# Top 100 Classical Composers



## Bulldog

This is the start of a new Top 100 Classical Composers Thread, and I hope you will participate.

Here are the parameters:

1. Participating members please post your top 100 composers ranked from 1 thru 100.

2. Please, no ties.

3. The deadline for submittal of your list is 31 January 2014.

Here's my list:

1. JS Bach
2. Mozart
3. Schumann
4. Beethoven
5. Shostakovich
6. Haydn
7. Schubert
8. Handel
9. Dvorak
10. Scriabin
11. Chopin
12. Mahler
13. Brahms
14. Weinberg
15. Ravel
16. Zemlinsky
17. Enescu
18. L. Couperin
19. Vaughan Williams
20. Rachmaninov
21. Telemann
22. Berlioz
23. Froberger
24. Miaskovsky
25. Debussy
26. Prokofiev
27. Bruckner
28. Buxtehude
29. De Cabezon
30. Stravinsky
31. Bartok
32. Wagner
33. Verdi
34. Janacek
35. Scheidemann
36. Taneyev
37. Medtner
38. R. Strauss
39. Poulenc
40. Walton
41. B. Tchaikovsky
42. Nielsen
43. Chausson
44. Weber
45. Granados
46. Zelenka
47. Bridge
48. Smetana
49. Bax
50. Faure
51. P. Tchaikovsky
52. F. Couperin
53. Satie
54. Rameau
55. Reger
56. Hindemith
57. Schoenberg
58. Aho
59. Copland
60. Liszt
61. Bloch
62. Elgar
63. Frescobaldi
64. Charpentier
65. Martin
66. Hummel
67. Saygun
68. Weckmann
69. Britten
70. Ireland
71. C. Franck
72. Piston
73. Mussorgsky
74. Dohnanyi
75. Roussel
76. Suk
77. Schmidt
78. Szymanowski
79. Borodin
80. CPE Bach
81. Wellesz
82. Martinu
83. Rimsky-Korsakov
84. Holst
85. Ropartz
86. Rubbra
87. Cras
88. C. Scott
89. Biber
90. Berg
91. Webern
92. Tishchenko
93. Gernsheim
94. Grieg
95. Arnold
96. Bliss
97. L. Berkeley
98. Howells
99. Gade
100.Stanford


----------



## ArtMusic

I think I would like to add that participating members *do not have to list one hundred*, but a maximum of one hundred. That's because there may well be members who might not be that familiar with as many composers and or feel necessary to rank beyond a certain threshold of preference.

Thanks Bulldog! I shall have mu list by the end of January.


----------



## science

Ok. I have homework. After all, this is serious. We have to hope that our list impresses the GASP. 

(Gainsayers of All Such Projects.)


----------



## Art Rock

1. Johann Sebastian Bach
2. Gustav Mahler
3. Johannes Brahms
4. Franz Schubert
5. Dmitri Shostakovitch
6. Maurice Ravel
7. Antonin Dvorak
8. Felix Mendelssohn
9. Jean Sibelius
10. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
11. Claude Debussy
12. Ernest John Moeran
13. Richard Wagner
14. Arnold Bax
15. Toru Takemitsu
16. Ottorino Respighi
17. Josef Suk
18. Samuel Barber
19. Frederic Chopin
20. Sofia Gubaidulina
21. Gabriel Faure
22. William Alwyn
23. Camille Saint-Saens
24. Ralph Vaughan Williams
25. Edvard Grieg
26. Anton Bruckner
27. Hector Berlioz
28. Giacomo Puccini
29. Richard Strauss
30. Benjamin Britten
31. Joseph Haydn
32. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
33. Modest Mussorgsky
34. Ludwig van Beethoven
35. Joachim Raff
36. Einojuhani Rautavaara
37. Sergei Prokofiev
38. Aulis Sallinen
39. Carl Nielsen
40. Peteris Vasks
41. Nikolai Myaskovsky
42. Max Bruch
43. Heitor Villa-Lobos
44. Henryk Gorecki
45. Valentin Silvestrov
46. Max Reger
47. Alban Berg
48. Hugo Alfven
49. Peter Sculthorpe
50. Igor Stravinsky
51. Franz Schmidt
52. Gerald Finzi
53. Malcolm Arnold
54. Arvo Part
55. Olivier Messiaen
56. Bedrich Smetana
57. John Cage
58. Paul Hindemith
59. Sergei Rachmaninoff
60. George Gershwin
61. Franz Liszt
62. Alexander Gretchaninov
63. Hans Huber
64. Cesar Franck
65. Johann Hummel
66. Granville Bantock
67. Robert Fuchs
68. Gavin Bryars
69. Alphons Diepenbrock
70. Gustav Holst
71. Howard Hanson
72. Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov
73. Mieczyslaw Karlowicz
74. Steve Reich
75. Jon Leifs
76. John Ireland
77. George Enescu
78. Frederick Delius
79. Astor Piazzolla
80. Robert Schumann
81. Reinhold Gliere
82. Alan Hovhaness
83. James MacMillan
84. Ferdinand Ries
85. Kalevi Aho
86. Charles-Marie Widor
87. Christopher Rouse
88. Luciano Berio
89. Edward Elgar
90. John Adams
91. Charles Villiers Stanford
92. Erich Korngold
93. Leopold Kozeluch
94. Alexander Glazunov
95. Tomas Luis de Victoria
96. Grazina Bacewicz
97. John Field
98. Charles Koechlin
99. Antonio Vivaldi
100. Goesta Nystroem

FWIW. Below 20-30, the ranking and to some extent selection (80-100) becomes rather arbitrary.


----------



## science

1.	Palestrina 
2.	Monteverdi 
3.	Haydn 
4.	Beethoven
5.	Debussy 
6.	Wagner
7.	Schoenberg 
8.	Joplin 
9.	Mozart 
10.	Stravinsky 
11.	Schubert 
12.	Dunstaple 
13.	Stockhausen 
14.	Vivaldi 
15.	Josquin 
16.	Brahms
17.	Bach, JS 
18.	Chopin 
19.	Dufay 
20.	Liszt
21.	Willaert 
22.	Satie 
23.	Bartok
24.	Rameau 
25.	Webern
26.	Bach, CPE
27.	Varese 
28.	Shostakovich
29.	Britten
30.	Ives
31.	Tchaikovsky 
32.	Gabrieli, G
33.	Vaughan Williams 
34.	Cage
35.	Boulez 
36.	Praetorius 
37.	Purcell 
38.	Verdi
39.	Scarlatti, D
40.	Copland
41.	Reich 
42.	Berg 
43.	Biber 
44.	Dvorak 
45.	Puccini 
46.	Elgar
47.	Machaut
48.	Handel 
49.	Donizetti 
50.	Faure 
51.	Ockeghem 
52.	Strauss, R 
53.	Kodaly 
54.	Berlioz 
55.	Byrd
56.	Sibelius 
57.	Ravel 
58.	Grieg 
59.	Takemitsu
60.	Gounod 
61.	Ligeti 
62.	Nono
63.	Adams
64.	Part 
65.	Tallis 
66.	Gesualdo 
67.	Dowland 
68.	Corelli 
69.	Offenbach 
70.	Albeniz 
71.	Penderecki 
72.	Mussorgsky 
73.	Schumann, R
74.	Dutilleux 
75.	Hindemith 
76.	Feldman
77.	Mahler 
78.	Rachmaninoff 
79.	Gluck 
80.	Mendelssohn 
81.	Prokofiev
82.	Enescu 
83.	Martinu 
84.	Boccherini 
85.	Buxtehude 
86.	Bruckner
87.	Couperin, F
88.	Strauss, J II
89.	Paganini 
90.	Piazzolla 
91.	Milhaud 
92.	Victoria 
93.	Lully 
94.	Delius
95.	Weill 
96.	Henze 
97.	Saint-Saens 
98.	Honegger 
99.	Carter 
100.	Xenakis

Edited bc I left off Ligeti!


----------



## hpowders

Wow! That's some list! I don't quite know where to begin! "Palestrina" said the voice from the wilderness.


----------



## science

This post can be deleted. I just changed my top 100 because I left of Ligeti.


----------



## beetzart

1. Beethoven
2. Bruckner
3. JS Bach
4. Brahms
5. Mozart
6. Tchaikovsky
7. Schubert
8. Mendelssohn
9. Schumann
10. Prokofiev
11. CPE Bach
12. Handel
13. Clementi
14. Haydn
15. Chopin
16. Sibelius
17. Vivaldi
18. Rachmaninov
19. A.Rubinstein
20. Dvorak
21. Alkan
22. Franck
23. Hummel
24. Moscheles
25. Wagner
26. Elgar
27. Mahler
28. JC Bach
29. WFE Bach
30. Holst
31. Kuhlau
32. Liszt 
33. Shostakovich
34. Nielsen
35. Ries
36. Czerny
37. Kalkbrenner
38. Debussy
39. Albioni
40. Stravinsky
41. Berlioz
42. Tartini
43. Britten
44. Rossini
45. Kraus
46. Diabelli
47. Nyman
48. Ravel
49. J.Strauss
50. Gershwin
51. R.Strauss
52. Grieg
53. Paginini
54. Corelli
55. Offenbach
56. Albeniz
57. Heller
58. Hiller
59. Mussorgsky
60. Barber
61. Reger
62. Puccini
63. Graupner
64. Kerchner
65. Verdi
66. Galuppi
67. Eberl
68. Rimsky-Korsakov
69. Dussek
70. Alberti
71. Lavignac
72. Cherubini
73. Karg-Elert.
74. Loeschhorn
75. Lack
76. Kirchner
77. Martinez
78. Rutini
79. Paganelli
80. Schytte
81. Kuhnau
82. Stockhausen
83. Duvernoy
84. Arne
85. Beren
86. Hasert
87. Jensen
88. Moszkowski
89. Kohler
90. Cimerosa
91. Fradel
92. Forster
93. Ravina
94. Concone
95. Bertini
96. Turrini
97. Gravier
98. Bomtempo
99. Agricola
100. Ferneyhough


----------



## mmsbls

Wow, I don't know how those who have posted lists are making them so quickly. I will need more time to think about the 20-50 place composers and even more time for the 50-100 composers.


----------



## hpowders

No William Schuman, Charles Ives, or Peter Mennin would not be a list I could live with.


----------



## Art Rock

mmsbls said:


> Wow, I don't know how those who have posted lists are making them so quickly. I will need more time to think about the 20-50 place composers and even more time for the 50-100 composers.


I had prepared a top 121 for my blog last year, albeit without ranking (divided in five tiers). I just had to rank them within the tiers, while culling the bottom 21.


----------



## realdealblues

I'm still debating mine. The first 80 were easy for me...it's deciding who fits in the last 20 or so spots.


----------



## scratchgolf

I'm not even pretending to be able to reach a number around 100 at this point. To ensure the integrity of this exercise, I'll defer to more knowledgeable members. I'd be comfortable with 20-25 but not much beyond that would be genuine. Then again, even if people were to only list 20 each we would still have enough variation to compile a list of 100, with sufficient input. If the powers that be agree to these terms then I'll toss my rookie hat in the ring.


----------



## brotagonist

I went through my spreadsheet and listed all of the composers I own something of on CD, all 70 of them, and just wrote their names down in a stream of consciousness style, above or below whomsoever I thought I like the works of. This is a list, not of the greatest, but my favourites, coloured by my knowledge of who is considered to be on top, nostalgia and happenstance. I didn't bother to scan or correct or rearrange. I put little stock into this kind of thing.

Beethoven
Bach, JS
Haydn
Schoenberg
Shostakovich
Messiaen
Webern
Mozart
Berg
Brahms
Xenakis
Carter
Schubert
Hindemith
Bartók
Ligeti
Mahler
Prokofiev
Tchaikovsky
Boulez
Penderecki
Schnittke
Stravinsky
Takemitsu
Dutilleux
Bruckner
Stockhausen
Corelli
Debussy
Strauss, R
Handel
Lutosławski
Weill
Mendelssohn
Liszt
Varèse
Sibelius
Feldman
Satie
Eisler
Scelsi
Ives
Telemann
Chopin
Dowland
Ravel
Schumann
Vivaldi
Maderna
Dvořák
Wagner
Saint-Saëns
Rachmaninov
Gubaidulina
Purcell
Albinoni
Malec
Bruch
Grieg
Giuliani
Zimmermann, BA
Piazzolla
Berlioz
Holst
Copland
Cage
Vaughan Williams
Ferrari
Elgar
Rautavaara


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Whatever happens with this thing, make sure 7-9 Russians get somewhere on that list. That's all I ask.

I'm too lazy to participate.


----------



## Bulldog

ArtMusic said:


> I think I would like to add that participating members *do not have to list one hundred*, but a maximum of one hundred. That's because there may well be members who might not be that familiar with as many composers and or feel necessary to rank beyond a certain threshold of preference.
> 
> Thanks Bulldog! I shall have mu list by the end of January.


I just wanted to reinforce the above. 100 is the maximum number; any smaller number is also acceptable.


----------



## Bulldog

brotagonist said:


> I went through my spreadsheet and listed all of the composers I own something of on CD, all 70 of them, and just wrote their names down in a stream of consciousness style, above or below whomsoever I thought I like the works of. This is a list, not of the greatest, but my favourites, coloured by my knowledge of who is considered to be on top, nostalgia and happenstance. I didn't bother to scan or correct or rearrange. I put little stock into this kind of thing.
> 
> Beethoven
> Bach, JS
> Haydn
> Schoenberg
> Shostakovich
> Messiaen
> Webern
> Mozart
> Berg
> Brahms
> Xenakis
> Carter
> Schubert
> Hindemith
> Bartók
> Ligeti
> Mahler
> Prokofiev
> Tchaikovsky
> Boulez
> Penderecki
> Schnittke
> Stravinsky
> Takemitsu
> Dutilleux
> Bruckner
> Stockhausen
> Corelli
> Debussy
> Strauss, R
> Handel
> Lutosławski
> Weill
> Mendelssohn
> Liszt
> Varèse
> Sibelius
> Feldman
> Satie
> Eisler
> Scelsi
> Ives
> Telemann
> Chopin
> Dowland
> Ravel
> Schumann
> Vivaldi
> Maderna
> Dvořák
> Wagner
> Saint-Saëns
> Rachmaninov
> Gubaidulina
> Purcell
> Albinoni
> Malec
> Bruch
> Grieg
> Giuliani
> Zimmermann, BA
> Piazzolla
> Berlioz
> Holst
> Copland
> Cage
> Vaughan Williams
> Ferrari
> Elgar
> Rautavaara


You didn't provide any numbers. Unless I hear from you, I'll assume that Beethoven is your no. 1 and so on.


----------



## hpowders

^^^Wow! Sticking your neck out on that one!!!


----------



## Mahlerian

This is incredibly arbitrary...

0. Anonymous
1. J.S. Bach
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Mahler
5. Debussy
6. Stravinsky
7. Schoenberg
8. Wagner
9. Monteverdi
10. Messiaen
11. Bartók
12. Haydn
13. Schumann
14. Brahms
15. Verdi
16. Handel
17. Takemitsu
18. Schubert
19. Berg
20. Chopin
21. Bruckner
22. Palestrina
23. Webern
24. Rameau
25. Ives
26. Machaut
27. Mendelssohn
28. Ravel
29. Frescobaldi
30. Ockeghem
31. Gesualdo
32. Sibelius
33. Janáček
34. Prokofiev
35. Ligeti
36. Copland
37. Weber
38. Britten
39. Rossini
40. Josquin
41. Satie
42. Boulez
43. Carter
44. Adams
45. Hindemith
46. Tallis
47. Purcell
48. JC Bach
49. Varese
50. Tchaikovsky
51. Berlioz
52. Poulenc
53. R. Strauss
54. Vaughan Williams
55. Dvorak
56. Fauré
57. Mussorgsky
58. Hildegard von Bingen
59. Gubaidulina
60. Scriabin
61. Milhaud
62. Berio
63. Nono
64. Saariaho
65. Nørgård
66. Byrd
67. Liszt
68. Grisey
69. Pergolesi
70. Shostakovich
71. Buxtehude
72. Nielsen
73. Saint-Saëns
74. Lutosławski
75. Barber
76. Elgar
77. Rachmaninoff
78. Wolf
79. Puccini
80. Zemlinsky
81. Schuman
82. Purcell
83. Bizet
84. Szymanowski
85. Schmidt
86. Walton
87. Reger
88. Reich
89. Gershwin
90. CPE Bach
91. Henze
92. Maderna
93. Martin
94. Merula
95. Praetorius
96. Chin
97. Honegger
98. Martinů
99. Ruggles
100. J. Strauss Jr.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

1. JS Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Schubert
4. Berlioz
5. Bantock (well we have to have some fun doing this, don't we?)
6. Shostakovich
7. Sibelius
8. Josquin
9. Bellini
10. Messaen
11. Brahms
12. Richard Strauss
13. Gluck
14. Haydn
15. Mahler

aaaargh! now its becoming like a game of thought tennis and I'll never be able to do it sensibly. How can you compare champagne to cognac (unless you're a magazine reporter from the 1950s?). 

I'll stick to my top 4 ...... reluctantly


----------



## GiulioCesare

Can't really be bothered to do more than 50.

1. Mozart
2. JS Bach
3. Beethoven
4. Händel
5. Brahms
6. Mahler
7. Bartok
8. Mendelssohn
9. Stravinsky
10. Haydn
11. Schnittke
12. Schumann
13. Verdi
14. Debussy
15. Purcell
16. Scriabin
17. Rameau
18. Tchaikovsky
19. Falla
20. R. Strauss
21. Mussorgsky
22. Ravel
23. Sibelius
24. Monteverdi
25. Adams
26. Schubert
27. Lully
28. Victoria
29. Bruckner
30. Liszt
31. Janacek
32. Boccherini
33. Gluck
34. Ligeti
35. Weber
36. Palestrina
37. Messiaen
38. Wagner
39. Puccini
40. Bizet
41. Walton
42. Bellini
43. Prokofieff
44. Cage
45. Berg
46. Carter
47. CPE Bach
48. Telemann
49. Weber
50. Gorecki


----------



## Trout

For as bizarre as this method is, it has (from all the votes cast thus far) produced a pretty agreeable top 10:

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


----------



## hpowders

My list consists of only the composers I respond to for virtually 100% of my listening pleasure.

1. Beethoven
1. JS Bach
1. WA Mozart
2. Mahler
2. Handel
3. Brahms
4. Haydn
5. Berlioz
6. Stravinsky
7. Schumann
8. Chopin
9. Verdi
10. Ives
11. Sibelius
12. Prokofiev
13. Bartok
14. Britten
15. Copland
16. Schuman
17. Mennin


----------



## trazom

I'll just list my 25 most-listened-to composers, in order:

Mozart
JS Bach
Schubert
Brahms
Prokofiev
Tchaikovsky
Schumann
Beethoven
Wagner
Faure
Haydn
Chopin
Monteverdi
R. Strauss
Ravel
Scriabin
Berlioz
Satie
Couperin
Debussy
Dvorak
Scarlatti
Borodin
Grieg
Mendelssohn


----------



## science

Hildegaard is another omission from my list.


----------



## Weston

I narrowed it down to 130!


----------



## Guest

Can posts be edited at any time on TC? I know on some forums you can't edit a post after a few days... I kinda wanna make a list of 30-50 and edit to tack stuff on when I feel like it, but maybe that would be annoying. I just don't feel like starting a word document right now


----------



## Weston

Alright then. Pretty much in order too.

1	L. V. Beethoven
2	J. S. Bach
3	J. Brahms
4	I. Stravinsky
5	R. Vaughan-Williams
6	G. Ligeti
7	G. Mahler
8	R. Schumann
9	G. F. Handel
10 F. Schubert
11 C. Debussy
12 C. Monteverdi
13 G. Holst
14 F. Berwald
15 F. J. Haydn
16 D. Shostakovich
17 S. Prokofiev
18 R. Strauss
19 J. F. Rameau
20	J. Sibelius
21	S. Rachmaninov
22	Felix Mendelssohn (well darn. Fanny starts with "F" and she was a composer also.)
23 J. Dowland
24 E. Elgar
25 O. Respighi
26 R. Wagner
27 G. P. Telemann
28 A. Copland
29 H. Howells
30 F. Liszt
31 B. Martinu
32 A. Bruckner
33 N. Rimsky-Korsakov
34 S. Barber
35 H. Alfven
36	J . Field
37	J . N. Hummel
38 O. Messiaen
39 A. Corelli
40 W F Bach
41 D. Scarlatti
42 M. Ravel
43 R. M. Gliere
44 G. Faure
45 F. Martin
46 J. M. Kraus
47 H. Hanson
48 H. Schütz
49 C. Chaminade
50 W. Kilar
51 N. Medtner
52 C. Koechlin
53 E. Moeran
54 J. Turina
55 E. Englund
56 E. Bloch
57 J. H. Schein
58	B. Britten
59 A. Berg
60	B. Hermann
61 A. Dvorak
62	A. Vivaldi
63	G. Gabrielli
64 W. A. Mozart
65	F. Poulenc
66 C. Reinecke
67	C. Tournemire
68 C. T. Griffes
69	P. Hindemith
70 C. Nielsen
71 E. Rautavaara
72 A. Glazunov
73 J. F. Fasch
74 L. Foss
75 F. Zappa (Frank, not Francesco)
76 A. Roussel
77 K. Penderecki
78	L. Bernstein
79 M. Clementi
80 Z. Kodaly
81	A. Schnittke
82 A. Scriabin
83 M. Reger
84 M. Bruch
85	C. Ives
86 J. Jongen
87	F. Kuhlau
88 V. d'Indy
89 E. Grieg
90 M. Mussorgsky
91 P. Tchaikovsky
92 G. Rossini
93 C. Saint-Saens
94	J. Rodrigo
95	L. Janacek
96	H. Dutilleux
97	A. Ginastera
98	G. Enescu
99	A. Khachaturian
100	E. Varese

Ya'll simmer down. Mozart did make my list. See? Almost halfway to the top too. That's a phenomenal rise over where he would have been a decade ago.

Mahlerian should be relieved in noting Rubinstein missed my list - just barely at # 101.


----------



## Mahlerian

Weston said:


> Mahlerian should be relieved in noting Rubinstein missed my list - just barely at # 101.


You put Rubinstein above Schoenberg? I'm sickened.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian disapproves of Rubinstein?


----------



## MJongo

My list so far:

1. J.S. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Schubert
4. Shostakovich
5. Mahler
6. Wagner
7. Brahms
8. Ives
9. Verdi
10. Mozart
11. Schnittke
12. Messiaen


----------



## Guest

I am carefully studying his list, since his revelation that he uses the new accu-rank technology.


----------



## science

arcaneholocaust said:


> Can posts be edited at any time on TC? I know on some forums you can't edit a post after a few days... I kinda wanna make a list of 30-50 and edit to tack stuff on when I feel like it, but maybe that would be annoying. I just don't feel like starting a word document right now


I think you get 12 hours. Maybe 24. Something like that.


----------



## ArtMusic

Art Rock said:


> 1. Johann Sebastian Bach
> ......
> FWIW. Below 20-30, the ranking and to some extent selection (80-100) becomes rather arbitrary.


Thank you for changing your mind and deciding to participate.


----------



## peeyaj

I am afraid I cannot list my top 100 composers, after all I only knew and listen to a few regularly. Probably not more 20 composers. So posting that list on my part would be quite pretentious, just to show off that I know 100 classical composers.

But for fun, I'll have this.

*1 - 90* Franz Peter Schubert

*91.* Mozart

*92. *Bach

*93.* Grieg

*94. *Rachmaninoff

*95.* Beethoven

*96. *Tchaikovsky

*97.* Handel

*98.* Brahms

*99.* Liszt/Wagner

*100.* Mendelssohn


----------



## science

I'm really sorry, but the discovery that I left off not only Hildegard but Janacek - Janacek! - forced me to re-do this thing (from 1-52 it is the same): 

1.	Palestrina 
2.	Monteverdi 
3.	Haydn 
4.	Beethoven
5.	Debussy 
6.	Wagner
7.	Schoenberg 
8.	Joplin 
9.	Mozart 
10.	Stravinsky 
11.	Schubert 
12.	Dunstaple 
13.	Stockhausen 
14.	Vivaldi 
15.	Josquin 
16.	Brahms
17.	Bach, JS 
18.	Chopin 
19.	Dufay 
20.	Liszt
21.	Willaert 
22.	Satie 
23.	Bartok
24.	Rameau 
25.	Webern
26.	Bach, CPE
27.	Varese 
28.	Shostakovich
29.	Britten
30.	Ives
31.	Tchaikovsky 
32.	Gabrieli, G
33.	Vaughan Williams 
34.	Cage
35.	Boulez 
36.	Praetorius 
37.	Purcell 
38.	Verdi
39.	Scarlatti, D
40.	Copland
41.	Reich 
42.	Berg 
43.	Biber 
44.	Dvorak 
45.	Puccini 
46.	Elgar
47.	Machaut
48.	Handel 
49.	Donizetti 
50.	Faure 
51.	Ockeghem 
52.	Strauss, R 
53.	Janaeck 
54.	Kodaly 
55.	Berlioz 
56.	Byrd
57.	Sibelius 
58.	Ravel 
59.	Grieg 
60.	Takemitsu
61.	Gounod 
62.	Ligeti 
63.	Nono
64.	Adams
65.	Part 
66.	Tallis 
67.	Gesualdo 
68.	Dowland 
69.	Hildegard 
70.	Corelli 
71.	Offenbach 
72.	Albeniz 
73.	Penderecki 
74.	Mussorgsky 
75.	Schumann, R
76.	Dutilleux 
77.	Hindemith 
78.	Feldman
79.	Mahler 
80.	Rachmaninoff 
81.	Gluck 
82.	Mendelssohn 
83.	Prokofiev
84.	Enescu 
85.	Martinu 
86.	Boccherini 
87.	Buxtehude 
88.	Bruckner
89.	Couperin, F
90.	Strauss, J II
91.	Paganini 
92.	Piazzolla 
93. Zelenka 
94.	Milhaud 
95.	Victoria 
96.	Lully 
97.	Delius
98.	Weill 
99.	Henze 
100.	Xenakis

Forgot Zelenka.


----------



## Guest

Art Rock said:


> 12. Ernest John Moeran
> 17. Josef Suk
> 22. William Alwyn


The high rankings of these choices intrigued me. I haven't heard any Moeran yet but have my eye on his symphony. As for Suk, I've only heard his great Asrael symphony, and I like Alwyn a lot in general but don't see any of his stuff so far coming close to Lyra Angelica.

So, my query for you is basically: are these choices largely based on the sheer strength of singular works, or do you find their broader catalogues to be truly great? Any suggestions for works beyond the two mentioned symphonies and the mentioned harp concerto?


----------



## ArtMusic

science said:


> ....100. Xenakis


 Right on the edge at 100!


----------



## Art Rock

arcaneholocaust said:


> The high rankings of these choices intrigued me. I haven't heard any Moeran yet but have my eye on his symphony. As for Suk, I've only heard his great Asrael symphony, and I like Alwyn a lot in general but don't see any of his stuff so far coming close to Lyra Angelica.
> 
> So, my query for you is basically: are these choices largely based on the sheer strength of singular works, or do you find their broader catalogues to be truly great? Any suggestions for works beyond the two mentioned symphonies and the mentioned harp concerto?


All choices are based on at least 4 CD's with works of that composer in my collection. The position reflects that I almost invariably like what I have of these composers, with some absolute highlights.

I would recommend for starters:

Moeran: cello concerto, symphony, violin concerto
Alwyn: harp concerto, symphonies, string quartets
Suk: Asrael, A summer tale, Ripening, Serenade

PS: wrt Alwyn, I agree: his gorgeous harp concerto is by far the best he has done.


----------



## peeyaj

I forgot Ravel and Debussy!! Remove Brahms and Mendelssohn in my list..!!!


----------



## DeepR

I envy you guys. Where do you find the time to get to know the music of at least a 100 composers?
Now what I'm curious about... who will give an estimate of the amount of music listened to for each composer listed? So for example: you think you've listened to about 70% of Beethoven's music, 60% of Bach's etc. And be honest.


----------



## science

ArtMusic said:


> Right on the edge at 100!


I'm determined to keep him there, come what may.


----------



## Lunasong

If Bulldog is using a weighted system to determine the rankings, I think that unless everyone contributes 100 composers, the mathematics for a final list of 100 would be invalid.


----------



## Art Rock

DeepR said:


> I envy you guys. Where do you find the time to get to know the music of at least a 100 composers?
> Now what I'm curious about... who will give an estimate of the amount of music listened to for each composer listed? So for example: you think you've listened to about 70% of Beethoven's music, 60% of Bach's etc. And be honest.


Well, almost 30 years of collecting and listening adds up. If you don't mind, I won't give estimates of percentages for all 100 of mine. But e.g. Bach is based on all orchestral works, all organ works, almost all cantatas (still a few scheduled), all passions and masses, all chamber music, most keyboard works. Beethoven on all symphonies and concertos, overtures, romances, all piano sonatas, Fidelio, Missa Solemnis, all string quartets and most other chamber music.


----------



## Guest

Interesting that some folk are 'forgetting' composers. Why am I not surprised?

Someone once said that we can only cope with knowing up to 150 significant people (I'll search out an internet link for that*) - I can't help feeling that it must also be so for knowing' up to 100 significant composers. I'm not denyting that it's possible for some, but IMO, it does raise questions about the validity of the exercise.

*[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number


----------



## science

MacLeod said:


> Interesting that some folk are 'forgetting' composers. Why am I not surprised?
> 
> Someone once said that we can only cope with knowing up to 150 significant people (I'll search out an internet link for that*) - I can't help feeling that it must also be so for knowing' up to 100 significant composers. I'm not denyting that it's possible for some, but IMO, it does raise questions about the validity of the exercise.
> 
> *[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number


Real life is one thing, but if the question is how many people from history one person can remember, I'd bet I can lay down a solid thousand in about fifteen minutes.

In fact, that'd be an interesting exercise. I'll give myself 15, see what I can do.

(Edit: 206. Well, turns out it'd take me over an hour to get to a thousand! But I'm sure I could do it. I wasn't yet running out of ideas. And the typing took a long time!)


----------



## joen_cph

MacLeod said:


> Interesting that some folk are 'forgetting' composers. Why am I not surprised?
> 
> Someone once said that we can only cope with knowing up to 150 significant people (I'll search out an internet link for that*) - I can't help feeling that it must also be so for knowing' up to 100 significant composers. I'm not denyting that it's possible for some, but IMO, it does raise questions about the validity of the exercise.
> 
> *[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number


Becoming - more or less superficially - acquainted a lot of composers, also makes it easier at least to categorize similarities between them; Lyapunov or Kalinnikov for instance as examples, writing a good deal of attractive music, typical of the period, but not excessively original or epoch-making.

But apropos superficiality - the "knowing" of composers (or the environment influencing them) can of course never be objectively complete or absolute - Abel Decaux´s only 4 piano pieces perhaps forming an exception ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abel_Decaux

At best, probably only real in-depth knowledge of maybe 10-20 composers, especially if we must include technical understanding too. As an ordinary listener/consumer, it is however possible to get acquainted at some level with many, many more composers. The collective proces of understanding, commenting and sorting out helps us too on the way ;-).

But I do think a lot of our appreciating and validating of composers takes place on a quite subconscious level, rather than being based on rational terms or any intellectual reasoning. What we, for various reasons, like (and that this applies to educated musicians too). Obviously also illustrated by these lists.


----------



## GiulioCesare

Trout said:


> For as bizarre as this method is, it has (from all the votes cast thus far) produced a pretty agreeable top 10:
> 
> 1.	Bach, J.S.
> 2.	Beethoven
> 3.	Mozart
> 4.	Brahms
> 5.	Schubert
> 6.	Haydn
> 7.	Debussy
> 8.	Mahler
> 9.	Stravinsky
> 10.	Wagner


I can't Handel this top ten.


----------



## hpowders

GiulioCesare said:


> I can't Handel this top ten.


Why don't you come Bach after lunch and take another look.


----------



## Guest

This is too hard! I have music from over 230 composers, but 99% of my listening is within a group of about 50 of them. The rest I cannot rank in any meaningful way.


----------



## hpowders

I listed 20. I listen to them 100% of the time. What me worry!


----------



## mmsbls

Many here have submitted partial lists and others are changing their votes. I think that's fine (and actually good). I would just suggest that before a final tally is made the tallier should ask everyone to either submit a final list or to identify their proper list. And then maybe post a list of all members whose votes have been tallied. Just tallying what has been posted seems a difficult task, and it will only get harder.


----------



## Bulldog

Headphone Hermit said:


> 1. JS Bach
> 2. Beethoven
> 3. Schubert
> 4. Berlioz
> 5. Bantock (well we have to have some fun doing this, don't we?)
> 6. Shostakovich
> 7. Sibelius
> 8. Josquin
> 9. Bellini
> 10. Messaen
> 11. Brahms
> 12. Richard Strauss
> 13. Gluck
> 14. Haydn
> 15. Mahler
> 
> aaaargh! now its becoming like a game of thought tennis and I'll never be able to do it sensibly. How can you compare champagne to cognac (unless you're a magazine reporter from the 1950s?).
> 
> I'll stick to my top 4 ...... reluctantly


Unless I hear otherwise from you, I will only use your top 4.


----------



## Bulldog

peeyaj said:


> I am afraid I cannot list my top 100 composers, after all I only knew and listen to a few regularly. Probably not more 20 composers. So posting that list on my part would be quite pretentious, just to show off that I know 100 classical composers.
> 
> But for fun, I'll have this.
> 
> *1 - 90* Franz Peter Schubert
> 
> *91.* Mozart
> 
> *92. *Bach
> 
> *93.* Grieg
> 
> *94. *Rachmaninoff
> 
> *95.* Beethoven
> 
> *96. *Tchaikovsky
> 
> *97.* Handel
> 
> *98.* Brahms
> 
> *99.* Liszt/Wagner
> 
> *100.* Mendelssohn


I really don't know what to do with your list, especially given your second post on this thread. Please make better numerical sense of it; otherwise, I won't be using it.


----------



## hpowders

Bulldog said:


> I really don't know what to do with your list, especially given your second post on this thread. Please make better numerical sense of it; otherwise, I won't be using it.


I think he's saying Schubert is his favorite composer. Just a hunch.


----------



## Bulldog

Jerome said:


> This is too hard! I have music from over 230 composers, but 99% of my listening is within a group of about 50 of them. The rest I cannot rank in any meaningful way.


Understood. So just come up with your list of 50 composers. As has been detailed, a list with any number under 100 is fine.


----------



## Bulldog

hpowders said:


> I listed 20. I listen to them 100% of the time. What me worry!


Just to be clear, your list has 17 names on it, not twenty.


----------



## Mahlerian

DeepR said:


> I envy you guys. Where do you find the time to get to know the music of at least a 100 composers?
> Now what I'm curious about... who will give an estimate of the amount of music listened to for each composer listed? So for example: you think you've listened to about 70% of Beethoven's music, 60% of Bach's etc. And be honest.


I've listened to 100% of Mahler's music. Do I get a medal?


----------



## realdealblues

My list is based strictly on my listening habits and whom I prefer to listen to most often, not necessarily who I feel belongs on a list of "greatest" composers.

1. Mozart
2. Mahler
3. Beethoven
4. J.S. Bach
5. Brahms
6. Haydn
7. Tchaikovsky
8. Schubert
9. Dvorak
10. Chopin
11. Mendelssohn
12. R. Strauss
13. Bruckner
14. L. Bernstein
15. Sibelius
16. J. Strauss Jr.
17. Vivaldi
18. R. Schumann
19. Handel
20. Vaughan Williams
21. R. Wagner
22. Liszt
23. J. Braga Santos
24. Havergal Brian
25. Copland
26. Ravel
27. Debussy
28. Mussorgsky
29. Rachmaninov
30. Shostakovich
31. Saint-Saens
32. Rimsky-Korsakov
33. H. Berlioz
34. Cyril Scott
35. Smetana
36. Krauss
37. Grieg
38. Holst
39. Glazunov
40. Puccini
41. Elgar
42. Albinoni
43. Raff
44. Barber
45. Nielsen
46. Hubert Perry
47. J. Strauss Sr.
48. Prokofiev
49. M. Haydn
50. Borodin
51. D. Scarlatti
52. Paganini
53. WFE Bach
54. CPE Bach
55. Rossini
56. Hindemith
57. Offenbach
58. Faure
59. Eybler
60. Hummel
61. Melartin
62. Telemann
63. Gorecki
64. Verdi
65. Byrd
66. Rameau
67. Gounod
68. Purcell
69. Corelli
70. Pachelbel
71. Biber
72. Lully
73. Bax
74. Boccherini
75. Cherubini
76. Spohr
77. Boyce
78. C.M. Von Weber
79. Frank
80. Wolf
81. Dukas
82. Scriabin
83. Orff
84. Gluck
85. Janacek
86. Donizetti
87. Bellini
88. Josef Strauss
89. Boito
90. Stanford
91. Humperdinck
92. Leorcavallo
93. Albeniz
94. Magnard
95. A.P. Heinrich
96. Clementi
97. Viotti
98. Anton Rubinstein
99. Milhaud
100. Stravinsky


----------



## GiulioCesare

Mahlerian said:


> I've listened to 100% of Mahler's music. Do I get a medal?


A chocolate medal maybe. You need literally less than a day to listen to 100% of Mahler's music.


----------



## hpowders

Bulldog said:


> Just to be clear, your list has 17 names on it, not twenty.


Count again. There are 20 names there. I have Beethoven, Bach and Mozart tied for number one!


----------



## Guest

1	WA Mozart
2	JS Bach
3	Beethoven
4	Tchaikovsky
5	Schubert
6	Rodrigo
7	Dvorak
8	Mendelssohn
9	Debussy
10	Handel
11	Stravinsky
12	Vivaldi
13	Shostakovich
14	Rachmaninoff
15	Prokofiev
16	Falla
17	Piazolla
18	Brahms
19	Bartok
20	Sibelius
21	Palestrina
22	Holst
23	Rimsky-Korsakov
24	Haydn
25	Chopin
26	Gershwin
27	Allegri
28	Saint-Saens
29	Ravel
30	Pagannini
31	Grofe
32	Dukas
33	Copland
34	Berlioz
35	Wagner
36	J. Stauss II
37	Lizst
38	Korngold
39	Josquin
40	Grieg
41	Corelli
42	Borodin
43	Bizet
44	Zelenka
45	Rossini
46	Respighi
47	Poulenc
48	Orff
49	Mussorgsky
50	Gesualdo


----------



## Mahlerian

arcaneholocaust said:


> Mahlerian disapproves of Rubinstein?


He's fine enough in his meandering, dull way, but Schoenberg's _*juvenilia*_ are more compelling then Rubinstein's music.


----------



## Vaneyes

Corelli, Vivaldi, JS Bach, Handel, D. Scarlatti, Tartini, CPE Bach, Haydn, Clement, Mozart, Beethoven, Rossini, Schubert, Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, Brahms, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Bruckner, Franck, Lalo, Chausson, Grieg, Bruch, Debussy, Saint-Saens, Albeniz, Granados, Turina, de Falla, Rodrigo, Severac, Mahler, Arnold, Bacewicz, Barber, Bartok, Berio, Berg, Boulez, Bridge, Britten, Carter, Delius, Dutilleux, Elgar, Enescu, Faure, Gerhard, Ginastera, Gubaidulina, Hindemith, Holst, Honegger, Hovhaness, Janacek, Khachaturian, Kodaly, Krenek, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, Maderna, Martin, Martinu, Messiaen, Moeran, Mompou, Myaskovsky, Nielsen, Nono, Penderecki, Poulenc, Prokofiev, Puccini, Rachmaninov, Ravel, Rawsthorne, Reger, Respighi, Roussel, Satie, Schnittke, Schoenberg, Scriabin, Shostakovich, Sibelius, R. Strauss, Stravinsky, Szymanowski, Vaughan Williams, Verdi, Walton, Webern, Wuorinen, Zemlinsky.


----------



## Bulldog

Vaneyes said:


> Corelli, Vivaldi, JS Bach, Handel, D. Scarlatti, Tartini, CPE Bach, Haydn, Clement, Mozart, Beethoven, Rossini, Schubert, Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, Brahms, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Bruckner, Franck, Lalo, Chausson, Grieg, Bruch, Debussy, Saint-Saens, Albeniz, Granados, Turina, de Falla, Rodrigo, Severac, Mahler, Arnold, Bacewicz, Barber, Bartok, Berio, Berg, Boulez, Bridge, Britten, Carter, Delius, Dutilleux, Elgar, Enescu, Faure, Gerhard, Ginastera, Gubaidulina, Hindemith, Holst, Honegger, Hovhaness, Janacek, Khachaturian, Kodaly, Krenek, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, Maderna, Martin, Martinu, Messiaen, Moeran, Mompou, Myaskovsky, Nielsen, Nono, Penderecki, Poulenc, Prokofiev, Puccini, Rachmaninov, Ravel, Rawsthorne, Reger, Respighi, Roussel, Satie, Schnittke, Schoenberg, Scriabin, Shostakovich, Sibelius, R. Strauss, Stravinsky, Szymanowski, Vaughan Williams, Verdi, Walton, Webern, Wuorinen, Zemlinsky.


Is your list in any kind of order - Corelli (1), Zemlinsky (100) ? There appears to some kind of alphabetical order.

After looking at this list a few more times, I don't think your list is within the spirit of the thread. All you appear to be doing is using a chronological order, then switching to an alphabetical order. That just doesn't cut it. Please correct.


----------



## Bulldog

hpowders said:


> Count again. There are 20 names there. I have Beethoven, Bach and Mozart tied for number one!


Okay, but I'm not accepting any ties. You'll need to differentiate, ranking wise, among those three wonderful composers. I know you can do it.


----------



## realdealblues

Mahlerian said:


> He's fine enough in his meandering, dull way, but Schoenberg's _*juvenilia*_ are more compelling then Rubinstein's music.


If all of Schoenberg's music was like that he'd probably be in my top 10.


----------



## GreenMamba

Weston said:


> Alright then. Pretty much in order too.
> 
> 15 F. J. Haydn
> 16 D. Shostakovich
> 17 S. Prokofiev
> 18 R. Strauss
> 19 J. F. Rameau
> 20	J. Sibelius
> 21	S. Rachmaninov
> *22	Felix Mendelssohn (well darn. Fanny starts with "F" and she was a composer also.)
> *23 J. Dowland
> 24 E. Elgar


Did you see Bulldog's list? He has "P. Tchaikovsky" and I was wondering why the initial, then saw "B. Tchaikovsky" about 10 spots higher. So I guess we shouldn't take anything for granted.


----------



## Bulldog

GreenMamba said:


> Did you see Bulldog's list? He has "P. Tchaikovsky" and I was wondering why the initial, then saw "B. Tchaikovsky" about 10 spots higher. So I guess we shouldn't take anything for granted.


Just try to be reasonable about name identification. If you know that there could be some name identification confusion, please use sufficient detail to clarify the situation. If you're unaware, but there is confusion on my part, I'll do what I need to erase the confusion.

I don't want anyone to view this list offering as a major challenge. It's for fun and whatever illumination can be derived from the process and member postings.

One more thing. Do try to give some consideration to the person who will be tabulating these lists. Administration can be a fairly simple although timely task - or it could be like time spent in Hell. I can't think your thoughts.


----------



## hpowders

Bulldog said:


> Okay, but I'm not accepting any ties. You'll need to differentiate, ranking wise, among those three wonderful composers. I know you can do it.


Okay. My final list:

1. Beethoven
2. JS Bach
3. WA Mozart
4. Mahler
5. Brahms
6. Handel
7. FJ Haydn
8. Berlioz
9. Chopin
10. Schumann
11. Ives
12. Verdi
13. Prokofiev
14. Sibelius
15. Bartok
16. Britten
17. Stravinsky
18. Copland
19. Schuman
20. Shostakovich


----------



## Headphone Hermit

OK, fairy 'nuff - here's my considered list

1. JS Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Schubert
4. Berlioz
5. Liszt - can't have one list without the other (still want a bit of fun please) 
6. Shostakovich
7. Sibelius
8. Josquin
9. Bellini
10. Messaen
11. Brahms
12. Richard Strauss
13. Gluck
14. Haydn
15. Mahler


----------



## GreenMamba

I gave up at 80 as the whole thing was becoming a mess. In fact, it became hard to decide long before then.

1.	Beethoven
2.	J.S. Bach
3.	Stravinsky
4.	W.A. Mozart
5.	F.J. Haydn
6.	Brahms
7.	Schubert
8.	Shostakovich
9.	Fe. Mendelssohn
10.	Bartok
11.	Vaughan Williams
12.	Debussy
13.	Janacek
14.	Dvorak
15.	Schumann
16.	Sibelius
17.	Prokofiev
18.	Mahler
19.	Bruckner
20.	Ives
21.	Britten
22.	Ligeti
23.	Schoenberg
24.	Reich
25.	Ravel
26.	Handel
27.	Berg
28.	Berlioz
29.	John Adams
30.	Glass
31.	Faure
32.	R. Strauss
33.	Hindemith
34.	Pärt
35.	Copland
36.	Tchaikovsky
37.	Wagner
38.	Ockeghem
39.	Lutoslawski
40.	Schnittke
41.	Rachmaninoff
42.	Vivaldi
43.	Chopin
44.	Gesualdo
45.	Monteverdi
46.	Liszt
47.	Harris
48.	Dittersdorf 
49.	Penderecki
50.	Duckworth 
51.	Barber
52.	Holst
53.	Hovhaness
54.	Gorecki
55.	Walton
56.	Cowell
57.	Mussorgsky
58.	Messiaen
59.	Satie
60.	Palestrina
61.	Partch
62.	Varese
63.	Nielsen
64.	Webern
65.	Puccini
66.	Verdi
67.	Chavez
68.	Milhaud
69.	Takemitsu
70.	Poulenc
71.	Weinberg
72.	Rouse
73.	Honegger
74.	Boccherini
75.	Gershwin
76.	Grieg
77.	Berio
78.	Machaut
79.	Villa-Lobos
80.	Rihm


----------



## Winterreisender

I congratulate everyone who has managed to list 100. I'll try to list as many as I can before it descends into being a random unstructured list of whatever names pop into my head...

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. J.S. Bach
4. Schubert
5. Handel
6. Wagner
7. Berlioz
8. Grieg
9. Haydn
10. Brahms
11. Schumann
12. Vaughan Williams
13. Tchaikovsky
14. Liszt
15. Vivaldi
16. Mahler
17. Dowland 
18. Josquin
19. Elgar
20. Sibelius
21. Rachmaninoff
22. Satie
23. Mendelssohn
24. Stravinsky
25. Dvorak
26. Ravel
27. Verdi
28. Chopin
29. Tallis
30. F. Couperin
31. D. Scarlatti
32. Monteverdi
33. Palestrina
34. Franck
35. Holst
36. Barber
37. Faure
38. Byrd
39. Purcell
40. R. Strauss
41. Shostakovich
42. Debussy
43. Bartok
44. Britten
45. Copland
46. Bruch
47. Wolf
48. Janacek
49. Dufay
50. Hildegard

ok that will do


----------



## Rachmanijohn

1. Beethoven
2. J.S. Bach 
3. Mozart
4. Chopin
5. Brahms
6. Liszt
7. Rachmaninoff
8. Wagner
9. Schumann
10. Mahler
11. Shostakovich
12. Stravinsky
13. Schubert
14. Berlioz
15. Prokofiev
16. Alkan
17. Debussy
18. Saint-Saens
19. Mendelssohn
20. Ravel
21. Grieg
22. Bartok
23. Scriabin
24. Bizet
25. Haydn
26. Tchaikovsky
27. Bruckner
28. Britten
29. Puccini
30. Rossini
31. Bridge
32. Copland
33. Elgar
34. Mussorgsky
35. Respighi
36. Bruch
37. Faure
38. Rimsky-Korsakov
39. Corelli
40. Vivaldi
41. Piazzolla
42. Weber
43. Satie
44. Gershwin
45. Franck
46. Donizetti
47. Borodin
48. Verdi
49. R. Strauss
50. Lully
51. Gounod
52. Sibelius
53. Holst
54. Poulenc
55. Glazunov
56. Ives
57. D. Scarlatti
58. Smetana
59. Couperin
60. Massenet
61. Gluck
62. Glinka
63. C.P.E. Bach
64. Purcell
65. Medtner
66. Albaniz
67. Granados
68. Offenbach
69. Rameau
70. Buxtehude
71. Paganini
72. Telemann
73. Ligeti
74. Villa-Lobos
75. Berio
76. Milhaud
77. Lutoslawski
78. Hindemith
79. J. Strauss II
80. Ginastera
81. Durufle
82. Handel
83. Messiaen 
84. Clementi
85. Dukas
86. Delibes
87. Webern
88. Nielson
89. Grainger
90. Cage
91. Adams
92. Szymanowski
93. Janacek
94. Busoni
95. Berg
96. Walton
97. Stockhausen
98. Enescu
99. Penderecki
100. Schoenberg


----------



## Trout

This list-making is clearly an exact science...

1.	Bach
2.	Messiaen
3.	Brahms
4.	Beethoven
5.	Mahler
6.	Vaughan Williams
7.	Shostakovich
8.	Ives
9.	Finzi
10.	Dvořák
11.	Wagner
12.	Mozart
13.	Haydn
14.	Bruckner
15.	Schubert
16.	Schnittke
17.	Schumann
18.	Stravinsky
19.	Tallis
20.	Prokofiev
21.	Ravel
22.	Strauss, R.
23.	Adams
24.	Tchaikovsky
25.	Ligeti
26.	Mussorgsky
27.	Liszt
28.	Penderecki
29.	Josquin
30.	Varèse
31.	Bartók
32.	Gershwin
33.	Elgar
34.	Sibelius
35.	Reich
36.	Respighi
37.	Britten
38.	Palestrina
39.	Atterberg
40.	Biber
41.	Martinů
42.	Handel
43.	Magnard
44.	Vasks
45.	Honegger
46.	Rachmaninoff
47.	Bruch
48.	Borodin
49.	Hindemith
50.	Poulenc
51.	Debussy
52.	Janáček
53.	Medtner
54.	Berlioz
55.	Mendelssohn
56.	Barber
57.	Chopin
58.	Zelenka
59.	Pärt
60.	Myaskovsky
61.	Grieg
62.	Zemlinsky
63.	Monteverdi
64.	Verdi
65.	Vivaldi
66.	Xenakis
67.	Ockeghem
68.	Schoenberg
69.	Haas, G.F.
70.	Lutosławski
71.	Ginastera
72.	Scriabin
73.	Copland
74.	Machaut
75.	Scelsi
76.	Nielsen
77.	Hovhaness
78.	Byrd
79.	Moeran
80.	Taneyev
81.	Rossini
82.	Schuman
83.	Villa-Lobos
84.	Berg
85.	Holst
86.	Chausson
87.	Saint-Saëns
88.	Webern
89.	Pettersson
90.	Charpentier, M.-A.
91.	Braga Santos
92.	Alfvén
93.	Dowland
94.	Reger
95.	Albéniz
96.	Purcell
97.	Corelli
98.	Scarlatti, D.
99.	Weiss
100.	Busoni


----------



## senza sordino

MacLeod said:


> Interesting that some folk are 'forgetting' composers. Why am I not surprised?
> 
> Someone once said that we can only cope with knowing up to 150 significant people (I'll search out an internet link for that*) - I can't help feeling that it must also be so for knowing' up to 100 significant composers. I'm not denyting that it's possible for some, but IMO, it does raise questions about the validity of the exercise.
> 
> *[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number


Makes sense to me. As a high school teacher I have about 200 students year after year, I can barely remember all their names, I can't remember their names out of the classroom in the hallway and I can't remember their names after they graduate.

I can't come up with 100 composers, I'll write a list of as many as I can as soon as possible. Give me a few hours / days.


----------



## senza sordino

Top 25 composers in order
Beethoven
Stravinsky
Sibelius 
Shostakovich 
Bach
Ravel
Mahler
Tchaikovsky 
Dvorak 
Prokofiev 
Brahms
Debussy
Mozart
Britten
Strauss R
Schubert
Saint Saens
Bartok
Elgar
Vaughn Williams
Nielsen
Schumann R
Holst 
Falla
Gershwin


----------



## hpowders

^^^Interesting list!


----------



## MagneticGhost

science said:


> I'm really sorry, but the discovery that I left off not only Hildegard but Janacek - Janacek! - forced me to re-do this thing (from 1-52 it is the same):
> 
> 1.	Palestrina
> 2.	Monteverdi
> 3.	Haydn
> 4.	Beethoven
> 5.	Debussy
> 6.	Wagner
> 7.	Schoenberg
> 8.	Joplin
> 9.	Mozart
> 10.	Stravinsky
> 11.	Schubert
> 12.	Dunstaple
> 13.	Stockhausen
> 14.	Vivaldi
> 15.	Josquin
> 16.	Brahms
> 17.	Bach, JS
> 18.	Chopin
> 19.	Dufay
> 20.	Liszt
> 21.	Willaert
> 22.	Satie
> 23.	Bartok
> 24.	Rameau
> 25.	Webern
> 26.	Bach, CPE
> 27.	Varese
> 28.	Shostakovich
> 29.	Britten
> 30.	Ives
> 31.	Tchaikovsky
> 32.	Gabrieli, G
> 33.	Vaughan Williams
> 34.	Cage
> 35.	Boulez
> 36.	Praetorius
> 37.	Purcell
> 38.	Verdi
> 39.	Scarlatti, D
> 40.	Copland
> 41.	Reich
> 42.	Berg
> 43.	Biber
> 44.	Dvorak
> 45.	Puccini
> 46.	Elgar
> 47.	Machaut
> 48.	Handel
> 49.	Donizetti
> 50.	Faure
> 51.	Ockeghem
> 52.	Strauss, R
> 53.	Janaeck
> 54.	Kodaly
> 55.	Berlioz
> 56.	Byrd
> 57.	Sibelius
> 58.	Ravel
> 59.	Grieg
> 60.	Takemitsu
> 61.	Gounod
> 62.	Ligeti
> 63.	Nono
> 64.	Adams
> 65.	Part
> 66.	Tallis
> 67.	Gesualdo
> 68.	Dowland
> 69.	Hildegard
> 70.	Corelli
> 71.	Offenbach
> 72.	Albeniz
> 73.	Penderecki
> 74.	Mussorgsky
> 75.	Schumann, R
> 76.	Dutilleux
> 77.	Hindemith
> 78.	Feldman
> 79.	Mahler
> 80.	Rachmaninoff
> 81.	Gluck
> 82.	Mendelssohn
> 83.	Prokofiev
> 84.	Enescu
> 85.	Martinu
> 86.	Boccherini
> 87.	Buxtehude
> 88.	Bruckner
> 89.	Couperin, F
> 90.	Strauss, J II
> 91.	Paganini
> 92.	Piazzolla
> 93. Zelenka
> 94.	Milhaud
> 95.	Victoria
> 96.	Lully
> 97.	Delius
> 98.	Weill
> 99.	Henze
> 100.	Xenakis
> 
> Forgot Zelenka.


I was expecting to see Pergolesi in your list too.


----------



## scratchgolf

I'll do 25 as well...

1. Beethoven
2. Schubert
3. Mendelssohn
4. Bach
5. Vivaldi
6. Mozart
7. Schumann
8. Mahler
9. Brahms
10. Debussy
11. Haydn
12. Chopin
13. Tchaikovsky
14. Dvorak
15. Elgar
16. Handel
17. Wagner
18. Rachmaninoff
19. Prokofiev
20. Berg
21. Bruckner
22. Sibelius
23. Grieg
24. Holst
25. Shostakovich

As it turns out, I probably couldn't go much past 30 anyway.


----------



## science

MagneticGhost said:


> I was expecting to see Pergolesi in your list too.


He was actually one that I thought about, but I decided he didn't make the cut. There's not enough of his music that I enjoy, and though he had some influence on later composers such as Mozart, I judged that it wasn't enough to get him into the top 100.

Barber, Gershwin, Honegger, Lassus, Respighi, Szymanowski, Rossini, Weber, Massenet, Poulenc, Berio, and Bruch were also among the tougher ones to omit.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

My tuppence-ha'penny worth:

1 Beethoven
2 Mahler
3 Schubert
4 Schumann
5 Bartók
6 Fauré
7 Debussy
8 Berg
9 J S Bach
10 Mozart
11 Haydn	
12 Shostakovich
13 Bridge
14 Webern
15 Delius
16 Brückner
17 Hindemith
18 Poulenc
19 Liszt
20 Busoni
21 Ligeti
22 Sibelius
23 Richard Strauss
24 Händel
25 Felix Mendelssohn
26 Schönberg
27 Dvořák
28 Ravel
29 Wolf
30 Villa-Lobos
31 Kurtág
32 Prokofiev
33 Martinů
34 Dutilleux
35 Satie
36 Stravinsky
37 Reich
38 Vaughan-Williams
39 Nielsen
40 Alkan
41 Domenico Scarlatti
42 Bax
43 Brahms
44 Elgar
45 Reger
46 Granados
47 Franck
48 Chopin
49 Britten
50 Mussorgsky
51 Smetana
52 Borodin
53 Glazounov
54 Messiaen
55 Boulez
56 Weber
57 Grieg
58 Zemlinsky
59 Sullivan
60 CPE Bach
61 Bizet
62 Carter
63 Robert Simpson
64 James MacMillan
65 Puccini
66 Ives
67 Janáček
68 Gershwin
69 Kurt Weill
70 Hummel
71 Mompou
72 Walton
73 Ireland
74 Honegger
75 Lutosławski
76 Holst
77 Bruch
78 Tchaikovsky
79 Vivaldi
80 Clementi
81 Czerny
82 Albéniz
83 Ibert
84 Rossini
85 Orff
86 Cage
87 Penderecki
88 Morton Feldman
89 Medtner
90 Rachmaninov
91 Telemann
92 Korngold
93 Saint-Saëns
94 Purcell
95 Spohr
96 Rameau
97 Grisey
98 Rodrigo
99 Falla
100 Wagner

I thought I had cracked this, then discovered I'd put Debussy in twice and missed out a 'place' in the 60s. So two more names had to be found. The first 40 were pretty automatic, and I'm reasonably sure of 41 - mid 80s.

There are 22 names in this list that wouldn't have been there a year ago. If I did this again next year I'd hope to have widened my experience of Baroque and contemporary composers, and heard more of British composers too.


----------



## Bulldog

After reading all the postings, I've learned about the names of a few composers I never heard of. For example, Turrini is on one list. I looked him up and found a recording devoted to his music on the Tactus label. As it happens, Tactus is a label on Naxos Music Library. So, I started listening to the disc and have found the music quite enjoyable. Just goes to show that a "next to nothing" thread can lead to worthy discoveries.


----------



## stevederekson

1. Beethoven
2. Mahler
3. Wagner
4. Sibelius
5. Bach
6. Mozart
7. Chopin
8. Schubert
9. Bruckner
10. Liszt


----------



## hpowders

An interesting composer liszt.


----------



## mmsbls

1. Mozart
2. Beethoven
3. Bach, J.S.
4. Brahms
5. Schubert
6. Wagner
7. Dvorak
8. Haydn
9. Mendelssohn
10. Tchaikovsky
11. Mahler
12. Schumann
13. Handel
14. Sibelius
15. Chopin
16. Prokofiev
17. Strauss
18. Saint-Saens
19. Verdi
20. Debussy
21. Shostakovich
22. Faure
23. Ravel
24. Vivaldi
25. Stravinsky
26. Liszt
27. Rimski-Korsakov
28. Bruckner
29. Berlioz
30. Telemann
31. Janacek
32. Weber
33. Bach, CPE
34. Elgar
35. Rachmaninov
36. Bartok
37. Ives
38. Copland
39. Palestrina
40. Berwald
41. Puccini
42. Borodin
43. Grieg
44. Monteverdi
45. Bizet
46. Vaughan Williams
47. Britten
48. Adams, John
49. Corelli
50. Franck
51. Tallis
52. Josquin
53. Hummel
54. Glazunov
55. Hindemith
56. Scriabin
57. Glass
58. Walton
59. Barber
60. Messiaen
61. Respighi
62. Nielsen
63. Poulenc
64. Rossini
65. Dohnanyi
66. Chausson
67. Enescu
68. Albinoni
69. Gesualdo
70. Scarlatti, D.
71. Bach, JC
72. Boccherini
73. Schoenberg
74. Gounod
75. Balakirev
76. Medtner
77. Lalo
78. Suk
79. Gliere
80.Arensky
81. Czerny
82. Atterberg
83. Reich
84. Zelenka
85. Casella
86. Takemitsu
87. Finzi
88. Farrenc
89. Rheinberger
90. Smetana
91. Field
92. Alkan
93. Zemlinsky
94. Wieniawski
95. Hovhaness
96. Goldmark
97. Haydn, M.
98. Krommer
99. Nyman
100. Raff

Final List.


----------



## pjang23

Only going up to 50.

1. Bach
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Brahms
5. Schubert
6. Haydn
7. Debussy
8. Stravinsky
9. Ravel
10. Wagner
11. Handel
12. Mahler
13. R. Strauss
14. Mendelssohn
15. Palestrina
16. Prokofiev
17. Schumann
18. Dvorak
19. Faure
20. Sibelius
21. Bartok
22. Verdi
23. Weber
24. Hummel
25. Monteverdi
26. D. Scarlatti
27. Barber
28. Berg
29. Puccini
30. Scriabin
31. Vivaldi
32. Bruckner
33. Josquin
34. Tchaikovsky
35. Shostakovich
36. Berlioz
37. Bloch
38. Dohnanyi
39. Byrd
40. Reger
41. Purcell
42. Part
43. Nielsen
44. Dowland
45. Glazunov
46. Franck
47. Elgar
48. Saint-Saens
49. Grieg
50. Rimsky-Korsakov


----------



## Bulldog

Only 18 days left before voting concludes!


----------



## Guest

Don't let the thread die, I'll be posting soon


----------



## Bulldog

arcaneholocaust said:


> Don't let the thread die, I'll be posting soon


I was going to post something/anything, but you beat me to it. Thanks!


----------



## hpowders

This thread is in my grandchild to be's will. Please don't let it die!

Incidentally the licensing fee I will be charging him/her/it for the excluive use of the tag "hpowders" will cancel out any cash I leave him/her/it.


----------



## KThreeSixFour

1	Mozart
2	J.S. Bach
3	Beethoven
4	Schubert
5	Brahms
6	Chopin
7	Tchaikovsky
8	Haydn
9	Handel
10	Dvorak
11	Mendelssohn
12	Bizet
13	Rossini
14	Verdi
15	Sibelius
16	Ravel
17	Vaughan Williams
18	Elgar
19	Grieg
20	Wagner
21	Debussy
22	Shostakovich
23	Rachmaninov
24	Mahler
25	Vivaldi
26	Liszt
27	R. Schumann
28	Berlioz
29	Saint-Saëns
30	Rimsky-Korsakov
31	Prokofiev
32	R. Strauss
33	Rameau
34	Holst
35	Mussorgsky
36	Puccini
37	Purcell
38	Fauré
39	J. Strauss Jr.
40	Telemann
41	Stravinsky
42	Bartok
43	Palestrina
44	C.M. von Weber
45	Copland
46	Gluck
47	Monteverdi
48	Smetana
49	Scriabin
50	D. Scarlatti
51	Borodin
52	Respighi
53	Barber
54	Albéniz
55	Donizetti
56	Bruckner


----------



## musicrom

I often have trouble deciding whether I like one composer more than another because when I'm listening to a piece, if I like it, I generally think its composer is an absolute genius. So to minimize random biases, I compiled a list based on my likes on Pandora. Of course there are some problems with this method, so I tried my best to correct for them. And yes, I have an unreasonable obsession with Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov.

1	Ludwig van Beethoven (22)
2	Frederic Chopin (18)
3	Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov (26)
4	Felix Mendelssohn (19)
5	Sergei Prokofiev (18)
6	Piotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (15)	
7	Johann Sebastian Bach (13)
8	Antonín Dvořák (10)	
9	Camille Saint-Saëns (12)
10	Jean Sibelius (12)
11	Mikhail Glinka (11)	
12	Bedřich Smetana (10)
13	Edward Elgar (9)	
14	Niccolo Paganini (9)
15	Sergei Rachmaninoff (8)	
16	Pablo de Sarasate (7)
17	Henri Vieuxtemps (7)
18	Franz Liszt (6)
19	Claude Debussy (6)
20	Gioachino Rossini (6)
21	Giuseppe Verdi (5)
22	Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (3)
23	Antonio Vivaldi (4)
24	Giacomo Puccini (5)
25	Dmitri Shostakovich (3)
26	Max Bruch (3)
27	Henryk Wieniawski (6)
28	Aram Khachaturian (3)
29	Fritz Kreisler (3)
30	William Walton (3)
31	Franz Anton Hoffmeister (3)
32	Johannes Brahms (2)
33	Edouard Lalo (2)
34	Benjamin Britten (2)
35	Béla Bartók (2)
36	Robert Schumann (2)
37	Georges Bizet (2)
38	Modest Mussorgsky (2)
39	Philip Glass (2)
40	Hector Berlioz (2)
41	Jan Vanhal (2)
42	Franz Joseph Haydn (1)
43	George Frideric Handel (1)
44	Igor Stravinsky (1)
45	Franz Schubert (1)
46	Maurice Ravel (1)
47	George Enescu (1)
48	Alexander Borodin (1)
49	Luigi Boccherini (1)
50	Gustav Holst (1)
51	Ralph Vaughan Williams (1)
52	Eugène Ysaÿe (1)
53	Franz von Suppé (1)
54	Ferdinand Ries (1)
55	Cesar Cui (1)
56	Léo Delibes (1)
57	Gabriel Fauré (1)
58	François Couperin (1)
59	Paul Dukas (1)
60	Erik Satie (1)
61	Alexander Glazunov (1)
62	Gustav Mahler (0)
63	Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach (0)
64	Anton Bruckner (0)
65	Fanny Mendelssohn (1)
66	Gaetano Donizetti (1)
67	Franz Berwald (1)
68	Antonio Salieri (1)
69	Pavel Vranicky (1)
70	Nathan Milstein (1)
71	Rodion Shchedrin (1)
72	Emil Reesen (1)
73	Einar Enguld (1)
74	Berthold Goldschmidt (1)
75	Franz Waxman (1)
76	Johann Pachelbel (0)
77	Cecilia Arizti (1)
78	Christian Pezold (1)
79	Muzio Clementi (1)
80	Louis-Claude Daquin (0)
81	Francis Poulenc (0)
82	Georg Philipp Telemann (0)
83	Carl Philipp Stamitz (0)
84	John Field (0)
85	Richard Wagner (0)
86	Johann Strauss II (0)
87	Arcangelo Corelli (0)
88	Leoš Janáček (0)
89	Ignacy Jan Paderewski (0)
90	Zóltan Kodály (0)
91	Johan Halvorsen (0)
92	Josef Myslivecek (0)
93	Max Reger (0)
94	Giuseppe Tartini (0)
95	Dmitri Kabalevsky (0)
96	Rebecca Clarke (0)
97	Heitor Villa-Lôbos (0)
98	Jacques Ibert (0)
99	Darius Milhaud (0)
100	Richard Strauss (0)


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

musicrom said:


> I often have trouble deciding whether I like one composer more than another because when I'm listening to a piece, if I like it, I generally think its composer is an absolute genius. So to minimize random biases, I compiled a list based on my likes on Pandora. Of course there are some problems with this method, so I tried my best to correct for them. And yes, I have an unreasonable obsession with Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov.
> 
> 1	Ludwig van Beethoven (22)
> 2	Frederic Chopin (18)
> 3	Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov (26)
> 4	Felix Mendelssohn (19)
> 5	Sergei Prokofiev (18)
> 6	Piotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (15)
> 7	Johann Sebastian Bach (13)
> 8	Camille Saint-Saëns (12)
> 9	Jean Sibelius (12)
> 10	Mikhail Glinka (11)
> 11	Antonín Dvořák (10)
> 12	Bedřich Smetana (10)
> 13	Edward Elgar (9)
> 14	Niccolo Paganini (9)
> 15	Sergei Rachmaninoff (8)
> 16	Pablo de Sarasate (7)
> 17	Henri Vieuxtemps (7)
> 18	Franz Liszt (6)
> 19	Claude Debussy (6)
> 20	Henryk Wieniawski (6)
> 21	Gioachino Rossini (6)
> 22	Giuseppe Verdi (5)
> 23	Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (3)
> 24	Antonio Vivaldi (4)
> 25	Giacomo Puccini (5)
> 26	Dmitri Shostakovich (3)
> 27	Max Bruch (3)
> 28	Aram Khachaturian (3)
> 29	Fritz Kreisler (3)
> 30	William Walton (3)
> 31	Franz Anton Hoffmeister (3)
> 32	Johannes Brahms (2)
> 33	Edouard Lalo (2)
> 34	Benjamin Britten (2)
> 35	Béla Bartók (2)
> 36	Robert Schumann (2)
> 37	Georges Bizet (2)
> 38	Modest Mussorgsky (2)
> 39	Philip Glass (2)
> 40	Hector Berlioz (2)
> 41	Jan Vanhal (2)
> 42	Franz Joseph Haydn (1)
> 43	George Frideric Handel (1)
> 44	Igor Stravinsky (1)
> 45	Franz Schubert (1)
> 46	Maurice Ravel (1)
> 47	George Enescu (1)
> 48	Alexander Borodin (1)
> 49	Luigi Boccherini (1)
> 50	Gustav Holst (1)
> 51	Ralph Vaughan Williams (1)
> 52	Eugène Ysaÿe (1)
> 53	Franz von Suppé (1)
> 54	Ferdinand Ries (1)
> 55	Cesar Cui (1)
> 56	Léo Delibes (1)
> 57	Gabriel Fauré (1)
> 58	François Couperin (1)
> 59	Paul Dukas (1)
> 60	Erik Satie (1)
> 61	Alexander Glazunov (1)
> 62	Gustav Mahler (0)
> 63	Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach (0)
> 64	Anton Bruckner (0)
> 65	Fanny Mendelssohn (1)
> 66	Gaetano Donizetti (1)
> 67	Franz Berwald (1)
> 68	Antonio Salieri (1)
> 69	Pavel Vranicky (1)
> 70	Nathan Milstein (1)
> 71	Rodion Shchedrin (1)
> 72	Emil Reesen (1)
> 73	Einar Enguld (1)
> 74	Berthold Goldschmidt (1)
> 75	Franz Waxman (1)
> 76	Johann Pachelbel (0)
> 77	Cecilia Arizti (1)
> 78	Christian Pezold (1)
> 79	Muzio Clementi (1)
> 80	Louis-Claude Daquin (0)
> 81	Francis Poulenc (0)
> 82	Georg Philipp Telemann (0)
> 83	Carl Philipp Stamitz (0)
> 84	John Field (0)
> 85	Richard Wagner (0)
> 86	Johann Strauss II (0)
> 87	Arcangelo Corelli (0)
> 88	Leoš Janáček (0)
> 89	Ignacy Jan Paderewski (0)
> 90	Zóltan Kodály (0)
> 91	Johan Halvorsen (0)
> 92	Josef Myslivecek (0)
> 93	Max Reger (0)
> 94	Giuseppe Tartini (0)
> 95	Dmitri Kabalevsky (0)
> 96	Rebecca Clarke (0)
> 97	Heitor Villa-Lôbos (0)
> 98	Jacques Ibert (0)
> 99	Darius Milhaud (0)
> 100	Richard Strauss (0)


Cool that you like Rimsky-Korsakov, I enjoy him a lot too, though he doesn't seem to be too popular around here .


----------



## Bulldog

Just a reminder that there are only 13 days remaining before voting closes. Time does fly.


----------



## hashes

Not a regular here, but I figured I post a list nevertheless. Only top 50, 100 would be too much, as I am still learning and stuff.

1.	JS Bach
2.	Beethoven
3.	Mozart
4.	Shostakovich
5.	Schubert
6.	M. Feldman
7.	Mahler
8.	Schoenberg
9.	Pärt
10.	Chopin

11.	Stockhausen
12.	Debussy
13.	Messiaen
14.	Haydn
15.	Xenakis
16.	Wagner
17.	Brahms
18.	Nono
19.	Schumann
20.	Reich

21.	Ives
22.	Stravinsky
23.	Varese
24.	Gorecki
25.	Tchaikovsky
26.	Dvorak
27.	Zorn
28.	Berg
29.	Ligeti
30.	Penderecki

31.	Scelsi
32.	Webern
33.	Scriabin
34.	Schnittke
35.	Bartok
36.	Tubin
37.	Cage
38.	Tormis
39.	Riley
40.	Gubaidulina

41.	Satie
42.	Sumera
43.	Kurtag
44.	Grisey
45.	Guerrero (contemporary)
46.	Haas
47.	Vivaldi
48.	Zimmermann
49.	Ferrari
50.	Nørgård


----------



## hpowders

^^^Still learning? A colorful adventurous list!!!


----------



## tdc

hpowders said:


> ^^^Still learning? A colorful adventurous list!!!


But they left out Ravel, so yes, they are still learning.


----------



## hpowders

tdc said:


> But they left out Ravel, so yes, they are still learning.


My eyes were glazing over by the time I went down 27 composers. Sorry I missed it.


----------



## hpowders

tdc said:


> But they left out Ravel, so yes, they are still learning.


So let me get this straight? You are saying Ravel is a greater composer than Zorn?


----------



## tdc

hpowders said:


> So let me get this straight? You are saying Ravel is a greater composer than Zorn?


Its like when Homer Simpson asked Darryl Strawberry if he was a better ball player than he was, and Darryl replied: " I don't know you, but yes."


----------



## Bulldog

A mere 11 days remain to get your vote in before the deadline. Act now - avoid the end of January rush.


----------



## tdc

1) J.S. Bach
2) Ravel
3) Rodrigo
4) Bartok
5) Debussy
6) Ives
7) Mozart
8) Monteverdi
9) Prokofiev
10) Brahms
11) Vivaldi
12) Mendelssohn
13) Schubert
14) Mahler
15) Wagner
16) D. Scarlatti
17) Sibelius 
18) Schnittke
19) Carter
20) Guibaidulina
21) Lully
22) Biber
23) Janacek
24) Buxtehude
25) Dowland
26) F. Couperin
27) Villa-Lobos
28) Falla
29) Albeniz
30) Tchaikovsky
31) Beethoven
32) Purcell
33) Faure
34) Schumann
35) Takemitsu
36) Stravinsky
37) Schoenberg
38) Walton
39) Berg
40) Webern
41) Rachmaninoff
42) Vaughan Williams
43) Britten
44) Turina
45) Ligeti
46) Handel
47) Bruckner
48) Haydn
49) Rameau
50) Corelli 
51) Dufay
52) Poulenc
53) Brouwer
54) Szymanowski
55) Schutz
56) Hovhannes
57) Bull
58) Nielsen
59) Dvorak
60) Chopin
61) Scriabin
62) R Strauss
63) Gluck
64) Telemann
65) Berlioz
66) Shostakovich
67) Messiaen
68) Borodin
69) Palestrina
70) Von Bingen
71) Koechelin
72) Tallis
73) Piazolla
74) Delius 
75) Grieg
76) Granados
77) Gabrieli
78) Charpentier
79) Satie
80) Penderecki
81) Respighi
82) CPE Bach
83) Sanz
84) Allegri
85) A Scarlatti
86) Monn
87) Victoria
88) JC Bach
89) Copland
90) Saariaho
91) Dyens
92) Chesnokov 
93) Hanson
94) Lutoslawski
95) Stockhausen
96) Liszt
97) Xenakis
98) Cage
99) Rimsky-Korsakov
100) Tarrega


----------



## Guest

I want to post but I'm putting it off till the last minute because after the top 5 everything is just so arbitrary....10 days down the road I'd consider the list a monstrosity.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those "what's my favorite? oh it's so impossible to choose just one, here's my top 9000 symphonies" people or one of those list-hating commie ********, but this is serious business!


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

I have to be honest and say I probably haven't 'explored' 50 composers in depth. I'll just write my favourite composers so far:

1. Joseph Haydn
2. Ludwig van Beethoven
3. Georg Philipp Telemann
4. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
5. Frédéric Chopin
6. Franz Liszt
7. Johann Sebastian Bach
8. Franz Schubert
9. Georg Friedrich Händel
10. Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy
11. Johannes Brahms
12. Robert Schumann
13. Peter Tchaikovsky
14. Nikolay Rimsky-Korsakov
15. Antonio Vivaldi
16. Edvard Grieg
17. Arcangelo Corelli

These are the composers with whom I can safely say I'm familiar. Others who I've liked before: Antonín Dvořák, Michael Haydn, Domenico Scarlatti, Jan Dismas Zelenka, Charles Débussy, Rachmaninov, Mahler, Bruckner, Luigi Boccherini, Tomaso Albinoni, Gioachino Rossini, Giuseppe Verdi, Richard Wagner. I still need to get more familiar with these composers though.


----------



## julianoq

I decided to put in my list only composers that I am more or less familiar with. I am listening to classical "seriously" for a little more than an year, and even if I am a kind of compulsive listener I feel that I still have way too much to explore, specially on baroque and 20th century/modern music. And I am very happy to know that I still have plenty to discover!

1. Beethoven
2. J.S. Bach
3. Mozart
4. Mahler 
5. Brahms
6. Sibelius
7. Schubert
8. Shostakovich
9. Bruckner
10. Debussy
11. Messiaen
12. Ravel
13. Bartók
14. Dvorak
15. Stravinsky
16. Haydn
17. Tchaikovsky
18. Prokofiev
19. Wagner
20. Faure
21. Mendelssohn
22. Berlioz
23. Saint-Saens
24. Rachmaninoff
25. Nielsen
26. Martinu
27. Vaughan-Williams
28. Liszt
29. Grieg
30. Chopin
31. Britten
32. Strauss
33. Heitor Villa-Lobos
34. Ginastera
35. Per Norgard
36. Elgar
37. Britten


----------



## Guest

julianoq said:


> I am listening to classical "seriously" for a little more than an year, and even if I am a kind of compulsive listener I feel that I still have way too much to explore


Same story here, bro


----------



## hpowders

julianoq said:


> I decided to put in my list only composers that I am more or less familiar with. I am listening to classical "seriously" for a little more than an year, and even if I am a kind of compulsive listener I feel that I still have way too much to explore, specially on baroque and 20th century/modern music. And I am very happy to know that I still have plenty to discover!
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. J.S. Bach
> 3. Mozart
> 4. Mahler
> 5. Brahms
> 6. Sibelius
> 7. Schubert
> 8. Shostakovich
> 9. Bruckner
> 10. Debussy
> 11. Messiaen
> 12. Ravel
> 13. Bartók
> 14. Dvorak
> 15. Stravinsky
> 16. Haydn
> 17. Tchaikovsky
> 18. Prokofiev
> 19. Wagner
> 20. Faure
> 21. Mendelssohn
> 22. Berlioz
> 23. Saint-Saens
> 24. Rachmaninoff
> 25. Nielsen
> 26. Martinu
> 27. Vaughan-Williams
> 28. Liszt
> 29. Grieg
> 30. Chopin
> 31. Britten
> 32. Strauss
> 33. Heitor Villa-Lobos
> 34. Ginastera
> 35. Per Norgard
> 36. Elgar
> 37. Britten


For only listening about a year, that's quite an impressive list!!!


----------



## Morimur

*Top 10*

01. J.S. Bach
02. Beethoven
03. Stockhausen
04. Messiaen
05. Xenakis
06. Richard Barrett
07. Mahler
08. Lachenmann
09. Feldman
10. Partch


----------



## hpowders

^^^A mind blowing list!!!


----------



## Guest

For instance, one reason I haven't posted is because I know there are some major composers probably deserving of relatively high positions that I am simply not that into yet...Bruckner, Berlioz, Berg, etc come to mind. However, I know I won't be giving them their fair share of time before the polls close so, I should really just post what I can. Will probably do something similar to julian; I certainly like 100+ composers, but I certainly don't feel qualified to rank a good half of those that have only really connected with me with a couple of works so far.

Call me a noob, plz.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

1.) Genesis 1:1- Wagner
2.) Best in Show of Valhalla- Sibelius
3.) Honorable Mention- Respighi
4.) From the Highest Peaks Imaginable- Rozsa
5.) Epic- Richard Strauss
6.) Pure Velvet- Korngold
7.) Knight's Charge!- Bruckner
8.) Lust for Life- Ravel
9.) The Whole Wide World- Mahler
10.) Beauty and Nobility- Vaughan Williams


----------



## Bulldog

Eight days left to get in your vote; time is running out.


----------



## Bulldog

Lope de Aguirre said:


> 01. J.S. Bach
> 02. Beethoven
> 03. Stockhausen
> 04. Messiaen
> 05. Xenakis
> 06. Richard Barrett
> 07. Mahler
> 08. Lachenmann
> 09. Feldman
> 10. Partch


I never heard of Richard Barrett. Tell me about him, please.


----------



## pjang23

I'm curious what weighting system you'll use in the end. If unlisted composers are always given 0 points, then incomplete lists (especially very short ones) will bias the results.

For incomplete lists, I'd recommend giving every single unlisted composer the same score as the next rank. If someone lists 10 composers only, then give every unlisted composer the score for 11th place.


----------



## hpowders

Richard Barrett? I've learned something new today. He must be a better composer than Mahler.


----------



## Morimur

Bulldog said:


> I never heard of Richard Barrett. Tell me about him, please.


Barrett is usually lumped together with other 'new complexity' composers. He studied genetics but pursued music instead and his music is indeed very complex and unruly. Barrett places a great deal of importance on improvisation and performs with the electro acoustic duo, 'fURT'. His influences? Hespos, Xenakis, Stockhausen. Most recent recording: Dark Matter on the NMC label.


----------



## Morimur

hpowders said:


> Richard Barrett? I've learned something new today. He must be a better composer than Mahler.


Ha-ha! Are you trolling? My list is in no particular order. A better composer than Mahler? Like apples and oranges.


----------



## hpowders

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Ha-ha! Are you trolling? My list is in no particular order. A better composer than Mahler? Like apples and oranges.


Insulting me? You placed Barrett ahead of Mahler on your list didn't you. Why shoot the messenger?


----------



## Morimur

No, no, not insulting. Sorry if it came across that way. I am a fan of both composers and I was trying to say their work is very different.


----------



## hpowders

Lope de Aguirre said:


> No, no, not insulting. Sorry if it came across that way. I am a fan of both composers and I was trying to say their work is very different.


Thank you. Your tastes in music are interesting.


----------



## Bulldog

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Ha-ha! Are you trolling? My list is in no particular order. A better composer than Mahler? Like apples and oranges.


You did provide a list in order from 1 to 10. Unless you inform me otherwise, that's the order I will use.


----------



## Bulldog

pjang23 said:


> I'm curious what weighting system you'll use in the end.


100 points for a member's no. 1 selection; then just keep working it down.


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort

Yippeee!! Arnold Bax (that's _Sir_ Arnold Bax to you) is in the top 20 on Artrock's list. The morning will indeed bring sunshine.


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort

Many years ago, my wife and I bumped into a woman whose wedding we attended (we were friends of the groom). This was just several weeks after the ceremony and already she was unhappy and embittered. "I didn't know he was a Liszt man!" she complained - or that's what we _initially_ thought she said. He was a great fan of classical music, but in fact, she meant that he was a 'List Man,' someone who compiles lists of things to do and buy. This annoyed the dickens out of her and it was not long before they divorced. There were, of course, more serious conflicts between them.

I thought this project might be FUN; I always ask new acquaintances who their favorite composers are. But I'm finding it difficult to be a List Man. (yes, he was in there, #36). I worked on it for several hours and felt such an overwhelming sense of betrayal to so many composers with whom I have experienced if not intimate moments (and there are many of those) than something akin to friendship and mutual understanding that I honestly couldn't muster-up the requisite treachery to rank them so...matter-of-factly. This, not to diminish the enterprise in any way - it has value, certainly, in calling attn. to composers some of us may not know. I'm just saying I couldn't do it.

I have a friend named Lou who - we used to kid him cruelly about this - after almost every concert would exclaim, "That was the BEST CONCERT I've ever been to!!" We used to think he lacked logic, discernment, appropriate critical apparatus. Now I think he's probably the smartest, most discerning fan of all of us. And don't you think _Les Années de Pèlerinage_ might be the best thing you have ever heard?!


----------



## hpowders

Sorry, but no. But that shouldn't matter. As long as you like/love it. That's all that counts!!!


----------



## Bulldog

A reminder that there are only 4 days left to submit your votes.


----------



## musicrom

Are we allowed to make changes to our original posts? I realized that I forgot Grieg, and I'm not completely content with my rankings. If you've already tallied the lists that have been posted, I guess it's okay, my rankings are more or less accurate for my personal favorites, but if you're waiting until the deadline to tally them, then I'll try to post a more accurate list.


----------



## Bulldog

musicrom said:


> Are we allowed to make changes to our original posts? I realized that I forgot Grieg, and I'm not completely content with my rankings. If you've already tallied the lists that have been posted, I guess it's okay, my rankings are more or less accurate for my personal favorites, but if you're waiting until the deadline to tally them, then I'll try to post a more accurate list.


I've already tallied most of the submittals. However, I have not yet reached your list (reply #92). So I'll refrain from including your list until you redo it, assuming you do so by the end of this month.


----------



## hpowders

Can't wait to see the final results.


----------



## Bulldog

From the looks of it, there will be a few surprises (at least on my part).


----------



## Draugen

I'm not familiar with 100 composers, as we pass the 20 mark I hit composers where I may only be familiar with a small amount, so a top 20 instead. The first 5 or 6 were easy, but things become murky and possibly interchangeable thereafter. Some on here, like Haydn and Handel I'm only really beginning to discover, so positions are bound to change over time. 


1. JS Bach

2. Beethoven

3. Schubert

4. Bruckner

5. Brahms 

6. Sibelius

7. Debussy

8. Purcell

9. Mozart

10. Wagner

11. Scriabin

12. Handel

13. Mahler

14. Vivaldi

15. Ravel

16. D Scarlatti

17. Haydn

18. Corelli

19. Rimsky-Korsakov

20. Schoenberg


----------



## Sonata

1. Brahms
2. Mahler
3. Mozart
4. Chopin
5. Beethoven
6. Mendelssohn
7. Schubert
8. Haydn
9. Ravel
10. Bruckner
11. Dvorak
12. Richard Strauss
13. Tchaikovsky
14. Rachmaninoff
15. Prokofiev
16. Grieg
17. Liszt
18. Shostakovich
19. Puccini
20. J.S. Bach
21. Faure
22. R. Schumann
23. Debussy
24. Granados
25. Gorecki
26. Sibelius
27. Debussy
28. Verdi
29. Boccherini
30. Wagner
31. Nielsen
32. Vivaldi
33. D. Scarlatti
34. Albeniz
35. Glazunov
36. Bruch
37. C. Schumann
38. Corelli
39. Glass
40. Saint Saens
41. CPE Bach
42. Part
43. Bizet
44. Berlioz
45. Delibes
46. Cherubini
47. Alkan
48. Gesualdo
49. Handel
50. Alwyn
51. Elgar
52. Monteverdi
53. Charpentier
54. Pachelbel
55. Albinoni
56. Borodin
57. Bantock
58. Britten
59. Delius

My top 25 are fairly accurate, the top 10 in particular. The last 15 or so I only know a few pieces by them so the ranking is fairly arbitrary, but if I liked something of what I head they made the list.


----------



## Bulldog

We are coming to the end of the voting period - only two days remaining.

To musicrom:

I'm still waiting for your revised list.


----------



## hpowders

Can't wait! Reminds me (from what I've read) of the much anticipated release of Hitchcock's Psycho!


----------



## Bulldog

julianoq said:


> I decided to put in my list only composers that I am more or less familiar with. I am listening to classical "seriously" for a little more than an year, and even if I am a kind of compulsive listener I feel that I still have way too much to explore, specially on baroque and 20th century/modern music. And I am very happy to know that I still have plenty to discover!
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. J.S. Bach
> 3. Mozart
> 4. Mahler
> 5. Brahms
> 6. Sibelius
> 7. Schubert
> 8. Shostakovich
> 9. Bruckner
> 10. Debussy
> 11. Messiaen
> 12. Ravel
> 13. Bartók
> 14. Dvorak
> 15. Stravinsky
> 16. Haydn
> 17. Tchaikovsky
> 18. Prokofiev
> 19. Wagner
> 20. Faure
> 21. Mendelssohn
> 22. Berlioz
> 23. Saint-Saens
> 24. Rachmaninoff
> 25. Nielsen
> 26. Martinu
> 27. Vaughan-Williams
> 28. Liszt
> 29. Grieg
> 30. Chopin
> 31. Britten
> 32. Strauss
> 33. Heitor Villa-Lobos
> 34. Ginastera
> 35. Per Norgard
> 36. Elgar
> 37. Britten


You used Britten twice (nos. 31 and 37). I used your no. 31 and didn't use no. 37. If you have a problem with this or want a new no. 37, just let me know.


----------



## Guest

Actually, he loves Britten, and he hoped you wouldn't notice his scheme to give Britten more than 100 points with his list. It's quite rude of you to crush his dreams, really.


----------



## Bulldog

arcaneholocaust said:


> Actually, he loves Britten, and he hoped you wouldn't notice his scheme to give Britten more than 100 points with his list. It's quite rude of you to crush his dreams, really.


I just feel good that I caught the duplication.


----------



## MagneticGhost

I've been thinking about this for weeks and have started and stopped and started and stopped again and again.
It would have been easier to asked a top 25. A top 100 could still have been extrapolated from this info. 
Anyway - I've given you 57 I think. The order is phased specific, yet non-specific. The further down I go the more abritrary it seems - but certainly my perennial favourites are nearer the top at least. The further down I go - the more I'm relying on alphabetical prompts.
Please - nobody point out a glaring omission - 

Vaughan Williams
Mahler
Shostakovich
Elgar
Schubert
Bach
Mozart
Tchaikovksy
Brahms
Beethoven
Wagner
Messiaen
Rachmaninov
Bruckner
Haydn
Poulenc
Taverner (tudor)
Tallis
Strauss (Richard)
Britten
Stravinsky
Handel
Victoria
Sibelius
Rubbra
Monteverdi
Dvorak
Berlioz
Faure
Mendelssohn
Ravel
Chopin
Debussy
Saint-Saens
Grieg
Puccini
Verdi
Byrd
Purcell
Delius
Gesualdo
Holst
Dyson
Panufnik (A)
Howells
Janacek
Takemitsu
Khachaturian
Smetana
Ligeti
Rameau
Rossini
Szymanowski
Suk
Stockhausen
Tippett
Maxwell-Davis
Tavener
Grainger


AAGGGHH!! Most glaring omission in the history of glaring omission - Schubert gently inserted into the top 5


----------



## Morimur

Vaughan Wiliams over Bach? Really?


----------



## MagneticGhost

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Vaughan Wiliams over Bach? Really?


Yes!! I love Vaughan Williams. This is about favourites isn't it?


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort

There is much to like in Sonata's list - perhaps predictably as Brahms heads it up.


----------



## Guest

I swear to you...before the clock tolls midnight...I will post _something_!


----------



## musicrom

Here's my updated version (just as a second reminder, disregard my post #93):

1. Ludwig van Beethoven (23) 
2. Frederic Chopin (19) 
3. Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov (26) 
4. Felix Mendelssohn (21) 
5. Sergei Prokofiev (18) 
6. Piotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (19) 
7. Johann Sebastian Bach (14) 
8. Antonín Dvořák (11) 
9. Jean Sibelius (13) 
10. Camille Saint-Saëns (13) 
11. Mikhail Glinka (12) 
12. Bedřich Smetana (10) 
13. Edward Elgar (9) 
14. Niccolo Paganini (9) 
15. Sergei Rachmaninoff (8) 
16. Gioachino Rossini (8) 
17. Henri Vieuxtemps (8) 
18. Pablo de Sarasate (7) 
19. Franz Liszt (6) 
20. Claude Debussy (6) 
21. Henryk Wieniawski (6) 
22. Giuseppe Verdi (5) 
23. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (4) 
24. Antonio Vivaldi (5) 
25. Giacomo Puccini (5) 
26. Dmitri Shostakovich (5) 
27. Max Bruch (3) 
28. Aram Khachaturian (3) 
29. Edouard Lalo (3) 
30. William Walton (3) 
31. Benjamin Britten (3) 
32. Georges Bizet (3) 
33. Franz Anton Hoffmeister (3) 
34. Robert Schumann (3) 
35. Johannes Brahms (2) 
36. Fritz Kreisler (3) 
37. Béla Bartók (2) 
38. Modest Mussorgsky (2) 
39. Franz Joseph Haydn (2) 
40. Hector Berlioz (2) 
41. Maurice Ravel (2) 
42. Jan Vanhal (2) 
43. George Frideric Handel (1)
44. Igor Stravinsky (1) 
45. Philip Glass (2) 
46. Franz Schubert (1) 
47. George Enescu (1) 
48. Alexander Borodin (1) 
49. Edvard Hagerup Grieg (0) 
50. Luigi Boccherini (1) 
51. Gustav Holst (1) 
52. Ralph Vaughan Williams (1) 
53. Eugène Ysaÿe (1) 
54. Franz von Suppé (1) 
55. Ferdinand Ries (1) 
56. Cesar Cui (1) 
57. Léo Delibes (1) 
58. Gabriel Fauré (1) 
59. François Couperin (1) 
60. Paul Dukas (1) 
61. Erik Satie (1) 
62. Fanny Mendelssohn (1)
63. Antonio Salieri (1) 
64. Gaetano Donizetti (1) 
65. Franz Berwald (1) 
66. Pavel Vranicky (1) 
67. Nathan Milstein (1) 
68. Rodion Shchedrin (1) 
69. Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach (1) 
70. Einar Enguld (1) 
71. Berthold Goldschmidt (1) 
72. Franz Waxman (1) 
73. Cecilia Arizti (1) 
74. Christian Pezold (1) 
75. Muzio Clementi (1) 
76. Johann Strauss II (1) 
77. Emil Reesen (1) 
78. Richard Wagner (1) 
79. Arcangelo Corelli (1) 
80. Carl Czerny (1) 
81. Charles-Henri Valentin Alkan (1) 
82. Leoš Janáček (1) 
83. Alexander Glazunov (0) 
84. Gustav Mahler (0) 
85. Anton Bruckner (0) 
86. Johann Pachelbel (0) 
87. Louis-Claude Daquin (0) 
88. Francis Poulenc (0) 
89. Georg Philipp Telemann (0)
90. Johan Halvorsen (0) 
91. Carl Philipp Stamitz (0) 
92. John Field (0) 
93. Ignacy Jan Paderewski (0) 
94. Zóltan Kodály (0) 
95. Claudio Monteverdi (0) 
96. Max Reger (0) 
97. Richard Strauss (0) 
98. Dmitri Kabalevsky (0) 
99. Rebecca Clarke (0) 
100. Heitor Villa-Lôbos (0)


----------



## Eviticus

musicrom said:


> Here's my updated version (just as a second reminder, disregard my post #93):
> 
> 1. Ludwig van Beethoven (23)
> 2. Frederic Chopin (19)
> 3. Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov (26)
> 4. Felix Mendelssohn (21)
> 5. Sergei Prokofiev (18)
> 6. Piotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (19)
> 7. Johann Sebastian Bach (14)
> 8. Antonín Dvořák (11)
> 9. Jean Sibelius (13)
> 10. Camille Saint-Saëns (13)
> 11. Mikhail Glinka (12)
> 12. Bedřich Smetana (10)
> 13. Edward Elgar (9)
> 14. Niccolo Paganini (9)
> 15. Sergei Rachmaninoff (8)
> 16. Gioachino Rossini (8)
> 17. Henri Vieuxtemps (8)
> 18. Pablo de Sarasate (7)
> 19. Franz Liszt (6)
> 20. Claude Debussy (6)
> 21. Henryk Wieniawski (6)
> 22. Giuseppe Verdi (5)
> 23. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (4)
> 24. Antonio Vivaldi (5)
> 25. Giacomo Puccini (5)
> 26. Dmitri Shostakovich (5)
> 27. Max Bruch (3)
> 28. Aram Khachaturian (3)
> 29. Edouard Lalo (3)
> 30. William Walton (3)
> 31. Benjamin Britten (3)
> 32. Georges Bizet (3)
> 33. Franz Anton Hoffmeister (3)
> 34. Robert Schumann (3)
> 35. Johannes Brahms (2)
> 36. Fritz Kreisler (3)
> 37. Béla Bartók (2)
> 38. Modest Mussorgsky (2)
> 39. Franz Joseph Haydn (2)
> 40. Hector Berlioz (2)
> 41. Maurice Ravel (2)
> 42. Jan Vanhal (2)
> 43. George Frideric Handel (1)
> 44. Igor Stravinsky (1)
> 45. Philip Glass (2)
> 46. Franz Schubert (1)
> 47. George Enescu (1)
> 48. Alexander Borodin (1)
> 49. Edvard Hagerup Grieg (0)
> 50. Luigi Boccherini (1)
> 51. Gustav Holst (1)
> 52. Ralph Vaughan Williams (1)
> 53. Eugène Ysaÿe (1)
> 54. Franz von Suppé (1)
> 55. Ferdinand Ries (1)
> 56. Cesar Cui (1)
> 57. Léo Delibes (1)
> 58. Gabriel Fauré (1)
> 59. François Couperin (1)
> 60. Paul Dukas (1)
> 61. Erik Satie (1)
> 62. Fanny Mendelssohn (1)
> 63. Antonio Salieri (1)
> 64. Gaetano Donizetti (1)
> 65. Franz Berwald (1)
> 66. Pavel Vranicky (1)
> 67. Nathan Milstein (1)
> 68. Rodion Shchedrin (1)
> 69. Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach (1)
> 70. Einar Enguld (1)
> 71. Berthold Goldschmidt (1)
> 72. Franz Waxman (1)
> 73. Cecilia Arizti (1)
> 74. Christian Pezold (1)
> 75. Muzio Clementi (1)
> 76. Johann Strauss II (1)
> 77. Emil Reesen (1)
> 78. Richard Wagner (1)
> 79. Arcangelo Corelli (1)
> 80. Carl Czerny (1)
> 81. Charles-Henri Valentin Alkan (1)
> 82. Leoš Janáček (1)
> 83. Alexander Glazunov (0)
> 84. Gustav Mahler (0)
> 85. Anton Bruckner (0)
> 86. Johann Pachelbel (0)
> 87. Louis-Claude Daquin (0)
> 88. Francis Poulenc (0)
> 89. Georg Philipp Telemann (0)
> 90. Johan Halvorsen (0)
> 91. Carl Philipp Stamitz (0)
> 92. John Field (0)
> 93. Ignacy Jan Paderewski (0)
> 94. Zóltan Kodály (0)
> 95. Claudio Monteverdi (0)
> 96. Max Reger (0)
> 97. Richard Strauss (0)
> 98. Dmitri Kabalevsky (0)
> 99. Rebecca Clarke (0)
> 100. Heitor Villa-Lôbos (0)


A distinct improvement  Now just replace Bach with Mozart and Mendelssoh with Smetena and you'd wear a perfect 10


----------



## Guest

Doing my list right now. I have been listening to classical music for about 12-15 months now, so don't panic when some big names are excluded. Exclusions will occur for the following reasons: 

- Have not listened to enough of their music (Smetana, Nielsen, Berlioz, Monteverdi, Verdi, Berg, etc come to mind) - sure, I love what I've heard, but can you rank a composer based on a couple of works?
- Have not listened to their music enough - Bruckner is the big one that won't be making the list. I have listened to half of his symphonies and enjoyed the experiences for the most part, but I just don't remotely "get it". This also keeps composers from rising in the ranks. Wagner won't be making my top ten...yet.
- Bad. (Rare)


----------



## Guest

I had somewhere around 55-65 composers named that I found suitable for a list (aka that I like enough AND know enough). However, a nice round number seems to be in order.

1. Ludwig Van Beethoven
2. Johann Sebastian Bach
3. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
4. Robert Schumann
5. Johannes Brahms
6. Franz Schubert
7. Franz Joseph Haydn
8. Maurice Ravel
9. Frédéric Chopin
10. Antonín Dvořák
11. Claude Debussy
12. Dmitri Shostakovich
13. Felix Mendelssohn
14. Edvard Grieg
15. Gustav Mahler
16. Jean Sibelius
17. Franz Liszt
18. Igor Stravinsky
19. Richard Wagner
20. Gabriel Fauré
21. Georg Friedrich Händel
22. Camille Saint-Saëns
23. György Ligeti
24. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
25. Erik Satie
26. Ralph Vaughan Williams
27. Sergei Rachmaninoff
28. Anton Webern
29. Francis Poulenc
30. Arnold Schönberg
31. Reinhold Glière
32. Béla Bartók
33. Bohuslav Martinů
34. César Franck
35. Sergei Prokofiev
36. Domenico Scarlatti
37. Benjamin Britten
38. Antonio Vivaldi
39. Edward Elgar
40. Heitor Villa-Lobos
41. Richard Strauss
42. Anton Rubinstein
43. Arcangelo Corelli
44. Per Nørgård
45. Toru Takemitsu
46. Niccolò Paganini
47. Olivier Messiaen
48. William Alwyn
49. Johann Nepomuk Hummel
50. Einojuhani Rautavaara




.....*ducks*


----------



## Cygnenoir

I'll do a top 50 list, too.

1. Beethoven
2. Mahler
3. Mozart
4. Messiaen
5. Bach
6. Debussy
7. Ligeti
8. Stravinsky
9. Schubert
10. Bartòk
11. Sibelius
12. Grieg
13. Schönberg
14. Reich
15. Adams
16. Glass
17. Ravel
18. Bruckner
19. Penderecki
20. Schnittke
21. Prokofiev
22. Yoshimatsu
23. Tchaikovsky
24. Dvorak
25. Scriabin
26. Wagner
27. Crumb
28. Webern
29. Schumann
30. Chopin
31. Liszt
32. Berg
33. Haydn
34. Ockeghem
35. Monteverdi
36. Tveitt
37. Valen
38. Rachmaninoff
39. Gershwin
40. Satie
41. Berlioz
42. Vivaldi
43. Takemitsu
44. Feldman
43. Pärt
44. Britten
45. Janácek
46. Poulenc
47. Beppe
48. Wallin
49. Gubaidulina
50. Shostakovich


----------



## Bulldog

berghansson said:


> I'll do a top 50 list, too.
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Mahler
> 3. Mozart
> 4. Messiaen
> 5. Bach
> 6. Debussy
> 7. Ligeti
> 8. Stravinsky
> 9. Schubert
> 10. Bartòk
> 11. Sibelius
> 12. Grieg
> 13. Schönberg
> 14. Reich
> 15. Adams
> 16. Glass
> 17. Ravel
> 18. Bruckner
> 19. Penderecki
> 20. Schnittke
> 21. Prokofiev
> 22. Yoshimatsu
> 23. Tchaikovsky
> 24. Dvorak
> 25. Scriabin
> 26. Wagner
> 27. Crumb
> 28. Webern
> 29. Schumann
> 30. Chopin
> 31. Liszt
> 32. Berg
> 33. Haydn
> 34. Ockeghem
> 35. Monteverdi
> 36. Tveitt
> 37. Valen
> 38. Rachmaninoff
> 39. Gershwin
> 40. Satie
> 41. Berlioz
> 42. Vivaldi
> 43. Takemitsu
> 44. Feldman
> 43. Pärt
> 44. Britten
> 45. Janácek
> 46. Poulenc
> 47. Beppe
> 48. Wallin
> 49. Gubaidulina
> 50. Shostakovich


From the start of this thread, I was very clear that the deadline for submittals was the end of January. Also, every three or four days I kept reminding members how many days were left to get their lists sent in.

As I am already well into the tabulation process, I will not be including your list. Hope you understand my position.


----------



## Mika

How about having long pre-defined list of composers from which people choose their top 100? Then you just copy paste top100 to excel and do some macro magic having up to date stats all the time. I assume inflow is not hundreds of lists.


----------



## Bulldog

Mika said:


> How about having long pre-defined list of composers from which people choose their top 100?


That wasn't done for this exercise, but feel free to use any process you want when you initiate your own thread.


----------



## Mister Man

No one stirs my emotions like Beethoven. Contrary to 100, I choose 1.


----------



## Bulldog

Here are the Top 100 Classical Composers; total points follow each composer's name:

1. Johann Sebastian Bach (3,509)
2. Ludwig van Beethoven (3,488)
3. Franz Schubert (3,131)
4. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (3,094)
5. Johannes Brahms (3,017)
6. Gustav Mahler (2,881)
7. Franz Joseph Haydn (2,714)
8. Jean Sibelius (2,452)
9. Richard Wagner (2,444)
10. Claude Debussy (2,415)
11. Dmitri Shostakovich (2,371)
12. Robert Schumann (2,279)
13. Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky (2,229)
14. Maurice Ravel (2,203)
15. Frederic Chopin (2,172)
16. Felix Mendelssohn (2,168)
17. Antonin Dvorak (2,054)
18. George Frideric Handel (2,023)
19. Sergei Prokofiev (2,019)
20. Igor Stravinsky (2,001)
21. Richard Strauss (1,887)
22. Anton Bruckner (1,863)
23. Franz Liszt (1,769)
24. Hector Berlioz (1,670)
25. Bela Bartok (1,651)
26. Sergei Rachmaninov (1,547)
27. Antonio Vivaldi (1,537)
28. Ralph Vaughan Williams (1,480)
29. Edvard Grieg (1,457)
30. Edward Elgar (1,384)
31. Gabriel Faure (1,360)
32. Benjamin Britten (1,277)
33. Olivier Messiaen (1,239)
34. Giuseppe Verdi (1,222)
35. Camille Saint-Saens (1,079)
36. Claudio Monteverdi (1,018)
37. Gustav Holst (921)
38. Domenico Scarlatti (908)
39. Charles Ives (898)
40. Giacomo Puccini (877)
41. Alban Berg (875)
42. Gyorgy Ligeti (872)
43. Aaron Copland (854)
44. Arnold Schoenberg (853)
45. Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov (823)
46. Alexander Scriabin (813)
47. Carl Nielsen (808)
48. Modest Mussorgsky (791)
49. Arcangelo Corelli (784)
50. Erik Satie (775)
51. Henry Purcell (742)
52. Giovanni Palestrina (734)
53. Leos Janacek (729)
54. Anton von Webern (700)
55. Francis Poulenc (670)
56. Georg Philipp Telemann (622)
57. Jean-Philippe Rameau (609)
58. Alexander Borodin (608)
59. Paul Hindemith (605)
60. Gioachino Rossini (597)
61. Samuel Barber (594)
62. Alfred Schnittke (575)
63. Josquin des Prez (574)
64. CPE Bach (556)
65. Ottorino Respighi (554)
66. Cesar Franck (528)
67. Georges Bizet (526)
68. Carl Maria von Weber (518)
69. Toru Takemitsu (511)
70. Bedrich Smetana (462)
71. Max Bruch (456)
72. Johann Nepomuk Hummel (452)
73. George Gershwin (440)
74. Karlheinz Stockhausen (425)
75. Steve Reich (406)
75. Thomas Tallis (406)
77. Arvo Part (402)
78. Heitor Villa-Lobos (400)
79. John Adams (394)
80. William Walton (393)
81. John Dowland (392)
82. Edgard Varese (380)
83. Alexander Glazunov (379)
83. Bohuslav Martinu (379)
85. Johann Strauss Jr. (376)
86. Francois Couperin (373)
87. Krzysztof Penderecki (365)
88. Carlo Gesualdo (357)
89. Niccolo Paganini (350)
90. Henryk Mikolaj Gorecki (346)
91. Isaac Albeniz (328)
92. William Byrd (327)
93. Christoph W. Gluck (326)
94. Elliot Carter (323)
95. Manuel de Falla (319)
96. Sofia Gubaidulina (312)
96. Iannis Xenakis (312)
98. Charles Valentin Alkan (309)
99. Max Reger (302)
100. John Cage (296)

Very close but no prize: 
Luigi Boccherini (290)
Morton Feldman (286)


----------



## Art Rock

Thanks for your work, Bulldog. Interesting to see Schubert edge out Mozart.


----------



## hpowders

Schubert edges out Mozart. Ouch!!


----------



## GreenMamba

Highest rated composer on my list that didn't make the Top 100: Ockeghem at #38.

Highest rated composer on the Top 100 that didn't make my list: Elgar at #30

Great minds think alike: Mozart (#4) and Takemitsu (#69) were the only exact matches.


----------



## mmsbls

Bulldog, Thanks for you effort in compiling the list.

As always, these games can be fun and interesting, but I doubt that anyone would consider this list _The Definitive Ranking of Classical Composers_. It is a nice list though.

It is the first time I've seen such a list that does not include Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart in the top 3. That was the biggest surprise for me. Of course 37 points out of over 3000 likely falls well within the statistical uncertainty.


----------



## hpowders

Also surprised at seeing one of my faves, Bela Bartok way down at #25.
I'll just have to suck it up somehow and move on! 

Thanks for the effort required in doing this, Bulldog.


----------



## Xiansheng

A very strong showing for Shostakovich... I like it!


----------



## Bulldog

Art Rock said:


> Thanks for your work, Bulldog. Interesting to see Schubert edge out Mozart.


Yes, I was surprised at Schubert's placement. However, my biggest surprise was Messiaen at #33. Nothing against the man, but I had no idea he was so popular; as I kept tabulating, Messiaen kept getting high numbers.

Second on my surprise list was how poorly the Italian opera composers fared. Best of the lot was Verdi at #34; he couldn't even match Messiaen.


----------



## Bulldog

mmsbls said:


> Bulldog, Thanks for you effort in compiling the list.
> 
> As always, these games can be fun and interesting, but I doubt that anyone would consider this list _The Definitive Ranking of Classical Composers_.


Right - the only definitive ranking was the first one. As it happens, that one was mine.


----------



## hpowders

I would have expected Bruckner to be listed much higher than #22, given all the pro-Bruckner sentiment I've noticed on TC.


----------



## Art Rock

GreenMamba said:


> Highest rated composer on my list that didn't make the Top 100: Ockeghem at #38.
> 
> Highest rated composer on the Top 100 that didn't make my list: Elgar at #30.


I thought this was an interesting exercise, so I did it for mine as well:

Highest rated composer on my list that didn't make the Top 100: 12. Ernest John Moeran
Highest rated composer on the Top 100 that didn't make my list: 18. George Frideric Handel


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Mine:

Highest rated composer on my list that didn't make the Top 100: 13. Frank Bridge - not surprised, I must say! 15. Frederick Delius was close behind.

Highest rated composer on the Top 100 that didn't make my list: 24. Hector Berlioz


----------



## Bulldog

hpowders said:


> I would have expected Bruckner to be listed much higher than #22, given all the pro-Bruckner sentiment I've noticed on TC.


Twenty-five members had Bruckner on their lists; thirty-three members had Mahler. That's likely the reason.


----------



## Bulldog

Art Rock said:


> I thought this was an interesting exercise, so I did it for mine as well:
> 
> Highest rated composer on my list that didn't make the Top 100: 12. Ernest John Moeran
> Highest rated composer on the Top 100 that didn't make my list: 18. George Frideric Handel


Moeran had 159 points; he likely would have been in the top 150.


----------



## Bulldog

TurnaboutVox said:


> Mine:
> 
> Highest rated composer on my list that didn't make the Top 100: 13. Frank Bridge - not surprised, I must say! 15. Frederick Delius was close behind.
> 
> Highest rated composer on the Top 100 that didn't make my list: 24. Hector Berlioz


Only three members had Bridge on their lists; I was one of them.


----------



## Mahlerian

Highest ranked composer on the top 100 but not on my top 100: Antonio Vivaldi at #27, first among 29 names not on my list.
Highest ranked composer on my top 100 but not that one: Guillaume de Machaut at #26, first among 28 names on my list but not that one (the discrepancy is explained below...)
Largest margin between my ranking and the general consensus (among composers ranked on both): Dmitri Shostakovich, with a whopping margin of 69.
Places where I agreed with consensus: JS Bach at #1 and our good old friend, Anonymous, whom everyone rightfully agreed deserved the #0 spot!
Places where I screwed up: listing Purcell both at #47 and #82...some bugs in that AccuRank...

Are there any pre-Renaissance composers on the list?

In most cases where my ranking of a composer was significantly lower than consensus, I don't expect them to rise, but some of the omissions are my fault for not being more familiar with the composers in question.


----------



## Bulldog

Another big surprise for me was Weinberg's lackluster showing. he got only 117 points from a total of only 2 members. I don't consider him a clone of Shostakovich; even if he was, what's wrong with hearing more Shostakovich.


----------



## Bulldog

GreenMamba said:


> Highest rated composer on my list that didn't make the Top 100: Ockeghem at #38.


He garnered 218 points, so he wasn't far off from being on the top 100 list.


----------



## Guest

Highest composer on the consensus list that didn't make my list: 
#22 - Anton Bruckner 
As I said, Bruckner is sort of on my to-do list for getting to know better, and even without more listenings, his 8th and 9th would've sealed him in the next 10-20 composers had I listed more than 50.

Highest composer on the consensus list that didn't make my list and is NOT yet in the cue for further listenings: 
#39 - Charles Ives

Highest composer on my list that does not appear on the consensus list:
#31 - Reinhold Gliere


Also, perhaps we should all determine what percentage of the master list appeared in our personal list. This could act as our "AccuRank Credibility Quotient" (or what percentage of Mahlerian's list appeared in your personal list  )


----------



## Guest

My top 50 list contains 74% (that's 37 of 50 to you BA's out there) of the top 50 of the consensus list, giving me an AccuRank Credibility Quotient of 0.74

I will have to try harder next year


----------



## musicrom

Highest ranked composer on my top 100 but not that one: Mikhail Glinka (#11)
Highest ranked composer on the top 100 but not on my top 100: Olivier Messiaen (#33)


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Mahlerian said:


> Largest margin between my ranking and the general consensus (among composers ranked on both): Dmitri Shostakovich, with a whopping margin of 69.


Wagner me 100 vs consensus 9 = -91 but this is because I still hardly know Wagner
Rachmaninov me 90 vs consensus 26 = -74

Places where I screwed up:

I temporarily removed Elgar from my list during a rewrite and forgot to reinstate him



arcaneholocaust said:


> perhaps we should all determine what percentage of the master list appeared in our personal list. This could act as our "AccuRank Credibility Quotient" (or what percentage of Mahlerian's list appeared in your personal list  )


71% of my list appeared in the consensus list. 
61% of my list coincided with Mahlerian's  Is that the most important statistic? - I guess I have only moderate AccuRank credibility, then.


----------



## hpowders

I want a re-count. Schubert over Mozart?
Turned my world upside down.


----------



## GreenMamba

Bulldog said:


> Another big surprise for me was Weinberg's lackluster showing. he got only 117 points from a total of only 2 members. I don't consider him a clone of Shostakovich; even if he was, what's wrong with hearing more Shostakovich.


I was the other Weinberg fan. Did you get any "Vainberg"s?


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort

Bulldog - _thank you _so much :tiphat:for doing this!

Personally, I couldn't be happier that Schubert's star appears to be rising and Mozart's slipping slightly, though I wish Arnold Bax were in the top 100. Berlioz's finish is better than feared! Did anyone vote for Gounod or Marx?

Any evidence that members may have leaned on the earliest appearing lists for support (not casting aspersions here - just interested from a data tab. perspective and wonder if it might have been preferable to submit lists privately).


----------



## Bulldog

GreenMamba said:


> I was the other Weinberg fan. Did you get any "Vainberg"s?


Not a one.

Only 54% of my list is on the consensus list. That's what I get for including obscure Russians and early baroque Germans.


----------



## Bulldog

Berlioznestpasmort said:


> Bulldog - _thank you _so much :tiphat:for doing this!
> 
> Personally, I couldn't be happier that Schubert's star appears to be rising and Mozart's slipping slightly, though I wish Arnold Bax were in the top 100. Berlioz's finish is better than feared! Did anyone vote for Gounod or Marx?
> 
> Any evidence that members may have leaned on the earliest appearing lists for support (not casting aspersions here - just interested from a data tab. perspective and wonder if it might have been preferable to submit lists privately).


That's interesting that you bring up the possibility of "leaning". As I was tabulating, I had the feeling now and then that there might be some validity to it (or not).

As for submitting private lists, I think our fellow members would rather keep it public (or not). It's all for fun, so I'd be for the public submittals.


----------



## Guest

Although I did not participate in the vote, I am interested in the methodology and outcome. 

Regards the outcome, there are several surprises compared with other polls, but the biggest one is Schubert getting more votes than Mozart, which I find strange. On my calculations, Mozart slightly wins out over Schubert, but it's not significant. I realise that this is due to a different selection of results, as some entries were re-submitted and some not counted, but I thought that I had made all the relevant adjustments according to comments made.

Regards methodology, there are several problems. 

•	A list of 100 composers is too many for most people to cope with, even seasoned listeners. This might have led some people to include composers whose works they are not familiar with, purely for presentational reasons.

•	The time limit allowed seemed too long. Tactical voting might have taken to take place, e.g. deliberate downgrading of a composer in order to offset a higher rating in the poll up to that point. 

•	The biggest problem concerns weighting. A straight-line declining weight from 100 to zero is unlikely to be a fair representation of most peoples' preferences. On this basis, composer No 50 is supposedly liked half as much as Composer No 1. This doesn't seem plausible for many people. 

•	For someone who made the full 100 selections, their vote total is 5050. For someone who made 10 selections, their vote total is 955. This involves an unfair penalty imposed on those who provided incomplete lists. For these people a positive scaling factor should have been applied in order to boost their vote. This problem was mentioned earlier on but seemingly nothing done about it.

To deal with these weighting problems, a better procedure would have been to allocate a fixed total of votes among composers.


----------



## Bulldog

Partita said:


> Although I did not participate in the vote, I am interested in the methodology and outcome.
> 
> Regards the outcome, there are several surprises compared with other polls, but the biggest one is Schubert getting more votes than Mozart, which I find strange. On my calculations, Mozart slightly wins out over Schubert, but it's not significant. I realise that this is due to a different selection of results, as some entries were re-submitted and some not counted, but I thought that I had made all the relevant adjustments according to comments made.
> 
> Regards methodology, there are several problems.
> 
> •	A list of 100 composers is too many for most people to cope with, even seasoned listeners. This might have led some people to include composers whose works they are not familiar with, purely for presentational reasons.
> 
> •	The time limit allowed seemed too long. Tactical voting might have taken to take place, e.g. deliberate downgrading of a composer in order to offset a higher rating in the poll up to that point.
> 
> •	The biggest problem concerns weighting. A straight-line declining weight from 100 to zero is unlikely to be a fair representation of most peoples' preferences. On this basis, composer No 50 is supposedly liked half as much as Composer No 1. This doesn't seem plausible for many people.
> 
> •	For someone who made the full 100 selections, their vote total is 5050. For someone who made 10 selections, their vote total is 955. This involves an unfair penalty imposed on those who provided incomplete lists. For these people a positive scaling factor should have been applied in order to boost their vote. This problem was mentioned earlier on but seemingly nothing done about it.
> 
> To deal with these weighting problems, a better procedure would have been to allocate a fixed total of votes among composers.


Sounds like you're the man to do this next year. :tiphat:


----------



## Guest

I don't think the "tactical voting" would be a sensitive issue here. Most people are at least respectful of all major composers enough to not engage in such tomfoolery (different on a metal board, lol).

I could see the top 100 being an issue, and the weighting being a significant issue.

Perhaps we should do a recount with some sort of exponential system? Perhaps simply square or cube the rank... with a square giving the #50 spot 1/4 of the points that the #1 gets, and the cube giving the #50 spot 1/8 of the points. Of course you'd have to raise the baseline or else why would anyone even mention a #100 composer for 1 point?

You could do a recount with a new weighting system, and then do another recount with the new weighting system and only taking into account people's top 50 choices, and post both recounts. Would be cool. If you're not up to it, I could do it, but I'd need feedback and agreement on a weighting system first.

Let me know, I'd be interested in the results.

Good words, Partita, and thanks for all your work, Bulldog.


----------



## Guest

I had an idea to do a pretty rough regression to develop a weighting system.

Basically I would:
1) Look at my last.fm artist charts. Pinpoint the classical composers, perhaps list the first 50 that show up. Take # of plays at various points (1, 5, 10, 25, 50, or whatever) as data. 
2) Look at my media library and quickly calculate the average track time for the same composers used above. 
3) Multiple the two #s to determine a rough amount of time I've spent with each composer. Obviously this whole thing is inevitably flawed. I'm not going to look specifically at which works from the specified composers were played most, so for instance you'd run into quite a few issues (imagine taking such statistics from a guy that loved the Diabellis and hated the 9th)
4) Plot these points vs. a value that represents ranking (for top 50, "50" would represent the #1 spot). So if I have roughly 10,000 minutes of Beethoven listened on my last.fm charts at #1, I would plot a point at (x,y) = (50,10000).
5) Do quadratic, cubic, etc regressions to find a good fit.

And there would be your insanely flawed but rough "taste" equation.

Edit: Despite flaws, does this sound mathematically correct? I haven't done much math of this nature in probably 4-5 years.

And of course, my #15 favorite or whatever may have more plays than my #12, for example, but this would just be to find a rough equation to use as a weighting system...simply to determine roughly how much time is spent with a #50 pick vs a #10 pick vs a #1 pick, or however you wanna do it.


----------



## Bulldog

arcaneholocaust said:


> I don't think the "tactical voting" would be a sensitive issue here. Most people are at least respectful of all major composers enough to not engage in such tomfoolery (different on a metal board, lol).
> 
> I could see the top 100 being an issue, and the weighting being a significant issue.
> 
> Perhaps we should do a recount with some sort of exponential system? Perhaps simply square or cube the rank... with a square giving the #50 spot 1/4 of the points that the #1 gets, and the cube giving the #50 spot 1/8 of the points. Of course you'd have to raise the baseline or else why would anyone even mention a #100 composer for 1 point?
> 
> You could do a recount with a new weighting system, and then do another recount with the new weighting system and only taking into account people's top 50 choices, and post both recounts. Would be cool. If you're not up to it, I could do it, but I'd need feedback and agreement on a weighting system first.
> 
> Let me know, I'd be interested in the results.


We appear to be going in opposite directions. If I read you correctly, you think this is a good project to keep working on. From my end, the project is over.


----------



## Guest

arcaneholocaust said:


> I don't think the "tactical voting" would be a sensitive issue here. Most people are at least respectful of all major composers enough to not engage in such tomfoolery (different on a metal board, lol).
> 
> I could see the top 100 being an issue, and the weighting being a significant issue.
> 
> Perhaps we should do a recount with some sort of exponential system? Perhaps simply square or cube the rank... with a square giving the #50 spot 1/4 of the points that the #1 gets, and the cube giving the #50 spot 1/8 of the points. Of course you'd have to raise the baseline or else why would anyone even mention a #100 composer for 1 point?
> 
> You could do a recount with a new weighting system, and then do another recount with the new weighting system and only taking into account people's top 50 choices, and post both recounts. Would be cool. If you're not up to it, I could do it, but I'd need feedback and agreement on a weighting system first.
> 
> Let me know, I'd be interested in the results.
> 
> Good words, Partita, and thanks for all your work, Bulldog.


The following is a list of the presumed posts that contain the source data used in the final calculations. Each line gives: sample no, post number, number of admissible selections. This is based on my interpretation of comments made concerning the validity of votes cast. I stress that this might contain some errors, but it's the best I could do in a short space of time based on reading through the thread.

1	.	1	(	100	)
2	.	4	(	100	)
3	.	8	(	100	)
4	.	14	(	70	)
5	.	19	(	100	)
6	.	21	(	50	)
7	.	22	(	10	)
8	.	24	(	25	)
9	.	28	(	100	)
10	.	31	(	12	)
11	.	36	(	100	)
12	.	59	(	100	)
13	.	62	(	50	)
14	.	70	(	20	)
15	.	71	(	15	)
16	.	72	(	80	)
17	.	73	(	50	)
18	.	74	(	100	)
19	.	75	(	100	)
20	.	77	(	25	)
21	.	80	(	25	)
22	.	82	(	100	)
23	.	84	(	10	)
24	.	86	(	100	)
25	.	87	(	50	)
26	.	92	(	56	)
27	.	96	(	50	)
28	.	103	(	100	)
29	.	105	(	17	)
30	.	106	(	36	)
31	.	109	(	10	)
32	.	112	(	10	)
33	.	132	(	20	)
34	.	133	(	59	)
35	.	139	(	59	)
36	.	144	(	100	)

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

If this is correct, it means that the average number of selections made is 59, with standard deviation 36. The total number of votes cast is 85518, the average per voter being 2376, and standard deviation 2157. These high variances indicate several potential problems, and it could involve making arbitrary adjustments to try to resolve them. It might be better to start again asking for the allocation of a specific number of points across any number of composers chosen by the individual voter. This way fairness is achieved across all voters, and it removes the need for any externally imposed weighting system, as voters themselves would choose. I'm not volunteering to do the job.


----------



## BurningDesire

Why do these threads keep coming back? What is the point? How do you even rank composers?


----------



## Bulldog

Partita said:


> Although I did not participate in the vote, I am interested in the methodology and outcome.
> 
> Regards the outcome, there are several surprises compared with other polls, but the biggest one is Schubert getting more votes than Mozart, which I find strange. On my calculations, Mozart slightly wins out over Schubert, but it's not significant. I realise that this is due to a different selection of results, as some entries were re-submitted and some not counted, but I thought that I had made all the relevant adjustments according to comments made.
> 
> Regards methodology, there are several problems.
> 
> •	A list of 100 composers is too many for most people to cope with, even seasoned listeners. This might have led some people to include composers whose works they are not familiar with, purely for presentational reasons.
> 
> •	The time limit allowed seemed too long. Tactical voting might have taken to take place, e.g. deliberate downgrading of a composer in order to offset a higher rating in the poll up to that point.
> 
> •	The biggest problem concerns weighting. A straight-line declining weight from 100 to zero is unlikely to be a fair representation of most peoples' preferences. On this basis, composer No 50 is supposedly liked half as much as Composer No 1. This doesn't seem plausible for many people.
> 
> •	For someone who made the full 100 selections, their vote total is 5050. For someone who made 10 selections, their vote total is 955. This involves an unfair penalty imposed on those who provided incomplete lists. For these people a positive scaling factor should have been applied in order to boost their vote. This problem was mentioned earlier on but seemingly nothing done about it.
> 
> To deal with these weighting problems, a better procedure would have been to allocate a fixed total of votes among composers.


Initially, I was going to take a pass on Partita's comments. However, I've changed my mind and would like to respond:

1. Partita feels that a list of 100 is "too many for most people to cope with, even seasoned listeners". I certainly disagree concerning seasoned listeners; 100 is a snap and 200 or more would be no problem.

About relative newcomers to classical music, they were under no mandate to submit a list of 100. They had a golden opportunity to just offer a list of however many composers they were familiar with, an honest list without scrambling around to write a bunch of names.

2. Partita's position is that the time allowed for voting seemed too long; two other members wrote me privately to ask for an additional one or two weeks so they could well develop their lists. It's all opinion, and mine was that giving members to the end of January was about the right amount of time.

3. Here's an odd one concerning the straight-line weighting I used. Partita considers it unlikely to be fair because composer #50 would supposedly be liked half as much as composer #1. A more reasonable view is that there are 49 composers who the member prefers to composer #50. Any idea of percentages or fractions would only be known by the specific member; for the rest of us, it's just speculation.

4. Last but not least, Partita invokes the "unfair penalty" rule. His reasoning is that those members who submitted lists with fewer than 100 names absorbed an unfair penalty because their point total contribution had less impact on the final results than those who came up with the full 100. Sorry, but I don't consider this situation to be any kind of penalty, fair or otherwise. It's really a natural process - the smaller the point total contribution, the smaller the resulting impact; that's fair in my book. Let's also keep in mind that some members submitted fewer than 100 names because they didn't want to spend the time on a full list. I can't think of any reason to reward them with a "boost" to their votes.

Overall, I think that the process I used for this little project concluded in a reasonable reflection of the preferences of the voting members. I did what I set out to do; I'm satisfied.


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> Initially, I was going to take a pass on Partita's comments. However, I've changed my mind and would like to respond:
> 
> 1. Partita feels that a list of 100 is "too many for most people to cope with, even seasoned listeners". I certainly disagree concerning seasoned listeners; 100 is a snap and 200 or more would be no problem.
> 
> About relative newcomers to classical music, they were under no mandate to submit a list of 100. They had a golden opportunity to just offer a list of however many composers they were familiar with, an honest list without scrambling around to write a bunch of names.
> 
> 2. Partita's position is that the time allowed for voting seemed too long; two other members wrote me privately to ask for an additional one or two weeks so they could well develop their lists. It's all opinion, and mine was that giving members to the end of January was about the right amount of time.
> 
> 3. Here's an odd one concerning the straight-line weighting I used. Partita considers it unlikely to be fair because composer #50 would supposedly be liked half as much as composer #1. A more reasonable view is that there are 49 composers who the member prefers to composer #50. Any idea of percentages or fractions would only be known by the specific member; for the rest of us, it's just speculation.
> 
> 4. Last but not least, Partita invokes the "unfair penalty" rule. His reasoning is that those members who submitted lists with fewer than 100 names absorbed an unfair penalty because their point total contribution had less impact on the final results than those who came up with the full 100. Sorry, but I don't consider this situation to be any kind of penalty, fair or otherwise. It's really a natural process - the smaller the point total contribution, the smaller the resulting impact; that's fair in my book. Let's also keep in mind that some members submitted fewer than 100 names because they didn't want to spend the time on a full list. I can't think of any reason to reward them with a "boost" to their votes.
> 
> Overall, I think that the process I used for this little project concluded in a reasonable reflection of the preferences of the voting members. I did what I set out to do; I'm satisfied.


I can only repeat that I think there are some potentially serious methodological problems in the way the exercise and data handling was carried out.

First, the exact database that was actually used has not been revealed. This should have been provided, especially given the uncertainties with regard to your comments about threatening to exclude some votes that did not seem to fit what you had asked for.

Second, details of the weighting system that you planned to use were only set out about half way through the voting period, and then only in response to questions and suggestions made concerning the avoidance of bias, which you then completely ignored. The weighting system you adopted is arbitrary, and not one that seems to be all that plausible. Given this, it would have been useful to carry out one or two variants based on different weighting systems.

Third, despite what you say, there is a big mistake in penalising voters who did not manage to select 100 composers. People who nominated 100 composers generated 5050 points. Those at the other extreme who generated only 10 names generated a mere 55 points. This whacking great disparity is self-evidently wrong. Some people may only like 10 composers. Why should they only qualify for 11% of the votes of someone who can rattle off 100 names? There is nothing "natural" about this; rather it is discrimination on a big scale.

Fourth, I think it is highly dubious to suggest that there are many people who can sensibly rank their top 100 composers. For the vast majority of listeners, the lists must become highly uncertain beyond a much lower level than that. A much lower number would seem more sensible, in order not to make some voters feel intimidated by the process.

Fifth, all these problems could have been avoided if voters had been asked to allocate a fixed number of points across their favorite composers.


----------



## science

Partita, I suspect you're taking it too seriously. It's just for fun. Bulldog's "I did what I set out to do; I'm satisfied" pretty much wraps it up; there couldn't have been any higher goal than that. 

We're probably gonna make a new top 100 composers list or something like it in approximately 8 to 30 months at the most! 

Actually, your method (if voters had been asked to allocate a fixed number of points across their favorite composers) sounds interesting, and I encourage you to do it! No need to wait 8 whole months!


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Partita, I suspect you're taking it too seriously. It's just for fun. Bulldog's "I did what I set out to do; I'm satisfied" pretty much wraps it up; there couldn't have been any higher goal than that.
> 
> We're probably gonna make a new top 100 composers list or something like it in approximately 8 to 30 months at the most!
> 
> Actually, your method (if voters had been asked to allocate a fixed number of points across their favorite composers) sounds interesting, and I encourage you to do it! No need to wait 8 whole months!


My main reason for commenting in the first place was that I spotted several queries concerning the position of Schubert and Mozart, coming in 3rd and 4th respectively.

I agree that this did not sound right, as it breaks with tradition. Similarly, there are several other odd looking rankings, like Sibelius and Shostakovich being rather high, and Wagner a bit too low, in comparison with most other polls.

Rather than assume that the methodology and data handling was correct, I decided to carry out a little investigation, the results of which I have reported in case my observations might be of any assistance to people who are still puzzled by any of the results, or how their votes were handled.


----------



## Guest

To gauge how sensitive the results are, I have carried out a very simple exercise involving only the top 10 selections by each voter. This is the lowest common denominator of selections made by the 36 voters that I have accounted for, and it thus gives each voter an equal weight in the overall calculations.

I then had to select a weighting pattern, and for this I experimented with various geometrically declining weights. Completely arbitrarily, the following results are based on weights that decline by a factor of 0.96 from a start point of 100, finishing up at 69 for the 10th position. I stress that I am not suggesting that is correct, only that it may seem better than weights that fall only by one at a time. The following emerged for the top 20 positions: 

1	Beethoven	3116
2	Bach	3094
3	Mozart	2546
4	Schubert	2018
5	Brahms	1925
6	Mahler	1698
7	Haydn	1148
8	Wagner	948
9	Shostakovich	922
10	Debussy	812
11	Mendelssohn	776
12	Chopin	728
13	Tchaikovsky	709
14	Dvorak	665
15	Sibelius	662
16	Stravinsky	647
17	Schumann	626
18	Liszt	537
19	Ravel	478
20	Bruckner	1925

...........

The main differences compared with the earlier reported results are that: There is no significant difference between Beethoven and Bach in 1st/2nd positions. Mozart is in clear 3rd spot, well ahead of Schubert. Schubert comes 4th and Brahms 5th, but I'm not sure that the difference is significant; it doesn't look it, prima facie. Sibelius is knocked way down from 8th to 15th.

I still think that there is something "fishy" about some of the other results, too, as they seem to be out of line with several other polls that I have seen elsewhere. In particular, Mahler seems way too high for someone who wrote mainly only symphonies, not all which are that appealing. Shostakovich also seems to have come out much higher than on other polls. The major question mark regarding composers who normally come out much higher concerns Handel. I can't imagine what's happened here, coming in 18th position on the earlier results and 21st on the above (not shown), as Handel usually achieves a higher ranking in the range 8-12.


----------



## science

Partita said:


> To gauge how sensitive the results are, I have carried out a very simple exercise involving only the top 10 selections by each voter. This is the lowest common denominator of selections made by the 36 voters that I have accounted for, and it thus gives each voter an equal weight in the overall calculations.
> 
> I then had to select a weighting pattern, and for this I experimented with various geometrically declining weights. Completely arbitrarily, the following results are based on weights that decline by a factor of 0.96 from a start point of 100, finishing up at 69 for the 10th position. I stress that I am not suggesting that is correct, only that it may seem better than weights that fall only by one at a time. The following emerged for the top 20 positions:
> 
> 1	Beethoven	3116
> 2	Bach	3094
> 3	Mozart	2546
> 4	Schubert	2018
> 5	Brahms	1925
> 6	Mahler	1698
> 7	Haydn	1148
> 8	Wagner	948
> 9	Shostakovich	922
> 10	Debussy	812
> 11	Mendelssohn	776
> 12	Chopin	728
> 13	Tchaikovsky	709
> 14	Dvorak	665
> 15	Sibelius	662
> 16	Stravinsky	647
> 17	Schumann	626
> 18	Liszt	537
> 19	Ravel	478
> 20	Bruckner	1925
> 
> ...........
> 
> The main differences compared with the earlier reported results are that: There is no significant difference between Beethoven and Bach in 1st/2nd positions. Mozart is in clear 3rd spot, well ahead of Schubert. Schubert comes 4th and Brahms 5th, but I'm not sure that the difference is significant; it doesn't look it, prima facie. Sibelius is knocked way down from 8th to 15th.
> 
> I still think that there is something "fishy" about some of the other results, too, as they seem to be out of line with several other polls that I have seen elsewhere. In particular, Mahler seems way too high for someone who wrote mainly only symphonies, not all which are that appealing. Shostakovich also seems to have come out much higher than on other polls. The major question mark regarding composers who normally come out much higher concerns Handel. I can't imagine what's happened here, coming in 18th position on the earlier results and 21st on the above (not shown), as Handel usually achieves a higher ranking in the range 8-12.


There are two factors: methodology and participants. Just as a different methodology would produce different results, so too would different set of voters (or the same set at a different time in our lives) produce different results.

I.e. if Handel is lower or Shostakovich higher than usual, it probably tells you something about this set of voters as compared to the other sets of voters in your experience.


----------



## Winterreisender

Thanks for the interesting results. I feel bad now for submitting an incomplete list! Lots of favourites were left out (but I guess that will always happen)


----------



## GreenMamba

> Third, despite what you say, there is a big mistake in penalising voters who did not manage to select 100 composers. People who nominated 100 composers generated 5050 points. Those at the other extreme who generated only 10 names generated a mere 55 points.


Not true. You misunderstand the process. [Clarification: #1 selection received 100 points no matter what, and so on.]

Regardless, I'd just suggest, Partita, that this below gives the game away. You're trying to alter the scoring system to get the results you want.



> I still think that there is something "fishy" about some of the other results, too, as they seem to be out of line with several other polls that I have seen elsewhere. In particular, Mahler seems way too high for someone who wrote mainly only symphonies, not all which are that appealing. Shostakovich also seems to have come out much higher than on other polls. The major question mark regarding composers who normally come out much higher concerns Handel. I can't imagine what's happened here, coming in 18th position on the earlier results and 21st on the above (not shown), as Handel usually achieves a higher ranking in the range 8-12.


----------



## hpowders

BurningDesire said:


> Why do these threads keep coming back? What is the point? How do you even rank composers?


Yes. What is the point? After the top 3 or 4, it's all quite subjective anyway. I mean is there really a significant statistical difference when one guy rates a composer #34 and some gal rates the same composer #44 out of 100 spots?


----------



## scratchgolf

BurningDesire said:


> Why do these threads keep coming back? What is the point? How do you even rank composers?


I'd say the point is to benefit a relative newcomer to the genre and give them a good point of reference. Someone who's been exposed to very little and wants to further explore. Then again, and i'm going way out on a limb here, some people may actually enjoy ranking things. How dare they?!


----------



## Bulldog

Partita said:


> I can only repeat that I think there are some potentially serious methodological problems in the way the exercise and data handling was carried out.
> 
> First, the exact database that was actually used has not been revealed. This should have been provided, especially given the uncertainties with regard to your comments about threatening to exclude some votes that did not seem to fit what you had asked for.
> 
> Second, details of the weighting system that you planned to use were only set out about half way through the voting period, and then only in response to questions and suggestions made concerning the avoidance of bias, which you then completely ignored. The weighting system you adopted is arbitrary, and not one that seems to be all that plausible. Given this, it would have been useful to carry out one or two variants based on different weighting systems.
> 
> Third, despite what you say, there is a big mistake in penalising voters who did not manage to select 100 composers. People who nominated 100 composers generated 5050 points. Those at the other extreme who generated only 10 names generated a mere 55 points. This whacking great disparity is self-evidently wrong. Some people may only like 10 composers. Why should they only qualify for 11% of the votes of someone who can rattle off 100 names? There is nothing "natural" about this; rather it is discrimination on a big scale.
> 
> Fourth, I think it is highly dubious to suggest that there are many people who can sensibly rank their top 100 composers. For the vast majority of listeners, the lists must become highly uncertain beyond a much lower level than that. A much lower number would seem more sensible, in order not to make some voters feel intimidated by the process.
> 
> Fifth, all these problems could have been avoided if voters had been asked to allocate a fixed number of points across their favorite composers.


After your first salvo of complaints, I assumed you simply considered me a mathematical moron. But no, there's more. Now you impugn my character by saying that I "threaten" other members and engage in "discrimination on a big scale". You're a hoot.

You remain hung up on the folks who selected fewer than 100 composers; so be it. However, your numbers are wrong. Generating 10 names results in 955 points which is close to 19% of the points generated by the 100 name members. I have no idea where you come up with 11%.


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> I agree that this did not sound right, as it breaks with tradition. Similarly, there are several other odd looking rankings, like Sibelius and Shostakovich being rather high, and Wagner a bit too low, in comparison with most other polls.


So? Must all polls be the same?

(Breaking with tradition sounds to me a good reason to have a new poll that might say something different!)


----------



## Bulldog

Partita said:


> My main reason for commenting in the first place was that I spotted several queries concerning the position of Schubert and Mozart, coming in 3rd and 4th respectively.


No, not several unless you consider two members to be several.


----------



## mmsbls

Bulldog and Partita are asking different questions. Bulldog asked, "What would be a simple, straightforward way to allow members to vote and then summarize the results?" He used his method and produced his list, and we're all very thankful. Partita is asking, "Given voting members' appreciation of composers, how can we create the most accurate listing of the group's collective ranking?" This question is different and much harder to answer. 

I think a simple scale from 100 down to 1 probably does not accurately weight a given member's appreciation for each composer on their list. One the other hand, I think each member would have a different weighting so I think finding the proper averaged weight is rather difficult. I'm not sure how best to handle that fact that members submit varying length lists. I feel that giving each member a set number of points to spread over however many composers over-weights those composers on small lists. 

Mostly I think that the order of composers on any list generated is more a product of the actual set of members who voted than on the specific ranking method (assuming the method is at all reasonable).


----------



## Bulldog

Partita said:


> To gauge how sensitive the results are, I have carried out a very simple exercise involving only the top 10 selections by each voter. This is the lowest common denominator of selections made by the 36 voters that I have accounted for, and it thus gives each voter an equal weight in the overall calculations.
> 
> I then had to select a weighting pattern, and for this I experimented with various geometrically declining weights. Completely arbitrarily, the following results are based on weights that decline by a factor of 0.96 from a start point of 100, finishing up at 69 for the 10th position. I stress that I am not suggesting that is correct, only that it may seem better than weights that fall only by one at a time. The following emerged for the top 20 positions:
> 
> 1	Beethoven	3116
> 2	Bach	3094
> 3	Mozart	2546
> 4	Schubert	2018
> 5	Brahms	1925
> 6	Mahler	1698
> 7	Haydn	1148
> 8	Wagner	948
> 9	Shostakovich	922
> 10	Debussy	812
> 11	Mendelssohn	776
> 12	Chopin	728
> 13	Tchaikovsky	709
> 14	Dvorak	665
> 15	Sibelius	662
> 16	Stravinsky	647
> 17	Schumann	626
> 18	Liszt	537
> 19	Ravel	478
> 20	Bruckner	1925
> 
> ...........
> 
> The main differences compared with the earlier reported results are that: There is no significant difference between Beethoven and Bach in 1st/2nd positions. Mozart is in clear 3rd spot, well ahead of Schubert. Schubert comes 4th and Brahms 5th, but I'm not sure that the difference is significant; it doesn't look it, prima facie. Sibelius is knocked way down from 8th to 15th.
> 
> I still think that there is something "fishy" about some of the other results, too, as they seem to be out of line with several other polls that I have seen elsewhere. In particular, Mahler seems way too high for someone who wrote mainly only symphonies, not all which are that appealing. Shostakovich also seems to have come out much higher than on other polls. The major question mark regarding composers who normally come out much higher concerns Handel. I can't imagine what's happened here, coming in 18th position on the earlier results and 21st on the above (not shown), as Handel usually achieves a higher ranking in the range 8-12.


I know that I neither felt nor displayed any composer bias during this this thread's existence, but I'm not sure about you. Your comment on Mahler does seem to reflect composer bias as you're using that bias to question proper composer placement on the list.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> So? Must all polls be the same?
> 
> (Breaking with tradition sounds to me a good reason to have a new poll that might say something different!)


I can only assume from this comment that you have not read what I wrote which is very simple indeed. It is that I too (like several others) was surprised by the apparent result that Schubert came in at No 3, beating Mozart at No 4.

If you had bothered to read any further you would have discovered that this result is probably phoney, such that if allowance is made for the more dubious aspects of the calculations then Mozart comes out ahead of Schubert.

Have another go.


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort

I have no problem with a _Talk Classical Top 100 _ that differs from the norm (whatever that may be) - hothouse plants that we are, why shouldn't we grow into something new, different and interesting? Sibelius, for example, has received much discussion here and I think it's great if that has influenced members' thinking about him.

And I agree with the 25-50 crowd as being a more reasonable personal ranking - I was looking at my draft lists (I didn't submit) and I realized that I had totally forgotten Zemlinsky, fickle fan am I. Alles war nicht in Ordnung!


----------



## mmsbls

BurningDesire said:


> Why do these threads keep coming back? What is the point? How do you even rank composers?





scratchgolf said:


> Then again, and i'm going way out on a limb here, some people may actually enjoy ranking things. How dare they?!


Yes, for lists such as the "greatest/top" composers I think the main reason to play these games is for fun. Clearly many people enjoy participating. The final lists are probably reasonable by various standards, but playing the game is likely to be more important to most than the actual results.

Personally, I'm very interested in the variation from list to list. While almost every listing of composers has Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach as the top 3, relatively few TC members place them as their top 3. I did not check this thread, but in a former thread only 2 out of over 30 (I think) had those as their top 3. Some lists highly rank a large number of composers that do not make the average list, and some rank a few composers very high compared to the average list. Most of us are not very surprised with the final list, but individual lists can be rather interesting.


----------



## Bulldog

mmsbls said:


> Bulldog and Partita are asking different questions. Bulldog asked, "What would be a simple, straightforward way to allow members to vote and then summarize the results?" He used his method and produced his list, and we're all very thankful. Partita is asking, "Given voting members' appreciation of composers, how can we create the most accurate listing of the group's collective ranking?" This question is different and much harder to answer.


That pretty much sums up my approach and motivation.


----------



## Bulldog

Partita said:


> I can only assume from this comment that you have not read what I wrote which is very simple indeed. It is that I too (like several others) was surprised by the apparent result that Schubert came in at No 3, beating Mozart at No 4.


There you go again with an improper use of "several".


----------



## science

realdealblues said:


> 23. J. Braga Santos
> 24. Havergal Brian
> 
> 34. Cyril Scott
> 
> 36. Krauss
> 
> 43. Raff
> 
> 46. Hubert Perry
> 
> 49. M. Haydn
> 
> 53. WFE Bach
> 
> 59. Eybler
> 
> 61. Melartin
> 
> 90. Stanford
> 
> 94. Magnard
> 
> 97. Viotti
> 
> 100. Stravinsky


That was an interesting list.


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> After your first salvo of complaints, I assumed you simply considered me a mathematical moron. But no, there's more. Now you impugn my character by saying that I "threaten" other members and engage in "discrimination on a big scale". You're a hoot.
> 
> You remain hung up on the folks who selected fewer than 100 composers; so be it. However, your numbers are wrong. Generating 10 names results in 955 points which is close to 19% of the points generated by the 100 name members. I have no idea where you come up with 11%.


Regards your comments in the first paragraph, all that seems rather over-dramatic, as I have not accused you of anything. I'm questioning the statistical procedure you adopted, which was neither discussed at the beginning nor clarified (in terms of weighting procedure) until about half way through the voting, and then only in response to questions posed by other members who were concerned about possible bias unless you allowed for differences in the number of composers selected. You completely ignored those warnings and I am now simply drawing out the implications.

Regarding the point in your second paragraph about points for choosing 10 composers, it's a minor point because I fully recognise this and stated so in my post No 180: "_For someone who made the full 100 selections, their vote total is 5050. For someone who made 10 selections, their vote total is *955*._ It still means that voters who managed only 10 nominations had their votes discounted by a massive amount, compared with a situation where they would be able to allocate a fixed total number of votes. Given the approach you adopted, there are ways round the problem, like scaling the results upwards for voters who nominated less than 100. But nothing like this was attempted. Another source of bias is the implausible profile of weights that you used, from 100 down to 1, implying that a composer at No 50 is liked half as much as the composer in the No 1 spot. I can't see many people agreeing with that.


----------



## science

Partita, I've thought of a problem you might give consideration to with the method you propose. As far as I can see, if you have one voter who knows only one composer and gives all his points to that composer, and you have 99 voters who know a hundred composers and spread their points around in various ways, then that one guy who knows by far the least is having by far the greatest impact on the results. (Edit: That is, his choice is going to get #1 unless all the other guys agree not to vote for his guy and also to vote unanimously for someone else at the top.) Of course in practice the results would not be so dramatic, but this is supposed to be exaggerated to make the problem easier to spot. The point is, voters who (for whatever reasons) gave consideration to a larger number of composers would have a smaller impact, especially on the high spots.


----------



## Bulldog

You sound like a broken record; maybe I do as well. I think it's time to say adios.


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> I know that I neither felt nor displayed any composer bias during this this thread's existence, but I'm not sure about you. Your comment on Mahler does seem to reflect composer bias as you're using that bias to question proper composer placement on the list.


Not at all. My comment about Mahler was that he doesn't usually come out so highly placed as No 6, and this is not surprising given that he was mainly composer of only symphonies. Both of these are factual statements, not biased opinions.

My comment about the perceived quality of some of his works is based mainly on the rankings of Mahler's symphonies in the "T-C Recommended Symphony" list: No 1 (33), No 2 (2), No 3 (81), No 4(20), No 5 (15), No 6 (17), No 7 (92), No 8 (51), No 9 (18). I trust you might agree that not all these are highly rated. So again, I refute your suggestion that my comment reflects any bias.


----------



## Guest

I did the regression based on statistics I mentioned and got a good fit, but I'm not going to bother applying it...still too unreliable to be worth the effort. I'd rather Partita do something with it.


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> You sound like a broken record; maybe I do as well. I think it's time to say adios.


I am simply bringing out the main problems that I think exist in your analysis in as simple a way as possible, because it would seem that some people may be having a little trouble understanding the key point that it is riddled with potential biases, for which warning was given but no action taken.


----------



## Guest

arcaneholocaust said:


> I did the regression based on statistics I mentioned and got a good fit, but I'm not going to bother applying it...still too unreliable to be worth the effort. I'd rather Partita do something with it.


I would really like to see the results.


----------



## Mahlerian

Partita said:


> Not at all. My comment about Mahler was that he doesn't usually come out so highly placed as No 6, and this is not surprising given that *he was mainly composer of only symphonies*. *Both of these are factual statements*, not biased opinions.


Not factual at all. Much of Mahler's work was in lieder, both with orchestra and for voice and piano, and this is equally as important as his symphonic output.


----------



## Bulldog

At this point, I'd like to apologize to all members who voted on this thread. What started out as a pleasing commentary on composers and the musical/recording preferences of members has been turned upside-down. I take some of the blame for this in that I allowed myself to get sucked into Partita's complaints instead of ignoring them. Live and learn.


----------



## mmsbls

This may be much more detailed for most people's interest, but perhaps a few will want to read it. Let me expand a bit on _science_'s point. If each voter gets the same number of points to allocate to composers, there are 2 issues.

1) In that case, voters must determine for themselves how to properly allocate their points. In theory they must rank many composers and then carefully assess how much more they like composer 1 than composer 2 etc. all the way down. They then allocate points based on these relative "likings" until they are out of points. We would constrain the allocation to integer values so any composer who would receive less than 1 point is dropped from the list. The number of composers in their list could vary from 1 to 5050 (the former from liking 1 composer almost infinitely more than any other and the latter resulting from liking 5050 composers equally). So far, in theory, this is doable, but clearly this method was not used by anyone in this poll.

2) Problems arise when a voter does not include enough composers in their ordered list to properly use all the points. If a member's list does not include composers who are allocated less than 1 point, the list is "not long enough". Those members should not be allowed to allocate all their points. Of course someone could say that after 10 composers the next composer on their list is valued so much less that they would receive less than 1 point, but I think we would be rather skeptical of that statement. So I think people with limited lists probably don't "deserve" to have as many points as others who have a reasoned ordering of many more composers.

The bottom line is that I think the issue of varied length lists is a very difficult one to properly handle.


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> I would really like to see the results.











Here's a screenshot of some of what I did last night. Edit: Click to make bigger, I guess.

The first column is composers as they appear in my "top artists" in last.fm, as you can see in the second column, ordered by number of plays (I have had this last.fm account for 10 months).

The third column is the average track time in seconds on my iPod, by shift-clicking every track by the composer on my iPod and converting, say x hours:y minutes:z seconds into seconds. The fourth column multiples this average track time by the number of plays, giving a rough idea of the total amount of time spent with the composer within the 10 months of this last.fm account's life. This massive number of seconds could easily be converted to hours/days/etc.

The next set of data ranks composers according to this rough "time spent" and applies a reverse ranking (in line with giving the 1st place 100 points, etc.).

At various points I filled in the data for top 10, top 20, top 30, top 50 and made various regressions for each of them. The regression must be altered when other points are included, of course.

Shown above is the regression for the top 10. This would technically be applied by plugging in whatever rank a user gave a composer (1st place as 10, 50, 100, whatever, the x-value), and the equation would spit out a weight (the y-value).


----------



## Guest

A fun statistic: that screenshot implies that roughly 1.6% of my LIFE for the last 10 months occurred with Beethoven in the ears.


----------



## mmsbls

Bulldog said:


> At this point, I'd like to apologize to all members who voted on this thread. What started out as a pleasing commentary on composers and the musical/recording preferences of members has been turned upside-down. I take some of the blame for this in that I allowed myself to get sucked into Partita's complaints instead of ignoring them. Live and learn.


There's nothing to apologize for. You did a wonderful job, and many here greatly appreciate your effort. Some of us are interested in more detailed ways of getting certain statistical information about members composer preferences. Maybe we're just nerds, but to be honest I don't view any of this discussion as a criticism of your efforts (yes, I'm speaking for myself). What Partita brought up is an interesting statistical problem for those into that sort of thing. Those who are not interested (the vast majority) can of course ignore it and just look at your results.


----------



## mmsbls

arcaneholocaust said:


> View attachment 34420
> 
> 
> Here's a screenshot of some of what I did last night. Edit: Click to make bigger, I guess.
> 
> The first column is composers as they appear in my "top artists" in last.fm, as you can see in the second column, ordered by number of plays (I have had this last.fm account for 10 months).
> 
> The third column is the average track time in seconds on my iPod, by shift-clicking every track by the composer on my iPod and converting, say x hours:y minutes:z seconds into seconds. The fourth column multiples this average track time by the number of plays, giving a rough idea of the total amount of time spent with the composer within the 10 months of this last.fm account's life. This massive number of seconds could easily be converted to hours/days/etc.
> 
> The next set of data ranks composers according to this rough "time spent" and applies a reverse ranking (in line with giving the 1st place 100 points, etc.).
> 
> At various points I filled in the data for top 10, top 20, top 30, top 50 and made various regressions for each of them. The regression must be altered when other points are included, of course.
> 
> Shown above is the regression for the top 10. This would technically be applied by plugging in whatever rank a user gave a composer (1st place as 10, 50, 100, whatever, the x-value), and the equation would spit out a weight (the y-value).


The plot shows the weight as a function of the composer rank (1,2,3,...). So Beethoven has rank 1 and has weight roughly 11, and Mahler has rank 10 and has weight roughly 45. I don't understand the weight. For example how would I use Beethoven's and Mahler's rank?


----------



## Guest

You would either reverse the ranks as I said (IE in a top 10, #s go from 10 to 1, in a top 50, #s go from 50 to 1), or just have a totally different regression.

I didn't think to just have a different regression for some reason. I reversed the ranks because, as in Bulldog's system, lower ranks have higher weights, etc... 

So to get a #2's weight in a top 10 list, you would plug in "9", not "2" as you're thinking. I suppose I should've just gone with the different regression to make it easier though.

TL;DR: look at the rightmost column and you'll see you're just reading it backwards cuz I wasn't being logical.


----------



## Guest

Thank you for pointing that out. You should be able to figure out from the three columns on the right that the ranks go from highest ranked to lowest ranked (top to bottom), but until you posted your confusion due to the last column, I was completely unaware that maybe I was too tired last night for this activity, lol.


----------



## hpowders

Mahlerian said:


> Not factual at all. Much of Mahler's work was in lieder, both with orchestra and for voice and piano, and this is equally as important as his symphonic output.


True. I can list at least 7 major works by Mahler that are not symphonies, where the human voice is featured.
I prefer 3 of them to all of Mahler's symphonies.
Mahler's high position seems well-deserved. One man's opinion.


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> I am simply bringing out the main problems that I think exist in your analysis in as simple a way as possible, because it would seem that some people may be having a little trouble understanding the key point that it is riddled with potential biases, for which warning was given but no action taken.


Given that the OP provided no 'parameters' for what 'Top' meant, it's reasonable to assume that some supplied their 100 favourite, and some what they believed to be the 100 greatest. Either way, any such compilation is prone to bias, and it doesn't matter if it is.

Your bias is towards what you believed should have been the result, with certain composers occupying 'traditional' places.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> Not factual at all. Much of Mahler's work was in lieder, both with orchestra and for voice and piano, and this is equally as important as his symphonic output.


"Equally as important" measured why what?

I would dispute that the majority of classical music fans see Mahler as having produced equally important lieder works as his symphonic work across the whole range of each. (Note the wording here.)

I do in fact like Mahler, and have everything virtually he wrote. I'm not biased in any way against him, just making a simple point that he is not so versatile as most others in the usual top 10 (Wagner excepted).

My main point is that Mahler doesn't usually achieve such a high rating as No 6. If you can refer to any polls of any description that suggest otherwise, I'd be interested to hear about them.

Meanwhile, you may wish to note that Goulding has Mahler at No 17. DDD (which I suspect you may know about) has him at No 18. The Kentucky site has him at No 19. So far as I am aware, the highest he has achieved on any previous T-C poll is No 9. I reckon all this is consistent with the point I was trying to make.


----------



## science

mmsbls said:


> This may be much more detailed for most people's interest, but perhaps a few will want to read it. Let me expand a bit on _science_'s point. If each voter gets the same number of points to allocate to composers, there are 2 issues.
> 
> 1) In that case, voters must determine for themselves how to properly allocate their points. In theory they must rank many composers and then carefully assess how much more they like composer 1 than composer 2 etc. all the way down. They then allocate points based on these relative "likings" until they are out of points. We would constrain the allocation to integer values so any composer who would receive less than 1 point is dropped from the list. The number of composers in their list could vary from 1 to 5050 (the former from liking 1 composer almost infinitely more than any other and the latter resulting from liking 5050 composers equally). So far, in theory, this is doable, but clearly this method was not used by anyone in this poll.
> 
> 2) Problems arise when a voter does not include enough composers in their ordered list to properly use all the points. If a member's list does not include composers who are allocated less than 1 point, the list is "not long enough". Those members should not be allowed to allocate all their points. Of course someone could say that after 10 composers the next composer on their list is valued so much less that they would receive less than 1 point, but I think we would be rather skeptical of that statement. So I think people with limited lists probably don't "deserve" to have as many points as others who have a reasoned ordering of many more composers.
> 
> The bottom line is that I think the issue of varied length lists is a very difficult one to properly handle.


Partita didn't address the point, but I think I've found a solution: reward voters with extra points to allocate for listing more composers.

Bulldog's system did that, only without allowing us the flexibility that Partita proposed. He gave each voter a maximum of 5050 points to allocate (1 + 2 + 3 + ... 99 + 100), assuming that the voter listed 100 composers. If you only listed 99, then you had 5049; if you only listed 10 composers, then you only got 55 points.

I think (if we wanted to) we could combine a scale like Bulldog's (perhaps less generous) to determine how many points you get to allocate depending on how many composers you advocate, with Partita's idea of letting each voter decide how to distribute the points.

(The reason I suspect Bulldog's scale would be too generous in this system is that we would probably get some voters who give something like 4951 points to one composer and 1 point to 99 other composers. To make that kind of voting less effective, we might allow, say, 1 point each for the first ten composers, 2 points each for the next ten composers, 3 points each for the next ten composers..., so that someone who advocates 100 composers gets 550 points to allocate. We could be less generous if we really fear gamely conspiracies, or more generous if we trust the participants to behave.)

EDIT: BTW, I really like this idea. It would take a bit more work than I'm willing to put in, because each voter's math will have to be checked (someone is going to use more points than they're allowed) and the only way I know how to do that is by entering each vote into an excel spreadsheet manually.... But it would be really interesting to see how each of us would allocate those points!


----------



## Mahlerian

Partita said:


> "Equally as important" measured why what?
> 
> I would dispute that the majority of classical music fans see Mahler as having produced equally important lieder works as his symphonic work across the whole range of each. (Note the wording here.)


But isn't that in part because Classical music fans as a whole tend to undervalue lieder as a genre (opera as well, as is clear given the relatively low ranks of the great Italian opera composers in this ranking)?



Partita said:


> I do in fact like Mahler, and have everything virtually he wrote. I'm not biased in any way against him, just making a simple point that he is not so versatile as most others in the usual top 10 (Wagner excepted).


Chopin often shows up in top 20 rankings as well, and he too focused primarily on a single genre.

I'm not taking the results here very seriously. They simply reflect the tastes and experiences of those who voted.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> Given that the OP provided no 'parameters' for what 'Top' meant, it's reasonable to assume that some supplied their 100 favourite, and some what they believed to be the 100 greatest. Either way, any such compilation is prone to bias, and it doesn't matter if it is.
> 
> Your bias is towards what you believed should have been the result, with certain composers occupying 'traditional' places.


You are mistaken. I have no bias on the matter. I have simply delved into reasons why Schubert came out higher than Mozart, which was a matter raised by others before me.

Unlike you, I found this result surprising and wasn't prepared simply to accept that it is a valid result from the votes. As I looked into the procedures further, I found various sources of bias that could have generated a wrong result, meaning that the data actually says one thing but the wrong conclusion has been drawn and points to another.

Many people who haven't a clue about statistics often dabble around and finish up making complete mess-ups, drawing all manner of dubious conclusions. This is one of the main reasons I don't like polls and didn't participate in this one. I didn't quite reckon it being quite so questionable though.

I have simply aired the problems that several of the better-informed people (statistically speaking) on this Board know very well are perfectly valid, and yet, for reasons known best them, have remained quiet. I am fully aware of the ganging up on me, and I trust that those who know very well that what I have said is valid will think about their reticence.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> But isn't that in part because Classical music fans as a whole tend to undervalue lieder as a genre (opera as well, as is clear given the relatively low ranks of the great Italian opera composers in this ranking)?
> 
> .
> 
> Chopin often shows up in top 20 rankings as well, and he too focused primarily on a single genre.
> 
> I'm not taking the results here very seriously. They simply reflect the tastes and experiences of those who voted.


So your argument rests on Mahler's lieder being under-valued?

With respect, that is not a valid argument. It is your personal opinion, and maybe quite a few others' too, but it doesn't change the fact that the majority do not see it as being of comparable importance to his symphonic achievements, which were much greater taken as a whole vis-a-vis his other material.

As for Chopin, of course he too was highly specialised. But he came out at position No 15, not No 6. I wouldn't question a rank of the order of No 15 or thereabouts, as it's quite normal. I am therefore not clear what your point is here.


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> You are mistaken. I have no bias on the matter. I have simply delved into reasons why Schubert came out higher than Mozart, which was a matter raised by others before me.
> 
> Unlike you, I found this result surprising and wasn't prepared simply to accept that it is a valid result from the votes. As I looked into the procedures further, I found various sources of bias that could have generated a wrong result, meaning that the data actually says one thing but the wrong conclusion has been drawn and points to another.
> 
> Many people who haven't a clue about statistics often dabble around and finish up making complete mess-ups, drawing all manner of dubious conclusions. This is one of the main reasons I don't like polls and didn't participate in this one. I didn't quite reckon it being quite so questionable though.
> 
> I have simply aired the problems that several of the better-informed people (statistically speaking) on this Board know very well are perfectly valid, and yet, for reasons known best them, have remained quiet. I am fully aware of the ganging up on me, and I trust that those who know very well that what I have said is valid will think about their reticence.


It's such a trial that people who know nowt about classical music and now people who know less about statistics have apparently conspired to upset the classical world order.

Seriously, if Xenakis had come top it would not have surprised me (assuming that the compiler hadn't been up to hanky-panky). As Mahlerian says, it merely reflects the preferences of those who voted. The statistical distortion is unimportant, given the purpose of the OP.


----------



## GreenMamba

science said:


> Bulldog's system did that, only without allowing us the flexibility that Partita proposed. He gave each voter a maximum of 5050 points to allocate (1 + 2 + 3 + ... 99 + 100), assuming that the voter listed 100 composers. If you only listed 99, then you had 5049; *if you only listed 10 composers, then you only got 55 points. *


Again, that's not true. He started from #1 with 100 points. So what gets lost for those of us who didn't do a full list is the bottom of the list. But that may be OK given that it reflects the fact that some of us aren't as familiar with so many composers.

You are correct about the other side of the coin: should I be allowed to give 5,000 points to my favorite composer? You get all kinds of games being played.

IMO, what matters most isn't how many total points we have to allocate, but how many points our #1 selection should have. It should be the same, or nearly the same, for all.


----------



## GiulioCesare

As much as I respect Bulldog's work, I agree with Partita's criticisms and I think we'd be best advised to keep this list as the ultimate TC greatest composers list:

http://www.talkclassical.com/19687-tcs-50-greatest-composers.html


----------



## Bulldog

arcaneholocaust said:


> View attachment 34420
> 
> 
> Here's a screenshot of some of what I did last night. Edit: Click to make bigger, I guess.
> 
> The first column is composers as they appear in my "top artists" in last.fm, as you can see in the second column, ordered by number of plays (I have had this last.fm account for 10 months).
> 
> The third column is the average track time in seconds on my iPod, by shift-clicking every track by the composer on my iPod and converting, say x hours:y minutes:z seconds into seconds. The fourth column multiples this average track time by the number of plays, giving a rough idea of the total amount of time spent with the composer within the 10 months of this last.fm account's life. This massive number of seconds could easily be converted to hours/days/etc.
> 
> The next set of data ranks composers according to this rough "time spent" and applies a reverse ranking (in line with giving the 1st place 100 points, etc.).
> 
> At various points I filled in the data for top 10, top 20, top 30, top 50 and made various regressions for each of them. The regression must be altered when other points are included, of course.
> 
> Shown above is the regression for the top 10. This would technically be applied by plugging in whatever rank a user gave a composer (1st place as 10, 50, 100, whatever, the x-value), and the equation would spit out a weight (the y-value).


I don't have your mathematical skills, but aren't you taking the past and considering it a snapshot of current preferences? I know that my composer preferences change some over the period of a few months.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Partita didn't address the point, but I think I've found a solution: reward voters with extra points to allocate for listing more composers.


I am picking up your comment above together with your previous post to which this one is linked.

Thank you for your thoughts. I am afraid that in general I think it is entirely wrong to do anything other than allow voters a fixed number of votes to be allocated however they see fit among any number of composers they wish to nominate.

The idea of giving people more votes the more composers they list is not acceptable, as it goes straight back to the problem we have with this poll. The reason why any such this procedure would be inappropriate is that there is no way of distinguishing between those voters who genuinely like only a small number of composers (even experienced ones), from those whose familiarity with different composers is low through lack of experience. Your suggested idea assumes that all voters who nominate only a few composers are necessarily lacking experience. This may be an incorrect assumption, in which you would be incorporating bias immediately.

If the aim is to derive an estimate of the classical population-at-large's perception of the top rated composers, then what is required is a sample of voters here who replicate as closely as possible the characteristics of the wider population, in terms of age and experience etc. Such a sample may involve people who are very new to classical music all the way through to "old geysers" with one foot in the grave. Achieving the correct mix is obviously important; otherwise, there will be a risk of yet further bias via a possible difference in the type of composers preferred by each sub-group.

The problem is that there is no clear way of determining whether a sample of voters here would necessarily replicate the relevant characteristics of the wider classical music population. I suppose if one had a reasonable idea of the characteristics of the wider classical music population, one could try to filter the results in some way, either by discarding some votes or discounting them if they appeared to involve an over-representation of any sub-group's importance. However, this is a strong assumption and in any case doing anything like this would not seem feasible, given the likelihood of raising potentially awkward sensitivities.

Thus, I return to the view that the best way forward would simply be give each voter a fixed number of votes, and possibly ask members who feel that they do not yet have sufficient experience to vote sensibly to refrain from doing so.


----------



## Guest

arcaneholocaust said:


> Here's a screenshot of some of what I did last night. Edit: Click to make bigger, I guess.
> .


Thanks. I get the general drift of what you have done. Purely on the technicalities, I would suggest simplifying the quartic form of the regressions and try out instead a logarithmic equation. Even better, you might try a logistic curve of some description, possibly a "gompertz" function that incorporates a "saddle point" at some roughly mid-way along the curve.

I doubt that this procedure could be adapted for generally wider use, as it seems too complicated for most people. I would guess that most people wouldn't even know how may hours they have spent listening to each composer's works, or even if they did know this information it wouldn't necessarily be indicative of their long term preferences. My own listening experience, for example, can be very random at times. I do not keep any records of time spent listening, but I do keep much data on the amount of music by composer/genre/period.

Nevertheless, your approach or something similar based on some other kind of quantitative technique may help some people figure out their preferences. I suspect that listening times combined with the number of hours of each composer's music might be even more useful.

Overall, I rather feel that a purely introspective assessment is all that is necessary. In my case, I have a good sense of which composers I like the most, based on a quite a few years of listening. I can very roughly rank my preferred composers up to about No 20. Beyond that, it is very much a gently declining curve down to about 100. I could probably split them into groups of 10 but within each group it would be difficult to fine tune any further as my opinions tend to change.

I do not think it is important to require from people a long list of composers, anyway. It does not serve any useful purpose, as preference weights are likely to decline quite rapidly for most people. I would have thought that if people can go up to about 25-30 composers that should be enough. The rankings of composers below this level should be deducible from the aggregated results of a decent size sample of voters.


----------



## science

GreenMamba said:


> Again, that's not true. He started from #1 with 100 points. So what gets lost for those of us who didn't do a full list is the bottom of the list. But that may be OK given that it reflects the fact that some of us aren't as familiar with so many composers.
> 
> You are correct about the other side of the coin: should I be allowed to give 5,000 points to my favorite composer? You get all kinds of games being played.
> 
> IMO, what matters most isn't how many total points we have to allocate, but how many points our #1 selection should have. It should be the same, or nearly the same, for all.


Right, I forgot to account for that - he was counting backwards rather than forwards, and I calculated forward.


----------



## science

Partita said:


> The problem is that there is no clear way of determining whether a sample of voters here would necessarily replicate the relevant characteristics of the wider classical music population.


I think if we succeeded perfectly and replicating that, it would be less interesting. A few years ago I wanted that kind of universalist accuracy, but now I figure that we know more or less how it would go, and what's interesting is how OUR list differs from THE list.

Even if we don't like that aspect of our lists, it's just inevitably a part of them.


----------



## mmsbls

MacLeod said:


> Your bias is towards what you believed should have been the result, with certain composers occupying 'traditional' places.


I wouldn't say that Partita has a bias because of his suggested changes to the methodology. To me he found what he believed to be a strange result and investigated the details of the method. He found what he believes is a problem with the method and pointed that out not so much to_ change the results_ as to _make the methodology better_ (in his view). Now if he chose a methodology _simply because it produced the "right" results_, that would be a bias. He has given other reasons for the suggested change that reflect an analysis of the methodology.


----------



## GreenMamba

Partita said:


> I do not think it is important to require from people a long list of composers, anyway. It does not serve any useful purpose, as preference weights are likely to decline quite rapidly for most people. I would have thought that if people can go up to about 25-30 composers that should be enough.


Rankings beyond the top 25-30 are usually where these lists become interesting. I don't especially care about whether Bach or Beethoven is #1, but it's neat to see how individual tastes vary so much down the line.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I wouldn't say that Partita has a bias because of his suggested changes to the methodology. To me he found what he believed to be a strange result and investigated the details of the method. He found what he believes is a problem with the method and pointed that out not so much to_ change the results_ as to _make the methodology better_ (in his view). Now if he chose a methodology _simply because it produced the "right" results_, that would be a bias. He has given other reasons for the suggested change that reflect an analysis of the methodology.


You're right, of course: Partita might simply be interested in improving the methodology. However, without knowing what the aim of the poll is (and no-one has yet returned to rebut my point that the OP did not make the parameters clear) it would be difficult to say what would be the right methodology to deliver that aim.

But in any case, I saw no value in pursuing the point once Partita had asserted that he was not biased.


----------



## Guest

GreenMamba said:


> Rankings beyond the top 25-30 are usually where these lists become interesting. I don't especially care about whether Bach or Beethoven is #1, but it's neat to see how individual tastes vary so much down the line.


Two comments:

1. The piece of my text that you quoted missed out the last sentence of the paragraph from which it was taken. You only quoted the first 3 sentences, which alters the meaning.

Here again is what I wrote with the missing sentence underlined, which deals with the point that lower ranks can be deduced in the aggregate without requiring each individual to specify more than 25-30.



> I do not think it is important to require from people a long list of composers, anyway. It does not serve any useful purpose, as preference weights are likely to decline quite rapidly for most people. I would have thought that if people can go up to about 25-30 composers that should be enough. The rankings of composers below this level should be deducible from the aggregated results of a decent size sample of voters


2. In presenting your own results you said:



GreenMamba said:


> I gave up at 80 as the whole thing was becoming a mess. In fact, it became hard to decide long before then.


This seems to be a damaging admission that doesn't make your comment look all that convincing. If "long before then" is taken literally, it sounds like much of your list is pretty arbitrary.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I wouldn't say that Partita has a bias because of his suggested changes to the methodology. To me he found what he believed to be a strange result and investigated the details of the method. He found what he believes is a problem with the method and pointed that out not so much to_ change the results_ as to _make the methodology better_ (in his view). Now if he chose a methodology _simply because it produced the "right" results_, that would be a bias. He has given other reasons for the suggested change that reflect an analysis of the methodology.


Three questions, if I may:

1. What exactly is your opinion of giving unlisted composers zero points in incomplete lists? Do you or don't you agree that this will bias the results, seriously so in very short lists?

2. Which of the two alternative procedures do you favour: (i) allowing members a fixed vote total to be allocated according to their preferences, or (ii) asking members to produce a ranked list and imposing an arbitrary decline rate of 100, 99, 98 ....?

3. Do you agree that it is desirable at the outset of any poll of this nature to be clear about the weighting system to be deployed in assessing each voter's list, and in aggegating the results across all voters? Or do you think that it is acceptable to leave this completely unspecified until very late in voting?

It would be nice to have your unambiguous views on each of these issues.


----------



## BurningDesire

hpowders said:


> Yes. What is the point? After the top 3 or 4, it's all quite subjective anyway. I mean is there really a significant statistical difference when one guy rates a composer #34 and some gal rates the same composer #44 out of 100 spots?


Even the top 3 are subjective. Just because the hive-mind has decided that those 3 are DEFINITELY the best, doesn't make it any more objective. I think its pointless to rank composers at all. What good does it serve to judge Chopin as being "objectively" superior to Debussy? Or that Bach is better than Beethoven?


----------



## Guest

GreenMamba said:


> Again, that's not true. He started from #1 with 100 points. So what gets lost for those of us who didn't do a full list is the bottom of the list. *But that may be OK given that it reflects the fact that some of us aren't as familiar with so many composers.*


It's that very feature which makes the whole thing so dubious.

To illustrate, in a poll of any given size if half the voters give 10 composer names and the other half give 100 composer names, then those who give 10 names will account for only 16% of the vote, and the rest 84%. That sounds pretty skewed and unfair to me, a priori.

Even if it is true that voter knowledge of classical music is reflected linearly in the number of composers they can rank, this of itself is not adequate reason to discount their votes since a mix of voters of varying experience levels is required in order to generate a reliable result.

Further, some people may genuinely not like composers beyond a certain rank level well below 100, and merely to assume that these people are lacking in experience/knowledge is wrong, ipso facto. An automatic discounting of their votes (in terms of their accredited vote totals) would introduce a serious of potential bias to the results.


----------



## Guest

BurningDesire said:


> Even the top 3 are subjective. Just because the hive-mind has decided that those 3 are DEFINITELY the best, doesn't make it any more objective. I think its pointless to rank composers at all. What good does it serve to judge Chopin as being "objectively" superior to Debussy? Or that Bach is better than Beethoven?


You are right up to a point, and I accept that none of these polls determines anything objective about composer rankings. The only value I see in polls of this nature is that they may assist newcomers to find their way around the classical music maze. It is too vast an area to try to do it without any kind of map. Beyond the beginner level, I see much less value in such lists.

Although I have a fairly clear idea about my own long term composer favourites, this list is subject to short term variations that are sometimes quite large. Another feature of my longer-term preferences is that they are not steeply sloped, as I can see considerable merit in all of the composers on the list.

My interest in polls is purely academic, as I have a professional interest (among other things) in statistical work of this nature, and it sometimes grieves me to see inappropriate procedures being used, especially when they might lead to dubious results, and even though they are only for fun.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*I'm a sucker for meta-discussions concerning methodology*



Partita said:


> •	A list of 100 composers is too many for most people to cope with, even seasoned listeners. This might have led some people to include composers whose works they are not familiar with, purely for presentational reasons.


Generally speaking, I agree- with the qualification that a list of 100 composers is too many to take _in one swallow_. To this, we have the testimony of our own participants as support, e.g.: 'I forgot Zemlinsky' or 'I forgot Schubert' or 'I listed Purcell twice.'

There are two answers to this- one is: don't make this list 100. Make it a more manageable number- no greater than 50.

Another approach that can be applied is: don't take it in one swallow. Do it in stages.


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> The only value I see in polls of this nature is that they may assist newcomers to find their way around the classical music maze. It is too vast an area to try to do it without any kind of map.


No, it isn't. Yes, it's vast, but no map is necessary.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> No, it isn't. Yes, it's vast, but no map is necessary.


That's based on your experience is it? You have surveyed the whole classical area and reckon that no kind of "map" may be of assistance to newcomers. That's interesting. Good luck with it


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> You have surveyed the whole classical area and reckon that no kind of "map" may be of assistance to newcomers.


That is, of course, not what I said. It may well be of assistance. I said it isn't _necessary_. In fairness, you didn't say 'necessary' either, but you imply it when you say, "It is too vast an area to try to do it without any kind of map."


----------



## Guest

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Generally speaking, I agree- with the qualification that a list of 100 composers is too many to take _in one swallow_. To this, we have the testimony of our own participants as support, e.g.: 'I forgot Zemlinsky' or 'I forgot Schubert' or 'I listed Purcell twice.'
> 
> There are two answers to this- one is: don't make this list 100. Make it a more manageable number- no greater than 50.
> 
> Another approach that can be applied is: don't take it in one swallow. Do it in stages.


Genuinely, I do not believe that it is possible to rank (I stress, rank) anything like 100 composers, even for the most ardent classical afficionados, except possibly for the odd exception who in any case may change his mind upon a whim every so often thus rendering the whole thing quite pointless.

It is obviously possible to list a 100 composers, or possibly many more, that one enjoys, but to rank them all confidently is another matter. I would guess that even quite experienced listeners would struggle to get much beyond a stable ranked list of 25-30 composers at most. Beyond that things become far too hazy, as may be seen from some of the longer lists cast earlier in the thread, which look dubious to me as if they're largely based on guesswork beyond the first few.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> That is, of course, not what I said. It may well be of assistance. I said it isn't _necessary_. In fairness, you didn't say 'necessary' either, but you imply it when you say, "It is too vast an area to try to do it without any kind of map."


Again, I do not know what you are going on about. I did not say that I consider a map "necessary". You have made that up. I said:



Partita said:


> The only value I see in polls of this nature is that they may assist newcomers to find their way around the classical music maze.


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> Again, I do not know what you are going on about.


Ah well, it's probably just me, unable to make myself clear while lost in the maze that is classical music!


----------



## GreenMamba

Partita said:


> Two comments:
> 
> 1. The piece of my text that you quoted missed out the last sentence of the paragraph from which it was taken. You only quoted the first 3 sentences, which alters the meaning.
> 
> Here again is what I wrote with the missing sentence underlined, which deals with the point that lower ranks can be deduced in the aggregate without requiring each individual to specify more than 25-30.


That's irrelevant. I like seeing* individual raters *full lists. The aggregate would be less interesting.



Partita said:


> 2. In presenting your own results you said:
> 
> This seems to be a damaging admission that doesn't make your comment look all that convincing. If "long before then" is taken literally, it sounds like much of your list is pretty arbitrary.


Yes, and if I rated it again next week, I might have Bach #1 and Beethoven #2. This isn't a sporting contest. Rankings are always a lark. Changing the point distribution system wouldn't alter this.

There's no way these things can get at anything objective. So don't sweat whether Schubert is #3 and Mozart #4. The value is, IMO, seeing the quirkiness of individual lists, which is why I like the longer lists.


----------



## mmsbls

Partita said:


> Three questions, if I may:
> 
> 1. What exactly is your opinion of giving unlisted composers zero points in incomplete lists? Do you or don't you agree that this will bias the results, seriously so in very short lists?
> 
> 2. Which of the two alternative procedures do you favour: (i) allowing members a fixed vote total to be allocated according to their preferences, or (ii) asking members to produce a ranked list and imposing an arbitrary decline rate of 100, 99, 98 ....?
> 
> 3. Do you agree that it is desirable at the outset of any poll of this nature to be clear about the weighting system to be deployed in assessing each voter's list, and in aggegating the results across all voters? Or do you think that it is acceptable to leave this completely unspecified until very late in voting?
> 
> It would be nice to have your unambiguous views on each of these issues.


I've actually been thinking a lot about your preference of giving everyone a set number of points to distribute as they wish. I'm starting to change my opinion of that, but my thinking is not quite settled. I will get back to you.

#3) I agree that it is desirable at the outset of any poll of this nature to be clear about the weighting system to be deployed in assessing each voter's list, and in aggregating the results across all voters.

#1) I'm sorry but I don't understand. If someone submits a list with only Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach, then every other composer would receive 0 points from that person. I believe that should happen, but I'm not sure that is what you're asking.

I'm also not sure I understand why you quoted what you did in your post. I was simply saying that I felt you did not bring up your issues because of bias. Further, you gave good reasons for questioning the methodology.


----------



## GreenMamba

Partita said:


> It's that very feature which makes the whole thing so dubious.
> 
> To illustrate, in a poll of any given size if half the voters give 10 composer names and the other half give 100 composer names, then those who give 10 names will account for only 16% of the vote, and the rest 84%. That sounds pretty skewed and unfair to me, a priori.


So instead, you've advocated letting people distribute points however they fit, which quite obviously gives the incentive for people to play games, e.g., giving 5,000 points to one composer.

I'm still not clear what your solution to this is.


----------



## Guest

GreenMamba said:


> That's irrelevant. I like seeing* individual raters *full lists. The aggregate would be less interesting.


It's not irrelevant at all. If you simply want to say that you like looking at individual raters' full lists there was no need to quote part (and I emphasise part) of my text which was aiming to say something quite different, namely that preferences in the lower rankings are likely to have low weight and are not required to generate a longer list for the aggregate of voters. You have misquoted me for you own purposes.


----------



## GreenMamba

Partita said:


> It's not irrelevant at all. If you simply want to say that you like looking at individual raters' full lists there was no need to quote part (and I emphasise part) of my text which was aiming to say something quite different, namely that preferences in the lower rankings are likely to have low weight and are not required to generate a longer list for the aggregate of voters. You have misquoted me for you own purposes.


No I didn't misquote you. You misunderstood that I was talking about individual lists, not aggregates. I wasn't disputing your notion that you could aggregate a Top 100 from Top 25s. Thus, it wasn't necessary for me to quote that part.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I've actually been thinking a lot about your preference of giving everyone a set number of points to distribute as they wish. I'm starting to change my opinion of that, but my thinking is not quite settled. I will get back to you.
> 
> #3) I agree that it is desirable at the outset of any poll of this nature to be clear about the weighting system to be deployed in assessing each voter's list, and in aggregating the results across all voters.
> 
> #1) I'm sorry but I don't understand. If someone submits a list with only Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach, then every other composer would receive 0 points from that person. I believe that should happen, but I'm not sure that is what you're asking.
> 
> I'm also not sure I understand why you quoted what you did in your post. I was simply saying that I felt you did not bring up your issues because of bias. Further, you gave good reasons for questioning the methodology.


I quoted you because what you wrote is your understanding of the position I have adopted on the methodology, which clearly has nothing whatever to do with the ludicrous suggestion of my reasons being based on bias. Given this starting point, I thought I would ask you where you stand on the various methodology issues, since you were non-committal, perhaps deliberately so.

Regarding item 1 that you have queried, you might look at look at post #115, which concerns the same issue that I have raised.

Expressed slightly differently, the point is that if voters are asked to nominate 100 composers but some only submit a list of as low as 10, then the latter voters will not have awarded the same number of points as those who listed all 100 composers. In effect, these voters will have given zero points to all the other composers (as listed by other voters), some of which they might have included in their own lists had they chosen to provide the full 100. The question is what adjustment procedure, if any, should be employed to rectify this discrepancy, which would be expected to create bias if left untouched.

There are several different ways of making such an adjustment. The one listed in post #155 is only one, but the actual detail proposed in that post is not correct insofar that I understand it, as it would entail making far too high an allocation for the "O" point composers. The correct adjustment per composer would be much smaller than suggested, although based on the same principle. Other procedures might entail taking only the lowest common denominator number of composers (10 or whatever) and ignoring selections above No 10, or discarding all members' votes that did not achieve the requested number of composers.

All such adjustment procedure are crude with very uncertain effects on removing bias. It would be much better to adopt a completely different approach in which the voters themselves took the decisions on how many composers to select and how many points to allocate to each against a pre-defined fixed total.

I hope this is clear.


----------



## Bulldog

Is this how we are going to leave it? I have a few comments and a recommendation:

1. I thought the method I used and my timing was okay given that this isn't a professional board or a college classroom. However, some members felt that it wasn't close to being acceptable.

2. Those members, all of whom appear to have strong mathematical skills, did some brain-storming as to how to develop a more reasonable/accurate list through different methods and systems of weights.

3. However, nobody has come forward to take action to develop a more accurate list even though a few members seem to have a good handle on how to do so.

Here's my recommendation. I had indicated in an earlier posting that Partita could well be the perfect member to develop an alternate list. My reasons are that he has interest in the list (he said so), he already has taken an investigation/review capacity and he has the skills to get it done. So I sincerely ask Partita to "get in done", take action. Follow through on the criticisms and make it better for all of us. Do it through a continuation of this thread or start a new one; doesn't matter.

Of course, anyone else who has excellent mathematical skills can step up to the plate. Please do so.


----------



## Guest

GreenMamba said:


> So instead, you've advocated letting people distribute points however they fit, which quite obviously gives the incentive for people to play games, e.g., giving 5,000 points to one composer.
> 
> I'm still not clear what your solution to this is.


What's wrong with giving each person 5000 points (or any other suitable fixed total) to allocate as they see fit among any number of composers of their choosing?

I know of several people who would struggle to list more than a few composers they like a lot, and their knowledge of those composers (and music in general) is considerable. Likewise, I can think of some individuals who could no doubt rattle off a list of 100 composers but their knowledge of each one, and music generally, is nothing like as good.

The fact is that the quality of the results will depend on the size and nature of the sample that responds. Silliness comes in various forms. There is no reason to expect any more silliness, or poor quality voting for other reasons, if the voting procedure allowed as little as one single composer to be nominated compared with setting a much higher minimum number.


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> Is this how we are going to leave it? I have a few comments and a recommendation:
> 
> 1. I thought the method I used and my timing was okay given that this isn't a professional board or a college classroom. However, some members felt that it wasn't close to being acceptable.
> 
> 2. Those members, all of whom appear to have strong mathematical skills, did some brain-storming as to how to develop a more reasonable/accurate list through different methods and systems of weights.
> 
> 3. However, nobody has come forward to take action to develop a more accurate list even though a few members seem to have a good handle on how to do so.
> 
> Here's my recommendation. I had indicated in an earlier posting that Partita could well be the perfect member to develop an alternate list. My reasons are that he has interest in the list (he said so), he already has taken an investigation/review capacity and he has the skills to get it done. So I sincerely ask Partita to "get in done", take action. Follow through on the criticisms and make it better for all of us. Do it through a continuation of this thread or start a new one; doesn't matter.
> 
> Of course, anyone else who has excellent mathematical skills can step up to the plate. Please do so.


You are too kind. My fee is $2,500 per day. My bank is HSBC ....


----------



## Bulldog

Partita said:


> You are too kind. My fee is $2,500 per day. My bank is HSBC ....


You would receive nothing except the satisfaction of doing a good job for board and being a man of action. Discussion and conversation are very good, but nothing beats taking action!

By the way, I really dislike HSBC. Actually, I don't like any bank. I use Wells Fargo because I loved their stage coaches on tv when I was a youngster.


----------



## MagneticGhost

GreenMamba said:


> So instead, you've advocated letting people distribute points however they fit, which quite obviously gives the incentive for people to play games, e.g., giving 5,000 points to one composer.
> 
> I'm still not clear what your solution to this is.


Over on the Marillion (band) forum, a gentleman holds a yearly poll. Each voter is given so many points to allocate across their favourite tracks with 15 points being the maximum allowed on any one track or album. No fractions or decimals allowed. It works well. And it prevents people giving all their points to one track or one album.


----------



## Guest

I'd be down for that


----------



## Guest

arcaneholocaust said:


> I'd be down for that


I hope it doesn't turn out to be a "sink-hole"; they're cropping up everywhere.

P.S. Or down rather!


----------



## Bulldog

arcaneholocaust said:


> I'd be down for that


Excellent. I hope you decide to be the hero for this project. Perhaps you and Partita could work together on it so that there wouldn't be all that much labor for either of you.


----------



## mmsbls

_Please skip if you don't want to read technical detail._



Partita said:


> Three questions, if I may:
> 
> 1. What exactly is your opinion of giving unlisted composers zero points in incomplete lists? Do you or don't you agree that this will bias the results, seriously so in very short lists?
> 
> 2. Which of the two alternative procedures do you favour: (i) allowing members a fixed vote total to be allocated according to their preferences, or (ii) asking members to produce a ranked list and imposing an arbitrary decline rate of 100, 99, 98 ....?
> 
> 3. Do you agree that it is desirable at the outset of any poll of this nature to be clear about the weighting system to be deployed in assessing each voter's list, and in aggegating the results across all voters? Or do you think that it is acceptable to leave this completely unspecified until very late in voting?


OK let me try again. I think the issues here are a bit complicated so I can't simply answer the questions above without going into a bit more detail.

1) I think unlisted composers must receive 0 points in incomplete lists, but the real issue here is how to allocate points from people who submit incomplete lists. I will discuss that in #2 below.

2) This is the difficult one. I think the answer depends on what the voting is attempting to accomplish.

a) The goal is to determine a list of the greatest composers.

In theory voters should weight their votes to properly match their assessment of each composer on their list. Allocating each voter with a set number of votes is OK as long as it's clear that the voter is not leaving composers off their list. In other words, if a list contains say 55 composers with the bottom few having 1 or 2 votes, clearly composers below 55 would have gotten less than 1 or 2 votes. However, if my list is Bach-200, Beethoven 150, Mozart 100 (assuming the total votes is 450), people would not know if the 4th composer would have received votes. Is Brahms really 1/100 as good as Mozart? Probably not, so we would suspect that the list was too short. So voters would have to "complete" their lists by assessing a very small number of votes to the last composers.

Purists will see that there is still a problem with the composers at the lower end of the list since one composer getting 0.5 votes from 10 people could move them up the list. One could truncate the list by calculating the potential effect of a minimum vote of 1 vote. I'll ignore this issue.

NOTE: I ran a simple test of the potential effect of shortened lists with set allocation of votes for everyone. I had 20 people vote identically for 25 composers with #1 getting 25 votes, #2 getting 24 votes down to #25 getting 1 vote (total 325 votes). I then had 1 voter give the #10 200 votes, the #3 100 votes and the #2 25 votes (total 325 votes). That one voter moves the #10 composer from #10 all the way to #2 and #3 to #1. I'm uncomfortable with that significant a change due to one voter.

Imposing an arbitrarily declining weight when lists vary in length would result in bias. In that case all voters should give equal length lists. Or if the lengths are not equal length, all lists should be truncated to the shortest list length. (I agree with you about the bias inherent in that method).

b) The goal is to determine the favorite composers of the entire _group_ of voters.

Here we are trying to assess which composers are the favorites of the voters taken as a whole. We have to assume that each voter is just as important as every other voter, and their listening pleasure should be considered equally. I believe one should allocate a set number of votes, and all voters should use them based on their preferences. If I only listen to Mozart, I would allocate all my votes to Mozart. No other composer should get any votes at all. It doesn't matter if I think that Beethoven is half as good or enjoyable. It doesn't matter if I know so little about composers that I've only heard of 3. That still determines my preferences. If integrated listening time is a perfect proxy for composer preferences, we could simply calculate the integrated listening time and normalize to the number of votes. If I listen to Mozart 3/4 of the time and Beethoven 1/4 of the time, Mozart will get 75 votes, Beethoven 25 votes, and everyone else 0 (if the total is 100).

3) As I said before, it is desirable at the outset of any poll of this nature to be clear about the weighting system to be deployed in assessing each voter's list and in aggregating the results across all voters.

So I would say I generally agree with you with the few caveats stated above.


----------



## eipi

1. Bach.
2. Beethoven.
3. Mozart.
4. Everyone else.

One through three are interchangeable.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> _Please skip if you don't want to read technical detail._
> 
> OK let me try again. I think the issues here are a bit complicated so I can't simply answer the questions above without going into a bit more detail.
> 
> 1) I think unlisted composers must receive 0 points in incomplete lists, but the real issue here is how to allocate points from people who submit incomplete lists. I will discuss that in #2 below.
> 
> 2) This is the difficult one. I think the answer depends on what the voting is attempting to accomplish.
> 
> a) The goal is to determine a list of the greatest composers.
> 
> In theory voters should weight their votes to properly match their assessment of each composer on their list. Allocating each voter with a set number of votes is OK as long as it's clear that the voter is not leaving composers off their list. In other words, if a list contains say 55 composers with the bottom few having 1 or 2 votes, clearly composers below 55 would have gotten less than 1 or 2 votes. However, if my list is Bach-200, Beethoven 150, Mozart 100 (assuming the total votes is 450), people would not know if the 4th composer would have received votes. Is Brahms really 1/100 as good as Mozart? Probably not, so we would suspect that the list was too short. So voters would have to "complete" their lists by assessing a very small number of votes to the last composers.
> 
> Purists will see that there is still a problem with the composers at the lower end of the list since one composer getting 0.5 votes from 10 people could move them up the list. One could truncate the list by calculating the potential effect of a minimum vote of 1 vote. I'll ignore this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I ran a simple test of the potential effect of shortened lists with set allocation of votes for everyone. I had 20 people vote identically for 25 composers with #1 getting 25 votes, #2 getting 24 votes down to #25 getting 1 vote (total 325 votes). I then had 1 voter give the #10 200 votes, the #3 100 votes and the #2 25 votes (total 325 votes). That one voter moves the #10 composer from #10 all the way to #2 and #3 to #1. I'm uncomfortable with that significant a change due to one voter.
> 
> Imposing an arbitrarily declining weight when lists vary in length would result in bias. In that case all voters should give equal length lists. Or if the lengths are not equal length, all lists should be truncated to the shortest list length. (I agree with you about the bias inherent in that method).
> 
> b) The goal is to determine the favorite composers of the entire _group_ of voters.
> 
> Here we are trying to assess which composers are the favorites of the voters taken as a whole. We have to assume that each voter is just as important as every other voter, and their listening pleasure should be considered equally. I believe one should allocate a set number of votes, and all voters should use them based on their preferences. If I only listen to Mozart, I would allocate all my votes to Mozart. No other composer should get any votes at all. It doesn't matter if I think that Beethoven is half as good or enjoyable. It doesn't matter if I know so little about composers that I've only heard of 3. That still determines my preferences. If integrated listening time is a perfect proxy for composer preferences, we could simply calculate the integrated listening time and normalize to the number of votes. If I listen to Mozart 3/4 of the time and Beethoven 1/4 of the time, Mozart will get 75 votes, Beethoven 25 votes, and everyone else 0 (if the total is 100).
> 
> 3) As I said before, it is desirable at the outset of any poll of this nature to be clear about the weighting system to be deployed in assessing each voter's list and in aggregating the results across all voters.
> 
> So I would say I generally agree with you with the few caveats stated above.


Thank you. It is nice to see that you generally agree with all the main points I have been making.

The following comments pick up further on some related issues.

•	Perhaps I can now clarify that the main reason I asked you the three questions I posed earlier is that you are both skilled in statistics and a highly respected "Moderator". I thought that by seeking your opinion this was probably the best way to put an end to some of the ridiculous criticism and insinuation that has been cast my way. To anyone who is familiar with statistical procedures it should have been obvious that what I have been saying on matters relating to bias is correct, and that I was not simply monkeying about with the results because I wanted to generate a different set of rankings based on my own prejudices. It was very frustrating to read some of the ill-informed posts, snide innuendo, mis-quoted text, as well as the accompanying "likes" given to some of these posts from some quarters.

•	Although alerted initially by the Mozart/Schubert ranks, I realised quite quickly that the results were subject to a potential bias, possibly a large one, because the statistics involved in the calculations employed are themselves subject to bias. Let me explain this concept of "bias" a bit further for anyone whose knowledge of statistics may not be up to much. A "statistic" is not just any old number that is simply part of the data set. A "statistic" is a summary measure of some kind based on the totality of the data in the sample. An example would be the "arithmetic mean", another the "standard deviation", etc. Ideally, a "statistic" should provide an unbiased estimate of the corresponding population attribute from which that sample is supposedly taken, in this case the population mean. A statistic is said be an "unbiased estimator" if its long run average value (i.e. "expected value") corresponds with the population parameter. It is quite possible that some "statistics" may provide biased estimates of their population correspondents, and this is what could have happened here.

•	In the present context, imposing an arbitrarily declining weight when the listed varied in length was likely to result in bias, because the statistic used gave varying weights to each voter's total vote. One possible method of correction was to truncate the lists to the shortest length. When this was done, as set out in my post # 191, it shows up a number of likely biases, one being that Mozart's rating was under-estimated, and that of Sibelius over-estimated. However, as I said, imposing arbitrarily declining weights is not the way the best way to proceed, and all the above is very much a second-best damage limitation exercise.

•	On the matter concerning the test simulation you carried out in your para 2a. you state:

_ "That one voter moves the #10 composer from #10 all the way to #2 and #3 to #1. I'm uncomfortable with that significant a change due to one voter"_

In reply to this, I would say that if the sample members are chosen fairly and this is the way they vote (i.e. taking account of the change you mention in respect of one voter's change of preference in comparison with the rest) then the results must stand as the best estimate available of population ranks. In any case, the change in ranks resulting from a single voter's amendment is not actually significant if you look at the Spearman rank correlation between the before/after ranks, which comes out at 0.969, indicating no significant difference between the two sets of ranks. In any event, I think you will probably agree that this example is not really all that relevant because it is hardly likely that a sample of 20 voters who were free to allocate their 325 votes among a fixed group of 25 composers would ever come up with anything like such a weird looking set of results. Furthermore, in any proper poll the identity of the permissible composers would not not be fixed across all voters, as in the example used.

•	I have spent far too much time on this subject and intend to spend no more. I saw it initially as primarily an exercise in discussing methodology with the aim of improvement in any future poll of similar nature. I did not expect all this wrangling and futile debate on irrelevant issues, such as the status of Mahler's lieder, which looked like deliberate obfuscation to me in an attempt to discredit me.


----------



## atsizat

Why isn't Vivaldi on the list?


----------



## Bulldog

atsizat said:


> Why isn't Vivaldi on the list?


He is on the list - see reply #153, he's no. 27.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

I would have been interested in participating in this list - seems I was a few months late to join!


----------



## Nereffid

I seem to have missed this one the first time round.
So far I've managed to repress the urge to drop everything and spend the day producing my own list, but God it's tough to resist.


----------



## DeepR

If life wasn't so short then some day I'd be ready to post a top 100, after having listened to a substantial amount of music of each of a 1000 composers.


----------

