# The Top 30 Composers according to Spotify



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

*Composers ranked by total number of "album-works" (a work appearance on an album counts as one point):*

------------------------------- 50,000+ -----------------------------------
*
1. Bach*
51,313 album-works

------------------------------- 25,000+ -----------------------------------

*2. Chopin*
41,949 album-works

*3. Mozart*
36,215 album-works

*4. Beethoven*
31,388 album-works

*5. Brahms*
26,687 album-works

------------------------------- 10,000+ -----------------------------------

*6. Schubert*
17,357 album-works

*7. Debussy*
15,001 album-works

*8. Tchaikovsky*
12,505 album-works

*9. Mendelssohn*
12,140 album-works

*10. Handel*
11,618 album-works

*11. Liszt*
10,492 album-works

------------------------------- 5,000+ -----------------------------------

*12. Vivaldi*
9,368 album-works

*13. Schumann*
8,523 album-works

*14. Rachmaninoff*
7,612 album-works

*15. Elgar*
7,474 album-works

*16. Verdi*
7,452 album-works

*17. Grieg*
7,255 album-works

*18. Saint-Saëns*
5,883 album-works

*19. Sibelius*
5,532 album-works

*20. Dvořák*
5,277 album-works

*21. Ravel*
5,000 album-works

------------------------------- 1,000+ -----------------------------------

*22. Puccini*
4,796 album-works

*23. Fauré*
4,768 album-works

*24. Prokofiev*
4,760 album-works

*25. Rossini*
4,721 album-works

*26. Wagner*
4,536 album-works

*27. Mahler*
4,040 album-works

*28. Shostakovich*
3,906 album-works

*29. Strauss*
3,774 album-works

*30. Stravinsky*
3,542 album-works


----------



## Rosalind Ellicott (May 21, 2020)

No Haydn...….?!


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Couchie said:


> *Composers ranked by total number of "album-works" (a work appearance on an album counts as one point):*
> 
> ------------------------------- 50,000+ -----------------------------------
> *
> ...


As valid a list as any other. I'd note that certain composers have a particular advantage or disadvantage in this kind of ranking. For example, Chopin wrote piano music almost exclusively, and it's a lot cheaper and easier to make a solo piano record than a symphony orchestra or opera record, so there should be more just for that reason. Opera composers are not too badly disadvantaged, as most operas lend themselves to recording arias and overtures separately rather than the entire work. A composer like Mahler, who mainly wrote large scale orchestral and vocal works that aren't often excerpted on record, is at a disadvantage in these rankings, as are Haydn, best known for his symphonies, and Stravinsky, best known for his works for orchestra, or at least ensembles of eight or more.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I'd say this list says more about users than composers.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

An interesting take. I explained here and here what I think is the most accurate list we have been able to achieve. That is the Science-Couchie list. While other lists survey other groups of people or popularity data, which really isn't a good or a bad thing (can be meaningless), our particular list is the only one I know of compiled in a highly meticulous, over-time fashion, that assesses quality of every composers' work. It's really impossible to ask for a more thought-out list. Still, it's interesting and useful to try to see other data and groups. User:Art Rock did another forum survey that is worth peeking at, although a quick sample in comparison to the monster sample I linked.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Ethereality said:


> An interesting take. I explained here and here what I think is the most accurate list we have been able to achieve. That is the Science-Couchie list. While other lists survey other groups of people or popularity data, which really isn't a good or a bad thing (can be meaningless), our particular list is the only one I know of compiled in a highly meticulous and analytical, over-time fashion, that assesses quality of every composers' work. It's really impossible to ask for a more thought-out list. Still, it's interesting to see other data.


Gosh, while I admire the apparent thoroughness and care of your work, it too consists solely of survey and popularity data, and nothing one iota more or different. As your source readily acknowledges, "our list represents the knowledge and tastes of the people who have helped build it", exactly as any survey does. You may have designed and performed your survey far more thoroughly and with far more intelligence and skill than others, and had access to a better sample of listeners for your purpose. But still, a survey is all it is.

Rankings derived from market data, as the one cited by the OP from Spotify, escape some of the inevitable shortcomings of surveys, however well done, and of course have some inevitable shortcomings of their own, as you correctly imply. Market data, if reasonably comprehensive, presumably is largely free from sample bias, and doesn't require much of the "meticulous and analytical" work you devoted to your survey, which no doubt did require it. The biggest problem with using it for a quality assessment is, markets and market data are defined rather arbitrarily and for convenience of a for-profit industry, not for assessing the "quality" of music, however that is defined.

At any rate, thank you for your useful work, which you needn't defend in this context.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

One might assume that what is bound is sell in albums is bound to bring more initial promise to beginners than it does long-term return. Again, it's one assumption.

If we do roll with this assumption, we can actually reverse superimpose such a list onto the Science-Couchie list, thereby synthesizing an artificial intelligence of this forum that highlights the most advanced composers. In other words, there's an assumption (only a hypothesis) that Science's piece survey has some beginners in it, thus we can artificially remove the more beginner opinions evenly. It's all for just fun and speculation (something I'd do to narrow my listening.) If we do the reverse, we'd end up with a hypothetical list of the best beginner composers.

When I did this last time, I used a giant reddit survey of the greatest composers as the beginner opinions. Some of the most underrated advanced composers came out to be
1. Rossini
2. Mendelssohn
3. Hummel
4. Berlioz
5. Mussorgsky
6. Janacek

The most overrated or beginner composers were
1. Bruckner
2. Hindemith
3. Debussy
4. Bocherrini
5. Satie
6. J. Strauss II

This only makes sense if you roll with the premise.


----------



## Owen David (May 15, 2020)

So this is a list of composers whose music really good classical musicians enjoy recording...not quite the same as "the best" composers. That requires a lot more "multi-factorial" analysis!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Ethereality said:


> The most overrated or beginner composers were
> 1. Bruckner
> 2. Hindemith


I have difficulty seeing either of these two as overrated, and definitely can't see them as composers for beginners.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Overrated according to people here, ie. the average difference between this forum and mainstream online.

Also I didn't post the strongest examples of this. Apologies. I posted a few_ popular_ names that were considered overrated. Better to view the whole dataset instead.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Ethereality said:


> Overrated according to people here, ie. the average difference between this forum and mainstream online.
> 
> Also I didn't post the strongest examples of this. Apologies. I posted a few_ popular_ names that were considered overrated. Better to view the whole dataset instead.


Of course, some would argue that almost anyone who consistently listens to classical music is well out of the mainstream. Nonetheless, I like your idea of distinguishing between members of this forum and classical music listeners generally, as that is at least a start at addressing the problem of sample bias, always an issue with surveys.

A forum like this tends to accumulate members with similar tastes over time, a major cause of sample bias. You wisely look for ways to analyze that bias by contrasting the results here with those based on market data. Statisticians usually try to correct for and eliminate sample bias, but you suggest it has its own value, which is a valid point. The next step would be to look for correlative factors. Have you done that? Do members here have more education than the population as a whole? More music education and training? And do those factors correlate with a greater interest in the music of Stravinsky? That would be interesting to know.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Haydn should have been on the list. After all, he composed so many quality works.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

ORigel said:


> Haydn should have been on the list. After all, he composed so many quality works.


No such thing as "should have" or "quality" with market data. People buy what they want to buy. You might look into _why_ people want one composer's music more than another's, as Ethereality does when he suggests some listeners are more educated or experienced than others. Even then, it really isn't a measure of quality.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

fluteman said:


> Of course, some would argue that almost anyone who consistently listens to classical music is well out of the mainstream. Nonetheless, I like your idea of distinguishing between members of this forum and classical music listeners generally, as that is at least a start at addressing the problem of sample bias, always an issue with surveys.
> 
> A forum like this tends to accumulate members with similar tastes over time, a major cause of sample bias. You wisely look for ways to analyze that bias by contrasting the results here with those based on market data. Statisticians usually try to correct for and eliminate sample bias, but you suggest it has its own value, which is a valid point. The next step would be to look for correlative factors. Have you done that? Do members here have more education than the population as a whole? More music education and training? And do those factors correlate with a greater interest in the music of Stravinsky? That would be interesting to know.


I'll be honest, the theory that this forum accumulated similar tastes over time not by nature of influence (which is legitimately ok with me) but by nature of there being similar members who have fit-in and found acceptance, didn't concern me when I ran the data. That is mostly because I am blinded by the diversity that does exist here. That being said, there is one of many tests I can think of to tell if this has happened.

Test 1. Compare the _rate of change_ of increments of album appearances per composer to those increments of favored composers here. The list with more rate of change higher up, might suggest (a) less acceptance of diversity or (b) that people have grouped together more in favoritism. Maybe a more thorough test some other time, but let's measure to see if our forum has any abnormal favoritism in our Top 10.

*Spotify* | Composer's value (V) | % of composer above | Rate of change
1. Bach - 51,313 album-works - 
2. Chopin - 41,949 album-works - 81.75% - 
3. Mozart - 36,215 album-works - 86.33% - 1.05
4. Beethoven - 31,388 album-works - 86.67% - 1.01
5. Brahms - 26,687 album-works - 85.02% - 0.98
6. Schubert - 17,357 album-works - 65.03% - 0.76
7. Debussy - 15,001 album-works - 86.42% - 1.33
8. Tchaikovsky - 12,505 album-works - 83.36% - 0.96
9. Mendelssohn - 12,140 album-works - 97.08% - 1.16
10. Handel - 11,618 album-works - 95.70% - 0.98
Total - 256,173

Average rate of change (weighted to value (V)): 0.981

*Science-Couchie list 2* | Total tiers achieved by composer (V) | % of composer above | Rate of change
1. Beethoven - 4,765 -
2. Bach - 3,930 - 82.48% -
3. Mozart - 3,865 - 98.34% - 1.19
4. Brahms - 3,609 - 93.37% - 0.95
5. Schubert - 2,875 - 79.66% - 0.85
6. Haydn - 2,855 - 99.30% - 1.25
7. Shostakovich - 2,100 - 73.55% - 0.74
8. Schumann - 1,939 - 92.33% - 1.26
9. Debussy - 1,746 - 90.05% - 0.98
10. Prokofiev - 1,708 - 97.82% - 1.09
Total - 29,392

Average rate of change (weighted to value (V)): 1.028

*Conclusion*: This test is only a statistical comparison, thus it can overlook the bigger picture. No indications of high favoritism or group-think in our forum at this time. More tests to be done. Our forum has only a few percentages higher rate of change the higher up they favor a composer in our Top 10. A much higher level would be expected if there is significant or abnormal group-think ie. in what Top 3, Top 6 we've selected. Fits the normative Spotify pattern so far.

Maybe we can think of some other test to do. As to your other questions, fluteman, those are definitely some big topics to think about! I think I'm still just looking at numbers in leisurely speculation.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Ethereality said:


> I'll be honest, the theory that this forum accumulated similar tastes over time not by nature of influence (which is legitimately ok with me) but by nature of there being similar members who have fit-in and found acceptance, didn't concern me when I ran the data. That is mostly because I am blinded by the diversity that does exist here. That being said, there is one of many tests I can think of to tell if this has happened.
> 
> Test 1. Compare the _rate of change_ of increments of album appearances per composer to those increments of favored composers here. The list with more rate of change higher up, might suggest (a) less acceptance of diversity or (b) that people have grouped together more in favoritism. Maybe a more thorough test some other time, but let's measure to see if our forum has any abnormal favoritism in our Top 10.
> 
> ...


Interesting! I do see some indications of group think here, as when one poster makes a 4'33" joke, others chime in with their own. Even I've been drawn into doing that. But forums like this do tend to attract people with similar tastes, that's why these forums exist. This is a particularly well-constructed forum with plenty of sub-forums for modern music people, opera people, even wind instrument people like me.

But it's a stretch to call that 'diversity' when most folks, even those passionately interested in music, are interested in a wide variety of music, none of which is ever discussed in this forum, and have no interest, or very nearly none, in any of the music that is discussed anywhere in this forum. People interested in Guillaume DuFay may have more in common with people interested in Anton Reicha, Alexander Scriabin, Elliott Carter or Morton Lauridsen than people interested in Taylor Swift or Kendrick Lamar (a rapper who reportedly is the only non-classical artist to win a Pulitzer Prize for music).

No matter. These rankings make for interesting reading, so long as we don't fall into the trap of reading too much into them.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Indeed! My tastes are even stuck in the East where a different feel about music and its harmonies clashes with the Germans, who to me sound more one-dimensional. What if we let only Russians decide these polls on art. Group-think in the bigger human picture (forum favorites, album sales, what instruments and scales sound right or not) is inevitable, because we're all wired similarly to our physical and social environments for survival. Just imagine all the hundreds of thousands of composers who died forgotten because they never made any sort of fame to begin with! We might never know their names, but there was definitely craft we wish we got our hands on. In the same way, there's probably much of it we'd regard as their contemporaries regarded them. We don't have time or patience to listen to redundancy or cacophony. And on the other side of the coin, there's us as individuals, each different enough so that no one person will ever agree with this average consensus that keeps developing. But remarkably there is a pattern of composers closer to the perfect sound overall, maybe because most of us are wired enough similarly to perceive it that way. It's interesting to wonder if album popularity has more merit in our discussions. I mean if we're talking about the average human brain, I'm sure Chopin and Debussy will just_ sound _better than Haydn or Shostakovich. In that you're right. But we aren't talking about the average brain, who might prefer "Beatles" or "Beach Boys" over Bach. What actually is 'album appearances'? I recall you have spoken on it in the past, but I have forgotten the line of reasoning for using it.


----------



## Swosh (Feb 25, 2018)

hey that's a good list haha


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

The idea of using some sort of market data that reflects which music people want to buy or pay for, and/or how much of it or how often they want to buy or pay for it, is that is frees us from making an ill-advised attempt at objective value judgments or trying to objectively determine what "sounds better", an effort that is doomed to fail from the start, as however objectively certain music meets or doesn't meet whatever criteria or standards are used, subjective value judgments are inevitably needed to develop those criteria.

With market data, a subjective leap of faith is needed to define classical music, and then to define the parameters used to measure the market for "classical" music. But this isn't such an overwhelming problem. Yes, the boundaries are blurred, as with other genres. Most in the western world would agree Mozart and Beethoven are classical composers. But Karlheinz Stockhausen? John Cage? Philip Glass? Miles Davis? Yoko Ono? John Williams? Is West Side Story a classical opera, as it is often categorized, or merely a Broadway musical? So a clear but somewhat arbitrary boundary must be drawn.

The advantage is, we avoid the problem of sample bias inherent in surveys. Then, ideally, we can look at the characteristics of those in the market for classical music, i.e., their age, education, level of musical training and so forth, and see whether and how those characteristics correlate to their tastes for one sort of classical music or another.


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream (Jan 3, 2020)

I really don’t think Ethereality’s list measures anything like quality. I am a little confused that it claims that popularity = quality. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone has sold more than Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Cervantes, etc., so Rowling > basically all authors? I admire very much the effort to make such a scientific list, but I don’t think it measures quality at all. No musicologist or composer on earth would rank John Cage above Alban Berg, or Phillip Glass above Boulez, Dutilleux, and Puccini. I mean how is Morton Feldman above Berio, Dutilleux, Bizet and Scarlatti? Even if you like Feldman, he literally had no idea what he was doing and just wrote inutively, which is the very opposite of quality and craft.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

EmperorOfIceCream said:


> I really don't think Ethereality's list measures anything like quality. I am a little confused that it claims that popularity = quality. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone has sold more than Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Cervantes, etc., so Rowling > basically all authors? I admire very much the effort to make such a scientific list, but I don't think it measures quality at all. No musicologist or composer on earth would rank John Cage above Alban Berg, or Phillip Glass above Boulez, Dutilleux, and Puccini. I mean how is Morton Feldman above Berio, Dutilleux, Bizet and Scarlatti? Even if you like Feldman, he literally had no idea what he was doing and just wrote inutively, which is the very opposite of quality and craft.


Moreover, you could really put the likes of Cage, Glass and Feldman in a different musical category or genre altogether than Bizet or Beethoven, especially as the categories are somewhat arbitrary to begin with. Cage in particular, while he certainly could and did compose music in the classical tradition, such as a string quartet, also made what falls more squarely in the category of conceptual art, and like Feldman, sought alternatives for organizing sound apart from traditional western harmony, or for that matter most of the other foundations of the western musical tradition. Glass, while perhaps more within the western musical tradition in some ways, plainly shows the influence of non-western music and cultures.

One could put these three at or near the bottom of a classical music ranking, but that's a bit like ranking the abstract impressionists behind the cubists, the cubists behind the social realists, the social realists behind the 17th century Flemish school, etc. Better to exclude them altogether, or give them their own ranking list.


----------



## mark6144 (Apr 6, 2019)

At least there's something objectively interesting about the Spotify data, which is more than I can say about most other lists. I'm frequently bemused by the preoccupations on this forum with rankings of composers and works. Why on Earth does anyone care whether composer X ranks higher than composer Y in some opinion poll? The whole concept of ranking composers is... bizarre.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

mark6144 said:


> At least there's something objectively interesting about the Spotify data, which is more than I can say about most other lists. I'm frequently bemused by the preoccupations on this forum with rankings of composers and works. Why on Earth does anyone care whether composer X ranks higher than composer Y in some opinion poll? The whole concept of ranking composers is... bizarre.


There are two reasons I can think of. One is to recommend the best pieces to people exploring, and the second reason is tied into that. There seems to be an objective, scientific inquiry into what music suits humans the best on average, based on the way we're wired. The forum's recommended list might be tied closer to the tastes of people who listen to more music, because it's easier nowadays to participate without sales or purchasing anything. Album sales might represent a number of people who are less involved in the listening process, making small purchases here and there, while online access to any work is reason why our forum list is so easy to get involved in. I can't claim we have nearly as large a participatory population, but the scientific inquiry into quality is interesting, to many.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Ethereality said:


> There are two reasons I can think of. One is to recommend the best pieces to people exploring, and the second reason is tied into that. There seems to be an objective, scientific inquiry into what music suits humans the best on average, based on the way we're wired. The forum's recommended list might be tied closer to the tastes of people who listen to more music, because it's easier nowadays to participate without sales or purchasing anything. Album sales might represent a number of people who are less involved in the listening process, making small purchases here and there, while online access to any work is reason why our forum list is so easy to get involved in. I can't claim we have nearly as large a participatory population, but the scientific inquiry into quality is interesting, to many.


There are a lot of humans in Africa, India and China, among other places, who are "wired" differently. We are excluding some longstanding musical traditions in those places in these rankings. Not to mention Europeans and/or Americans never exposed to classical music.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Yes ! We have a large enough sample throughout the world to say 'some music is simply better,' when you average all our different tastes, and yet we don't have a large enough sample to verify what music that is. We may never get the chance to poll aliens and deep sea creatures for their opinions, but I think humans are supposed to be 99.9% genetically similar or something. There's no mathematical way that music as of 2020 can be more complex than genetics or supersede this fact.

I came up with this line of reasoning that if we could poll everyone for their favorite musicians, and then pick the guy/girl who best-fits everyone's opinions, that would be the list to go with. The reasoning had something to do with 'The list must be made by a thinking agent who has underlying reasons for his choices, and it can only be made by one person, or else two people will come to conflicting choices and thus an automatically flawed line of reasoning.' Now we're getting pretty far out there! Let's just stick to milder musings.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

mark6144 said:


> I'm frequently bemused by the preoccupations on this forum with rankings of composers and works. Why on Earth does anyone care whether composer X ranks higher than composer Y in some opinion poll? The whole concept of ranking composers is... bizarre.


It's not just here, and not just classical music. There appears to be something in the brains of large number of people that like things to be ordered that way.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Ethereality said:


> Yes ! We have a large enough sample throughout the world to say 'some music is simply better,' when you average all our different tastes, and yet we don't have a large enough sample to verify what music that is. We may never get the chance to poll aliens and deep sea creatures for their opinions, but I think humans are supposed to be 99.9% genetically similar or something. There's no mathematical way that music as of 2020 can be more complex than genetics or supersede this fact.
> 
> I came up with this line of reasoning that if we could poll everyone for their favorite musicians, and then pick the guy/girl who best-fits everyone's opinions, that would be the list to go with. The reasoning had something to do with 'The list must be made by a thinking agent who has underlying reasons for his choices, and it can only be made by one person, or else two people will come to conflicting choices and thus an automatically flawed line of reasoning.' Now we're getting pretty far out there! Let's just stick to milder musings.


Humans are all but identical genetically, but not environmentally, and that is why your analysis fails. You seem to assume humans have some inherent, instinctive preference for certain music that therefore is intrinsically higher quality than other music. That, together with the fact that all of your research completely ignores not only all popular music but non-European music traditions such as those of Africa, the Middle East, India, China and Indonesia, yields the implication that, in your view, European classical musical traditions are inherently, objectively superior to all other musical traditions.

Ironically, one could make an argument for the opposite conclusion, and for example argue that American popular music has come to dominate the world due to its African influence. It does seem that the African music tradition added crucial missing elements to the purely European tradition that had existed in the early period of the European colonization of America. Dvorak certainly thought so: "I am now satisfied that the future music of this country must be founded upon what are called negro melodies. This must be the real foundation of any serious and original school of composition to be developed in the United States."


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_The most overrated or beginner composers were Bruckner (and) Hindemith... I have difficulty seeing either of these two as overrated, and definitely can't see them as composers for beginners._

Yes, the whole overrated thing. I think it safe to say if you know a composer s/he isn't overrated.

As to the list itself ... I'd say it says a lot more about Spotify customers than the composers. I have never seen any composer ranking with Chopin near the top. Certainly he's terrific and probably the greatest exponent of romantic piano music. But extraordinarily limited in output as well.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

EmperorOfIceCream said:


> Even if you like Feldman, he literally had no idea what he was doing and just wrote inutively, which is the very opposite of quality and craft.


I agree with everything you wrote here, but there are definitely some Feldman fans who will challenge that last statement. I've dabbled lightly in his music and find it pretty uninspiring, but he seems to have a small but dedicated group of admirers. I wholeheartedly agree that the way forward for modernist music does not lie in the "indeterminacy" of Cage and Feldman.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

The following lists represent two spectra of measuring a composer's quality. List 1 is essentially Spotify minus anyone of our forum's type, and List 2 is our forum tastes minus anyone of Spotify's type.

List 1 Description. If Spotify signifies more 'instinctual attraction' towards music compared to our forum's experienced participation, then assuming one can measure 'instinctual attraction' as a quality of a good composer, here are the best composers by *instinctual attraction*, superimposed from both lists:

1. Chopin
2. Bach
3. Mozart
4. Beethoven
5. Brahms
6. Vivaldi
7. Handel
8. Debussy
9. Liszt
10. Verdi

List 2 Description. Likewise, if we take the opposite approach and aschew any notion of 'instinctual qualities' being meaningful compared to something 'deeper' like *advanced qualities*, here are the best composers if we assume our forum's daily participation represents something more 'experienced' and 'refined,' superimposed the same as the first list:

1. Shostakovich
2. Beethoven
3. Prokofiev
4. Dvořák
5. Brahms
6. Schubert
7. Schumann
8. Mozart
9. Ravel
10. Stravinsky

List 2 essentially says "What if we didn't have so much traditionalist bias always going into these lists?" With Shostakovich, we get much of the thoughtful dissonance in development many of us long for. Out with Classical's constant pleasantries.

Superimposition source.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Message deleted.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> Perhaps I should've just posted the spectrum below, as this reads more accurately with less intent to show favorites:
> 
> _Most sacrificing perfection for advancedness_
> Shostakovich
> ...


What a load of nonsense...


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Please quote the whole thing:


Ethereality said:


> The following lists represent two spectra of measuring a composer's quality. List 1 is essentially Spotify minus anyone of our forum's type, and List 2 is our forum tastes minus anyone of Spotify's type.
> 
> List 1 Description. If Spotify signifies more 'instinctual attraction' towards music compared to our forum's experienced participation, then assuming one can measure 'instinctual attraction' as a quality of a good composer, here are the best composers by *instinctual attraction*, superimposed from both lists:
> 
> ...


There's a reason I quickly deleted the part you quoted; it was worded incorrectly. I think mass sampling such as this validly reflects 'perfect simplicity' vs 'advancedness,' as the former and latter lists are geared toward assessing these qualities. Spotify sort of represents the instinctual first impression of music, and there's nothing wrong with it scientifically being the case that some music inherently sounds much better on impression, while some music is meant more to grow on you.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Ethereality said:


> The following lists represent two spectra of measuring a composer's quality. List 1 is essentially Spotify minus anyone of our forum's type, and List 2 is our forum tastes minus anyone of Spotify's type.
> 
> List 1 Description. If Spotify signifies more 'instinctual attraction' towards music compared to our forum's experienced participation, then assuming one can measure 'instinctual attraction' as a quality of a good composer, here are the best composers by *instinctual attraction*, superimposed from both lists:
> 
> ...


'Spotify minus anyone of our forum's type' means what?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

janxharris said:


> 'Spotify minus anyone of our forum's type' means what?


List 1. An estimation of what initially sounds most perfect to humans before they further delve into Classical seeking advanced complexities and developments. List 1 is a very significant scientific consideration for what type of sound is most-appealing to human nature, composers that found the 'golden spot.' These aren't opposite lists, meaning there is carryover in quality for both lists. They estimate X amount of beginning listeners and Y amount of advanced listeners, and then compares the two in opposite directions.

List 2 eschews any need for music to be set up to sound initially pleasant or most-normative like List 1. Shostakovich is a composer many advanced listeners revere after they get past the traditionalist notion that music should initially be set up to sound the most harmonious or normative, and begin to understand advanced structures and developments in music. Because these are incomplete lists that only survey _30 composers_, there may be more examples that fit into List 2.

If there are composers in both lists, then they strike the greatest balance between appealing to human instinct (initial perfection in sound) and human experience (the need for structural advancement.)

Unfortunately the other spectrum post above that I deleted, is difficult for people to read correctly: it shows nothing about quality of the composers ie. Bach being right next to Grieg near the perfection side says nothing about their _quality_ being the same. It only shows where the composer's focus falls. That's why I deleted it, because it's hard for people to read.


----------

