# Ranking the composers - a new attempt



## Art Rock

*Please read the first post before posting or sending me a message.*

Let's try again in a slightly different way. I'd like to compile a list based on the personal preferences of as many TC members as are willing to participate (at least 30). Please only submit choices based on your own preference, not on how important a composer is/was, or how influential or popular or whatever.

*Please compile your personal top30 composers, and send them to me before 1/1/20. Do not post your list in this thread.
*
You can choose between two options, and please mark which option you select in the message:

[1] rank your top30 composers from 1 to 30 (do not add the numbers, just state "ranked from #1 onward" followed by a list of composers). I will assign points, from 40 for your #1, 38, 36, 34, 32 for your #2-5 respectively, and then stepping down one point at a time from 30 for your #6 to 6 for your #30. There is no option for stating that composers A and B share spot #15 and so on. You can list less than 30 composers in your ranking (but minimum 15), and they will receive points as stated from #1 onward.

[2] just make a list of your top30 composers without ranking and state "not ranked" followed by a list of composers. I will assign 20 points to each composer in the list. There is no option for a partial ranking (like "here are my top 5 ranked and 25 others"). You can list less than 30 composers if you want (but minimum 15), and they will each get 20 points.

When submitting your list, please make sure you do the following, or your choices will likely not be included because you make copying/pasting to a spreadsheet unnecessarily complicated:


Include the statement whether it is ranked or not ranked

Do not include numbers in the ranked list

Identify the composers by family name only

In case of doubt, add ", initial" after the family name *

Put each name on a new line

* if you state "Bach", "Wagner", "Mozart", "Haydn", "Franck" and so on, I will assume it is the more famous of the possibilities. If you mean CPE Bach or Siegfried Wagner and so on, use the initial ("Bach, CPE", "Wagner, S", etc). In cases like Strauss, Scarlatti, Panufnik, Berkeley and so on, use the initial of the composer you want instead of assuming I will pick the right one.

*Do not post your choices in this thread until after the deadline of 1/1/20. After the deadline, feel free to share your submitted top30's in this thread. Until then, only use this thread to ask for clarifications, or (if you want) announce you sent your choices to me.*

I will give a regular update of numbers of submissions received (without compiling results). In January I will compile and post the results, including the points per listed composer and how often he/she was picked. Only composers that received at last three mentions will be included in the final list (of maximum 100 composers). The total number of composers in the list will depend on that of course.


----------



## Duncan

January 1st, eh? - 

Note to self - do not make any New Year's resolutions in regards to expressions of wrath...


----------



## JAS26

In option 1, do you mean that choice no 30 gets 6 points, not choice no 20 as stated. In option 2, the total points is 600 for 30 entries, but in option 1 it's 630 for 30 entries. In option 2, if someone lists the minimum 15 they get 300 points. Can a minimum of 15 composers be listed for in option 1? If it could this would give a points total of 435. The points totals seem to vary a lot. Why not fix the points total for all options?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Is the criterion personal "greatest" or personal "favorites"? For me at least, these might produce slightly different lists. Or is it just "top 30", whatever we may choose that to mean?


----------



## Portamento

Would a linear or logarithmic decrease be more appropriate? I prefer logarithmic, but there's ample time till January to argue!


----------



## Fabulin

I object to the inclusion of only top 100 in the result / 3 vote minimum. This creates a pressure to only vote on known names, so as not to "waste" a vote. I have nothing against a long tail of 200 "1"s.


----------



## Art Rock

JAS26 said:


> In option 1, do you mean that choice no 30 gets 6 points, not choice no 20 as stated.


Thanks, corrected.


> In option 2, the total points is 600 for 30 entries, but in option 1 it's 630 for 30 entries. In option 2, if someone lists the minimum 15 they get 300 points.


Yes, those who choose to put in more effort and rank get a slight bonus.



> Can a minimum of 15 composers be listed for in option 1? If it could this would give a points total of 435. The points totals seem to vary a lot. Why not fix the points total for all options?


Already in. And for the difference in points, more effort = more points to hand out. Listing 30 gives more points than listing 15. Ranking gives more points than not ranking.


----------



## Art Rock

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Is the criterion personal "greatest" or personal "favorites"? For me at least, these might produce slightly different lists. Or is it just "top 30", whatever we may choose that to mean?


Already stated in line 3 of the op.


----------



## Art Rock

Portamento said:


> Would a linear or logarithmic decrease be more appropriate? I prefer logarithmic, but there's ample time till January to argue!


I don't think there is any right answer to that. I picked what seemed reasonable to me. If someone else wants to play with the results, fine with me.


----------



## Art Rock

Fabulin said:


> I object to the inclusion of only top 100 in the result / 3 vote minimum. This creates a pressure to only vote on known names, so as not to "waste" a vote. I have nothing against a long tail of 200 "1"s.


My thinking was that if someone would put composer Z at #1 and no-one else would even put this composer in the top30, would it then be right to include it in the listing? I would think not, but I'm willing to reconsider if many people are in favour of dropping this criterion.

As I'm not doing anything with the data except collecting them until year end, anyone who sends in a list can still make changes until the deadline.


----------



## Nereffid

Having lurked without posting for quite a while, I just want to chip in and say this is a good idea, and I hope you get a lot of responses. And let me offer my advance sympathies for all the complaints you'll inevitably get when you present the results!


----------



## Phil loves classical

Ranked. I included only those whose music touched me, not those who I just admire the music of.

Ravel
Mozart
Prokofiev
Bartok
Beethoven
Stravinsky
Debussy
Arnold, M.
Strauss, R.
Liszt
Vaughan Williams
Victoria, T. L. de
Webern
Monteverdi
Barber
Tchaikovsky
Dvorak
Bach
Janacek
Wagner
Varese
Haydn
Shostakovich
Schoenberg
Messiaen
Scriabin
Berlioz
Sibelius
Schumann


----------



## Portamento

Someone didn't read the OP...


----------



## Xisten267

I need a clarification: Are only composers in classical music allowed or composers in general? The likes of Scott Joplin, Duke Ellington and Robert Fripp are among my favorites together with the greats of classical (I don't know yet if they would appear in a top 30 by me though).


----------



## 1996D

Why not just post here so there is transparency? You're just putting all the margin for error on yourself otherwise. If everyone posts here the calculation can be done in the open.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Didn't read OP. 

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Bach
4. Brahms
5. Schubert
6. Tchaikovsky
7. Verdi
8. Wagner
9. Debussy
10. Mahler
11. Shostakovich
12. Haydn
13. Handel
14. Stravinsky
15. Schumann
16. Chopin
17. Puccini
18. Mendelssohn
19. R. Strauss
20. Dvorak
21. Prokofiev
22. Ravel
23. Rachmaninoff
24. Sibelius
25. Liszt
26. Bruckner
27. Bartok
28. Grieg
29. Elgar
30. Berlioz


----------



## Xisten267

1996D said:


> Why not just post here so there is transparency? You're just putting all the margin for error on yourself otherwise. If everyone posts here the calculation can be done in the open.


Then every member that would vote would be influenced by the previous posted results. If one has Ravel for example as his #3 favorite composer but nobody had voted for him yet until his vote, then this one could be tempted to place the composer as #1 in his list just to balance the odds.

I agree with the OP in not posting the results until the scheduled date.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I might have difficulty getting up to 30 as I don't know a lot of composer's works outside of opera. But if that is okay, I will send a list.


----------



## 1996D

Allerius said:


> Then every member that would vote would be influenced by the previous posted results. If one has Ravel for example as his #3 favorite composer but nobody had voted for him yet until his vote, then this one could be tempted to place the composer as #1 in his list just to balance the odds.
> 
> I agree with the OP in not posting the results until the scheduled date.


I disagree. My list was very close to @Brahmsianhorn's before I read it just now, in fact most lists should resemble each other given that we're all connoisseurs. It's simply the order that will be different.


----------



## 1996D

1. Mahler
2. Beethoven
3. Brahms
4. Mozart
5. Wagner
6. Bach
7. Haydn
8. Liszt
9. Chopin
10. Handel
11. R. Strauss
12. Debussy
13. Schumann 
14. Schubert
15. Tchaikovsky
16. Sibelius
17. Stravinsky
18. Schoenberg
19. Rachmaninoff 
20. Berlioz 
21. Verdi
22. D. Scarlatti
23. Elgar
24. Puccini 
25. Dvorak
26. Weber
27. Monteverdi
28. Scriabin
29. Bruckner 
30. Mendelssohn


----------



## Portamento

I think we should restrict the composers to strictly classical. There are enough great jazz/rock composers that we can make a separate list for them.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Art Rock said:


> Already stated in line 3 of the op.


Apologies for the pedantry, but I don't think that the OP makes this clear. My (and I'm sure others') "personal preference" for ranking composers depends (albeit only slightly) on the established criterion.

I suppose this is a better and more clear question: What will the final list be called? ("Top 100 composers", "100 greatest composers", "TC's 100 favorite composers", etc.)


----------



## Xisten267

1996D said:


> I disagree. My list was very close to @Brahmsianhorn's before I read it just now, *in fact most lists should resemble each other given that we're all connoisseurs*. It's simply the order that will be different.


We all have blind spots, and my experience says that lists like these tend to vary a lot in an individual level. I love Schubert, but someone here at TC may hate him. I don't care for Cage, but some other members may be enthusiasts of his music. Besides, I understand that we're voting for the composers we like more, not necessarily for those who are "greatest" or "best".


----------



## Fabulin

I think a ranking of the beloved will tell us more than yet another stiff, peer-pressured ranking of social relevance.


----------



## Portamento

Fabulin said:


> I think a ranking of the beloved will tell us more than yet another stiff, peer-pressured ranking of social relevance.


Among my beloved are: Schnittke, Ligeti, Berio, Grisey, Takemitsu, Murail, Birtwistle, Penderecki, Cage, Feldman, Lutosławski, and Saariaho.

Is that helpful?


----------



## Bulldog

This thread has temporarily gone downhill.

Concerning the rules, I consider them quite easy to follow. Art Rock has done well.:clap:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allerius said:


> We all have blind spots, and my experience says that lists like these tend to vary a lot in an individual level. I love Schubert, but someone here at TC may hate him. I don't care for Cage, but some other members may be enthusiasts of his music. Besides, I understand that we're voting for the composers we like more, not necessarily for those who are "greatest" or "best".


My list above is based on who I perceive to be the greatest, not on who I personally like.

My personal Top 5 is:

1. Brahms
2. Beethoven
3. Mahler
4. Bruckner
5. Bach


----------



## Agamenon

1.Bach
2.Monteverdi
3.Wagner
4.Mozart
5.Debussy
6.Brahms
7.Stravinsky
8.Beethoven
9.Shostakovich
10.Ligeti
11.Bartok
12.Mahler
13.Schubert
14.Haydn
15.Messiaen


----------



## Art Rock

I had hoped that using bold big letters in the OP would be clear enough. Apparently not.

*Any lists posted in this thread will not be taken into account.*


----------



## Art Rock

Allerius said:


> I need a clarification: Are only composers in classical music allowed or composers in general? The likes of Scott Joplin, Duke Ellington and Robert Fripp are among my favorites together with the greats of classical (I don't know yet if they would appear in a top 30 by me though).


No, classical music only.


----------



## Art Rock

1996D said:


> Why not just post here so there is transparency? You're just putting all the margin for error on yourself otherwise. If everyone posts here the calculation can be done in the open.


I don't want people to get influenced by other lists. I'll post a link to the spreadsheet once everything is done for those who want to double check or use different calculation methods.


----------



## Art Rock

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Apologies for the pedantry, but I don't think that the OP makes this clear. My (and I'm sure others') "personal preference" for ranking composers depends (albeit only slightly) on the established criterion.
> 
> I suppose this is a better and more clear question: What will the final list be called? ("Top 100 composers", "100 greatest composers", "TC's 100 favorite composers", etc.)


TC's Top X favourite composers.


----------



## Art Rock

And since we're on a new page:



Art Rock said:


> I had hoped that using bold big letters in the OP would be clear enough. Apparently not.
> 
> *Any lists posted in this thread will not be taken into account.*


----------



## Guest

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Apologies for the pedantry, but I don't think that the OP makes this clear. My (and I'm sure others') "personal preference" for ranking composers depends (albeit only slightly) on the established criterion.
> 
> I suppose this is a better and more clear question: What will the final list be called? ("Top 100 composers", "100 greatest composers", "TC's 100 favorite composers", etc.)


The OP said this:



> Please only submit choices based on your own preference, not on how important a composer is/was, or how influential or popular or whatever.


That seems very clear to me.


----------



## KenOC

Art Rock said:


> No, classical music only.


I would think any composers could compete. If our beloved "classical"composers can't stand up to the competition, maybe there's a lesson to be learned.


----------



## Fabulin

Portamento said:


> Among my beloved are: Schnittke, Ligeti, Berio, Grisey, Takemitsu, Murail, Birtwistle, Penderecki, Cage, Feldman, Lutosławski, and Saariaho.
> 
> Is that helpful?


Yes. It avoids the scenario where the top picks in the poll are not even really listened to, and only their cult is passed from generation to generation.


----------



## 1996D

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My list above is based on who I perceive to be the greatest, not on who I personally like.
> 
> My personal Top 5 is:
> 
> 1. Brahms
> 2. Beethoven
> 3. Mahler
> 4. Bruckner
> 5. Bach


Shouldn't who you consider to be the greatest and who you enjoy the most be the same group in the same order? @Fabulin I didn't know there was peer pressure in an anonymous forum.

OP, if the people voting are serious and hard willed there should be no outside influence in who they select. If they are so influenced by other people maybe their list wasn't well thought out and tested to begin with, which would delegitimize the whole process.

The list should be about who impresses *you* the most, and it's to be expected that you hold your judgment in high regard, otherwise it holds no value.


----------



## Bulldog

KenOC said:


> I would think any composers could compete.


I wouldn't want non-classical composers getting in the way.


----------



## Fabulin

....


1996D said:


> @Fabulin I didn't know there was peer pressure in an anonymous forum.


Now you know.


----------



## D Smith

I made an attempt at making a list based on your criteria but failed. I can only do a non-ranked list for these types of things but limiting the composers to 30 ended up being too small a sample. I have at least 50 I would call favourites. To try and wean them down further would be completely arbitrary as I value them all for different reasons. But I'll be curious to see the results next year. And FWIW I thought your rules were completely clear and well thought out. If others don't, they are free to devise their own polls.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> *Shouldn't *who you consider to be the greatest and who you enjoy the most be the same group in the same order? @Fabulin I didn't know there was peer pressure in an anonymous forum.
> 
> OP, if the people voting are serious and hard willed there *should *be no outside influence in who they select. If they are so influenced by other people maybe their list wasn't well thought out and tested to begin with, which would delegitimize the whole process.
> 
> The list *should *be about who impresses *you* the most, and it's to be expected that you hold your judgment in high regard, otherwise it holds no value.


Go do your own poll.

List submitted.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Allerius said:


> Then every member that would vote would be influenced by the previous posted results. If one has Ravel for example as his #3 favorite composer but nobody had voted for him yet until his vote, then this one could be tempted to place the composer as #1 in his list just to balance the odds.
> 
> I agree with the OP in not posting the results until the scheduled date.


I agree completely with Allerius and Art Rock. *Eliminate the effort to skew votes based on others' previous postings.*


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

bulldog said:


> Concerning the rules, i consider them quite easy to follow. Art rock has done well.:clap:


...........*ditto*...........


----------



## Art Rock

Seven submissions so far.


----------



## Art Rock

Unfortunately not every one is following the prescribed format, which means extra work for me. Please pay attention to this.



> When submitting your list, please make sure you do the following, or your choices will likely not be included because you make copying/pasting to a spreadsheet unnecessarily complicated:
> 
> Include the statement whether it is ranked or not ranked
> 
> Do not include numbers in the ranked list
> 
> Identify the composers by family name only
> 
> In case of doubt, add ", initial" after the family name *
> 
> Put each name on a new line
> 
> * if you state "Bach", "Wagner", "Mozart", "Haydn", "Franck" and so on, I will assume it is the more famous of the possibilities. If you mean CPE Bach or Siegfried Wagner and so on, use the initial ("Bach, CPE", "Wagner, S", etc). In cases like Strauss, Scarlatti, Panufnik, Berkeley and so on, use the initial of the composer you want instead of assuming I will pick the right one.


----------



## Nereffid

Still working on mine...

What's the position on composers whose career has mostly/entirely been in film or musical theatre?


----------



## Art Rock

If you consider them classical music, go for it.


----------



## Art Rock

And since we're on a new page:



Art Rock said:


> I had hoped that using bold big letters in the OP would be clear enough. Apparently not.
> 
> *Any lists posted in this thread will not be taken into account.*


----------



## Xisten267

1996D said:


> *Shouldn't who you consider to be the greatest and who you enjoy the most be the same group in the same order?* @Fabulin I didn't know there was peer pressure in an anonymous forum.
> 
> OP, if the people voting are serious and hard willed there should be no outside influence in who they select. If they are so influenced by other people maybe their list wasn't well thought out and tested to begin with, which would delegitimize the whole process.
> 
> The list should be about who impresses *you* the most, and it's to be expected that you hold your judgment in high regard, otherwise it holds no value.


Not necessarily.

Schoenberg invented dodecaphonic music, pioneered the use of free atonalism and made impressive contributions to the theory of harmony. Virtually every composer who came after him was influenced by his innovative ideas. Scott Joplin was a composer who made a few innovations in rag, and has influenced almost nobody since the downfall of this style. Thus, it would be reasonable to consider Arnold a "greater" composer than Scott. But the music of the latter speaks more to me than the former's, this is, I like Joplin's music more than Schoenberg's.

...so If I'm about to to make a "greatest" composers list, Schoenberg will come first in it than Joplin. But if it's a favorites list, it's the other way around. Thus, both lists can be different for me.


----------



## Ethereality

If anyone is interested, I posted a demonstration here as to why polling is flawed / biased in favor of this particular forum tastes, and showed a better method to reach objectivity. Note that the composer examples there are not a complete list yet.


----------



## Art Rock

Received: 15 lists. Looks promising to meet the minimum 30 target.


----------



## Ethereality

Neat. Just wanted to add, the link above also shows the popularity bias that exists in our own favorite composers that we actually miss, but we find this overrated pop bias in composers like Mozart (based on the mathematical algorithm of relation to other composers). It's just not as pronounced compared to say a J. Strauss II, but it's something as a classical community we're blind to because the music is so ingrained in our culture.


----------



## Fabulin

Ethereality said:


> Neat. Just wanted to add, the link above also shows the popularity bias that exists in our own favorite composers that we actually miss, but we find this* overrated pop bias* in composers like Mozart (based on the mathematical algorithm of relation to other composers). *It's just not as pronounced compared to say a J. Strauss II*, but it's something as a classical community we're blind to because the music is so ingrained in our culture.


So you are saying that Mozart would have been more justly rated if not for Eine Kleine, the Rondo, and Requiem, for example?


----------



## 1996D

Allerius said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> Schoenberg invented dodecaphonic music, pioneered the use of free atonalism and made impressive contributions to the theory of harmony. Virtually every composer who came after him was influenced by his innovative ideas. Scott Joplin was a composer who made a few innovations in rag, and has influenced almost nobody since the downfall of this style. Thus, it would be reasonable to consider Arnold a "greater" composer than Scott. But the music of the latter speaks more to me than the former's, this is, I like Joplin's music more than Schoenberg's.
> 
> ...so If I'm about to to make a "greatest" composers list, Schoenberg will come first in it than Joplin. But if it's a favorites list, it's the other way around. Thus, both lists can be different for me.


I don't listen to Schoenberg's serial music, his early tonal music is worth him making the list. Verklärte Nacht is like Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique, sometimes one work is enough.


----------



## Art Rock

Received: 19 lists. Still looks promising to meet the minimum 30 target.

_Art Rock	
Bulldog	
Fabulin	
Howlingfantods	
DBLee	
Matthew Weflen	
WildThing	
Brahmsian Colors	
Littlephrase1913	
Highwayman	
Razumovskymas	
Byron	
musicrom	
josquindesprez	
KenOC	
Mollie John	
1996d
MacLeod	
SuperTonic
_

If you have submitted your preferences, and are not in the list above, please PM me.


----------



## Ethereality

Fabulin said:


> So you are saying that Mozart would have been more justly rated if not for Eine Kleine, the Rondo, and Requiem, for example?


Mozart's music when compared to most composers is much more appealing at a surface level, which is not the whole of his great talent, but rather it's what's responsible for his placing in the top 3, the unwarranted glory the less original and valuable _pop_ parts have elevated him to (and I'm speaking not personally, but from an objective analysis of the convergences in music). I didn't get a chance to include many more composers in that list, but in the case of Mozart it's his whole story and poppish appeal of not actually being as original as his direct and indirect influences when cross-examined: Mozart isn't criticizable as much as there are a slew of better and more inventive composers in Baroque that don't rise to the surface as _flashily_ and dramatically in common circles, and (aside from the pure convergence math attesting to the knowledge-bases of these composers) this is an issue that's duly noted by invested listeners of Mozart's influences.

Many throughout time revered Mozart's music, but as to who's actually worthy of praise for some of that music, even those influenced by Mozart's music have surpassed his own contributions from an objective point of view.


----------



## Fabulin

Ethereality said:


> *poppish * _*flashily*_ and *dramatically*


 Three merits put in ugly words, not flaws.

And besides, your math is not very wise. Rameau second? Justin Bieber next to Brahms? These are critical failures.


----------



## SixFootScowl

As I see it and kind of off the cuff:

Mozart's music flows as if pouring out of a bottle of wine. Beethoven's music entailed struggle, like trying to dig into frozen peanut butter. Mozart just poured the music fourth. Beethoven wrestled and wrestled to get his music out. This led to two very different musics and they really cannot be compared.


----------



## Ethereality

Fabulin said:


> Three merits put in ugly words, not flaws.


They're merits if they're original. That is because the origins of these concepts would place above his music in ranking.

I'm not sure you understood, but hopefully did, the meaning of what I wrote in my post. But it doesn't seem like you grasped it in one reading.



> And besides, your math is not very wise. Rameau second? *Justin Bieber next to Brahms?* These are critical failures.


What?


----------



## Fabulin

...


Ethereality said:


> They're merits if they're original. That is because the origins of these concepts would place above his music in ranking.
> 
> I'm not sure you understood, but hopefully did, the meaning of what I wrote in my post. But it doesn't seem like you grasped it in one reading.
> 
> What?





> 1. Beethoven - 18698180
> 2. Bach - 12501456
> 3. John Williams - 12317010
> 4. Mozart - 11283062
> 5. Schubert - 9021280
> 6. Brahms - 8459700
> 7. Justin Bieber - 8397850 (this shows how the forum's popularity vote is flawed / biased as an overall mechanism, since it is also flawed within any public sphere. So the polling method used on this forum is objectively flawed and biased in favor of its tastes)
> 8. Dvorak - 7138470
> 9. Mendelssohn - 6655900
> 10. Schumann - 6038830
> 11. Handel - 6494288
> 12. Debussy - 5946762
> 13. Chopin - 5074592
> 14. Haydn - 4515763
> 15. Ravel - 4324019
> 16. Tchaikovsky - 4052428
> 17. Mahler - 3942448
> 18. Stravinsky - 2954308
> 19. Wagner - 1913154
> 20. Monteverdi - 1584152
> ...
> 21. Copland - 201688 (added just for comparison)
> 22. Bernstein - 0
> ... and so on


You tell me...


----------



## Ethereality

Fabulin said:


> Rameau second?


This is more a placement that doesn't make sense to argue if you study the contributions of him and a few other Baroque composers. I'd recommend Rameau's orchestral works and operas. The favoring towards Bach is a relatively recent thing, and does follow today's trends but not overall trends.

There's a reason convergence works in music ranking, because it follows the most likely trends. Math cannot be faulty by default, as it always performs a certain objective. That's the benefit of analyzing these convergences and discovering the true influences, even when, more often than not, they are hidden away in the oeuvre of these composers, lost to public and even composer knowledge. It is what we mean by _indirect_ influences, something missed by trend (which is why we analyze trend and why public polling doesn't work.)


----------



## Ethereality

Fabulin said:


> You tell me...


My post thoroughly explained the mechanism used. You quoted a list that was used as the forum's faulty mechanism, so you didn't read the post. Justin Bieber was added as a reference point for artist names, and is clearly_ last_ on the objective convergence list.


----------



## mark6144

No offence intended, but as a relative newbie to this forum, I'm genuinely curious as to why there is so much interest in ranking composers? The whole concept seems a little... odd.

If I get time later, I might browse the internet to see if there is similar interest in rankings for painters, sculptors, poets, etc., or whether this is something peculiar to music.


----------



## Art Rock

Art Rock said:


> *Please read the first post before posting or sending me a message.*
> 
> Let's try again in a slightly different way. I'd like to compile a list based on the personal preferences of as many TC members as are willing to participate (at least 30). Please only submit choices based on your own preference, not on how important a composer is/was, or how influential or popular or whatever.
> 
> *Please compile your personal top30 composers, and send them to me before 1/1/20. Do not post your list in this thread.
> *
> You can choose between two options, and please mark which option you select in the message:
> 
> [1] rank your top30 composers from 1 to 30 (do not add the numbers, just state "ranked from #1 onward" followed by a list of composers). I will assign points, from 40 for your #1, 38, 36, 34, 32 for your #2-5 respectively, and then stepping down one point at a time from 30 for your #6 to 6 for your #30. There is no option for stating that composers A and B share spot #15 and so on. You can list less than 30 composers in your ranking (but minimum 15), and they will receive points as stated from #1 onward.
> 
> [2] just make a list of your top30 composers without ranking and state "not ranked" followed by a list of composers. I will assign 20 points to each composer in the list. There is no option for a partial ranking (like "here are my top 5 ranked and 25 others"). You can list less than 30 composers if you want (but minimum 15), and they will each get 20 points.
> 
> When submitting your list, please make sure you do the following, or your choices will likely not be included because you make copying/pasting to a spreadsheet unnecessarily complicated:
> 
> 
> Include the statement whether it is ranked or not ranked
> 
> Do not include numbers in the ranked list
> 
> Identify the composers by family name only
> 
> In case of doubt, add ", initial" after the family name *
> 
> Put each name on a new line
> 
> * if you state "Bach", "Wagner", "Mozart", "Haydn", "Franck" and so on, I will assume it is the more famous of the possibilities. If you mean CPE Bach or Siegfried Wagner and so on, use the initial ("Bach, CPE", "Wagner, S", etc). In cases like Strauss, Scarlatti, Panufnik, Berkeley and so on, use the initial of the composer you want instead of assuming I will pick the right one.
> 
> *Do not post your choices in this thread until after the deadline of 1/1/20. After the deadline, feel free to share your submitted top30's in this thread. Until then, only use this thread to ask for clarifications, or (if you want) announce you sent your choices to me.*
> 
> I will give a regular update of numbers of submissions received (without compiling results). In January I will compile and post the results, including the points per listed composer and how often he/she was picked. Only composers that received at last three mentions will be included in the final list (of maximum 100 composers). The total number of composers in the list will depend on that of course.


And a reminder that has proven to be required:

*Please compile your personal top30 composers, and send them to me before 1/1/20. Do not post your list in this thread.
*


----------



## Guest

mark6144 said:


> If I get time later, I might browse the internet to see if there is similar interest in rankings for painters, sculptors, poets, etc., or whether this is something peculiar to music.


Hi. Interesting thought, though I think ranking is common to most 'interest' groups. Anyway, first find a comparable discussion forum.

Art Rock...do you know of any?


----------



## Art Rock

MacLeod said:


> Hi. Interesting thought, though I think ranking is common to most 'interest' groups. Anyway, first find a comparable discussion forum.
> 
> Art Rock...do you know of any?


I mainly attend music forums, and classical rock and prog rock communities also love to rank.

Edit to add: I remember years ago the BBC organized a British comedy ranking exercise with their followers, which turned out to be quite popular. Chess players, soccer players, tennis players, all get ranked once in a while. It's certainly not a music only thing.


----------



## Fabulin

Pardon the disconnectedness of my thoughts from one another:

It needs to be 
1. at least partially an individual _performance art_ 
2. with at least mostly agreed upon goals 
3. the results of which many people at least _think _they can comprehend with just a few glances.

This is true for sports and games, and for music, but to a far lesser extent for sculpture, painting or literature.

The latter three have a solid, unchangeable result of work as their only observable quality. It makes them closer to architecture, or garden design, if you will, than to sports, dancing, acting, or music.

Cinema genres, or book / comic book series installments are easier to compare, because there seem to be both certain clear "rules", and a sort of "performance" within a group of creators manufacturing specific products aimed at a specific audience, and because due to a limited, comprehensible pool of objects to compare, there is a clear sense of being in the know among fans of specific genres.

There have been lists of various professors asked about the best novels of all time, best fiction books on scientific subjects, best films, etc.

But very rarely it's about the creators of these things, who are nearly invisible while they labour.

Also because:

Films for example are a collaborative effort, and the directors are often mostly coordinators of people involved with arts and craftsmanship.

Composers are easier to compare than writers: one can perhaps listen to 150 Opi over a couple weeks with varying degree of attention; but just try to read 30 novels over the same time period!

[Classical music has a lot of coherent social structures involving musicians and non-musicians of various sorts. It has long traditions of necessary learning based _on examples_ and discourse. Examples which need to be _selected_.

For other arts, the only ones discussing such things are probably university students or professors after a couple of drinks---or professional critics who only discuss among themselves, because average citizens are beneath them.

People do compare "objects" more often than humans: cars, professional equipment, software, formerly horses, hunting dogs, etc.

Unless(!) there is a social relevance to what said humans are doing. Unless it's impressive and enviable. A writer, painter, or sculptor, merely "does his job", like a bank clerk, shopkeeper, or a physical worker. A composer or athlete does what people tried to do and failed miserably early on in their lives, and which has a high ceiling of impressing people. Music has a higher ceiling of impressing people than painting or sculpture, for example... and writing mostly impresses because of the contents, which are a muddled field because this might be philosophy, knowledge, etc.---nothing that specific to the art of writing it down in a sequence.

Poets have been (and still sometimes are) compared: see---poetry slams, pantheons of national bards, etc.. There is a performance art. However, poets of past eras are harder to understand because of the linguistical meaning comprehension problems, coupled with the fact that meaning is _nearly _all that is to them. Nearly the only incentive to read poetry. Most fans of literature are very inhomogenous in what they want to read, or read about. (Also because of the larger time requirements, which used to be less of an issue in the times when people read more, and there were fewer alternative reads available to them at any given time, but are definitely now).

There is no Bach, Beethoven, Mozart in literature, because there is no common language that everyone would understand, and because the contents of it are very time-and-space specific, which creates even more barriers.

Painting or sculpture are not as often compared, because they do not impress our emotions as much as music does, and also because the frequency of exposition to them at home, or even at local exhibitions, was very, very limited until the last two decades, and the ability to comprehend the field was nigh unreachable for anyone but well-travelled critics.

These are some of the reasons why ranking is not as popular as a pastime among fans of other types of arts.

One final aspect might be, that comparing classical composers became a popular game, with clear rules, an without a seeming end, in itself, so many newcomers want to try participating and potentially gaining some social cred for their taste or knowledge. There is no other self-propelling process of this sort in the arts, except maybe among superhero book nerds.

And I wouldn't count casual audience polls by large media. They also tend to ask about favourite wonders of the world, traditional national dishes, etc.


----------



## Art Rock

At the moment we're at 21 submissions.


----------



## Razumovskymas

Funny thought about my ranking:

I was struggling to get to 30 composers, the ten composers at the bottom of my list are composers where I hardly know or appreciate 2 or 3 works from. And I was thinking, looking at my list, ok, I don't feel the desire to get to know more then these 30 composers, given the limited time I have. I'd rather spend more time getting to know these 30 composer better then to try to establish a connection with "new" composers. Prokofiev an Shostakovich probably being the most modern in my list, at this moment (being 40 years old) I think it's more interesting to really try to connect to each of these 30 more thoroughly then to look for new things. Beethoven, Liszt, Händel, I covered them quite extensively, but the other 27 guys on my list are still for the greatest part an open field. So why spend any time to "new" composers where I don't have a connection with already (Mahler, Wagner, Puccini, Verdi, more modern.. etc)? On the other hand, it's only some 10years I'm seriously into classical music so maybe I'm imposing myself a silly rule? ........


----------



## Bulldog

Razumovskymas said:


> Funny thought about my ranking:
> 
> I was struggling to get to 30 composers, the ten composers at the bottom of my list are composers where I hardly know or appreciate 2 or 3 works from. And I was thinking, looking at my list, ok, I don't feel the desire to get to know more then these 30 composers, given the limited time I have. I'd rather spend more time getting to know these 30 composer better then to try to establish a connection with "new" composers. Prokofiev an Shostakovich probably being the most modern in my list, at this moment (being 40 years old) I think it's more interesting to really try to connect to each of these 30 more thoroughly then to look for new things. Beethoven, Liszt, Händel, I covered them quite extensively, but the other 27 guys on my list are still for the greatest part an open field. So why spend any time to "new" composers where I don't have a connection with already (Mahler, Wagner, Puccini, Verdi, more modern.. etc)? On the other hand, it's only some 10years I'm seriously into classical music so maybe I'm imposing myself a silly rule? ........


I think it's best not to have any rules for your acquisitions - takes the "wonder" out of it.


----------



## Guest

Razumovskymas said:


> Funny thought about my ranking:
> 
> I was struggling to get to 30 composers, the ten composers at the bottom of my list are composers where I hardly know or appreciate 2 or 3 works from. And I was thinking, looking at my list, ok, I don't feel the desire to get to know more then these 30 composers, given the limited time I have. I'd rather spend more time getting to know these 30 composer better then to try to establish a connection with "new" composers. Prokofiev an Shostakovich probably being the most modern in my list, at this moment (being 40 years old) I think it's more interesting to really try to connect to each of these 30 more thoroughly then to look for new things. Beethoven, Liszt, Händel, I covered them quite extensively, but the other 27 guys on my list are still for the greatest part an open field. So why spend any time to "new" composers where I don't have a connection with already (Mahler, Wagner, Puccini, Verdi, more modern.. etc)? On the other hand, it's only some 10years I'm seriously into classical music so maybe I'm imposing myself a silly rule? ........


Not 'silly', no, but maybe temporary.

I didn't submit 30. I could readily name more than 30 composers, but it seemed to me that I had to actually like and listen to at least one substantial composition. For most of my list, I actually like quite a few, usually their symphonies (where that there was their main body of work). For example, I like Rossini's overtures (William Tell, Barber of Seville) but he didn't really qualify, and nor did any of the other composers with very well-known pieces (say Strauss's Blue Danube) which I also like but don't actively choose to listen to.

What I've noticed over the past few months is that I've not been listening to much music at all - neither classical nor pop/rock - and I'm certainly not much in the mood to explore anything brand new or challenging. This probably has something to do with having to adjust to my recent retirement and a delayed plan to move house.

So, at the moment, I fully expect to continue nibbling away at works I already own with which I am not so familiar (say, Shostakovich's 14th and 15th symphonies), and try some more that I don't own by composers with whome I am familiar (say, Ligeti - I was listening yesterday to his Piano Concerto for the first time). I've still to make a proper effort with Brahms and Bruckner among many others, and I keep forgetting about Mendelssohn, and then I might yet find I'm going to like Vaughan-Williams...

I guess I'll see how the fancy takes me, but I'm not going to set a rule about it.


----------



## mark6144

Fabulin said:


> It needs to be
> 1. at least partially an individual _performance art_
> 2. with at least mostly agreed upon goals
> 3. the results of which many people at least _think _they can comprehend with just a few glances.
> 
> This is true for sports and games, and for music, but to a far lesser extent for sculpture, painting or literature.


The performance art aspect makes sense, although the composer is rarely the performer. It's interesting that for classical music we rank composers on the basis of our subjective appreciation of performances of their work by others. Anyway, I'll carry on enjoying them for what they give to me, like different vacations in different locations, and try not to compare them too much .


----------



## Duncan

I fear that I may have inadvertently become an "arch-traditionalist" as the youngest composer on my ranked list of 30 is "Anonymous"...


----------



## Art Rock

Received so far: 24 submissions.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I plan to send mine in but so far have not had time to make a list. Do you want me to send it alphabetically since I won't be prioritizing them?


----------



## senza sordino

I will try to submit a ranked list, but I'm having trouble. The first ten or twelve composers were okay ranking. But how do I distinguish between 20th and 21st etc? Give me a day or two. I might, however, give up and submit an unranked list.


----------



## Art Rock

Fritz Kobus said:


> I plan to send mine in but so far have not had time to make a list. Do you want me to send it alphabetically since I won't be prioritizing them?


Alphabetical would be easier for me, yes.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Art Rock said:


> Alphabetical would be easier for me, yes.


You got it. Just sent it. I also listed in blocks of 5 which was easier for me to count to thirty. 

Heavily weighted to operatic composer of course as that is mostly what I listen to.

Anyone wants to see my list, PM me. It is essentially about 3/4 of the composers in my CD collection.


----------



## Tchaikov6

List sent! I'm excited for the results, are you going to do a "countdown" Art Rock?


----------



## Art Rock

Got them. Total now is 27.

I was planning to post the complete list in January, but maybe I'll do it 10 at a time, starting from the bottom.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Art Rock said:


> Got them. Total now is 27.
> 
> I was planning to post the complete list in January, but maybe I'll do it 10 at a time, starting from the bottom.


Cool, it's more fun that way.


----------



## mmsbls

I submitted my ranked list.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Will you post the lists submitted to you?


----------



## Art Rock

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Will you post the lists submitted to you?


I intend to link to a spreadsheet that contains all submitted data including the names of the members taking part.


----------



## Art Rock

We're at 29 now.


----------



## Haydn man

I like this idea and have sent in a ranked list


----------



## senza sordino

I have submitted a ranked list.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

I submitted an unranked list (was going to do a ranked list, but the decisions became too difficult).


----------



## D Smith

I sent you a non-ranked list. I got it down to thirty by only including more individual choices. Good luck!


----------



## Art Rock

We're now at 35 submissions.


----------



## Duncan

I submitted a request for participation in the "Current Listening" thread - Post # 40794 -

https://www.talkclassical.com/54083-current-listening-vol-v-2720.html#post1728000

which reads as follows -

"Interrupting your regularly scheduled programming for a personal request for participation in an important thread...

Art Rock (who's really a rather decent chap) is attempting to compile a listing of the forums's favourite composers and is requesting your assistance in this thread -

Ranking the composers - a new attempt

It's a fairly straightforward request -

Submit a list of thirty of your favourite composers - not the greatest, not the most influential, but your personal favourites.

Compile the list of thirty under one of two classifications - "Ranked" or "Not Ranked" - each classification has a separate amount of points awarded - differing amounts for those ranked and equal amounts for those not ranked.

All classical and operatic composers are eligible.

Compile you list of 30 personal favourites and send it via PM to Art Rock. Please don't publish your list in either the original thread or this one. The lists will remain anonymous but the results and the fact that you participated will be published.

Please don't use numbers in either of the lists submitted - just use the last name of the composer without the first initial or name unless you need to differentiate between J.S. Bach and C.P.E. Bach for example.

This is a précis of the original thread developed by Art and all of the required and requested information can be found withing the thread which has become something of a FAQ for the concept.

I submitted my list and hope and encourage that you will do the same - not everyone submitted lists of 30, some sent in lists with fewer names - for the results will be of far more interest with a wider array of responses.

Thank you!

- Duncan

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming..."


----------



## SixFootScowl

Hopefully we get a couple hundred or more lists. The more the better! Of course, that makes a bigger project for Art Rock.


----------



## Art Rock

Fritz Kobus said:


> Hopefully we get a couple hundred or more lists. The more the better! Of course, that makes a bigger project for Art Rock.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I will send un unranked list - expect the PM by tomorrow.


----------



## Art Rock

We're at 37 entries right now. Once more this request:

*Please list the composers by family name, adding initial(s) when required to make a distinction.
*
The correct entrance for Richard Strauss for example is Strauss, R.

As I will be converting all submissions in an alphabetical order to create the master list, I first have to correct any deviations from this system (e.g. those who write Richard Strauss).


----------



## Fabulin

How many lists is your goal, Art Rock? When can we expect a "closed gate" and results published?


----------



## Malx

List ranked and submitted, can I submit another in a month or so as the placings will have undoubtedly changed a little.

(Only jesting)


----------



## Art Rock

Fabulin said:


> How many lists is your goal, Art Rock? When can we expect a "closed gate" and results published?


As stated in the OP, deadline is 1/1/2020. I will not put a limit on numbers of submissions (we have already exceeded my stated minimum). Expect the result somewhere mid January.


----------



## Art Rock

Malx said:


> List ranked and submitted, can I submit another in a month or so as the placings will have undoubtedly changed a little.
> 
> (Only jesting)


I know you're jesting but until the deadline, anyone can change their submission. I'd appreciate if you would clearly state it is a change, to avoid a double entry in the spreadsheet.


----------



## Larkenfield

Not meaning to upset the apple cart but why rank favorites? Everyone has favorites but it doesn’t suggest that much insight or awareness about them. I find it of greater interest to try and sort out the controversy of who the listeners feel are the greatest of composers. Even someone who’s a complete novice has favorites and that’s usually obvious from their posts. In any event, I’m sure there will still be some interest in the results even if there’s no point in arguing favorites. There’s no arguing against favorites. They just are.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Larkenfield said:


> Not meaning to upset the apple cart but why rank favorites? Everyone has favorites but it doesn't suggest that much insight or awareness about them. I find it of greater interest to try and sort out the controversy of who the listeners feel are the greatest of composers. Even someone who's a complete novice has favorites and that's usually obvious from their posts. In any event, I'm sure there will still be some interest in the results even if there's no point in arguing about favorites. There's no arguing against favorites. They just are.


Not quite sure if I interpreted what you said correctly, but yes, many people have favorites and like certain composers more than others (such as me). Thus, ranking them would be an adequate way to express that. And I'm gonna do some shameless advertising and promote you over to my Hall of Fame, in which people would rank their favorites to determine the winner (although that is based on pieces, not composers).


----------



## mmsbls

Larkenfield said:


> Not meaning to upset the apple cart but why rank favorites? Everyone has favorites but it doesn't suggest that much insight or awareness about them. I find it of greater interest to try and sort out the controversy of who the listeners feel are the greatest of composers. Even someone who's a complete novice has favorites and that's usually obvious from their posts. In any event, I'm sure there will still be some interest in the results even if there's no point in arguing favorites. There's no arguing against favorites. They just are.


Not everyone likes to rank things, but many people do. One need only look at the activity in the Polls part of the forum to see how much many enjoy that activity. People like to rank and see others' rankings. So the one reason is that it is fun.

Another reason would more likely apply to those who have not explored many composers. One of the best ways to get suggestions for music is to see what others who are similar to you like. Seeing a list of the top, say, 50 most liked composers based on TC member voting would give another TC member suggestions for composers to explore. This reason might apply somewhat better to individual works, but for some, an ordered list of the most liked composers, could be a great help in exploring further.


----------



## Fabulin

Larkenfield said:


> Not meaning to upset the apple cart but why rank favorites? Everyone has favorites but it doesn't suggest that much insight or awareness about them. I find it of greater interest to try and sort out the controversy of who the listeners feel are the greatest of composers. Even someone who's a complete novice has favorites and that's usually obvious from their posts. In any event, I'm sure there will still be some interest in the results even if there's no point in arguing favorites. There's no arguing against favorites. They just are.


To me ranking personal favourites shows a progression towards my ideals of music. The higher up, the more meaningful it is, because composers embody more and more of them. These ideals can be inferred from my list.

I did have trouble ranking below the 15th spot though, because there everyone had just one gimmick or two going for them, and these gimmicks were very heterogenous.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Larkenfield said:


> Not meaning to upset the apple cart but why rank favorites? Everyone has favorites but it doesn't suggest that much insight or awareness about them. I find it of greater interest to try and *sort out the controversy of who the listeners feel are the greatest of composers*. Even someone who's a complete novice has favorites and that's usually obvious from their posts. In any event, I'm sure there will still be some interest in the results even if there's no point in arguing favorites. There's no arguing against favorites. They just are.


That one is never going to sort out and, in my opinion, is as subjective as ranking favorites. If you asked me to rank my to 5 symphonic composers from a favorites and from who I think is the greatest, they probably will be the same ranking. The problem most of us have is we don't know enough composers well enough to really be able to rank them well. I may say Beethoven, Mahler, Mendelssohn, Rachmaninoff, ... but there could very well be other composers out there I have never heard who, if I knew their works, would change my rankings.


----------



## Bulldog

Larkenfield said:


> Not meaning to upset the apple cart but why rank favorites?


I suppose there is some merit in your question, but the process has already been decided by Art Rock. Further, I already put in an appreciable amount of time coming up with my ranked list.


----------



## Bulldog

Larkenfield said:


> I find it of greater interest to try and sort out the controversy of who the listeners feel are the greatest of composers. favorites.


There is no controversy because it's a list of favorite. Besides, the way you suggest would make this just another thread where folks argue back and forth with no resolution except that the more musically knowledgeable of members would appear more convincing.


----------



## arpeggio

Deleted. Messed up


----------



## Strange Magic

Bulldog said:


> There is no controversy because it's a list of favorite. Besides, the way you suggest would make this just another thread where folks argue back and forth with no resolution except that the more musically knowledgeable of members would appear more convincing.


I agree with this. Only a functioning, calibrated Greatness Meter can properly rank composers "objectively" and we have continuing problems here on TC to keep our meter both running and properly calibrated. People's favorite composers and favorite works are a whole 'nother thing, and people can't really argue about what you like and what I like--and it's fun to share.


----------



## Art Rock

Art Rock said:


> *Please read the first post before posting or sending me a message.*
> 
> Let's try again in a slightly different way. I'd like to compile a list based on the personal preferences of as many TC members as are willing to participate (at least 30). Please only submit choices based on your own preference, not on how important a composer is/was, or how influential or popular or whatever.
> 
> *Please compile your personal top30 composers, and send them to me before 1/1/20. Do not post your list in this thread.
> *
> You can choose between two options, and please mark which option you select in the message:
> 
> [1] rank your top30 composers from 1 to 30 (do not add the numbers, just state "ranked from #1 onward" followed by a list of composers). I will assign points, from 40 for your #1, 38, 36, 34, 32 for your #2-5 respectively, and then stepping down one point at a time from 30 for your #6 to 6 for your #30. There is no option for stating that composers A and B share spot #15 and so on. You can list less than 30 composers in your ranking (but minimum 15), and they will receive points as stated from #1 onward.
> 
> [2] just make a list of your top30 composers without ranking and state "not ranked" followed by a list of composers. I will assign 20 points to each composer in the list. There is no option for a partial ranking (like "here are my top 5 ranked and 25 others"). You can list less than 30 composers if you want (but minimum 15), and they will each get 20 points.
> 
> When submitting your list, please make sure you do the following, or your choices will likely not be included because you make copying/pasting to a spreadsheet unnecessarily complicated:
> 
> 
> Include the statement whether it is ranked or not ranked
> 
> Do not include numbers in the ranked list
> 
> Identify the composers by family name only
> 
> In case of doubt, add ", initial" after the family name *
> 
> Put each name on a new line
> 
> * if you state "Bach", "Wagner", "Mozart", "Haydn", "Franck" and so on, I will assume it is the more famous of the possibilities. If you mean CPE Bach or Siegfried Wagner and so on, use the initial ("Bach, CPE", "Wagner, S", etc). In cases like Strauss, Scarlatti, Panufnik, Berkeley and so on, use the initial of the composer you want instead of assuming I will pick the right one.
> 
> *Do not post your choices in this thread until after the deadline of 1/1/20. After the deadline, feel free to share your submitted top30's in this thread. Until then, only use this thread to ask for clarifications, or (if you want) announce you sent your choices to me.*
> 
> I will give a regular update of numbers of submissions received (without compiling results). In January I will compile and post the results, including the points per listed composer and how often he/she was picked. Only composers that received at last three mentions will be included in the final list (of maximum 100 composers). The total number of composers in the list will depend on that of course.


Probably time to post this again in the thread. We're now at 40 submissions.


----------



## Art Rock

First weekly bump. We're at 42 submissions.


----------



## Art Rock

Second weekly bump. We're at 44, although I really should not have accepted the last one which was on lots of points not in line with my requests.

Please send in your list if you have not done so (deadline 1/1/20), but *PLEASE *pay attention to the format as specified most recently in post 109.


----------



## Razumovskymas

You'r way too soft Art Rock!!! You revealed your meek heart by turning a blind eye, now more and more incorrect lists will follow. :lol:


----------



## Art Rock

Third weekly bump. We're at 46 now.

I plan to post the results in January in a new thread, and as suggested in a series of daily posts. I will include the points totals and the numbers of mentions.

Probably:

0. Overall statistics (number of participants including ranked and unranked, number of composers)
1. The composers who did not make the final ranked list.
2. The ranked composers, in batches of 10, counting down to #11.
3. Counting down the top 10 composers one by one.
4. The complete ranked list.
5. The submissions without names of those who submitted.

Please send in your list if you have not done so (deadline 1/1/20, 8AM CET), but *PLEASE pay attention to the format as specified most recently in post 109*.


----------



## Razumovskymas

Please do pay attention! This guy is working his spreadsheets and statistical magic for us to see where our beloved composers end up.

Can't wait, although Bach wil probably will be no 1 and Beethoven no 2 and Mozart no 3, no? ;-)


----------



## Art Rock

Midweek bump - just over 4 weeks to go. We're at 47.


----------



## Art Rock

Another bump. We're still at 47. You have 3 more weeks to get your list in if you have not done so yet.

I also would like to ask you to make no more changes in submitted lists after the coming weekend, so I can start processing these.


----------



## Art Rock

Bumping. We're at 48 entries.


----------



## Art Rock

Next-to-last bump, we're still at 48.

I've put all submissions in a spreadsheet now, please do not change your submissions unless you find out that there is a huge omission.

New entries are still welcome until 1/1/20, 8AM CET, but *PLEASE pay attention to the format as specified most recently in post 109*.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I hope you get 50 - a nice round figure.


----------



## Ethereality

Larkenfield said:


> Not meaning to upset the apple cart but why rank favorites? Everyone has favorites but it doesn't suggest that much insight or awareness about them. I find it of greater interest to try and sort out the controversy of who the listeners feel are the greatest of composers.





Strange Magic said:


> I agree with this. Only a functioning, calibrated Greatness Meter can properly rank composers "objectively" and we have continuing problems here on TC to keep our meter both running and properly calibrated. People's favorite composers and favorite works are a whole 'nother thing, and people can't really argue about what you like and what I like--and it's fun to share.


I'm still confused by what greatest would mean here. Greatest at?... making you really enjoy their music? Greatest at... composing music that doesn't vibe with you but it's still great? How did you determine it's great if you don't like it? Because it follows rules, because it breaks bounds, is complex? I can find lots of music like that that is not 'great.' I am not positive what this poll is aiming for: an unanswerable question? or an honest one about what you enjoy?

If some people are putting Bach, Beethoven, Mozart in their Top 3 because it's just what others think, but it's not their own favorites, then I would just delete those names. Rather pointless for someone to make an argument ad populum, when we have those arguments available. We don't need a new poll for it. Polling something new should be about where people have evolved in their own listening--seeing who are the next new favorites among the community as it evolves in its listening. That is real greatness.


----------



## Art Rock

First post:

*Please only submit choices based on your own preference, not on how important a composer is/was, or how influential or popular or whatever.*

These list are purely about the composers people most enjoy.


----------



## Art Rock

elgars ghost said:


> I hope you get 50 - a nice round figure.


:trp:

Just received numbers 49 and 50. More welcome of course.


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> Not meaning to upset the apple cart but why rank favorites? Everyone has favorites but it doesn't suggest that much insight or awareness about them.


Why not? What you end up with is a list of those composers whose works those TC members who responded have most enjoyed. What's not "insightful" about that?



Ethereality said:


> Polling something new should be about where people have evolved in their own listening--seeing who are the next new favorites among the community as it evolves in its listening.


Make your own poll then. No need to trouble yourself about this one.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I'd take more notice of a TC poll of this magnitude than if one was made by the likes of Classic FM who cater for a more casual fanbase. I am expecting a few surprises here, especially as the knowledge and diverse tastes of the membership adds more seasoning to the pot.


----------



## Ethereality

MacLeod said:


> Make your own poll then. No need to trouble yourself about this one.


Why would I make a poll that is identical to the one in the OP?


----------



## CnC Bartok

The rules of this look remarkably straightforward, the outcome and its "acceptance as gospel truth" obviously not. Who cares? It'll be illuminating whatever happens!

Putting a list together, and trying not to indulge in any tactical voting. It didn't work her in the UK last week, so hopefully it won't be a factor here either.

Will try and put together my list (which is of course indisputably correct :devil by the end of the weekend


----------



## Art Rock

Art Rock said:


> *Please read the first post before posting or sending me a message.*
> 
> Let's try again in a slightly different way. I'd like to compile a list based on the personal preferences of as many TC members as are willing to participate (at least 30). Please only submit choices based on your own preference, not on how important a composer is/was, or how influential or popular or whatever.
> 
> *Please compile your personal top30 composers, and send them to me before 1/1/20. Do not post your list in this thread.
> *
> You can choose between two options, and please mark which option you select in the message:
> 
> [1] rank your top30 composers from 1 to 30 (do not add the numbers, just state "ranked from #1 onward" followed by a list of composers). I will assign points, from 40 for your #1, 38, 36, 34, 32 for your #2-5 respectively, and then stepping down one point at a time from 30 for your #6 to 6 for your #30. There is no option for stating that composers A and B share spot #15 and so on. You can list less than 30 composers in your ranking (but minimum 15), and they will receive points as stated from #1 onward.
> 
> [2] just make a list of your top30 composers without ranking and state "not ranked" followed by a list of composers. I will assign 20 points to each composer in the list. There is no option for a partial ranking (like "here are my top 5 ranked and 25 others"). You can list less than 30 composers if you want (but minimum 15), and they will each get 20 points.
> 
> When submitting your list, please make sure you do the following, or your choices will likely not be included because you make copying/pasting to a spreadsheet unnecessarily complicated:
> 
> 
> Include the statement whether it is ranked or not ranked
> 
> Do not include numbers in the ranked list
> 
> Identify the composers by family name only
> 
> In case of doubt, add ", initial" after the family name *
> 
> Put each name on a new line
> 
> * if you state "Bach", "Wagner", "Mozart", "Haydn", "Franck" and so on, I will assume it is the more famous of the possibilities. If you mean CPE Bach or Siegfried Wagner and so on, use the initial ("Bach, CPE", "Wagner, S", etc). In cases like Strauss, Scarlatti, Panufnik, Berkeley and so on, use the initial of the composer you want instead of assuming I will pick the right one.
> 
> *Do not post your choices in this thread until after the deadline of 1/1/20. After the deadline, feel free to share your submitted top30's in this thread. Until then, only use this thread to ask for clarifications, or (if you want) announce you sent your choices to me.*
> 
> I will give a regular update of numbers of submissions received (without compiling results). In January I will compile and post the results, including the points per listed composer and how often he/she was picked. Only composers that received at last three mentions will be included in the final list (of maximum 100 composers). The total number of composers in the list will depend on that of course.


A reminder about the prescribed format. Please no more changes to submitted lists.


----------



## Ethereality

CnC Bartok said:


> Will try and put together *my list (which is of course indisputably correct* :devil by the end of the weekend


Ooh. I'm trying to skip all this conjectural polling nonsense and get right to the real list. I'd like to see it when you're finished!


----------



## Guest

Ethereality said:


> Why would I make a poll that is identical to the one in the OP?


Well I guess I misunderstood your post. You seemed to be advocating something other than the OP.

OP - "_I'd like to compile a list based on the personal preferences of as many TC members as are willing to participate (at least 30). Please only submit choices based on your own preference, not on how important a composer is/was, or how influential or popular or whatever."
_
You - _"I am not positive what this poll is aiming for: an unanswerable question? or an honest one about what you enjoy?

If some people are putting Bach, Beethoven, Mozart in their Top 3 because it's just what others think, but it's not their own favorites, then I would just delete those names. Rather pointless for someone to make an argument ad populum, when we have those arguments available. We don't need a new poll for it. Polling something new should be about where people have evolved in their own listening--seeing who are the next new favorites among the community as it evolves in its listening."_

These do not seem to be identical.


----------



## Art Rock

Final bump, just a few days left to get your lists in (see post 127 for the format). We're at 53 submissions right now.

EDIT: 54 now.


----------



## Razumovskymas

Most anticipated event of 2020!!


----------



## PlaySalieri

I guess the top 5 will be

Beet
bach
Mozart
Brahms
Schubert

yawn - prove me wrong


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Sent my list.


----------



## Art Rock

We have passed the deadline. Happy New Year everyone, *no more submissions possible*.

Depending on my mood, we have 55 or 56 contributions (one had 12 errors in 30 composers wrt the prescribed format, so I may or may not include it).

Results will be in a separate thread. I expect the first post (overall statistics) in a few hours after I made a decision whether I want to clean up the submission referred to above.


----------



## JAS26

My guess at the top 30 in approximate rank order:

1	Beethoven
2	Bach J S
3	Mozart
4	Brahms
5	Schubert
6	Mahler
7	Tchaikovsky
8	Wagner
9	Haydn, J
10	Shostakovich
11	Dvorak
12	Debussy
13	Sibelius
14	Handel
15	Chopin
16	Stravinsky
17	Schumann
18	Ravel
19	Prokofiev
20	Bartok
21	Rachmaninoff
22	Mendelssohn
23	Bruckner
24	Liszt
25	Strauss R
26	Vivaldi
27	Vaughan Williams
28	Schoenberg
29	Verdi
30	Monteverdi


.........

Possible other contenders for the 20-30 ranks are:

Grieg
Messiaen
Berlioz
Ligeti
Webern
Puccini
Copland
Janacek
Faure
Saint-Saens
Britten
Elgar
Rimsky-Korsakov
Rossini


----------

