# A new TC composers ranking - discussion thread



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

EDIT: cancelled, because of reasons.

There are frequent discussions about how composers rank, like it or not. It's been a while since we compiled one, and I volunteer to do so. I would also like to take the opportunity to define the ranking process better and have a more refined (imo) scoring system.

I propose the following:

[1] Each participant lists their top 12 composers, ranked from 1 to 12 (no ex aequo positions). This ranking should be purely on personal preference - please do not take "consensus", "influence", and so on into account. Do not leave out favourite composers because they are "too obscure to do well" or because they "will get enough votes anyway". Only complete lists with 12 composers will be taken into account. No changes at a later stage.

[2] The following points will be awarded to each list, from #1 to #12: 20 - 18 - 16 - 14 - 13 - 12 - 11 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6. I believe this is a better representation than the common 12 -> 1.

[3] I will tally the results, provided that there are at least 50 participants. I will cut off at 100 participants.

This thread is for discussion of the proposed framework, there will be a separate thread for the top 12 submissions.

The final ranking will include the points tally, to see whether natural tiers are formed.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

12 composers?? 100's more like it.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Portamento said:


> 12 composers?? 100's more like it.


I'd be game for 100, were it not for the extra amount of work involved.


----------



## Guest (Aug 27, 2019)

Art Rock said:


> There are frequent discussions about how composers rank, like it or not. *It's been a while since we compiled one,* and I volunteer to do so. I would also like to take the opportunity to define the ranking process better and have a more refined (imo) scoring system.


Are you aware of the "top 10 favourite composer" poll I referred to in the "tiers" thread. It was initiated by S P Summer in *February 2019*.

List Your Ten Favorite Composers of All Time

No summary results were presented, but I've been through it quickly and found the following rank order based on the number of inclusions of each composer. There were a few dodgy entries (not complying with the specified requirements) which I ignored. I found 63 valid entries:

1	-	Beethoven
2	-	Bach J S
3	-	Mozart
4	-	Brahms
5	-	Mahler
6	-	Schubert
7	-	Debussy
8	-	Shostakovich
9	-	Tchaikovsky
10	-	Dvorak
11	-	Wagner
11	-	Sibelius
11	-	Ravel
14	-	Haydn, J
14	-	Stravinsky
14	-	Schumann
17	-	Chopin
18	-	Bartok
19	-	Bruckner
20	-	Rachmaninoff

.............

As will be seen, the rank order of the top 10 shows Brahms, Schubert and Mahler in high positions. This is accordance with my expectations based on previous polls. Somewhat surprisingly, Wagner is lower down than I recall was the norm.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Yes, but this was not followed up by a ranking. Your ranking method is too simple to my taste, as it does not make any distinction between someone's #1 and #10. Also, I prefer a ranking based on clear criteria upfront.

EDIT: this lack of distinction between #1 and lower would probably also explain the Wagner results.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

12 or 100 or any other number is fine with me.


----------



## Guest (Aug 27, 2019)

Art Rock said:


> Yes, but this was not followed up by a ranking. Your ranking method is too simple to my taste, as it does not make any distinction between someone's #1 and #10. Also, I prefer a ranking based on clear criteria upfront.
> 
> EDIT: this lack of distinction between #1 and lower would probably also explain the Wagner results.


In the February 2019 poll, many contributors said they could not rank the composers from 1 to 10. They simply provided lists in random order or alphabetical order. Therefore there was no option but simply to count whether or not a particular composer was included.

Some people said they couldn't give as many as 10 composers. Such people are thereby penalised since their vote tally will be less than those who give all 10 composers.

Others said that they couldn't identify exactly 10 composers, as they couldn't split theit 10th selection. Some provided a list of composers in the 10th position, giving up to 20 composers in total in some instances. What do you do about that? You can't include all.

You may find all these problems in your poll. I also don't think your proposed weighting system is suitable. The decline rate is totally arbtrary and probably not a good reflection of each person's preferences. It would be better to allow a fixed number of points to be allocated as each sees fit, perhaps with a maximum for each composer.

Another problem is tactical voting. You may get some late-comers who have done the sums on previous votes and adjust theirs to tilt the balance in one direction or other. To reduce this risk, ideally, all votes should be sent to you, as organiser, by PM so that others can't see them.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I think sending the votes by PM, although more work for me, is an idea worth considering. People who cannot even come up with 12 composers they like, should skip the poll in my opinion. More than 12 will not be accepted either (as stated under [1]). I've toyed with the points distribution system before, but it is much more work. The decline rate is just a proposal, if you have a better one please say so. I want to get rid of the old system where a composer who comes in at #9 in one list gets the same points as a composer who comes in at #10 on two lists (for a top 10) - which clearly is not fair. I've chosen this decline rate because people have expressed that they can pick a top 3, but it gets less clear below that. So I would think it's fair that the top 3 gets a bit more points than linear.

EDIT: a modified points system could be workable with some restrictions, e.g. 100 points to distribute, max 10 per composer, max 20 composers.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> I think sending the votes by PM, although more work for me, is an idea worth considering.


I hope you stop considering it. I find that seeing the rankings of the other participants is interesting.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

I understood it as a "personal top list", not a "favourite list". I rank them in an excel chart where I play matches and give points, so that Mozart vs Beethoven is 55:45 in favor of Mozart, Tchaikovsky vs Schoenberg is 72:28 etc. Then I look up three numbers:
1. average points against the top 3
2. average points against the top 20
3. average points against everyone
I have it developed for more or less 30 top composers for now.
The result would be:

01. J.S. Bach
02. W.A. Mozart
03. LvB
04. Emilie Mayer
05. Pyotr Tchaikovsky
06. Max Reger
07. John Williams
08. Dmitri Shostakovich
09. Richard Wagner
10. Arnold Schoenberg
11. Franz Liszt
12. Franz Schubert

Note that the further away from the top, the less strong my conviction is. I wondered about Mendelssohn and Vivaldi instead of the last two, for example, because Mendelssohn fares great against the top 3, and Vivaldi against the average.

I do not take popularity into account, but I do count influence on each other and "seniority" of sort when considering match results. Not everyone wins linearily vs others. Shostakovich loses to Schubert and Liszt, for example, but through being more modern/informed and more versatile in genre choice, has way better results _against average_.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Been this way many times before but here goes again … from my survey with rank at left:


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

.................................


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

I believe that this thread was just intended to offer discussion on the best way to conduct and tally voting, so any lists posted here are not going to be counted...


----------



## Guest (Aug 27, 2019)

WildThing said:


> I believe that this thread was just intended to offer discussion on the best way to conduct and tally voting, so any lists posted here are not going to be counted...


That's my understanding: purely for discussion at this stage to establish methodology.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Indeed. Then again, this is nothing new.

ETA: it does make me wonder whether this whole idea is feasible. It does rely on participants actually reading the OP, and in many threads people do not.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

OK, but the only problem is that you determine which composers get more points by position on their list. There would be no "ties" even if the lister feels that there are ties. The points given are arbitrary.

1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Schumann
4. Ives
5. Schubert
6. Haydn
7. Scriabin
8. Handel
9. Ginastera
10. Liszt
11. Mozart
12. Kapustin

So was this supposed to be a favorites list, or was there something else to it?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Canceled for reasons given in post 15.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Art Rock said:


> Indeed. Then again, this is nothing new.
> 
> ETA: it does make me wonder whether this whole idea is feasible. It does rely on participants actually reading the OP, and in many threads people do not.


Herding cats is trivial by comparison :lol:


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I honestly don't get the point.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

My methodology is in my post. It is a points system based on references in musicological guides. It takes away my opinion and favorites. It was the only system I could think of that did that.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

larold said:


> My methodology is in my post. It is a points system based on references in musicological guides. It takes away my opinion and favorites. It was the only system I could think of that did that.


Isn't this methodology unfair to composers with smaller outputs (hence why Mahler, for example, is so low)?


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Twelve names? Very well!

1.Bruckner
2.Beethoven
3.Liszt
4.R. Strauss
5.Tschaikowsky
6.Chopin
7.Rachmaninoff
8.Berlioz
9.Frank
10. Faurre
11.Scnittke
12. Skalkotas


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

larold said:


> My methodology is in my post. It is a points system based on references in musicological guides. It takes away my opinion and favorites. It was the only system I could think of that did that.


You're not the first to attempt this. This site used a wide variety of variables to create a statistical list of the 'best' composers. Quite an interesting site in general too.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Thread closed at OP's request.


----------

