# TC: Top 100 Composers



## Nix

With multiple threads talking about composer rankings in the past couple of weeks, and with already having (and finished) our own top 100 Symphonies and Operas, I thought the next logical step was to create one for composers. I haven't moderated one of these before, so if you can, try and keep me in check and make sure I'm doing it right. Rounds will last about 2 days. 

Round 1 
Rank who you think are the 10 greatest composers. Oh, and I imagine there is going to be some huge dispute on what 'greatest' means. Just interpret it as you will... perhaps a sort of combination of importance and personal preference. 

1. Ludwig van Beethoven
2. W.A. Mozart
3. J.S. Bach
4. Johannes Brahms
5. Joseph Haydn
6. Franz Schubert
7. Igor Stravinsky
8. Richard Wagner
9. Claude Debussy
10. Josquin Des Prez


----------



## emiellucifuge

Good to see this Nix, despite the (understandable) criticism these threads have received, they are still fun and educational.

I will follow with my list shortly, how long are you giving each round?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Ok, according to personal preference, Stravinsky shouldn't be even there. 

But according to importance/*influence*:

1. Beethoven
2. Wagner
3. Bach
4. Stravinsky
5. Mozart
6. Brahms
7. Debussy
8. Schubert
9. Hayden
10. Des Prez??? Who dat?


----------



## Aramis

Honestly objective list of mine:

1. Ludwig Van
2. Wagner
3. Bach
4. Mozart
5. Chopin
6. Debussy
7. Monteverdi
8. Mahler
9. Haydn
10. Liszt

Can I give my anti-vote for who shouldn't reach top 10? :tiphat: Brahms!


----------



## Webernite

Difficult... Are you _sure_ you want it to include pre-Baroque composers?

1. Johann Sebastian Bach
2. Ludwig van Beethoven
3. Richard Wagner
4. Josquin des Prez
5. Johannes Ockeghem
6. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
7. Johannes Brahms
8. Joseph Haydn
9. George Frideric Handel
10. Arnold Schoenberg


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Nix said:


> Just interpret it as you will... perhaps a sort of combination of importance and personal preference.


1. Richard Wagner
2. Ludwig van Beethoven
3. Johann Sebastian Bach
4. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
5. Johannes Brahms
6. Franz Schubert
7. Igor Stravinsky
8. George Frideric Handel
9. Joseph Haydn
10. Frederic Chopin


----------



## emiellucifuge

1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Schubert
4. Mozart - dont kill me
5. Wagner
6. Dvorak
7. Varese
8. Haydn
9. Schoenberg
10. Mahler


----------



## Nix

Huilunsoittaja said:


> 10. Des Prez??? Who dat?


Probably the most important composer pre-Baroque. I think we might as well allow medieval/renaissance composers. When we get into later rounds people are going to want to include composers like Machaut, Tallis, Palestrina, or heaven forbid... Josquin!


----------



## Aramis

emiellucifuge said:


> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Bach
> 3. Schubert
> 4. Mozart - dont kill me
> 5. Wagner
> 6. Dvorak
> 7. Varese
> 8. Haydn
> 9. Schoenberg
> 10. Handel


You made mistake, "don't kill me", I think, was meant to be written at number 6


----------



## emiellucifuge

Aramis said:


> You made mistake, "don't kill me", I think, was meant to be written at number 6


Haha, no actually. I allowed myself one 'personal preference' vote.


----------



## Webernite

I edited my post so that Josquin and Ockeghem switched places.


----------



## Aramis

Webernite said:


> I edited my post so that Josquin and Ockeghem switched places.


Wait... does it count? I mean order.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Its not as important as inclusion in itself but yes..


----------



## Aramis

Then I've replaced names on my list as well.


----------



## SuperTonic

This should be fun and interesting!

1. J.S. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Stravinsky
4. Haydn
5. Mozart
6. Wagner
7. Palestrina
8. Brahms
9. Schoenberg
10. Handel


----------



## Webernite

I'll be very pleased if Schoenberg gets into the top 15. He seems to be doing quite well so far.


----------



## Pieck

What are the rules? Do I need to rank the first ten or can I choose whoever I want?


----------



## Lipatti

1. Mozart
2. Bach
3. Beethoven
4. Schubert
5. Liszt
6. Chopin
7. Debussy
8. Haydn
9. Stravinsky
10. Wagner


----------



## emiellucifuge

Just choose your personal 10 and rank them


----------



## Xaltotun

Woah! Nice to participate in one of these! I'm strongly against negative votes, though. I looked at the "100 greatest symphonies" and thought it was just phony because of the negative votes system. But lists like this are not serious business in the first place, of course. So here goes!

1. Brahms
2. Beethoven
3. Tchaikovsky
4. Rachmaninov
5. Wagner
6. Mozart
7. Schubert
8. Ravel
9. Sibelius
10. Rimsky-Korsakov


----------



## emiellucifuge

Negative votes? Never heard of these things?
I hope you know that Nix is running this thread with the same system I used for the symphonies thread, and Jhar used for the operas.


----------



## Xaltotun

I seem to remember a very long thread here where people would give positive votes to symphonies that they liked and negative votes to ones that they didn't like. But let's not derail the thread


----------



## Weston

Oh no! I'm never going to get to sleep again! The TC Top 150 Symphonies still has several weeks to go I think, and next of course we must do the top 100 concertos, top 100 tone poems, top 100 Quintets that feature bassoon, etc. Ah well, at least we won't have to audition the composers. We probably all know of more than 100 composers.

1. Beethoven (big surprise, eh?)
2. J. S. Bach (I know it's shocking)
3. Franz Joseph Haydn
4. Claudio Monteverdi (virtually invented opera and led us away from medieval voice leading)
5. Brahms (sorry Aramis)
6. Debussy
7. Stravinsky
8. Handel (perfected the opera and paved the way to the classical period. ""Go to him to learn how to achieve great effects, by such simple means," says Beethoven.)
9. Schubert 
10. Wagner (I don't much listen to him as music, but will give him a nod as an innovator.)

I think this list would change tomorrow, but this is a snapshot of today.


----------



## starry

Xaltotun said:


> I seem to remember a very long thread here where people would give positive votes to symphonies that they liked and negative votes to ones that they didn't like. But let's not derail the thread


That sounds like the game where pieces battle it out to find who is the winner, giving points out (+and -). This is different it's like a poll. I probably find the game more enjoyable though.


----------



## MrTortoise

Thanks for moderating Nix 

1) J. S. Bach
2) Beethoven
3) Josquin des Prez
4) Debussy
5) Bartok
6) Chopin
7) W. A. Mozart
8) Wagner
9) Schoenberg
10) Monteverdi


----------



## Pieck

1.Bach
2.Beethoven
3.Brahms (My favourite composer but i couldnt rank him first)
4.Haydn
5.Dvorak (Preference once again, what can I do, I love him)
6.Thaikovsky
7.Mendelssohn
8.Chopin
9.Mozart (It's a preference thing, I cant connect with most of his music. I know his great.)
10.Schubert

cant rank wagner


----------



## jurianbai

base on what they composed and enjoyable to my ear. not because of their influences, weird creation, theory, bla bla... 

1. Beethoven
2. Joseph Haydn
3. Handel
4. Bach - will Baroque win it all??
5. Mozart
6. Schubert
7. Mendelssohn
8. Dvorak
:trp: :trp: :trp:

9. Myaskovsky
10. RV Williams


----------



## emiellucifuge

Woohoo for Dvorak!


----------



## Webernite

Nix, do you add up the votes _as_ people post their lists, are you going to wait until the end of the round? Because I've got a bad habit of going back and editing everything I write, and I'd like to know whether I need to keep mentioning it when I do.


----------



## tdc

1)J.S. Bach
2)Beethoven
3)Mozart
4)Ravel
5)Debussy
6)Mahler
7)Tchaikovsky
8)Wagner
9)Vivaldi
10)D. Scarlatti

edit- its a shame I didnt have room for Schubert in there...I think he was definetely one of the greats but its hard narrowing things down to just 10


----------



## Nix

Webernite said:


> Nix, do you add up the votes _as_ people post their lists, are you going to wait until the end of the round? Because I've got a bad habit of going back and editing everything I write, and I'd like to know whether I need to keep mentioning it when I do.


I'm waiting till the end of the round, which will be sometime Tuesday. I'll make a post when the round has ended.


----------



## Air

I think in order for this thread to work you have to go one way or the other. Either choose your 10 favorites or the 10 you feel are most significant/influential (whatever that means ) is clearer, and avoids ending up with a "mixed" list. But choosing a middle ground and "compensating" is definitely not going to work.

I think the more interesting and practical option is to create a "TC: Top 100 Favorite Composers" list. So I'll go with that for now.

*My Top 10 Favorites:*

1. Bach
2. Mozart
3. Prokofiev
4. Schumann
5. Wagner
6. Schubert
7. Villa-Lobos
8. Ravel
9. Bartok
10. Bruckner

... and I'm going to avoid musing over and discussing the other 100 composers that could have made the list instead.


----------



## Ravellian

All right, here goes. My list reflects a mix of personal preference and acknowledgement of those who are considered the most influential.. 

1. Ludwig van Beethoven (the greatest at combining intellect and emotional whomp)
2. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (the greatest at the appeal to emotion)
3. Richard Wagner (the greatest opera writer)
4. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (it's Mozart)
5. Franz Schubert (the greatest song writer)
6. Johann Sebastian Bach (master of counterpoint combined with emotional appeal)
7. Frederic Chopin (the greatest writer for piano)
8. Maurice Ravel 
9. Gustav Mahler
10. Jean Sibelius


----------



## peeyaj

*1. Bach

2. Schubert

3. Beethoven

4. Mozart

5. Schoenberg

6. Stravinsky

7. Debussy

8. Brahms

9. Wagner

10. Tchaikovsky*


----------



## zoziejemaar

1. JS Bach 
2. Ludwig van Beethoven
3. WA Mozart (very boring top 3, but I have to be fair to myself)
4. Claudio Monteverdi
5. Franz Schubert
6. Josquin Desprez (come on, Joske, you can make it in the top ten!)
7. Claude Debussy
8. Frédéric Chopin
9. Robert Schumann
10. György Ligeti


----------



## Siegmund

1. Richard Wagner
2. Johann Sebastian Bach
3. Ludwig von Beethoven
4. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
5. Pjotr Iliych Tchaikovsky
6. Giacomo Puccini
7. Dmitri Schostakovich
8. Johannes Brahms
9. Igor Stavinsky
10. Frédéric Chopin


----------



## Nix

Air said:


> I think in order for this thread to work you have to go one way or the other. Either choose your 10 favorites or the 10 you feel are most significant/influential (whatever that means ) is clearer, and avoids ending up with a "mixed" list. But choosing a middle ground and "compensating" is definitely not going to work.


I think people are going to want to list their personal favorites anyways, this way at least we won't have people arguing over it when they do. But by also saying try to rank them in importance, it forces them to think a little objectively as well. In the end what I hope this accomplishes is that we'll get an overall good ranking of importance, with some composers that may not have redefined genre's, but have clearly spoken to listeners as a whole, also included where they need to be.


----------



## RBrittain

1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Tchaikovsky
4. Wagner
5. Sibelius
6. Brahms
7. Mendelssohn
8. Vivaldi
9. Mozart
10. Grieg

EDIT: Final version now!


----------



## emiellucifuge

@RBrittain, I saw your post concerning Tchaikovsky and Stravinsky in another thread. 
Stravinsky has nearly certainly had a greater influence on music, that aside Tchaikovsky I believe to be overrated. His music shows no development and is very repetitive, why do you rank him so highly?


----------



## RBrittain

emiellucifuge said:


> @RBrittain, I saw your post concerning Tchaikovsky and Stravinsky in another thread.
> Stravinsky has nearly certainly had a greater influence on music, that aside Tchaikovsky I believe to be overrated. His music shows no development and is very repetitive, why do you rank him so highly?


To be honest, I find Stravinsky to be overrated. He would barely make my top 20. It's all a matter of opinion, really. There is no definitive statistic we can refer to in order to see who was the 'most important', but in my opinion, Tchaikovsky was unbelievably important, and his music appeals to me much, much more than Stravinsky's music does. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least 10 sublime pieces by Tchaikovsky, whereas I can only think of 2 Stravinsky pieces I would describe as 'sublime'. Much of his musical style just doesn't really appeal to me.

I totally disagree that his music shows 'no development'. Couldn't disagree more, in fact. If you've listened to any of his famous pieces, you would find development. Perhaps you are talking about his symphonies. I don't rate them highly. If he had written great symphonies, he would probably be my #1, but he gets #3 because of his many superb works (Swan Lake, The Nutcracker, Romeo & Juliet, 1812 Overture are 5 unbelievable pieces). His symphonies probably do lack development, and are repetitive, but in the 5 aforementioned (and other classic pieces, like Marche Slave), there is beautiful development. Symphonies clearly just were not his 'thing'.

So, I think Tchaikovsky is brilliant, and Stravinsky overrated. You think Tchaikovsky is overrated. I have a feeling that we're not going to agree on this matter!


----------



## Air

zoziejemaar said:


> 4. Claudio Monteverdi
> 6. Josquin Desprez (come on, Joske, you can make it in the top ten!)
> 9. Robert Schumann
> 10. György Ligeti


You are my bro! Honorable efforts you make here. I'm especially pleased to see Ligeti on a top 10 list as I think he is one of the most original composers of the latter part of the 20th century and was capable of writing masterpieces across many genres. A century from now it may be that we see him as one of the towering figures of the C20th, even along with Stravinsky, Bartok, and Schoenberg.


----------



## RBrittain

Just realised I somehow forgot about Mozart! He should be 7th or 8th on my list. I don't rate him as highly as others do, but he definitely makes my top 10. Will edit the list.


----------



## starry

Does anyone know 100 composers well enough to rate them properly?


----------



## RBrittain

starry said:


> Does anyone know 100 composers well enough to rate them properly?


Probably not.  I reckon I could give a top 25 well enough, but not 100, no.


----------



## Aramis

starry said:


> Does anyone know 100 composers well enough to rate them properly?


Agreed. I already given my objections about too large amount of symphonies in their top project and with composers it's even more ridiculous. Top 10 would be uninteresting and obvious but top 30 would make sense. Anything over 50 does not.


----------



## Nix

starry said:


> Does anyone know 100 composers well enough to rate them properly?


I doubt it, but then again, the popularity of a composer and how well the general population knows their works might be indication enough to place them on lists in further rounds. In later rounds though there's bound to be some devoted fans aiming to get their lesser known composer on the list, and I think thats where this will become beneficial to people looking to explore new composers.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Anyway, the benefit of voting is that no single person needs to know 100. Collectively im sure we know thousands.

Thinking back to the opera and symphonies lists, the number of symphonies that are included that I personally actually nominated probably numbers in the 30s. For the other 80 I can thank others.


----------



## Geronimo

1. Dmitri Shostakovich
2. Ludwig van Beethoven
3. Gustav Mahler
4. Alfred Schnittke
5. Richard Strauss
6. Leoš Janáček
7. Georg Friedrich Händel
8. György Ligeti
9. Jean Sibelius
10. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky


----------



## Kieran

This is great fun, to read these lists. Since we all agree it's absolutely subjective (-ish!), here's mine:

1. Mozart (master of all he surveys, he wins handy, pulling away at the finish line.):trp:
2. Beethoven (huffs and chases the younger master, but stumbles on the opera fence)
3. Handel (Hallelujah!)
4. Bach (had to be, really)
5. Tchaikovski (something both tragic and gorgeous about him - & his music)
6. Haydn (Not my cup of tea, but his influence was immense)
7. Wagner (doesn't even need instrumental music to make it)
8. Schubert (the del Potro of the list - who knows what might have been?)
9. Verdi (the Italian Wagner? Okay, maybe not!)
10. Monterverdi (inventor of opera - nuff said!)
:tiphat:


----------



## Aramis

Btw, wouldn't be more interesting to make divided lists like "top X symphonists", "top X piano composers", "top X opera composers" etc? Not only more interesting but also much more reasonable and better to to draw some conclusions after Liszts are done.


----------



## Charon

Here's my top 10:

1. Mozart, W.A. 
2. Beethoven 
3. Bach, J.S.
4. Mahler
5. Wagner
6. Schubert
7. Brahms
8. Handel
9. Haydn, Joseph 
10. Prokofiev


----------



## Charon

Aramis said:


> Btw, wouldn't be more interesting to make divided lists like "top X symphonists", "top X piano composers", "top X opera composers" etc? Not only more interesting but also much more reasonable and better to to draw some conclusions after Liszts are done.


Interesting idea. I'd support the construction of such liszts. If we were to do this, though, what "categories" would we have?

Opera 
Concerto
Symphony/Orchestra pieces
Chamber - solo
Chamber - ensemble
Choral

Hmm... this might be too complicated. Maybe not necessary to distinguish solo and ensemble chamber music.


----------



## Aramis

Nah, concerto is not required. Concertos would be included to solo music for particular instrument. So: symphonists, opera composers, piano composers, non-operatic vocal music composers, chamber music composers. Eventually something else. Anyway, I'm not the one to organise it so it's up to those who have head for it.


----------



## RBrittain

Somehow forgot to mention in my praising of Tchaikovsky, his concertos. His violin concerto is my favourite of all violin concertos (some amazing performances of it by Heifetz and Perlman available on Youtube). His piano concerto is also among my favourites (along with Grieg's and Rachmaninov's).


----------



## Air

RBrittain said:


> Somehow forgot to mention in my praising of Tchaikovsky, his concertos. His violin concerto is my favourite of all violin concertos (some amazing performances of it by Heifetz and Perlman available on Youtube). His piano concerto is also among my favourites (along with Grieg's and Rachmaninov's).


After many years of loving Tchaikovsky's _Violin Concerto_, I now find it, to put it mildly, obsessive virtuosic c***.


----------



## RBrittain

Air said:


> After many years of loving Tchaikovsky's _Violin Concerto_, I now find it, to put it mildly, obsessive virtuosic c***.


Doesn't that happen with every piece of music one listens to too much?

Some of the best pieces in the world, I've worn out. Mosart's 40th wore out years ago for me, because I listened to it way too much, though I still recognise it as a great piece of music. I try not to over-listen any more, so I only listen to Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto perhaps twice or three times in a year, and it still does wonders for me. I also think it's important to always keep an open mind, even when listening to a piece you've heard many times before, because once you approach music with a certain mindset, it's difficult for that music to win you over.


----------



## Aramis

Violin Concerto of Tchaikovsky is only one of his that I really love. He wasn't that good in piano music and all three of his piano concertos are rather uninteresting to me and far from being my favourites. The violin concerto at the other hand is marvelous piece, it both amazes me with it's musical brilliance and appeals to me by it's beauty.


----------



## Air

RBrittain said:


> Doesn't that happen with every piece of music one listens to too much?


Negatory... there are many works that have only grown on me since first love. I do recognize the thrill or sense of romantic nostalgia the _Violin Concerto_ provides, but as with a lot (but not all) of Tchaikovsky's music, it's musically quite monotonous and vapid, overbrown Romanticism with little substance. The best counterexamples to this are the Piano Trio, the 3rd string quartet, the 6th symphony, the operas (though I'm only beginning to get to know these) etc. Now those are truly great works.


----------



## RBrittain

Air said:


> ..but as with a lot (but not all) of Tchaikovsky's music, it's musically quite monotonous and vapid, overbrown Romanticism with little substance...


Couldn't disagree more. Ah well. We're all entitled to an opinion!


----------



## RBrittain

I can't quite make my mind up, btw, on my top 10.  Keep chopping and changing.. Decided that Beethoven actually beats Bach to top spot for me. Also realised that Mendelssohn deserves to be in my top 10, so Schubert has dropped out. I think it's all final now.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Weston said:


> 10. Wagner (I don't much listen to him as music, but will give him a nod as an innovator.)


It's no doubt true that Wagner's music was never composed to be "absolute" music and that his artistic vision is inseparable from the theater. But even considering the music as an element apart from the rest, he certainly stands as a composer of the highest order, beyond being an innovator.

One of the many things that strikes me about Wagner the composer is his superior ability to musicalize everything from the elemental forces of nature, to inanimate objects, to abstract ideas, and make them striking and highly expressive music in it's own right. One only has to think of the scene-painting of stormy seas in _The Flying Dutchman_ or the prelude of _Lohengrin_ where Wagner marvelously plays stasis against movement to create a kind of hovering effect that leads to a slow-motion crescendo; the perfect aural embodiment of light slowly filtering in through stained glass. Another thing that amazes me is the way his scores meet dramatic and musical ends _simultaneously_; how he will pull together numerous leitmotifs of musical material which have their own dramatic significance and serve to deepen the narrative into wondrous contrapuntal musical phrases that are incredibly exciting to listen to while displaying a concern with form and structural cohesion. It's enough to boggle the mind.

To quote some of Bryan Magee's thoughts on Wagner as a composer:

"His themes are of an almost disconcerting pungency and presence. Most of them are unusually concise, only two or three bars long yet so distinctive in personality that they have only glancingly to be hinted at in some remote context and we get the reference at once...Scarcely anywhere else in music are there to be found themes that are both so short and so forceful. And yet -- paradoxically for themes with this strength of character -- they seem capable of infinite plasticity in Wagner's hands. He metamorphoses and transmogrifies them through countless incarnations and re-incarnations, always different yet always related, weaving them with seemingly infinite resourcefulness into the largest tapestries in the whole of music. Into this process goes, it is true, a boundless fertility in harmony and orchestration, but his fullest genius is to be found in the free creation of the original material and the free creation of the structures then made out of it -- and, when all is said and done, the sheer beauty of the resultant music."


----------



## Conor71

1. J.S. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. W.A. Mozart
4. Brahms
5. Dvorak
6. Schubert
7. Tchaikovsky
8. Shostakovich
9. Sibelius
10. Mahler


----------



## Nix

Hello- just a reminder that the first round will close tomorrow, January 25th, at 10:00 a.m., Eastern time (in the Americas). If you haven't already voted, I'd love your input.

And if you're one of those posters who hates lists (which there's nothing wrong with), before you inevitably critique what could be a controversial top 10, keep in mind that you do have the option to have your voice heard NOW and not after the fact. 

Thank you,

Nix


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*All right... MY choice for top 10 composers*

1. *Beethoven*
2. *Mozart*
3. *Bach*
4. *Wagner*
5. *Tchaikovsky* (yes, _Tchaikovsky!_)
6. *Haydn*
7. *Schubert*
8. *Brahms*
9. *Schumann*
10. *Handel*


----------



## Toccata

Here's mine:

1 Mozart
2 Schubert
3 Beethoven
4 Schumann
5 Brahms
6 Handel
7 Haydn
8 Bach
9 Mendelssohn
10 Chopin

It's a list which is similar to the one I provided in THIS previous thread. There were 43 respondents in that earlier thread, and the Top 15 composers, according to my calculations, were as follows:

1	Beethoven
2	Bach
3	Mozart
4	Brahms
5	Schubert
6	Chopin
7	Haydn
8	Ravel
9	Stravinsky
10	Debussy
11	Bartok
12	Sibelius
13	Prokofiev
14	Rachmaninoff
15	Tchaikovsky

Beyond this list of 15 the voting was so thin and diverse that hardly any value could be ascribed to the results. I fear that much the same problem could emerge on this current thread, just as it has occurred on the T-C Top Opera and Top Symphonies threads (i.e, things fizzle out rapidly after the first 15-20 winners).


----------



## Nix

Thanks everyone for your submissions! First round is now closing.


----------



## pjang23

Room for one more?
1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Mozart
4. Wagner
5. Brahms
6. Schubert
7. Haydn
8. Stravinsky
9. Mahler
10. Handel


----------



## Nix

Results are in! 

Talk Classical's official top 10 ten composers:

1. Ludwig van Beethoven
2. Johann Sebastian Bach
3. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
4. Richard Wagner
5. Franz Schubert
6. Johannes Brahms
7. Joseph Haydn
8. Pyotr Illyich Tchaikovsky
9. George Frideric Handel
10. Claude Debussy


It was very interesting counting votes. Not a single composer was voted on unanimously. Haydn was doing very well at first but faded away. Tchaikovsky and Handel really had a comeback with the later votes. For awhile Beethoven and Bach were neck until Bach was knocked down by one vote. Chopin and Stravinsky just missed the cut. 

I'll put 2nd round details in another post to make it less confusing.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Nix said:


> Results are in!
> 
> Talk Classical's official top 10 ten composers:
> 
> 1. Ludwig van Beethoven
> 2. Johann Sebastian Bach
> 3. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
> 4. Richard Wagner
> 5. Franz Schubert
> 6. Johannes Brahms
> 7. Joseph Haydn
> 8. Pyotr Illyich Tchaikovsky
> 9. George Frideric Handel
> 10. Claude Debussy
> 
> It was very interesting counting votes. Not a single composer was voted on unanimously. Haydn was doing very well at first but faded away. Tchaikovsky and Handel really had a comeback with the later votes. For awhile Beethoven and Bach were neck until Bach was knocked down by one vote. Chopin and Stravinsky just missed the cut.
> 
> I'll put 2nd round details in another post to make it less confusing.


It looks decent though we may have to get rid of a few Tchaikovsky fans on this board! :devil:

I know exactly what you mean with the vote counting! But then you realise that the order of votes is completely arbitrary and doesnt mean anything. 
Its funner to see who just loses out and who wins by a landslide.


----------



## Nix

pjang23 said:


> Room for one more?


Pjang, thank you for having conventional votes- yours didn't affect the outcome. Hope to hear from you in the 2nd round!


----------



## Webernite

A surprisingly conventional result, given how unconventional some of the lists were.


----------



## Nix

emiellucifuge said:


> It looks decent though we may have to get rid of a few Tchaikovsky fans on this board! :devil:
> 
> I know exactly what you mean with the vote counting! But then you realise that the order of votes is completely arbitrary and doesnt mean anything.
> Its funner to see who just loses out and who wins by a landslide.


I'm not sure if it's completely arbitrary... I have a feeling people are somewhat affected by what previous posters have said. If one person brings a completely new composer into the mix, the voters who closely follow seem to be influenced by it. And yes, I would have rather had Stravinsky replace Tchaikovsky, but nothing the can be done about it- the people have spoken


----------



## Aramis

Nix said:


> Talk Classical's official top 10 ten composers:


Official? Did Magle approve it? :tiphat:


----------



## emiellucifuge

Aramis said:


> Official? Did Magle approve it? :tiphat:


We the people make up this board :trp:


----------



## Nix

Ok Round 2! Remember NOT to vote on composers already in the top 10- those being Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Wagner, Schubert, Brahms, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Handel and Debussy. Round will close in 2 days- Thursday, January 25th. 

11. Igor Stravinsky
12. Josquin Des Prez
13. Bela Bartok
14. Claudio Monteverdi
15. Frederic Chopin
16. Sergei Prokofiev
17. Jean Sibelius
18. Arnold Schoenberg
19. Gustav Mahler
20. Benjamin Britten


----------



## Rangstrom

Round 2?

11. Mahler
12. Verdi
13. Berlioz
14. Janacek
15. Mendelssohn
16. Britten
17. Dvorak
18. Prokofiev
19. Monteverdi
20. Sibelius


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

1. Igor Stravinsky
2. Frederic Chopin
3. Robert Schumann
4. Gustav Mahler
5. Arnold Schoenberg
6. Béla Bartók
7. Hector Berlioz
8. Serge Prokofiev
9. Claudio Monteverdi
10. Jean Sibelius


----------



## emiellucifuge

Nix: Youre the guy with the statistics so this is up to you - do you think the intial round where people are more concerned with getting their composers up there was accurate enough in determining the order? In the other lists we had an intermediate round to clarify the order properly.

Anyway:

1. Dvorak
2. Stravinsky
3. Varese
4. Mahler
5. Schoenberg
7. Prokofiev
8. Monteverdi
9. Schumann
10. Verdi


----------



## Geronimo

1. Dmitri Shostakovich
2. Gustav Mahler
3. Alfred Schnittke
4. Richard Strauss
5. Leoš Janáček
6. György Ligeti
7. Jean Sibelius
8. Arnold Schoenberg
9. Igor Stravinsky
10. Hector Berlioz


----------



## Webernite

1. Josquin des Prez
2. Johannes Ockeghem
3. Arnold Schoenberg
4. Gustav Mahler
5. Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina
6. Igor Stravinsky
7. Frederic Chopin
8. Anton Webern
9. Richard Strauss
10. Sergei Prokofiev

Will probably edit this


----------



## tdc

11)Ravel
12)Mahler
13)Vivaldi
14)D. Scarlatti
15)Faure
16)Rachmaninov
17)Britten
18)Chopin
19)Mendelssohn
20)Joaquin Rodrigo


----------



## Nix

emiellucifuge said:


> Nix: Youre the guy with the statistics so this is up to you - do you think the intial round where people are more concerned with getting their composers up there was accurate enough in determining the order? In the other lists we had an intermediate round to clarify the order properly.
> i


I think so. At first I was concerned as some major composers wouldn't get voted on (like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart), but it seems that even while some will put personal preference ahead, it all balances out as they have to decide who to sacrifice in order to do that. We might have had a slightly different list if we had asked for JUST the most important, but I think the combination of the 2 makes for a more broad definition of 'greatest.' That way importance, and the actual content of the music is taken into account. Example being- people value the emotional content of Tchaikovsky more then they value the innovations of Stravinsky. Which is fine- criticism of Stravinsky's lack of lyricism and heart are valid.


----------



## starry

Nix said:


> That way importance, and the actual content of the music is taken into account.


The actual content of the music IS the importance of the music for many.


----------



## Webernite

Quick defence of Chopin:


_No one_ knew how to sustain a long melody as well as he did
It's been speculated that he was an important influence on Wagner, who became familiar with his works through Liszt
(Actually, it's even been speculated that the beginning of the _Tristan_ prelude was derived from Chopin)
He was a pretty obvious influence on Brahms
His output is more consistent in quality than that of almost any other composer
Much of the time, his so-called "miniatures" are as long as sonata movements


----------



## Xaltotun

Round 2!

1) Rachmaninov
2) Ravel
3) Sibelius
4) Rimsky-Korsakov
5) Saint-Saëns
6) Mussgorsky
7) Berlioz
8) Bruckner
9) Mahler
10) Schumann


----------



## SuperTonic

11. Stravinsky
12. Palestrina
13. Schoenberg
14. Mahler
15. Monteverdi
16. Mendelssohn
17. Bartok
18. Rossini
19. Prokofiev
20. Shostakovich


----------



## Aramis

1. Chopin
2. Mahler
3. Liszt
4. Moteverdo
5. Berlioz
6. Palestrina
7. R. Strauss
8. Ravel
9. Prokofiev
10. Mendelssohn


----------



## pjang23

Nix said:


> Ok Round 2! Remember NOT to vote on composers already in the top 10- those being Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Wagner, Schubert, Brahms, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Handel and Debussy. Round will close in 2 days- Thursday, January 25th.
> 
> 11. Igor Stravinsky
> 12. Josquin Des Prez
> 13. Bela Bartok
> 14. Claudio Monteverdi
> 15. Frederic Chopin
> 16. Sergei Prokofiev
> 17. Jean Sibelius
> 18. Arnold Schoenberg
> 19. Gustav Mahler
> 20. Benjamin Britten


If someone from your first 10 didn't make it, do you revote them, or are they already counted?


----------



## Nix

pjang23 said:


> If someone from your first 10 didn't make it, do you revote them, or are they already counted?


Good question. They aren't counted, so revote them if you still have strong feelings for them.


----------



## Charon

1. Mahler
2. Prokofiev
3. Chopin 
4. Mendelssohn
5. Faure
6. Vivaldi
7. Schoenberg
8. Schumann
9. R. Strauss
10. Palestrina


----------



## Lipatti

1. Liszt
2. Chopin
3. Enescu
4. Ravel
5. Stravinsky
6. Mendelssohn
7. Bartok
8. Scarlatti
9. Monteverdi
10. Prokofiev


----------



## RBrittain

11. Sibelius
12. Mendelssohn
13. Vivaldi
14. Grieg
15. Bruckner
16. Rossini
17. Verdi
18. Elgar
19. Prokofiev
20. Vaughan Williams


----------



## Pieck

11. Dvorak
12. Mendelssohn
13. Chopin
14. Telemann
15. Schumann
16. Monteverdi
17. Vivaldi
18. CPEBach
19. Verdi
20. Prokofiev


----------



## Air

1. Prokofiev
2. Schumann
3. Villa-Lobos
4. R.Strauss
5. Bartok
6. Chopin
7. Ravel
8. Varèse
9. Berlioz
10. Ligeti


----------



## Art Rock

11. Mahler
12. Shostakovich
13. Dvorak
14. Sibelius
15. Debussy
16. Bruckner
17. Mendelssohn
18. Bax
19. Strauss, R
20. Respighi


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Wow. This is going to be a challenging panel....

a) *Schumann*
b) *Dvořák*
c) *Chopin*
d) *Mendelssohn*
e) *Mahler*
f) *Verdi*
g) *Shostakovich*
h) *R. Strauss*
i) *Prokofiev*
j) *Stravinsky*

I'm crazy about Bruckner, not much less enthusiastic about Ravel, increasingly a fan of Puccini, a strong admirer of Berlioz and have a soft spot in my heart for Liszt. I would have liked to have found room for these in this set- but the name of the game is 'Top Composers,' not 'Favorite Composers.'

If any of the five names I mentioned above make the top 20 anyway, I won't be too disappointed...


----------



## Nix

I'm just going to shout out my support for Stravinsky at this point in time (since someone did so with Chopin). Remember, this was a composer who radically changed how people thought about harmonies and structure, pioneering not only a new era of modern music, but also Neo Classical music. With a career that spanned much of the 20th century, he wrote masterpieces across the board in various genres. His ballet 'Rite of Spring' was probably the single most influential piece of music of the 20th century, and his work is studied in practically every college level music program. That said, you are aloud to go back and edit- votes aren't counted till Thursday


----------



## tdc

Nix said:


> I'm just going to shout out my support for Stravinsky at this point in time (since someone did so with Chopin). Remember, this was a composer who radically changed how people thought about harmonies and structure, pioneering not only a new era of modern music, but also Neo Classical music. With a career that spanned much of the 20th century, he wrote masterpieces across the board in various genres. His ballet 'Rite of Spring' was probably the single most influential piece of music of the 20th century, and his work is studied in practically every college level music program. That said, you are aloud to go back and edit- votes aren't counted till Thursday


Ive read about him being hugely influential to music that later turned into other styles in the 20th century. What great classical composers did he directly influence?


----------



## jhar26

-1 Monteverdi
-2 R.Strauss
-3 Verdi
-4 Puccini
-5 Prokofiev
-6 Chopin
-7 Rameau
-8 Ravel
-9 Stravinsky
10 Mendelssohn


----------



## Webernite

Art Rock said:


> 11. Mahler
> 12. Shostakovich
> 13. Dvorak
> 14. Sibelius
> 15. Debussy
> 16. Bruckner
> 17. Mendelssohn
> 18. Bax
> 19. Strauss, R
> 20. Respighi


Debussy already made the list.


----------



## Ravellian

Surprised to see Aramis ranking Chopin that high, after I've seen him dismissing 99% of his output as 'trivial' and 'insubstantial.' 
I'm also annoyed at myself for forgetting to vote for Haydn.. oh well

1. Frederic Chopin
2. Maurice Ravel
3. Gustav Mahler
4. Jean Sibelius
5. Giuseppe Verdi
6. Franz Liszt
7. Josquin Desprez
8. Sergei Rachmaninov
9. Robert Schumann
10. Cipriano de Rore


----------



## Aramis

Ravellian said:


> Surprised to see Aramis ranking Chopin that high, after I've seen him dismissing 99% of his output as 'trivial' and 'insubstantial.'


Wat  I? When? Where? How? Never did such thing on this forum, perhaps once or twice under the shower WHAT WERE YOU DOING THERE


----------



## Art Rock

Art Rock said:


> 11. Mahler
> 12. Shostakovich
> 13. Dvorak
> 14. Sibelius
> 15. Debussy
> 16. Bruckner
> 17. Mendelssohn
> 18. Bax
> 19. Strauss, R
> 20. Respighi


Since Debussy apparently is in already (reading glasses?) - thanks for the heads up - please replace by Takemitsu.


----------



## jurianbai

Nix said:


> Ok Round 2! Remember NOT to vote on composers already in the top 10- those being Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Wagner, Schubert, Brahms, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Handel and Debussy. Round will close in 2 days- Thursday, January 25th.


...... vote in :
11. Mendelssohn
12. Dvorak
13. Sibelius
14. Saint Saens
15. Ravel
16. Vivaldi - still need Baroque players
17. Liszt - ok, I did enjoyed his works
18. Myaskovsky - my first Russian
19. Verdi
20. RV Williams


----------



## RBrittain

Stravinsky will come in 21-30 range for me!  (Though it looks like he'll probably make 11-20 anyway)


----------



## RBrittain

Nix said:


> Results are in!
> 
> Talk Classical's official top 10 ten composers:
> 
> 1. Ludwig van Beethoven
> 2. Johann Sebastian Bach
> 3. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
> 4. Richard Wagner
> 5. Franz Schubert
> 6. Johannes Brahms
> 7. Joseph Haydn
> 8. Pyotr Illyich Tchaikovsky
> 9. George Frideric Handel
> 10. Claude Debussy
> 
> It was very interesting counting votes. Not a single composer was voted on unanimously. Haydn was doing very well at first but faded away. Tchaikovsky and Handel really had a comeback with the later votes. For awhile Beethoven and Bach were neck until Bach was knocked down by one vote. Chopin and Stravinsky just missed the cut.
> 
> I'll put 2nd round details in another post to make it less confusing.


A really solid list, btw. If I saw that top 10 in a book on classical composers, I would nod my head. Though I obviously disagree with it slightly, as my own list didn't include Haydn etc, there are no glaringly wrong inclusions and it looks a fair top 10.


----------



## RBrittain

emiellucifuge said:


> Anyway:
> 
> 1. Dvorak
> 2. Stravinsky
> 3. Varese
> 4. Mahler
> 5. Schoenberg
> 7. Prokofiev
> 8. Monteverdi
> 9. Schumann
> 10. Verdi


You've missed out number 6!

So far, having browsed through the 11-20 lists, the following composers look certain to make it:

Prokofiev, Monteverdi, Stravinsky, Mendelssohn, Mahler

With Sibelius and Chopin likely also.

Exciting stuff!


----------



## Webernite

RBrittain said:


> A really solid list, btw. If I saw that top 10 in a book on classical composers, I would nod my head. Though I obviously disagree with it slightly, as my own list didn't include Haydn etc, there are no glaringly wrong inclusions and it looks a fair top 10.


Brahms should be above Schubert, but I agree, it's a pretty good list.


----------



## Air

We need more votes for Schumann!


----------



## emiellucifuge

RBrittain said:


> You've missed out number 6!
> 
> So far, having browsed through the 11-20 lists, the following composers look certain to make it:
> 
> Prokofiev, Monteverdi, Stravinsky, Mendelssohn, Mahler
> 
> With Sibelius and Chopin likely also.
> 
> Exciting stuff!


Ooh thanks a lot, ill go edit if possible.


----------



## emiellucifuge

emiellucifuge said:


> Anyway:
> 
> 1. Dvorak
> 2. Stravinsky
> 3. Varese
> 4. Mahler
> 5. Schoenberg
> 7. Prokofiev
> 8. Monteverdi
> 9. Schumann
> 10. Verdi


Unortunately its too late to edit, you can leave it the way it is, placing Ligeti at No. 6. Thanks!


----------



## RBrittain

Bruckner would definitely make the top 20 for me, because he was (in my opinion) the greatest (or possibly second best) Symphonist. He has a small chance, as a few people have voted for him.


----------



## Ravellian

Would it be possible if you could post the "point totals" with the names on the final list?


----------



## Toccata

11	Schumann
12	Mendelssohn
13	Chopin
14	Purcell
15	Dvorak
16	Monteverdi
17	Liszt
18	Elgar
19	Shostakovich
20	Vivaldi


----------



## Art Rock

The top 10, while of course not my top 10, is indeed reasonable. Main omission is Mahler, with Handel for me (objectively) the one who needs to go on his behalf.


----------



## gr8gunz

1. Mozart
2. Beethoven
3. Bach J.S.
4. Haydn F.J.
5 Brahms
6. Wagner
7. Tchaikovsky
8. Schubert
9. Sibelius
10. Rachmaninov


----------



## Nix

gr8gunz said:


> 1. Mozart
> 2. Beethoven
> 3. Bach J.S.
> 4. Haydn F.J.
> 5 Brahms
> 6. Wagner
> 7. Tchaikovsky
> 8. Schubert
> 9. Sibelius
> 10. Rachmaninov


gr8gunz this is round 2 of the voting- we've already voted for the 'top 10' now we're on 11-20, so many of the composers you nominated (in fact everyone except Sibelius and Rachmaninov) have already been chosen. But you're welcome to edit your list.


----------



## Nix

Just a reminder that Round 2 closes tomorrow. My schedule's pretty hectic so I'm not sure what time, but be sure to get in your votes if you'd like to participate!


----------



## pjang23

1. Stravinsky
2. Mahler
3. Mendelssohn
4. Schumann
5. Prokofiev
6. Monteverdi
7. Dvorak
8. Ravel
9. R. Strauss
10. Sibelius


----------



## Toccata

Nix said:


> Just a reminder that Round 2 closes tomorrow. My schedule's pretty hectic so I'm not sure what time, but be sure to get in your votes if you'd like to participate!


Before you announce the results for the 11-20 group of composers, I take it that you aren't following the same voting procedure as that used on the Top 100 opera and Top 150 symphony threads?

In those cases there is two-stage procedure involving an initial selection of candidates and then a drill-down on those works that got through the first stage. Results for each group of 10 are based on the vote count regardless of position as expressed by each voter, and only if there is an equal number of votes for any work are the individual ranks used to split votes. Close losers at each stage are then automatically included as pre-qualifiers in the next stage. I am very surprised that this hasn't been brought up before now, and I have been waiting for someone who has shown a much greater interest than in such exercises to do so.

As far as I can see from your comments previously in this thread you haven't explained any details of your voting procedure, but it seems to be a much simplified version compared with the one above. Here you are have only one round of voting for each group of 10 composers, and you take account of ranks as expressed by each voter. But you haven't explained anything about the weights you apply, and in declaring the winners for the top 10 composers you didn't provide any information on how many votes were cast for each composer, or their points total, so we have no idea how close the results are.

Some people have commented on how plausible the results seem to be so far, give or take one or two particular selections or their rankings. I don't wish to appear cynical but I would suggest that there shouldn't be any great surprise here as the results are a virtual mirror image of those in the top part of the DDD list of top composers (which itself was a virtual copy of the Phil Goulding's list). That this is the case is also not suprrising given that the DDD list of top composers has been banded around this Forum so frequently in previous exercises similar in nature to this one that the whole thing has probably become virtually a self-fulfilling prophesy.


----------



## emiellucifuge

emiellucifuge said:


> Nix: Youre the guy with the statistics so this is up to you - do you think the intial round where people are more concerned with getting their composers up there was accurate enough in determining the order? In the other lists we had an intermediate round to clarify the order properly.


Toccata ^^


----------



## Nix

Ok, so I've counted the results and I think proposing a second intermediate round would be a good idea. So far as I know, I've been doing it just like the Symphonies- if the 11th place nominee had the same amount of votes as the 10th place then I would have automatically included them in the next round- but that hasn't happened. Last round I didn't see the need to do any more revoting, but this round we do have an interesting situation. Mahler and Prokofiev are at the top of the list with 15 votes each, but Mahler has 42 points while Prokofiev has 107- showing that Prokofiev was voted on a lot but was frequently placed further down on peoples list. And then compare that to someone like Stravinsky who got 10 votes but with only 45 points- Showing that he was voted less frequently, but those who voted generally placed him higher up on their list. 

So I propose that from now on we have 2 days to nominate, and then we take an extra day to rank JUST the 10 that were nominated, and the amount of points those 10 receive determines the final order of the round. Any objections?

*edit* there actually was a tie this round for the 10th and 11th place nominees.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Go ahead, I look forward to seeing the result


----------



## Nix

Ok Round 2 nominees!

*IMPORTANT*

Due to some weird statistics (explained in my previous post), we're going to have a second stage in every round. I'll list the 10 (in this case 11 because of a tie) most voted on composers, and then within the next day or two please rank *JUST* the 11 composers nominated- and that will determine their final order.

The nominees:

Frederic Chopin
Antonin Dvorak
Gustav Mahler
Felix Mendelssohn
Claudio Monteverdi
Sergei Prokofiev
Maurice Ravel
Robert Schumann
Jean Sibelius
Richard Strauss
Igor Stravinsky


----------



## emiellucifuge

1. Stravinsky
2. Dvorak
3. Mahler
4. Schumann
5. Prokofiev
6. Monteverdi
7. Ravel
8. Chopin
9. Mendelssohn
10. Strauss
11. Sibelius


----------



## Nix

1. Stravinsky
2. Chopin
3. Monteverdi
4. Schumann
5. Mahler
6. Prokofiev
7. Dvorak
8. Mendelssohn
9. Sibelius
10. Strauss
11. Ravel


----------



## Aramis

1. Chopin
2. Monteverdi
3. Mahler
4. Ravel
5. Stravinsky 
6. Prokofiev
7. Strauss
8. Mendelssohn 
9. Sibelius 
10. Dvorak

Wait, who did I miss? 

A!

1. Chopin
2. Monteverdi
3. Mahler
4. Ravel
5. Stravinsky 
6. Prokofiev
7. Strauss
8. Mendelssohn 
9. Sibelius 
10. Schumann
11. Dvorak


----------



## tdc

1)Ravel
2)Mahler
3)Chopin
4)Mendelssohn
5)Schumann
6)Monteverdi
7)Strauss
8)Dvorak
9)Stravinsky
10)Sibelius
11)Prokoviev


----------



## Webernite

1. Gustav Mahler
2. Richard Strauss
3. Frederic Chopin
4. Sergei Prokofiev
5. Igor Stravinsky
6. Felix Mendelssohn
7. Robert Schumann
8. Jean Sibelius
9. Claudio Monteverdi
10. Antonin Dvorak
11. Maurice Ravel


----------



## SuperTonic

1. Igor Stravinsky 
2. Gustav Mahler
3. Claudio Monteverdi
4. Felix Mendelssohn
5. Sergei Prokofiev
6. Jean Sibelius
7. Antonin Dvorak
8. Maurice Ravel
9. Richard Strauss
10. Robert Schumann
11. Frederic Chopin


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

1. Igor Stravinsky
2. Frederic Chopin
3. Robert Schumann
4. Gustav Mahler
5. Sergei Prokofiev
6. Claudio Monteverdi
7. Jean Sibelius
8. Maurice Ravel
9. Richard Strauss
10. Antonín Dvořák
11. Felix Mendelssohn


----------



## Pieck

3.Frederic Chopin
1.Antonin Dvorak
8.Gustav Mahler
2.Felix Mendelssohn
9.Claudio Monteverdi
4.Sergei Prokofiev
10.Maurice Ravel
5.Robert Schumann
7.Jean Sibelius
11.Richard Strauss
6.Igor Stravinsky


----------



## Ravellian

I do find it surprising how Mahler is not on our top 10 list... and yet we elected five of Mahler's nine symphonies to the top 20 in our symphonies list.

1. Chopin 
2. Ravel
3. Mahler
4. Sibelius
5. Prokofiev
6. Strauss
7. Stravinsky
8. Schumann
9. Monteverdi
10. Dvorak
11. Mendelssohn


----------



## RBrittain

So, as I understand it, the 10 we all listed were really just nominations (so the orders we gave didn't matter), and now we rank the 10 with the most nominations. That sounds a fair system to me, but perhaps for consistency we should do the same with the 10 for the first round. Those top ten were presumably the ones with the most 'nominations' anyway, so perhaps we should now vote on them to rank? Then it would be exactly the same as we're doing here.

1. Jean Sibelius
2. Felix Mendelssohn
3. Sergei Prokofiev
4. Maurice Ravel
5. Frederic Chopin
6. Antonin Dvorak
7. Gustav Mahler
8. Igor Stravinsky
9. Richard Strauss
10. Claudio Monteverdi
11. Robert Schumann


----------



## Air

1. Robert Schumann
2. Sergei Prokofiev
3. Richard Strauss
4. Maurice Ravel
5. Frederic Chopin
6. Igor Stravinsky
7. Claudio Monteverdi
8. Gustav Mahler
9. Antonin Dvorak
10. Felix Mendelssohn
11. Jean Sibelius


----------



## Art Rock

Frederic Chopin　＝７
Antonin Dvorak　＝２
Gustav Mahler　＝１
Felix Mendelssohn　＝３
Claudio Monteverdi　＝１１
Sergei Prokofiev　＝８
Maurice Ravel　＝６
Robert Schumann　＝９
Jean Sibelius　＝４
Richard Strauss　＝５
Igor Stravinsky 　＝１０


----------



## mamascarlatti

1. Claudio Monteverdi
2. Gustav Mahler
3. Igor Stravinsky
4. Sergei Prokofiev
5. Jean Sibelius
6. Richard Strauss
7. Frederic Chopin
8. Antonin Dvorak
9. Felix Mendelssohn
10. Maurice Ravel
11. Robert Schumann


----------



## gr8gunz

Okay then 11-20

Handel
Dvorak
Chopin
Mendelssohn
Debussy
JC Bach
Vivaldi
Bruckner
Grieg
Ravel


----------



## Nix

RBrittain said:


> So, as I understand it, the 10 we all listed were really just nominations (so the orders we gave didn't matter), and now we rank the 10 with the most nominations. That sounds a fair system to me, but perhaps for consistency we should do the same with the 10 for the first round. Those top ten were presumably the ones with the most 'nominations' anyway, so perhaps we should now vote on them to rank? Then it would be exactly the same as we're doing here.


I'm not sure if we'll apply this system to every round, only in rounds where there are an uneven vote to point ratio- which wasn't the case in the first round. Doing it for every round would be a bit tiresome, and I don't really want to moderate this board for over a month.


----------



## Nix

gr8gunz said:


> Okay then 11-20
> 
> Handel
> Dvorak
> Chopin
> Mendelssohn
> Debussy
> JC Bach
> Vivaldi
> Bruckner
> Grieg
> Ravel


Right now we're ranking the nominees that we already voted on in the 11-20 slot. See my posts on the previous page if you'd like your votes to be counted.


----------



## Nix

Round 2 will close in 12 hours. So get your votes in and refer to page 9 if your unsure of what to do (the system has changed slightly).


----------



## gr8gunz

Oy. I'm a new guy and this is getting complicated. Hope I got it right this time.

Frederic Chopin - 3
Antonin Dvorak - 1
Gustav Mahler - 11
Felix Mendelssohn - 4
Claudio Monteverdi - 6
Sergei Prokofiev - 8
Maurice Ravel - 5
Robert Schumann - 9
Jean Sibelius - 2
Richard Strauss - 7
Igor Stravinsky - 10


----------



## Weston

1. ****Claudio Monteverdi
2. ****Jean Sibelius
3. ****Robert Schumann
4. ***Antonin Dvorak
5. ***Felix Mendelssohn
6. ***Igor Stravinsky
7. ***Maurice Ravel
8. ***Sergei Prokofiev
9. **Richard Strauss
10.**Frederic Chopin
11. **Gustav Mahler


----------



## zoziejemaar

1. Claudio Monteverdi
2. Robert Schumann
3. Frédéric Chopin
4. Maurice Ravel
5. Felix Mendelssohn
6. Antonin Dvorak
7. Gustav Mahler
8. Igor Stravinsky
9. Sergei Prokofiev
10. Jean Sibelius
11. Richard Strauss


----------



## Xaltotun

Round 2, my order of the 11 nominees:

Maurice Ravel
Jean Sibelius
Gustav Mahler
Robert Schumann
Antonin Dvorak
Igor Stravinsky
Felix Mendelssohn
Frederic Chopin
Sergei Prokofiev
Richard Strauss
Claudio Monteverdi


----------



## Geronimo

1. Gustav Mahler
2. Richard Strauss
3. Maurice Ravel
4. Antonin Dvorak
5. Jean Sibelius
6. Igor Stravinsky
7. Sergei Prokofiev
8. Felix Mendelssohn
9. Frederic Chopin
10. Claudio Monteverdi
11. Robert Schumann


----------



## hocket

Just an observation, but isn't using different rules to determine the results of various rounds a bit dodgy? Surely the rules need to be the same consistently otherwise it appears as if you're trying to fiddle the results to get an order that suits you better.


----------



## Nix

hocket said:


> Just an observation, but isn't using different rules to determine the results of various rounds a bit dodgy? Surely the rules need to be the same consistently otherwise it appears as if you're trying to fiddle the results to get an order that suits you better.


If you'd like I can give you the data from each round as I make my decision weather or not there needs to be a second stage. Unfortunately I did delete the 2nd round original data as I replaced it with the points given to the 10 nominees, but I did mention the unequal statistics in the previous page. But here is the votes and points for from the first round: (votes is the number of times they were voted, points are the ranking (if in 8th place, 8 points), the lower the points the better).

Composer Name No. of Votes	Points
Ludwig van Beethoven	26 45
J.S. Bach 25 57
W.A. Mozart 25 98
Richard Wagner 21 108
Franz Schubert 18 106
Johannes Brahms 16 89
Joseph Haydn 16 94
Peter Tchikovsky 11 68
George Handel 11 72
Claude Debussy 9 58

If we had revoted, there might have been some alteration in the Mozart, Wagner, Schubert range, but they were so closely grouped together I didn't see the need to prolong the process. I'm fairly confident that if we voted a second stage on this, no composer would be moved more then 1 place. Whereas the group from the 2nd round, composers have been moving forwards or back 4-5 slots. If someone wants to moderate a revoting of this on a SEPARATE board, thats fine- I will alter my list to their results- but I don't want things to get more cluttered or confusing here.


----------



## Charon

1. Mahler
2. Prokofiev
3. Chopin
4. Mendelssohn
5. Schumann
6. Strauss
7. Dvorak
8. Ravel
9. Sibelius
10. Monteverdi
11. Stravinsky


----------



## Nix

Just noticed Charon had voted, so if you saw my last post, ignore it. Round 2 is closed, results will be up in a second.


----------



## Nix

Ok results! they are confusing.

1. Ludwig van Beethoven
2. Johann Sebastian Bach
3. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
4. Richard Wagner
5. Franz Schubert
6. Johannes Brahms
7. Joseph Haydn
8. Pyotr Illyich Tchaikovsky
9. George Frideric Handel
10. Claude Debussy
11. Gustav Mahler
12. Frederic Chopin
13. Igor Stravinsky
*14. Felix Mendelssohn
14. Sergei Prokofiev
16. Maurice Ravel
16. Robert Schumann*
18. Antonin Dvorak
*19. Claudio Monteverdi
19. Jean Sibelius*
21. Richard Strauss

*Important* 
We have three ties as you can see. Please vote on each of the groups to break the ties (Mendelssohn&Prokofiev, Ravel&Schumann, Monteverdi&Sibelius). Then commence to round 3. Remember that round three are only 9 composers, 22-30. If you vote a 10th, it will not be counted.

Round 3 begin!


----------



## Nix

For ties: Prokofiev, Schumann, Monteverdi. 

22. Josquin Des Prez
23. Arnold Schoenberg
24. Benjamin Britten
25. Bela Bartok
26. Giuseppe Verdi
27. Edward Elgar
28. Dmitri Shostakovich
29. Franz Liszt
30. Edgard Varese


----------



## Aramis

Dvorak over Monteverdi and so many others that still were not nominated and were much more great than this lovely but heavily backwarded conservatist often writting mediocre music  Na, I'm out of this voting and I oficially don't assent this list  :tiphat:


----------



## tdc

Mendelssohn, Ravel, Monteverdi


D. Scarlatti
Bruckner
Britten
Rachmaninov
Lully
Vaughn Williams
Takemitsu
Glass
Myaskovsky


I keep editing at this point b/c Im losing track of whose already made it, and forgetting about composers I love, oh well, this is close.


----------



## Nix

Aramis said:


> Dvorak over Monteverdi and so many others that still were not nominated and were much more great than this lovely but heavily backwarded conservatist often writting mediocre music  Na, I'm out of this voting and I oficially don't assent this list  :tiphat:


I sympathize with you Aramis... I think it was my own fault for trying to make voters think both objectively and subjectively... by the 2nd round most of them had completely forgotten that was what they were supposed to do.


----------



## emiellucifuge

You are trying to move along swiftly - thats fine.

Prokofiev, Schumann, Monteverdi

1. Schoenberg
2. Varese
3. Ligeti
4. Verdi
5. Shostakovich
6. Liszt
7. Bruckner
8. Webern
9. Berlioz
10. Xenakis


Where are the other modernists here?!


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Sergei Prokofiev
Robert Schumann
Claudio Monteverdi

1. Arnold Schoenberg
2. Béla Bartók
3. Hector Berlioz
4. Franz Liszt
5. Domenico Scarlatti
6. Giuseppe Verdi
7. Dmitri Shostakovich
8. Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina
9. Anton Bruckner


----------



## emiellucifuge

Nix said:


> I sympathize with you Aramis... I think it was my own fault for trying to make voters think both objectively and subjectively... by the 2nd round most of them had completely forgotten that was what they were supposed to do.


How so, all of Dvoraks mature music is first rate unsurpassed late romanticism with a folk-tinge. His influence on Czech and American music is also incomparable - America which later played a center stage role in music.

Monteverdi on the other hand, probably more influential, but do I enjoy his music that much? Not really.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Aramis said:


> Dvorak over Monteverdi and so many others that still were not nominated and were much more great than this lovely but heavily backwarded conservatist often writting mediocre music  Na, I'm out of this voting and I oficially don't assent this list  :tiphat:


See above. Also you criticise his backwardness and conservatism yet you vote for Mendelssohn? Then this becomes a personal preference as Dvoraks music is better to me then Mendelssohns - yet who is more conservative?

Why dont you join in my nominations of Varese (who should be in the top 10 ), if progress means so much to you?

Besides, youre taking this thing too seriously.


----------



## Nix

emiellucifuge said:


> How so, all of Dvoraks mature music is first rate unsurpassed late romanticism with a folk-tinge. His influence on Czech and American music is also incomparable - America which later played a center stage role in music.
> 
> Monteverdi on the other hand, probably more influential, but do I enjoy his music that much? Not really.


I'm not to worked up over any of the placements at the moment, but when counting votes it does get a little irritating when some of the most important composers in music history don't get a mention and a small cult favorite does. Hopefully though we'll get in the last of the really influential composers in this round, and after that it'll all be preference.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Nix said:


> I'm not to worked up over any of the placements at the moment, but when counting votes it does get a little irritating when some of the most important composers in music history don't get a mention and a small cult favorite does. Hopefully though we'll get in the last of the really influential composers in this round, and after that it'll all be preference.


How is Dvorak a 'cult favourite'? In nearly all sources I have seen (books, internet, radio) he is rated in the top 20. Here he is 2 places lower than on DDD.

Who do you consider one of the most important Composers in music history that should place above such a common bohemian peasant?


----------



## Charon

Tiebreakers:
Prokofiev, Schumann, Monteverdi

Next nine composers:

22. Schoenberg
23. Liszt
24. Palestrina
25. Faure
26. Vivaldi
27. Verdi
28. Shostakovich
29. Rachmaninov
30. Paganini


----------



## Webernite

Mendelssohn, Schumann, Sibelius

1. Arnold Schoenberg
2. Josquin des Prez
3. Johannes Ockeghem
4. Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina
5. Anton Webern
6. Anton Bruckner
7. *Girolamo Frescobaldi*
8. Alban Berg
9. Thomas Tallis
10. Hector Berlioz


----------



## gr8gunz

Mendelssohn, Ravel, Sibelius



S Rachmaninov
F Liszt
J.C. Bach
P Dukas
A Bruckner
A Borodin
E Grieg
A Vivaldi
A Correli


----------



## Geronimo

Ties: Prokofiev, Ravel, Sibelius

1. Dmitri Shostakovich
2. Alfred Schnittke
3. Richard Strauss
4. Leoš Janáček
5. György Ligeti
6. Arnold Schoenberg
7. Hector Berlioz
8. Heinrich Ignaz Franz von Biber
9. Edgard Varèse


----------



## Toccata

According to my calculations, the ranks for the 11-20 composers, as declared, are not statistically significant at the 5% level using a standard F Test. What this means is that, given the fairly low observed variability between ranks of the composers and the high variability between members' votes for any one composer, the various samples could have been taken from a population in which there is no preference among composers in this 11-20 category.

I'd pack up if I were you. It's looking like a waste of time.


----------



## mamascarlatti

For ties: Prokofiev, Schumann, Monteverdi

Giuseppe Verdi
Domenico Scarlatti
Giacomo Puccini
Richard Strauss
Leoš Janáček
Hector Berlioz
Edvard Grieg
Antonio Vivaldi
Arcangelo Corelli


----------



## emiellucifuge

Toccata said:


> According to my calculations, the ranks for the 11-20 composers, as declared, are not statistically significant at the 5% level using a standard F Test. What this means is that, given the fairly low observed variability between ranks of the composers and the high variability between members' votes for any one composer, the various samples could have been taken from a population in which there is no preference among composers in this 11-20 category.
> 
> I'd pack up if I were you. It's looking like a waste of time.


Sheesh :trp:


----------



## tdc

It seems like there is a pretty good consesus of the top 3 best composers of all time, after that there is just a LOT of great composers that are extremely difficult to rank. 

Keep my list if you want, but Ive also realized this just doesnt work very well, and never has. All such lists are nonsense.


----------



## RBrittain

I admire your efforts, Nix, but this is getting increasingly complex and confusing!

I'm beginning to doubt that we're going to get anywhere near 100. Perhaps should have been 5 rounds of 20 rather than 10 rounds of 10? Ah well, it's started now so I'm happy to keep voting.

My votes on the ties: Mendelssohn, Ravel, Sibelius

I am actually now tempted to do my own thing, a Top 25, and see how the results differ. I'll simply ask everyone to list their top 25, ranked, and award 25 points for every 1st place, 24 points for 2nds, etc, and rank them by total points. In fact I'll do that soon! (Not to take anything away from this one: It will be quicker and we can see if the results differ much. I'll only do a Top 25 whereas I hope this one makes 100 or at least 50).


----------



## RBrittain

1. Vivaldi
2. Grieg
3. Bruckner
4. Rossini
5. Verdi
6. Elgar
7. RV Williams
8. Liszt
9. Saint-Saens


----------



## Nix

emiellucifuge said:


> How is Dvorak a 'cult favourite'? In nearly all sources I have seen (books, internet, radio) he is rated in the top 20. Here he is 2 places lower than on DDD.
> 
> Who do you consider one of the most important Composers in music history that should place above such a common bohemian peasant?


Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean Dvorak at all, I was referring to a general survey of some peoples votes. All I meant by sympathizing with Aramis was that it seemed that personal favorites were taking much more precedence then those of importance. Dvorak (who I quite like) had nothing to do with it.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Phew 
:tiphat:


----------



## Nix

I'm considering wrapping this up at top 25. My fault for not coming into this with a clear objective. Perhaps what can be learned from this, is trying to rank composers is too controversial to be done, even when done democratically.


----------



## RBrittain

http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best-classic-comp.html

To be fair, the top 10 looks pretty damn similar to this list, which is the first result on google.


----------



## Toccata

tdc said:


> It seems like there is a pretty good consesus of the top 3 best composers of all time, after that there is just a LOT of great composers that are extremely difficult to rank.
> 
> Keep my list if you want, but Ive also realized this just doesnt work very well, and never has. All such lists are nonsense.


I would broadly agree.

An F test on the top 10 did show a significant difference between the ranks overall, i.e. the hypothesis that all the composers in that group are liked equally (or considered equally "great") is not justified at the 5% level, based on the admittedly limited sample size of 27. For example, there is pretty clear evidence from those results that Beethoven is judged to be significantly ahead of composers like Wagner and below, but the difference compared with Mozart and Bach is not significant at the 5% level. Similarly, Wagner is significantly ahead of the No 10 composer, but it is doubtful if he is significantly ahead of those ranked 5-9 (using the _"least significance" test_).

However, once we move into the 11-20 tier things begin to break down. Yes, you can discern an apparent difference in ranks between these composers, but on the basis of the results posted previously (with a very sample size of 18) they are not statistically significant. If the exercise was repeated with other members at another time it would likely come up with a different set of results, and if it were repeated again and again virtually any combination of alternative ranks could emerge in this range.

I guessed all this at the outset but I thought I'd play along for the ride to see how far things got before the "rot" set in. I guessed roughly right when I ventured previously that this exercise would fizzle out after about rank 15 in terms of producing worthwhile results.

By the same token I bet most of the results in the Opera and Symphony threads are equally dubious (beyond the first 10 results or so), although I haven't bothered checking any of them. I feel partly guilty here, however, as it was my initial suggestion which sparked things off in that direction (opera thread). What I really meant to say on that occasion was that if you reckon you can do better than the DDD lists then try it, but I won't be holding my breath. Things then took off ...

The trouble is that many people who frequent boards like this haven't a clue about statistical procedures, and consequently they plough ahead in a most amateurish fashion making all manner of horrendous mistakes along the way, and then hold up "results" that are little more than a pile of rubbish.


----------



## RBrittain

In this poll, I've seen some posters list their top 10, then in the next round, forget to include one of their top 10 composers who didn't make the overall top 10. I think it's quite confusing, as people are having to flick back and forth through the pages to see who they can and cannot include in the next round and sometimes omitting composers that they meant to include (or presumed would be included because they listed them at first, though they didn't make the final 10). It has become rather difficult, and that's why I've created a more simple Top 25, where everyone only has to give their own personal Top 25, once. I think it will be interesting to see how the results differ and I hope you do continue this one to at least 50, so that I'm not stomping on your ground.


----------



## Toccata

RBrittain said:


> http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best-classic-comp.html
> 
> To be fair, the top 10 looks pretty damn similar to this list, which is the first result on google.


Yes, that's correct. I noted this same point earlier in the thread. We're all going round in circles. First, it was Phil Goulding's list, which was virtually copied by DDD after a big song and dance, and then the DDD list became well-known on T-C because it was always being quoted, and now the DDD list gets regurgitated sub-consciously in threads like this.


----------



## Toccata

RBrittain said:


> ... that's why I've created a more simple Top 25, where everyone only has to give their own personal Top 25, once. I think it will be interesting to see how the results differ and I hope you do continue this one to at least 50, so that I'm not stomping on your ground.


Something very similar was done before, as I noted earlier in the thread. Here's the link:

http://www.talkclassical.com/5895-your-top-20-favorite.html

Maybe it's time for a new one. I reckon that the simple list is a far better procedure than the one here because this type is so confusing and daunting for anyone wishing to participate after the start.

The interesting thing last time was how relatively low Wagner was placed in comparison with his elevated position in this thread. Speaking personally, I reckon the previous rating is a more accurate reflection of his standing among the classical music public at large, and the high result here is a bit of a freak.


----------



## gr8gunz

Toccata said:


> Yes, that's correct. I noted this same point earlier in the thread. We're all going round in circles. First, it was Phil Goulding's list, which was virtually copied by DDD after a big song and dance, and then the DDD list became well-known on T-C because it was always being quoted, and now the DDD list gets regurgitated sub-consciously in threads like this.


Indeed. The real wonder for me is how a fruit cake like John Cage made it on the list at all.

Oh well, gotta go turn on my 12 radios.


----------



## RBrittain

Ah ok, thanks for the link. That's from about a year and a half ago, so I suppose it will have been voted on by different people. It also looks a bit more subjective, whereas I suppose I am aiming for a mix of objectivity and subjectivity (like Nix's). I want personal taste to come into it, but not to be the only factor. For example, on that one, I see Rubinstein top of one person's and Biber von Bibern top of another. I would hope that doesn't happen in my poll (though I'll accept it if it does happen, as it'll be rare). I would also hope that people don't put Wagner high up just because they've heard he's influential. If someone doesn't like Wagner's music, I'd prefer they rank him fairly low, but they'll probably include him somewhere in the 25 for his undeniable importance.

To be fair, Nix summed it up well enough: "Just interpret it as you will... perhaps a sort of combination of importance and personal preference."

Difficult to quantify an exact formula, but I'm saying the same: Let your personal appreciation of a composer's music be the main factor, but also keep importance and influence in mind. 'Influence' is probably the least important factor, because then someone who makes an entirely new type of music, no matter how bad that music is, could be described as 'influential'.


----------



## Aramis

> See above. Also you criticise his backwardness and conservatism yet you vote for Mendelssohn? Then this becomes a personal preference as Dvoraks music is better to me then Mendelssohns - yet who is more conservative?


Dvorak has a lot of music that is widely enjoyed but that's all about his greatness, Mendelssohn is the real genius on simply musical terms and even if one doesn't like him that much (like me) he must be impressed by his composing skills, with Dvorak - not necessarily. Also, Mendelssohn was conservative but never backwarded. He represents the same style that Schumann did as well as many others. But Dvorak is more backwarded than conservative, Rusalka being written almost at the same time as Strauss Salome is one big embrassement. The same opera reveals some incompetence and it's mature work, without famous moon aria it would be forgotten just like all the rest of his operas. I like him but placing his name so high on such list is a joke.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Despite the fact that we know opera was a large struggle for him. His whole life he wanted to achieve a great opera, but struggled to compatibilise the music with drama and also never found the right librettist. It is highly unlikely he would write a ground-breaking masterpeice if he wasnt yet comfortable writing in the genre. It just wasnt his strong point.


On the other hand we can safely consider that Mendelssohn and Berlioz were comfirtable in the symphonic genre and wrote at least one masterpiece symphony. Mendelssohn wrote his 2nd in 1840, almost 10 years after Berlioz wrote his symphonie fantastique! If that isnt backward...

Why do I believe Dvorak is great?
Firstly, he moves me like no other. I feel I have a strong personal relationship with his music and also perhaps indirectly the man himself. 
Secondly, he became the musical father for a whole people, synthesising the folk music systems into his classical-romantic idiom he then went on to New York and repeated this stunt with the folk musics of an entirely different people. He then went on to train the first generations of american composers and his influence extended out of classical music to the likes of Duke Ellington


----------



## RBrittain

I would agree, Aramis, that Mendelssohn wasn't backwards. If anything, he took the classical form to new heights. I also think he was a genius. Dvorak came along half a century later and possibly could be described as slightly 'backwards'.

A lot of it is down to personal preference, though, so I wouldn't be too bothered. Many people find Stravinsky immense, but I find much of his music shallow and repetitive. It doesn't really bother me that others find him immense though, as his modern style may just appeal to them more than it does me.


----------



## Aramis

emiellucifuge said:


> On the other hand we can safely consider that Mendelssohn and Berlioz were comfirtable in the symphonic genre and wrote at least one masterpiece symphony. Mendelssohn wrote his 2nd in 1840, almost 10 years after Berlioz wrote his symphonie fantastique! If that isnt backward...


Na, it's just that Berlioz was the superman. SF was still exception and unique work during the next decades dominated by other kind of works. Strauss Salome is diffrent, it was summary of recent (but not entirely new) inventions of music and placing it into opera genre. The gulf between Mendelssohn-others is much lesser and not that striking and in case of Rusalka which could be written 40 years before and then only it would be cool.

As for his folk influence, it's main reason why I like his music and forgive him these sings of backwardness but developing national style was fashionable bach then and I wouldn't overestimate his importance outside the Czechland.


----------



## Nix

In the defense of Dvorak's 'backwardness' some of it I think was necessary. He contributed to a disappearing romantic era what it might never have had- such as a masterpiece of a cello concerto.


----------



## RBrittain

Nix said:


> In the defense of Dvorak's 'backwardness' some of it I think was necessary. He contributed to a disappearing romantic era what it might never have had- such as a masterpiece of a cello concerto.


True. Probably fairer to see him as one of the last good (romantic) classical composers, rather than 'backwards'. Having thought about it, I wouldn't really use that term to describe his music, which I enjoy. While it is nothing revolutionary, it is original enough music in a 'classical style'.


----------



## Pieck

Aramis said:


> Dvorak has a lot of music that is widely enjoyed but that's all about his greatness, Mendelssohn is the real genius on simply musical terms and even if one doesn't like him that much (like me) he must be impressed by his composing skills, with Dvorak - not necessarily. Also, Mendelssohn was conservative but never backwarded. He represents the same style that Schumann did as well as many others. But Dvorak is more backwarded than conservative, Rusalka being written almost at the same time as Strauss Salome is one big embrassement. The same opera reveals some incompetence and it's mature work, without famous moon aria it would be forgotten just like all the rest of his operas. I like him but placing his name so high on such list is a joke.


The ninth alone worth it


----------



## Aramis

Come one, romanticism wasn't dying. We speak about times of Mahler, even this damn Strauss was still heavily romantic in expression. Dvorak's romanticism is rotten, he put his music into oldfashioned forms. It's still good to listen (for me at the other hand it often spoils enjoyment) but if you will look objectively you will clearly see that there is no place for such composer in top 20, definitely not above such figures as Monteverdi. It's ridiculous.


----------



## RBrittain

Toccata said:


> Yes, that's correct. I noted this same point earlier in the thread. We're all going round in circles. First, it was Phil Goulding's list, which was virtually copied by DDD after a big song and dance, and then the DDD list became well-known on T-C because it was always being quoted, and now the DDD list gets regurgitated sub-consciously in threads like this.


I just looked at Goulding's list, by the way. It's not as similar as you think. There are some quite big differences. It's only really the top 10 that are similar, but they're both fairly conventional top 10s and most people's would be similar. I don't see any reason to assume one has copied the other, as there are some big differences, such as:

Goulding ranked Vivaldi 37th, DDD ranked Vivaldi 20th
Goulding ranked Grieg 31st, DDD ranked Grieg 44th
Goulding ranked Bartok 35th, DDD ranked Bartok 24th

Goulding's top 20 is:

1 Johann Sebastian Bach
2 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
3 Ludwig van Beethoven
4 Richard Wagner
5 Joseph Haydn
6 Johannes Brahms
7 Franz Schubert
8 Robert Schumann
9 Georg Friedrich Händel
10 Piotr Illitch Tchaïkovsky
11 Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy
12 Antonín Dvořák
13 Franz Liszt
14 Frédéric Chopin
15 Igor Stravinsky
16 Giuseppe Verdi
17 Gustav Mahler
18 Sergej S. Prokofiew
19 Dmitri Shostakovich
20 Richard Strauss

DDD's top 20:

1. Ludwig Van Beethoven - 1770-1827
2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - 1756-1791
3. Johann Sebastian Bach - 1685-1750
4. Richard Wagner - 1813-1883 
5. Joseph Haydn - 1732-1809 
6. Johannes Brahms - 1833-1897 
7. Franz Schubert - 1797-1828 
8. Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky - 1840-1893 
9. George Frideric Handel - 1685-1759 
10. Igor Stravinsky - 1882-1971 
11. Robert Schumann - 1810-1856 
12. Frederic Chopin - 1810-1849 
13. Felix Mendelssohn - 1809-1847 
14. Claude Debussy - 1862-1918 
15. Franz Liszt - 1811-1886 
16. Antonin Dvorak - 1841-1904 
17. Giuseppe Verdi - 1813-1901 
18. Gustav Mahler - 1860-1911 
19. Hector Berlioz - 1803-1869 
20. Antonio Vivaldi - 1678-1741

Pretty similar, but both look quite conventional to me. I see no reason to assume DDD copied Goulding? The main similarity is that both have the same positions 4 through 7. But that could just be down to chance.


----------



## Nix

Aramis said:


> Come one, romanticism wasn't dying. We speak about times of Mahler, even this damn Strauss was still heavily romantic in expression. Dvorak's romanticism is rotten, he put his music into oldfashioned forms. It's still good to listen (for me at the other hand it often spoils enjoyment) but if you will look objectively you will clearly see that there is no place for such composer in top 20, definitely not above such figures as Monteverdi. It's ridiculous.


That era of romanticism was dying though... and if you think about composers between the years 1860-1895 they were primarily opera composers- with really the only big exceptions being Brahms and Tchaikovsky. I think Dvorak was necessary in the respect that there would have been some gaping holes in repertoire from that mid-romantic instrumental idiom. And certainly after him purely instrumental started to take precedence in composition. Also it should be noted that here in America, Dvorak is often credited with having inspired the first American composers, using him as a model of how they could create there own unique nationalist form of music. But weather or not he deserves to be in the top 20... well I don't know.


----------



## Air

Tiebreakers: Prokofiev, Schumann, Monteverdi

1. Bartok
2. Villa-Lobos
3. Varèse
4. Bruckner
5. Berlioz
6. Ligeti
7. Rameau
8. Janáček
9. Palestrina
10. Liszt


----------



## Toccata

RBrittain said:


> ... I see no reason to assume DDD copied Goulding? The main similarity is that both have the same positions 4 through 7. But that could just be down to chance.


I fear that you have taken my comment about a "copy" rather too literally. I didn't mean that the DDD list is a direct copy of Phil Goulding's list down to the last detail. That would have been too obvious a thing to have occurred. What I meant was that, to all intents and purposes, the two lists are pretty close substitutes, i.e. if you have one of them the other one won't add much which the first doesn't have.

I'm looking at this in the large, and not fussing over detail like for example whether it makes much difference that Vivaldi is ranked No 37 on one list and No 20 on another. In fact I have looked at the correlation coefficients between the ranks in each of the Goulding and DDD lists (the _Spearman rank correlation coefficients_ for the technically minded).

Goulding's list covered what he considered to be the top 50 composers. The DDD list includes the Top 100 composers, and was produced much later (in 2007). The correlation coefficients are given below for the top 10, 25 and 50 composers with t values in brackets:

First 10: 0.87 (5.0)
First 25: 0.90 (9.9)
All 50: 0.72 (7.2)

These correlation coefficients are highly significant. Maybe it's possible that the Top 10 would be expected to be similar anyway, but this high correlation extends all the way up to to Composer No 50. I'm not aware of any other lists that show such similarity. At any rate, regardless of how the DDD list was produced, it doesn't say anything materially different from the Goulding list, unless one is going to fuss incredibly over minor detail.


----------



## Nix

Toccata said:


> Maybe it's possible that the Top 10 would be expected to be similar anyway, but this high correlation extends all the way up to to Composer No 50. I'm not aware of any other lists that show such similarity. At any rate, regardless of how the DDD list was produced, it doesn't say anything materially different from the Goulding list, unless one is going to fuss incredibly over minor detail.


Well I think that has less to do with copying and more to do with that they're _ranking the same thing_. And how many other lists of 100 have you seen?


----------



## RBrittain

Toccata said:


> I fear that you have taken my comment about a "copy" rather too literally. I didn't mean that the DDD list is a direct copy of Phil Goulding's list down to the last detail. That would have been too obvious a thing to have occurred. What I meant was that, to all intents and purposes, the two lists are pretty close substitutes, i.e. if you have one of them the other one won't add much which the first doesn't have.


So, what exactly are you implying then? Surely you would expect most Top Composers polls to be similar? As we have seen on this forum alone, many people rate the composers fairly similar.

If you asked many classical music experts on their Top 50, you will find that many of their lists are 'statistically significant' in alikeness. There are only so many great composers around, and many of us agree on who the best ones are, which is why they became big names in the first place.


----------



## RBrittain

Toccata said:


> These correlation coefficients are highly significant. Maybe it's possible that the Top 10 would be expected to be similar anyway, but this high correlation extends all the way up to to Composer No 50. I'm not aware of any other lists that show such similarity. At any rate, regardless of how the DDD list was produced, it doesn't say anything materially different from the Goulding list, unless one is going to fuss incredibly over minor detail.


You're missing the point though. There's absolutely no reason to assume that they weren't done entirely independently. If you look through many posters on here who have given their Top 25s, you'll find that they are largely similar to the DDD and Goulding lists. Heck, when I release the final Top 25 based on points, I expect the list to look rather similar. You can run a statistical test on it if you want, and you'll probably find the similarities to be significant. This is because many people recognise certain composers as amongst the greatest. There is a bracket of 50 composers or so that the majority of classical music listeners recognise as the greatest - which is why those composers get more performances, more CDs, etc. We're in an age now when everyone can judge for themselves, and by-and-large, the composers who wrote the best music are the ones who get the most air-time and publicity, because people like them and because they sell. All of these composers are on those two lists, and not surprisingly..


----------



## Toccata

RBrittain said:


> So, what exactly are you implying then? Surely you would expect most Top Composers polls to be similar? As we have seen on this forum alone, many people rate the composers fairly similar.
> 
> If you asked many classical music experts on their Top 50, you will find that many of their lists are 'statistically significant' in alikeness. There are only so many great composers around, and many of us agree on who the best ones are, which is why they became big names in the first place.


You appear to have misunderstood yet again. I'm talking about the rank order as well as coverage. You could get two separately produced lists of top composers with the same (or similar) coverage and yet which show which little or no correlation of ranks between the two lists, or even a negative correlation.

However, the Goulding and DDD lists show highly significant positive correlation, which is by no means such a guaranteed event as you so blithely assume. That's all I'm saying, namely that each is a good substitute for the other in terms of coverage and rank order.

Besides, if you are so sure that all lists of top composers (based on a sample of classical music fans) will be very similar in terms of coverage and ranking why have you set up yet another poll on another thread (Favourite 25 Composers). It wouldn't appear to make any sense by your own logic, if you believe what you say that all lists of top composers are bound to be very similar. Can you therefore clarify exactly what you hope to achieve by setting up yet another poll. I'm baffled.


----------



## RBrittain

Toccata said:


> Besides, if you are so sure that all lists of top composers (based on a sample of classical music fans) will be very similar in terms of coverage and ranking why have you set up yet another poll on another thread (Favourite 25 Composers). It wouldn't appear to make any sense by your own logic, if you believe what you say that all lists of top composers are bound to be very similar. Can you therefore clarify exactly what you hope to achieve by setting up yet another poll. I'm baffled.


It's pretty simple really. Most polls are bound to be similar. That doesn't mean they'll be exactly the same. Here, it's mainly for fun, gives people a chance to list their own Top 25. _Most_ of them will be _somewhat_ similar, and I am expecting the final list to look quite similar to DDD and Goulding's. Does that mean it will _definitely_ be very similar? No. Just my prediction.

Honestly, don't worry about it. You did imply that DDD had copied Goulding, and also that people on this forum 'subconsciously regurgitate' those lists. But you have now back-tracked and are distancing yourself from the things you were previously implying. Never mind.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I think applying rigorous statistical analyses to such a trivial thing is a waste of time.


----------



## Nix

Final Results 

1. Ludwig van Beethoven
2. Johann Sebastian Bach
3. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
4. Richard Wagner
5. Franz Schubert
6. Johannes Brahms
7. Joseph Haydn
8. Pyotr Illyich Tchaikovsky
9. George Frideric Handel
10. Claude Debussy
11. Gustav Mahler
12. Frederic Chopin
13. Igor Stravinsky
14. Sergei Prokofiev
15. Felix Mendelssohn
16. Robert Schumann
17. Maurice Ravel
18. Antonin Dvorak
19. Claudio Monteverdi
20. Jean Sibelius
21. Richard Strauss
22. Anton Bruckner
23. Arnold Schoenberg
24. Giuseppe Verdi
25. Franz Liszt
26. Dmitri Shostakovich
27. Edgard Varese
28. Hector Berlioz
29. Giovanni Palestrina
30. Antonio Vivaldi

Decided to go up to 30 since it was a pretty even cut off.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Well.... At least Varese made it


----------



## Nix

Yes. Actually a surprising distribution of composers from all eras.


----------



## Miz

The List of how many years those composers lived:

1. WA Mozart - 35 years
2. Pergolesi - 26 years
3. JS Bach - 65 years
4. Schubert - 31 years
5. Haydn - 77 years
6. Wagner - 69 years
7. Verdi - 87 years
8. Boccherini - 62 years
9. Chopin - 39 years
10. Handel - 74 years
11. Brahms - 63 years
12. Prokofiev - 62 years
13. Stravinsky - 88 years
14. Williams - 79 years alive
15. Shostakovich - 68 years
16. Gounod - about 75 years
17. Tchaikovsky - 53 years
18. Herold - 41 years
19. Elgar - 76 years
20. Liszt - 74 years
21. Saint-Saenes - 86 years
22. Bizet - 36 years
23. Gershwin - 38 years
24. Offenbach - 61 years
25. Mussorgsky - 42 years
26 - 32. In order Vivaldi - 63 years, Rozsa - 26 years, Rossini - 76 years, Pachelbel - 52 years, Mendelssohn - 38 years?, Dukas - 69 years, Sousa - 77 years
33. Beethoven (Because he was grumpy) - 56 years
34 - 100. Other composers excluding the ones that didn't make the list.


----------



## Miz

Nix said:


> Final Results
> 
> 1. Ludwig van Beethoven
> 2. Johann Sebastian Bach
> 3. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
> 4. Richard Wagner
> 5. Franz Schubert
> 6. Johannes Brahms
> 7. Joseph Haydn
> 8. Pyotr Illyich Tchaikovsky
> 9. George Frideric Handel
> 10. Claude Debussy
> 11. Gustav Mahler
> 12. Frederic Chopin
> 13. Igor Stravinsky
> 14. Sergei Prokofiev
> 15. Felix Mendelssohn
> 16. Robert Schumann
> 17. Maurice Ravel
> 18. Antonin Dvorak
> 19. Claudio Monteverdi
> 20. Jean Sibelius
> 21. Richard Strauss
> 22. Anton Bruckner
> 23. Arnold Schoenberg
> 24. Giuseppe Verdi
> 25. Franz Liszt
> 26. Dmitri Shostakovich
> 27. Edgard Varese
> 28. Hector Berlioz
> 29. Giovanni Palestrina
> 30. Antonio Vivaldi
> 
> Decided to go up to 30 since it was a pretty even cut off.


 My final result is that Mozart should at least be in the top 2.


----------



## Trout

Miz said:


> The List of how many years those composers lived:
> 
> 1. WA Mozart - 35 years
> 2. Pergolesi - 26 years
> 3. JS Bach - 65 years
> 4. Schubert - 31 years
> 5. Haydn - 77 years
> 6. Wagner - 69 years
> 7. Verdi - 87 years
> 8. Boccherini - 62 years
> 9. Chopin - 39 years
> 10. Handel - 74 years
> 11. Brahms - 63 years
> 12. Prokofiev - 62 years
> 13. Stravinsky - 88 years
> 14. Williams - 79 years alive
> 15. Shostakovich - 68 years
> 16. Gounod - about 75 years
> 17. Tchaikovsky - 53 years
> 18. Herold - 41 years
> 19. Elgar - 76 years
> 20. Liszt - 74 years
> 21. Saint-Saenes - 86 years
> 22. Bizet - 36 years
> 23. Gershwin - 38 years
> 24. Offenbach - 61 years
> 25. Mussorgsky - 42 years
> 26 - 32. In order Vivaldi - 63 years, Rozsa - 26 years, Rossini - 76 years, Pachelbel - 52 years, Mendelssohn - 38 years?, Dukas - 69 years, Sousa - 77 years
> 33. Beethoven (Because he was grumpy) - 56 years
> 34 - 100. Other composers excluding the ones that didn't make the list.


No mean to pick on you, but this list ended 9 months ago and the format did not require each person to list 100 composers.
Also, you put Beethoven at number 33 not judging his music, but because he was grumpy?


----------



## Miz

Trout said:


> No mean to pick on you, but this list ended 9 months ago and the format did not require each person to list 100 composers.
> Also, you put Beethoven at number 33 not judging his music, but because he was grumpy?


 About Beethoven, Yes, I judge him on his looks. This format requires everyone to make a list of how many composers you know. My question is, how many composers do you know?


----------



## Trout

Miz said:


> About Beethoven, Yes, I judge him on his looks. This format requires everyone to make a list of how many composers you know. My question is, how many composers do you know?


No one can take you seriously with statements like that. Your list means nothing if it's based on composers' looks and personality. This forum is a place mainly to discuss classical music and if all you know is how many pieces each composer wrote and which composers weren't grumpy then you have nothing useful to contribute.


----------



## DavidMahler

*Not just composers....*

Here are my 50 favorite music artists of all time according to my iTunes statistical data over the last 6 years.

50. Bud Powell

49. Pink Floyd

48. Igor Stravinsky

47. Sergey Rachmaninov

46. Anton Bruckner

45. Camille Saint-Saens

44. John McLaughlin

43. Radiohead

42. Jean-Philippe Rameau

41. Neil Young

40. Herbie Nichols

39. Hector Berlioz

38. Pat Metheny

37. Weather Report

36. Bob Dylan

35. The Who

34. The Beach Boys

33. Jeff Buckley

32. Richard Wagner

31. Nirvana

30. Dmitri Shostakovich

29. Antonin Dvorak

28. Joseph Haydn

27. Led Zeppelin

26. John Coltrane

25. Fryderyk Chopin

24. Franz Liszt

23. Charles Mingus

22. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

21. Johann Sebastian Bach

20. Steely Dan

19. Bill Evans

18. Wayne Shorter

17. Duke Ellington / Billy Strayhorn

16. Bela Bartok

15. Maurice Ravel

14. Pytor Illyich Tchaikovsky

13. Chick Corea

12. Genesis (until 1977)

11. Ludwig van Beethoven

10. Joni Mitchell

9. Jean Sibelius

8. Claude Debussy

7. Robert Schumann

6. The Beatles

5. Elliott Smith

4. Keith Jarrett

3. Franz Schubert

2. Johannes Brahms

1. Gustav Mahler


----------



## Webernite

Keith Jarrett must be feeling pretty smug right now.


----------



## Klavierspieler

DavidMahler said:


> Here are my 50 favorite music artists of all time according to my iTunes statistical data over the last 6 years.
> 
> 50. Bud Powell
> 
> 49. Pink Floyd
> 
> 48. Igor Stravinsky
> 
> 47. Sergey Rachmaninov
> 
> 46. Anton Bruckner
> 
> 45. Camille Saint-Saens
> 
> 44. John McLaughlin
> 
> 43. Radiohead
> 
> 42. Jean-Philippe Rameau
> 
> 41. Neil Young
> 
> 40. Herbie Nichols
> 
> 39. Hector Berlioz
> 
> 38. Pat Metheny
> 
> 37. Weather Report
> 
> 36. Bob Dylan
> 
> 35. The Who
> 
> 34. The Beach Boys
> 
> 33. Jeff Buckley
> 
> 32. Richard Wagner
> 
> 31. Nirvana
> 
> 30. Dmitri Shostakovich
> 
> 29. Antonin Dvorak
> 
> 28. Joseph Haydn
> 
> 27. Led Zeppelin
> 
> 26. John Coltrane
> 
> 25. Fryderyk Chopin
> 
> 24. Franz Liszt
> 
> 23. Charles Mingus
> 
> 22. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
> 
> 21. Johann Sebastian Bach
> 
> 20. Steely Dan
> 
> 19. Bill Evans
> 
> 18. Wayne Shorter
> 
> 17. Duke Ellington / Billy Strayhorn
> 
> 16. Bela Bartok
> 
> 15. Maurice Ravel
> 
> 14. Pytor Illyich Tchaikovsky
> 
> 13. Chick Corea
> 
> 12. Genesis (until 1977)
> 
> 11. Ludwig van Beethoven
> 
> 10. Joni Mitchell
> 
> 9. Jean Sibelius
> 
> 8. Claude Debussy
> 
> 7. Robert Schumann
> 
> 6. The Beatles
> 
> 5. Elliott Smith
> 
> 4. Keith Jarrett
> 
> 3. Franz Schubert
> 
> 2. Johannes Brahms
> 
> 1. Gustav Mahler


I see what you did...


----------



## Trout

I compiled the data from the 25 composers thread here and got a fairly accurate list of TC's 100 composers.


----------

