Delius to my list,a composer whose music conjures up vivid pictures,and produces a great emotional response in my mind.
Best wishes,Mongoose.


----------



## Mirror Image

Mongoose said:


> I would certainly add Elgar and Vaughan Williams to the list,but to rate composers in their 'greatness' is not for me. Everyone has his merits,and not all of their compositions are 'great'. I would also add Delius to my list,a composer whose music conjures up vivid pictures,and produces a great emotional response in my mind.
> Best wishes,Mongoose.


Another Delius fan? Excellent. We are in short supply around here. Delius is a very hard composer to get into for somebody who's totally new to his music. I always direct newbies to his "In Summer Garden," "Florida Suite," or "North Country Sketches."


----------



## Air

Lisztfreak said:


> Oh, almost everything! But if you asked me to go somewhere in the mountains for a month and take only some Schumann with me, I'd go for Symphonic Etudes, Fantasie (that one is my favourite piano work of his), Piano Sonata No.2, Kreisleriana, Dichterliebe (my favourite overall work of his), Piano Concerto, Piano Quintet and Symphony No.4.


Agreed. All of these are cracking works. (Grand sonata No. 3 "Concerto without Orchestra" is better than No. 2 though IMHO)

As a pianist, I have played all of the romantic masters and while I admire the works of those such as Chopin and Liszt, Schumann is the one that I have the strongest emotional connection with. I think there is something about Schumann for a pianist that makes your soul want to scream out "Clara, Clara!" (Not only that lovely four-note CBAA sequence made for her in the piano concerto, which BTW i am playing) In heaven, I am going to watch Clara Schumann play the Klavierkonzert. 

Rant over, where is Prokofiev in all of these lists? :angry: It pains me to see Bruckner ranking in the top 6 while Serge isn't even in contention.


----------



## Mirror Image

airad2 said:


> Rant over, where is Prokofiev in all of these lists? :angry: It pains me to see Bruckner ranking in the top 6 while Serge isn't even in contention.


Prokofiev isn't discussed around here that much, air. It's a shame too, because Prokofiev composed many fine pieces.


----------



## Op.123

1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Mozat
4. Wagner
5. Brahms
6. Schubert
7. Haydn
8. Schumann
9. Mendelssohn
10. Chopin


----------



## Op.123

Nicola said:


> I wouldn't have said that your top 10 is all that different from the original DDD list. Here's their top 20 in order to put things in context:
> 
> 1. Ludwig Van Beethoven - 1770-1827
> 2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - 1756-1791
> 3. Johann Sebastian Bach - 1685-1750
> 4. Richard Wagner - 1813-1883
> 5. Joseph Haydn - 1732-1809
> 6. Johannes Brahms - 1833-1897
> 7. Franz Schubert - 1797-1828
> 8. Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky - 1840-1893
> 9. George Frideric Handel - 1685-1759
> 10. Igor Stravinsky - 1882-1971
> 11. Robert Schumann - 1810-1856
> 12. Frederic Chopin - 1810-1849
> 13. Felix Mendelssohn - 1809-1847
> 14. Claude Debussy - 1862-1918
> 15. Franz Liszt - 1811-1886
> 16. Antonin Dvorak - 1841-1904
> 17. Giuseppe Verdi - 1813-1901
> 18. Gustav Mahler - 1860-1911
> 19. Hector Berlioz - 1803-1869
> 20. Antonio Vivaldi - 1678-1741
> 
> This compares with the once quite famous *Phil Goulding* List as follows:
> 
> "IMMORTAL"
> 
> 1. Bach
> 2. Mozart
> 3. Beethoven
> 
> "DEMI-GOD"
> 4. Wagner
> 5. Haydn
> 6. Brahms
> 7. Schubert
> 8. Schumann
> 9. Handel
> 10. Tchaikovsky
> 
> "GENIUS"
> 
> 11. Mendelssohn
> 12. Dvorak
> 13. Liszt
> 14. Chopin
> 15. Stravinsky
> 16. Verdi
> 17. Mahler
> 18. Prokofiev
> 19. Shostakovich
> 20. R. Strauss
> ...........
> 
> As for my list of the top 10 greatest composers, I would select:
> 
> 1. Ludwig Van Beethoven - 1770-1827
> 2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - 1756-1791
> 3. Johann Sebastian Bach - 1685-1750
> 4 Joseph Haydn - 1732-1809
> 5. Johannes Brahms - 1833-1897
> 6. Franz Schubert - 1797-1828
> 7. George Frideric Handel - 1685-1759
> 8. Robert Schumann - 1810-1856
> 9. Richard Wagner - 1813-1883
> 10. Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky - 1840-1893
> 
> It is similar to both lists above except that I have demoted Wagner back to where he was originally, on the previous DDD list. I have promoted Schumann a few notches because he was an excellent all round composer who did much to promote the Romantic movement. I have had to move Stravinsky out of the top 10 because I consider that Mr T tops him. My reason for demoting Wagner is based on the fact that I don't believe that he has such a large following as the others, and his repertoire is limited in range. There were several members of DDD at the time of those discussions who considered that Wagner at the No 4 spot was too high. That has been the general flavour of comments posted by others after the lists were completed some 18 months ago.


Those lists are brilliant.


----------



## Rehydration

1. Sergei Rachmaninov
2. Ludwig von Beethoven
3. Johann Sebastian Bach
4. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
5. Igor Stravinsky
6. Richard Strauss
7. Claude Debussy
8. Richard Wagner 
9. Gustav Mahler 
10. Dmitri Shostakovich

Not sure where to put Ravel or Schoenberg or Handel on this list of mine.


----------



## bigshot

I would bump Brahms, Stravinsky and Handel and substitute Verdi, Tchaikovsky and Dvorak. And I wouldn't know whether to choose Debussy or Ravel. (Probably Ravel).


----------



## trazom

No, I don't agree. NEXT!


----------



## mtmailey

View attachment 20242
WE are missing DVORAK,TCHAIKOVSKY & ELGAR here.


----------



## mtmailey

Mozart
Beethoven
Dvorak
Tchaikovsky
Elgar
Bach
Schubert
Strauss
Wagner
Mendelssohn


----------



## Selby

Hmmm.... if this list is "based on influence, originality, and of course - musical excellence" I would argue that the omission of Schönberg is glaring. I am tempted to even argue Ives.... meh.

In the spirit of your list I would remove Handel, bump up Debussy, and at minimum throw Schönberg in at 10.

Then again, if we are talking about lists of our personal top 10, with our own criteria, I would only even seriously consider a couple of these names: Stravinsky and Debussy. I would think about Beethoven, Wagner and Schubert but I doubt they would make the cut.

Edit: Not that anyone is keeping score, but, upon further reflection, Schubert would probably make the cut.


----------



## Mahlerian

My own (flawed and not remotely objective) list of those whom I consider the greatest composers in terms of achievement and lasting influence:
1. J.S. Bach
2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
3. Ludwig van Beethoven
4. Richard Wagner
5. Claude Debussy
6. Claudio Monteverdi
7. Igor Stravinsky
8. Arnold Schoenberg
9. Joseph Haydn
10. Frederic Chopin

My favorites (in an ad hoc ranking that will differ in its top 20 from week to week):
1. J.S. Bach
2. Gustav Mahler
3. Ludwig van Beethoven
4. Claude Debussy
5. Igor Stravinsky
6. Arnold Schoenberg
7. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
8. Toru Takemitsu
9. Olivier Messiaen
10. Anton Bruckner


----------



## Picander

No, I don't agree, because the order on my own list of composers isn't written in stone, it changes.

Well, the truth is that the first name doesn't change at all: Johann Sebastian Bach is my "number one of all time".


----------

