# The Top 500 Composers and the 111 Most Influential Composers



## peeyaj

*Another year, and another greatest composer list..* Found this by the courtesy of mmsbls!

Here are the methodology on how the list was made.. Quite thorough already.



> http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/music/stats1.htm





> http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/music/stats3.htm





> The information provided at this site was statistically arrived at; i.e., decisions as to which composers and which of their works should be included were based on objective criteria, not subjective preferences. The particular 500 composers now included scored highest on a combination of eleven (unweighted) variables; these were: (1) length of composer entry in the Schwann Opus catalog (2) length of composer entry in the Grove's Dictionary of Music (3) length of composer entry in the (British) RED Classical Catalogue (4) for each composer's existing published sheet music, the number of libraries in the OCLC WorldCat database (covering the sum holdings of over 50,000 libraries in the U. S. and worldwide) holding his/r 20th-ranking work in his/r overall list (5) from the same source, the total number of sheet music publications for each composer over the past five years only (6) from the same source, the total number of Library of Congress subject headings referring to each composer's name (name authority record) (7) same as #6, but taking the total over the past five years only (8) from the same source, the total number of recordings referring to each composer (9) same as #8, but taking the total over the past five years only (10) as for #4, the number of libraries holding his/r 25th-ranking recording (11) combining data from the Opus and RED catalogs, the mean length of record for all the works by each composer.
> 
> These data were reduced to rank values across some 700 initial composer names, and the geometric mean taken across the ranks, establishing an overall score. Some small adjustments were made to compensate for outlier values and national affinities, then the resulting top 538 scorers were re-subjected to the process to obtain a penultimate top 500....
> 
> or Version 2 I was able to supplement the original data with new database searches, further investigations of reference works, and a good deal of internet work focusing on online-available dissertations, album liner notes, and concert notes and reviews. In all, opinions from at least five thousand sources have contributed to the "influences" compilations.
> 
> One of my objectives in creating this structure was to come up with a set of variables that I felt could be used to identify a rank order of "current significance" (broadly stated). I am happy with the results, yet I would be remiss were I not to admit that I still feel there are some biases in the data. On the basis both of my own judgment and various ranking systems I have seen over the years, it appears to me that the present system slightly: (1) underestimates the place of composers with small outputs, (2) overestimates the place of opera composers, and (3) underestimates the place of recent composers.


Here are the top 20:




























The full list are here: You need a pdf viewer or Google Chrome to view the list.

The Top 500 Compsers

The 111 Most Influential Composers

Additional info:

History of Influences

Influences



What do you think?


----------



## Dodecaplex

What about that one Chinese composer who wrote more than 6000 compositions of contrapuntal and rhythmic perfection and who anticipated the entire history of music even though he lived during the Qin Dynasty? Does being forgotten by history objectively erase the fact that you once existed in this universe?


----------



## violadude

Dodecaplex said:


> What about that one Chinese composer who wrote more than 6000 compositions of contrapuntal and rhythmic perfection and who anticipated the entire history of music even though he lived during the Qin Dynasty? Does being forgotten by history objectively erase the fact that you once existed in this universe?


???


----------



## Dodecaplex

violadude said:


> ???


'Greatest composer' lists are nonsensical, is all I'm trying to say.

Had we lived during the 18th century, Bach wouldn't have been on the list. Had we lived during the 22nd century, Sorabji would have probably been on the list. See what I'm trying to say?


----------



## joen_cph

Cross-checked the 500-list for some composers that were influential as teachers or who are now celebrated: 
Edison Denisov, Lubos Fiser, Guillaume Lekeu, Ib Nørholm, Bent Sørensen, Fartein Valen, Nikolai Roslavets, Allan Pettersson, John Foulds, Sorabji, Jean Cras, Willem Pijper, Tristan Keuris, J.M.Hauer, Alois Haba, Boris Lyatoshinsky, Jon Leifs, Tadeusz Baird, Hamilton Harty ...

Only two came up: Per Nørgård and Nikolai Miaskovsky. 

Instead there are people like Fine, Loeffler, Cui, Blitzstein, Dussek, Chadwick, Spontini and Sowerby etc.

The list has huge faults and seems to center a lot on US tradition !


----------



## jalex

The list for influence is incredibly absurd, to the point where it pretty much looks as if it were picked at random. Yeah, Mendelssohn (14) has had _way_ more impact than Boulez (85)


----------



## peeyaj

@joen and jalex

Here's the explanation of how the list came up..



> http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/music/stats3.htm


"It has been explained how inclusion in the present list of 500 composers was decided on the basis of ranked scores obtained from integrating a series of variables. *One of the implications of these scores is that they make it possible to secondarily derive an ordered list of the most influential composers.*

Once the scores were ranked, the ranks were used as the basis for weights that were substituted for the names of each composer appearing in all the 'Has Influenced' fields in the main "Composers" file; the resulting lists of numbers were then totalled up for each subject composer. The composer weights were created by: (1) adding 2.0 to the rank number for each composer, then (2) dividing this value into 1000., then (3) taking the cube root of the resulting value. So, for J. S. Bach, the highest ranked composer, the cube root of (1000. / (1. + 2.)), or 6.934, was arrived at. For the composer at rank 500., the parallel value was 1.258. There is nothing magic about this particular formulation; I *simply wanted a sliding scale that would give greater weight to someone's influencing Bach than to an influence on any old composer*.......

And it might also be noted that the "influence" rankings presented below should be viewed as only one aspect of overall importance or current relevancy. In the overall rankings for the latter, J. S. Bach came out first, Mozart second, Beethoven third, Schubert fourth, and Brahms fifth. This coincides very closely with what past observers have concluded, whatever their methods of assessment have been. J*ust because someone might have been very influential--like Schoenberg, for example--doesn't necessarily mean that their music is currently played or enjoyed as much as some other less influential figure's is!*"


----------



## joen_cph

Yes, but there´s a lot of geography involved in popularity and influence. Taking the Russian, German or Scandinavian public as a point of departure would produce very different results.


----------



## violadude

Dodecaplex said:


> 'Greatest composer' lists are nonsensical, is all I'm trying to say.
> 
> Had we lived during the 18th century, Bach wouldn't have been on the list. Had we lived during the 22nd century, Sorabji would have probably been on the list. See what I'm trying to say?


Oh ok...I thought there really was some obscure Chinese composer like that that I didn't know about. I am now deeply disappointed.


----------



## violadude

I think a list of most influential composers needs to include Claudio Monteverdi near the top. And I mean nearer to the top than #35.


----------



## Dodecaplex

violadude said:


> Oh ok...I thought there really was some obscure Chinese composer like that that I didn't know about.


Who knows? Maybe there actually is.


----------



## violadude

Dodecaplex said:


> Who knows? Maybe there actually is.


Ya man. I've thought about that before. Maybe there was a 20th century Mozartean prodigy born in Africa in the 70s but he died of starvation before he ever got a chance to discover and cultivate his gifts.


----------



## Dodecaplex

violadude said:


> Ya man. I've thought about that before. Maybe there was a 20th century Mozartean prodigy born in Africa in the 70s but he died of starvation before he ever got a chance to discover and cultivate his gifts.


But the hypothetical Chinese prodigy did cultivate his gifts. He wrote 6000 masterpieces, as I already mentioned.


----------



## pjang23

I would say Verdi is unusually high, and Debussy, Stravinsky, Ravel, and Mahler are too low.

After 20, these also look too low
21. Dvorak (!)
24. Bartók
25. Shostakovich
26. Prokofiev
36. Sibelius
48. Bruckner
53. Monteverdi
58. Scriabin
59. Palestrina


----------



## violadude

Dodecaplex said:


> But the hypothetical Chinese prodigy did cultivate his gifts. He wrote 6000 masterpieces, as I already mentioned.


I know that, mine was a different but somewhat similar example.


----------



## Dodecaplex

violadude said:


> I know that, mine was a different but somewhat similar example.


I would say they were fundamentally different. The hypothetical Chinese prodigy is relevant to the OP while the African one isn't.


----------



## violadude

Dodecaplex said:


> I would say they were fundamentally different. The hypothetical Chinese prodigy is relevant to the OP while the African one isn't.


I wasn't relating mine to the OP.


----------



## Dodecaplex

violadude said:


> I wasn't relating mine to the OP.


So it was just a non sequitur that came from nowhere?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Why the heck does everyone do these composer lists? In _my_ opinion, every composer's music sounds different and each composer had different intentions for their compositions and performances and stuff like that. So I think you can't just get people to vote something and officially declare one composer as better than another one. All I can say is that Ligeti is _far_ better than _Elgar_!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

^^^You hypocrite, ComposerOfAvantGarde.


----------



## quack

Dodecaplex said:


> What about that one Chinese composer who wrote more than 6000 compositions of contrapuntal and rhythmic perfection and who anticipated the entire history of music even though he lived during the Qin Dynasty? Does being forgotten by history objectively erase the fact that you once existed in this universe?


"History is not what you thought. It is what you can remember" -- 1066 and All That.

When Mr. Ji Mi Nah's works are playable, then he can replace Bach at the top of the list. I can take a lot of modern music: atonal, aleatoric, serialism, minimalism, but hypothetical music leaves me cold.


----------



## Dodecaplex

quack said:


> "History is not what you thought. It is what you can remember" -- 1066 and All That.
> 
> When Mr. Ji Mi Nah's works are playable, then he can replace Bach at the top of the list. I can take a lot of modern music: atonal, aleatoric, serialism, minimalism, but hypothetical music leaves me cold.


On the contrary, hypothetical music has the most profound effect on me simply because it's hypothetical (i.e. it exists beyond the world of boring history, for it enters the realm of the mystical).

"The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious." -- Albert Heinztein.

Anyway, unless you find the works by Mr. Ji Mi Nah and every other great forgotten musical genius in history, you can't make any objective statements about "greatest composers".


----------



## mmsbls

Dodecaplex said:


> 'Greatest composer' lists are nonsensical, is all I'm trying to say.
> 
> Had we lived during the 18th century, Bach wouldn't have been on the list. Had we lived during the 22nd century, Sorabji would have probably been on the list. See what I'm trying to say?


I disagree. Greatest composer lists are simply an attempt to estimate how much the classical music community values/enjoys/appreciates (depending on one's definition) various composers. Obviously the methodology can be criticized, but the overall intent is straightforward and sensible. People will disagree with methodologies _especially if they disagree with the results_.

An unknown composer (Bach to some extent in the 18th century) obviously cannot be evaluated, and modern composers (Sorabji) must wait for more time to allow a "better" evaluation. Nevertheless, these lists represent a good faith effort to evaluate what is _presently_ known about all composers.


----------



## mmsbls

jalex said:


> The list for influence is incredibly absurd, to the point where it pretty much looks as if it were picked at random. Yeah, Mendelssohn (14) has had _way_ more impact than Boulez (85)


The list for influence may look to you as though it were picked at random; however, what is *wonderful* about both the overall list and the influence list, is that there was a reasonable attempt to minimize the subjective nature and _the methodology was specified in detail_.

The question of whether a conservative composer such as Mendelssohn should be considered more influential than an innovative composer such as Cage or Stockhausen was discussed in the documentation here. Overall, I agree with their basic methodology and their assessment that Mendelssohn was much more influential than Boulez. You may view influence differently than they do.


----------



## mmsbls

peeyaj said:


> *Another year, and another greatest composer list..* Found this by the courtesy of mmsbls!


To give proper credit: I found the list because Trout posted a link to it in the TC Lists thread.


----------



## Guest

Actually, it looks to me as if the methodology simply conceals the fundamentally subjective nature of the situation underneath some objective statistics.

Take a hundred people's favorite composers; make ranked ordered list of those composers. That a certain number chose Bach, a certain number chose Beethoven, a certain number chose Mozart is objective. The numbers are objective. But nothing else is. All the reality that gives your hypothetical researcher the numbers is purely subjective.


----------



## Dodecaplex

mmsbls said:


> . . . the methodology can be criticized, but the overall intent is straightforward and sensible. People will disagree with methodologies _especially if they disagree with the results_.


I don't disagree with the results though. In fact, I'm quite happy that Bach and Mozart are at the top. Having said that, the methodology is still flawed.



> An unknown composer (Bach to some extent in the 18th century) obviously cannot be evaluated, and modern composers (Sorabji) must wait for more time to allow a "better" evaluation. *Nevertheless, these lists represent a good faith effort to evaluate what is presently known about all composers*.


Exactly. That's why calling such lists "Top 500 composers" and/or "500 Greatest composers" is completely nonsensical. When you give such titles to these lists, it implies that they have some sort of universal quality.
I'd much rather prefer a list titled "Top Recommended composers" because it clearly admits that it is subjective and that it is limited to the music we're presently familiar with.


----------



## Oskaar

Dodecaplex said:


> See what I'm trying to say?


....No....


----------



## mmsbls

Dodecaplex said:


> Exactly. That's why calling such lists "Top 500 composers" and/or "500 Greatest composers" is completely nonsensical. When you give such titles to these lists, it implies that they have some sort of universal quality.
> I'd much rather prefer a list titled "Top Recommended composers" because it clearly admits that it is subjective and that it is limited to the music we're presently familiar with.


I'm not sure what you mean by "universal quality". I think they are simply an attempt to determine as best as we can what the collective assessment of the classical music community is regarding our enjoyment/appreciation/valuation of composers. We know the assessment is not perfect, but _many people are very interested so some people try to produce such lists_. It certainly makes sense to me to attempt to produce something many people want. Also I strongly suspect that consumers of that list understand that ultimately it is subjectively based. We are not able to objectively create such lists now (if ever).

We do the same in physics - our measurements are not perfect, but we try. We publish lists of elementary particles knowing that we will likely add to the list or even significantly change the list (lists in the 1960s included all kinds of particles that later were understood not to be elementary). It's the best we can do in the present, and that's not a bad thing.

The problem with "Top Recommended Composers" is that the WKU list is _not_ a list of recommended composers. That was not the intent.


----------



## Dodecaplex

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "universal quality". I think they are simply an attempt to determine as best as we can what the collective assessment of the classical music community is regarding our enjoyment/appreciation/valuation of composers. We know the assessment is not perfect, but _many people are very interested so some people try to produce such lists_. It certainly makes sense to me to attempt to produce something many people want.


My criticism isn't about the purpose of such lists, it's about the methodology and the names that they're given. "Top 500 composers" implies that these are the 500 best composers in all of history, which is a concept that's without any sense whatsoever.



> Also I strongly suspect that consumers of that list understand that ultimately it is subjectively based.


Despite the fact that the list itself claims it is objective? Because I believe it's very easy for consumers to fall for such claims, especially if and when the list matches their own presuppositions about who the "Greatest Composers" are.



> We do the same in physics - our measurements are not perfect, but we try. We publish lists of elementary particles knowing that we will likely add to the list or even significantly change the list (lists in the 1960s included all kinds of particles that later were understood not to be elementary). It's the best we can do in the present, and that's not a bad thing.


The distinction I'd like to make here is that in physics, us humans try to use our own understanding (which is subjective) to analyze reality (which is "objective" [in the sense that the earth still orbits the sun, whether we say so or not] ); on the other hand, these lists claim that they use objective methods to analyze the subjective opinions of classical music listeners. I know that arguing about such a comparison with someone with far more experience in physics than myself would be pretty useless, but I think this is a somewhat fair point.



> The problem with "Top Recommended Composers" is that the WKU list is _not_ a list of recommended composers. That was not the intent.


Again, I'm not criticizing the purpose behind the list, I'm criticizing the name that they've given to the list (i.e. if it's about composers whom the classical community enjoys and appreciates the most, then the list should have simply been called "500 most appreciated composers at the present", which is not very catchy, but at least it's more accurate).


----------



## starthrower




----------



## peeyaj

We should rename it *"Top 500 Composers of Western Classical Music"*, so the hypothetical Chinese composer could be removed in the equation...


----------



## Dodecaplex

^ Well, then, what about the hypothetical Portuguese composer?


----------



## peeyaj

Dodecaplex said:


> ^ Well, then, what about the hypothetical Portuguese composer?


Here they are.. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Portuguese_composers


----------



## Dodecaplex

^ Funny. I would have thought that the word "notable" would have made the source just a tiny bit less trustworthy.


----------



## mmsbls

Dodecaplex said:


> The distinction I'd like to make here is that in physics, us humans try to use our own understanding (which is subjective) to analyze reality (which is "objective" [in the sense that the earth still orbits the sun, whether we say so or not] ); on the other hand, these lists claim that they use objective methods to analyze the subjective opinions of classical music listeners.


I agree with what you said here, but both subjective and objective data are part of reality. The WKU study is trying to measure a part of reality just as physics experiments do. I think we both agree that the WKU study contains more uncertainty than most physics experiments. Further it's much harder to estimate the uncertainty. Maybe the main difference between us is that I'm willing to accept that uncertainty for what I consider an interesting attempt to learn about listener preferences and composer influences.



Dodecaplex said:


> Again, I'm not criticizing the purpose behind the list, I'm criticizing the name that they've given to the list (i.e. if it's about composers whom the classical community enjoys and appreciates the most, then the list should have simply been called "500 most appreciated composers at the present", which is not very catchy, but at least it's more accurate).


I understand that you feel the title is misleading and could cause some people to believe the list is something that it is not. I do not worry about that. People are always free to misunderstand studies, polls, reports, etc.. Every polling study and most scientific papers could be modified to include words to make the title more accurate, but _most_ people I think understand the basic nature of these studies.

Overall, I think we both agree on what the WKU study actually is, but we disagree on how it should be presented.


----------



## Oskaar

I think one should be allowed to use catchy names on the list as "top 500" as long as people are aware of the frame the list is built upon. If I make my own 500 top list, I will point out that that is *my* list, and not everybody else, and sertainly not an objective standard. And then you have certain levels, from mine to the average result by thousends of participents. Take a list for what it is, by its own parameters. By the way, I can have much more use of a personal list than other general lists, when I have learned this persons personal taste.


----------



## Ethereality

This is a decent list. It's silly to think though that the majority of most influential musicians came out of one period of expansion. The problem with the OP list is, when it lists one composer as an influence, it's not giving enough credit to all those who influenced the music. Beethoven for instance, would not have existed at all without Mozart. His music is highly Mozartian, and Mozart merely _borrowed_ the structure of Classical but Romanticism itself should be credited mainly to Mozart.

Who really were the most influential musicians that we can be certain of?

My guesses are these:

*- Perotin

- A few muslim instrument designers/composers

- Palestrina

- Monteverdi

- Mozart

- Wagner

- Gershwin

- McCartney*

As for the Chinese/Portuguese question, that's left up to uncertainty.

It would be a bias to first then add Beethoven, Bach, and Debussy to this list, because these composers are from a popular period. Popularity bias. In truth, there are musicians who were much more influential to music as a whole, throughout the ages. I just need to prioritize which ones should come first.


----------



## Haydn70

Ethereality said:


> This is a decent list. It's silly to think though that the majority of most influential musicians came out of one period of expansion. The problem with the OP list is, when it lists one composer as an influence, it's not giving enough credit to all those who influenced the music. Beethoven for instance, would not have existed at all without Mozart. His music is highly Mozartian, and Mozart merely _borrowed_ the structure of Classical but Romanticism itself should be credited mainly to Mozart.
> 
> Who really were the most influential musicians that we can be certain of?
> 
> My guesses are these:
> 
> *- Perotin
> 
> - A few muslim instrument designers/composers
> 
> - Palestrina
> 
> - Monteverdi
> 
> - Mozart
> 
> - Wagner
> 
> - Gershwin
> 
> - McCartney*
> 
> As for the Chinese/Portuguese question, that's left up to uncertainty.
> 
> It would be a bias to first then add Beethoven, Bach, and Debussy to this list, because these composers are from a popular period. Popularity bias. In truth, there are musicians who were much more influential to music as a whole, throughout the ages. I just need to prioritize which ones should come first.


Haydn was far more influential than Mozart...far more.

Beethoven has to be on the list. Your reason for excluding him makes no sense.

And are you kidding with Gershwin and McCartney???? Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Ethereality

The question is Haydn was influential to _what_ overall? He was incredibly influential to classical structure. But much of Haydn's influence can be attributed to those who came before him: study more Renaissance and Baroque. Haydn's overall contributional influence left a bit earlier than the others I listed. Not what he composed, but what he invented, and to the whole sphere of music.

The truth is, classical and baroque were times of great mastery, but actual invention was not necessarily its dominant feature. Mozart flipped everything on its head, sparking a new renaissance in what a composer's role was and in musical capabilities itself.

And then, Beethoven was a brilliant inventor, but not as much as these guys.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Ethereality said:


> The question is Haydn was influential to _what_ overall? He was incredibly influential to classical structure. But much of Haydn's influence can be attributed to those who came before him: study more Renaissance and Baroque. Haydn's overall contributional influence left a bit earlier than the others I listed. Not what he composed, but what he invented, and to the whole sphere of music.
> 
> The truth is, classical and baroque were times of great mastery, but actual invention was not necessarily its dominant feature. Mozart flipped everything on its head, sparking a new renaissance in what a composer's role was and in musical capabilities itself.
> 
> And then, Beethoven was a brilliant inventor, but not as much as these guys.


I'm really not sure where your reasoning is coming from. I think it's pretty widely accepted that Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, and Debussy have been very influential to the development of music as a whole, even more so than Mozart and the other composers that you named (especially more than Gershwin haha).


----------



## hammeredklavier

_"I owe very, very much to Mozart; and if one studies, for instance, the way in which I write for string quartet, then one cannot deny that I have learned this directly from Mozart. And I am proud of it!"
"When I composed my Fourth String Quartet I said this time I must compose like Mozart does it."_


----------



## BachIsBest

Disregarding the title of the thread the actual website only has the title "The 500 Composers, Placed in Rank Order" which doesn't make any implications about them being the "top" composers. I think it's quite an interesting idea, especially the influential list which could probably be done far more 'objectivley' as it is a lot easier to identify influence than quality.


----------



## Ethereality

Eh, some of you on Mozart just don't know what you're on about. Mozart was busy inventing the whole the time, while Beethoven had the luxury of often recycling Mozart's material in a more reflective and sentimental way, making it his own, wandering and dynamic, when the foundation of it was Mozart's invention. Mozart had nearly the same expressive intention but he was originating all these ideas, not reflecting on them from birth and seeking variance for its sake--he would go on to influence the defining path of music to this day. The comparison between the two can almost be said to be of Chopin and Liszt, not in the sense that Beethoven was a Liszt, but in the sense that Mozart is complete master. Now I do agree Beethoven is a brilliant inventor, destroying Mozart in a way with his influential temperament, but not even near the influence Mozart had on Romanticism. Nonsense.


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> [Beethoven's] music is highly Mozartian, and Mozart merely _borrowed_ the structure of Classical but Romanticism itself should be credited mainly to Mozart.


What does any of this mean? Even where it's comprehensible, there's not much truth in it.



> Much of Haydn's influence can be attributed to those who came before him.


If it was Haydn's influence, it's attributable to his music, not to someone else's.



> Mozart flipped everything on its head, sparking a new renaissance in what a composer's role was and in musical capabilities itself. Beethoven was a brilliant inventor, but not as much as these guys.


This is so unclear as to be meaningless. Precisely what was flipped on its head, and where is the renaissance that Mozart supposedly sparked? In whose music is it to be found? Beethoven was shaping an aesthetic by his third symphony that owes practically nothing to Mozart, and was constantly creating new boundaries thereafter. Music changed more between Mozart and Beethoven than between J. C. Bach and Mozart.



> Mozart was busy inventing the whole the time, while Beethoven had the luxury of often recycling Mozart's material in a more reflective and sentimental way, making it his own and more explorative and dynamic (emotively), when the foundation of it was Mozart's invention.


This is an absurd description of Beethoven's achievements.



> Mozart had nearly the same emotional intention in originating these ideas,


Which ideas? Just for starters: the ideas of dramatic narrative, cyclic form, programmatic tone poetry, or choral variations as developments of the symphony? In which works does Mozart break out of the typical Classical symphonic mold? And how do you know anything about Mozart's "emotional intentions"?



> Now I do agree Beethoven is a brilliant inventor of his own style but not even close to Mozart. Nonsense.


Which of Beethoven's experimental and ever-evolving "own styles" are you talking about?

It does appear that we have someone here terribly eager to prove the supremacy of his pet composer, and at the cost of much nonsense.


----------



## Ethereality

Do you know how much anyone having Mozart as a pet composer, if they did, isn't a bad thing? No but you have the audacity to put down Mozart's emotional and thematic intentions after you heard his music and know the period he grew up in. Everyone, especially Beethoven, could sense his awesome inspiration for thematic development and expression. You sound inexperienced and are saying "nothing" in more words. I don't even know what to say to "Beethoven didn't directly steal Mozart's repertoire," it can be proven ad nauseam. Not as much in plenty areas of course, all the more expressive and reflective developments of Beethoven's to much of Mozart's repertoire. Beethoven and his philosophies sparked Romanticism, but Mozart was the fuel that kept him and it going, from day one with his inventions. I think you have a predictable lack of comprehension about Mozart's music, my friend.


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> It sounds like what you're doing, since you have the audacity to question Mozart's emotional and thematic intentions after hearing his music. Damn, good job at also saying "nothing" but in more words. I don't even know what to say to "Beethoven didn't directly steal from Mozart's repertoire," it can be proven ad nauseam. Beethoven and his philosophies sparked Romanticism, but Mozart was the fuel that kept it going, from day one with Romanticism. You have a predictable lack of comprehension.


Since this fails to respond to anyone else here and says nothing on top of the previous nothings you've said, why bother? Do you know anything about music at all? Would you care to offer some evidence?


----------



## Ethereality

Because you're saying clealy biased and uninformed things, "Music changed more between Mozart and Beethoven than between J. C. Bach and Mozart," I'm sorry you feel that way but you're hearing what you want to hear. Study the music itself, this is not the place to present your opinions disguised as the aura of fact, well maybe it is but Come back when you have research to prove your point, even a slight bit will help.

Here's another clearly misinformed thing you said:
"If it was Haydn's influence, it's attributable to his music, not to someone before him."

Do you think before you respond? Because this is the whole crux of the problem with this thread idea, people like you appear to have no idea how influence works, nor seem to know much about Mozart and Beethoven. And how long have you posted here?


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> Because you're saying clealy biased and uninformed things, "Music changed more between Mozart and Beethoven than between J. C. Bach and Mozart," I'm sorry you feel that way but you're hearing what you want to hear. Study the music itself, this is not the place to present your opinions disguised as the aura of fact, well maybe it is but Come back when you have research to prove your point, even a slight bit will help.
> 
> Here's another clearly misinformed thing you said:
> "If it was Haydn's influence, it's attributable to his music, not to someone before him."
> 
> Do you think before you respond? Because this is the whole crux of the problem with this thread idea, people like you appear to have no idea how influence works, nor seem to know much about Mozart and Beethoven.


You still haven't supported your original statements by demonstrating an actual knowledge of music. The original absurd claims were yours. The ball has been in your court all along, and all you seem able to do is wave your racquet and snort at your opponents.

We're waiting for some evidence that "Beethoven and his philosophies sparked Romanticism, but Mozart was the fuel that kept it going, from day one with Romanticism" (an exact quote, in case anyone might think I've forgotten how to put a sentence together).

So...?


----------



## Ethereality

"The original absurd claims were yours."

I had none, but now you're giving into the notion here that yours were absurd, or hinting at it at least. I applaud the honesty and hope we can get somewhere. 

So now, if you want to present evidence of your own special case that Beethoven is more influential than all classical composers combined, or whatever ideology you're cooking up now, go for it, that's on you. Otherwise if you want to learn something, I recommend you take serious study of Mozart's music and biographies, and if you want to prove a point, then do it, don't play dictator with faux appeals that haven't manifested themselves in any way. If I were you I would use this advice and go study some more. If I want to present a major case with musical evidence, surely I'll do it at my own time. Have any more bad questions? Please not. Don't just keep responding to me with nothing. You gave your opinion about Mozart, that's enough I think.


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> If I want to present a major case with musical evidence, surely I'll do it at my own time.


Surely.....................


----------

