# Top 25 Composers (Please, Everyone Take Part!)



## RBrittain

I know that this might seem a little annoying given other on-going voted rankings, but I thought this would basically be more simple and appealing to people.

All you have to do is list your Top 25. That's all, no rounds, no complexities, just have a think and list your Top 25. You have a week, or possibly 2 weeks (haven't decided yet), to do so, so there is no rush. Post them whenever you want. After the deadline, I will look at all of your rankings, and award points based on position, and then give an overall Top 25 based on total points.

Be honest and realistic, please! Let your personal taste come into it, but don't be overruled by it. For example, I really love Johannes Ciconia, a medieval composer who I only discovered recently and therefore has that 'novelty appeal' for me, but I'm not going to include him in my list (though tempted to) because the depth of his works clearly aren't comparable with the great classical composers. I won't pass judgement on your rankings, but I'll certainly find it odd if Samuel Barber is top of your list and Beethoven does not make it, for example. In extreme cases like that, I may ask you to explain your rankings. But, hopefully, it will all average out nicely.

So, thanks for reading, and consider your Top 25. Spend as long as you want deciding on them, but hopefully you won't spend too long on it because that would defeat the point of this Top 25 which is supposed to be fairly quick, fun, consistent and simple. For many of you, this will be quite easy as you've probably already given some sort of top 20-30 for Nix's poll. That uses a different system, and it will be interesting to see how the results differ. Remember, that the order of your 25 counts.

Editted to add: Please don't look at others' and skew your rankings in order to attempt to get Composer A above Composer B based on what others have given. Just think independently, and list your personal top 25, and it should even out well enough. The more people that take part, the less significant is one particular list. Also, you may PM me your list if you wish to, but I think we can all trust each other enough to be sensible and give our own Top 25s here. People can also use this thread as a point of reference to see what composers other posters are into.


----------



## Ravellian

Alright, why not. I'll start with a fairly conventional list:

1. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
2. Richard Wagner
3. Ludwig van Beethoven
4. Franz Schubert
5. Maurice Ravel
6. Frederic Chopin
7. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
8. Gustav Mahler
9. Jean Sibelius
10. Joseph Haydn
11. Giuseppe Verdi
12. Johann Sebastian Bach
13. Cipriano de Rore
14. Claude Debussy
15. Sergei Rachmaninov
16. Franz Liszt
17. Robert Schumann
18. Josquin Des Prez
19. Antonin Dvorak
20. Alexander Scriabin
21. Domenico Scarlatti
22. Carl Maria von Weber
23. Dmitri Shostakovich
24. Richard Strauss
25. Johannes Brahms


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

*1. J.S. Bach 
2. W.A. Mozart 
3. L.v. Beethoven 
4. Richard Wagner 
5. Franz Schubert 
6. G.F. Handel
7. Richard Strauss 
8. Claude Debussy 
9. Johannes Brahms 
10. Joseph Haydn
11. Gustav Mahler 
12. Giacomo Puccini 
13. Tchaikovsky 
14. Claudio Monteverdi 
15. Gabriel Fauré 
16. Heinrich Ignaz Franz Biber 
17. Carlo Gesualdo 
18. Antonín Dvořák 
19. Anton Bruckner 
20. Sergei Rachmaninoff 
21. Frédéric Chopin
22. Jean-Philippe Rameau
23. Jan Dismas Zelenka
24. Josquin des Prez
25. Maurice Ravel*

The first 6 are set in stone... from thereon they may change from day to day.


----------



## RBrittain

Thanks for getting us started off! A bold decision to put Tchaikovsky at the top, Ravellian. Must admit, I am seriously considering doing the same. His music is so appealing to me.

The fact is.. If I were to list my 10 favourite works, Tchaikovsky's name would appear more than any other composer. However, is that enough? I'm weighing it up, and at this moment in time Beethoven is likely to get the nod, as he wrote _so many_ great pieces and is also the more important and influential composer (certainly, this poll is more about personal preference than objective importance and influence, but Beethoven also makes up a considerable number of my favourite works).


----------



## emiellucifuge

Beethoven
Bach
Mozart
Wagner
Schubert
Mahler
Haydn
Brahms
Stravinsky
Dvorak
Debussy
Varese
Handel
Tchaikovsky
Monteverdi
Schoenberg
Prokofiev
Webern
Shostakovich
Verdi
Ligeti
Ravel
Rachmaninoff
Xenakis
Rossini


----------



## Ravellian

Thanks! The bottom line is, he, Wagner, Beethoven, and Bach I believe were the best at portraying their deepest, most personal emotions. Of those four, I can identify with Tchaikovsky's music the most on a personal level, so I put him on top.


----------



## Webernite

Might as well 

1. Johann Sebastian Bach
2. Ludwig van Beethoven
3. Richard Wagner
4. Josquin des Prez
5. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
6. Johannes Brahms
7. Johannes Ockeghem
8. Joseph Haydn
9. Franz Schubert
10. George Frideric Handel
11. Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina
12. Gustav Mahler
13. Arnold Schoenberg
14. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
15. Frederic Chopin
16. Igor Stavinsky
17. Richard Strauss 
18. Felix Mendelssohn
19. Claude Debussy
20. Anton Webern
21. Girolamo Frescobaldi
22. Anton Bruckner
23. Sergei Prokofiev
24. Robert Schumann
25. Giuseppe Verdi


----------



## World Violist

After about #10 or so it's in no particular order; the first ten are mostly indistinct also, but this list places them roughly in order.

1. J.S. Bach
2. Enescu
3. Sibelius
4. Wagner
5. Bruckner
6. Boulez
7. Webern
8. Victoria
9. Norgard
10. Lassus
11. Schubert
12. Mahler
13. Rubbra
14. Wolf
15. Brahms
16. Haydn
17. Dowland
18. Palestrina
19. Josquin
20. Saariaho
21. Berg
22. Aho
23. Bartok
24. Ligeti
25. Ravel


----------



## RBrittain

A rather unconventional list, World Violist! But that's fine. I like that you have ranked Sibelius and Bruckner so highly. They sometimes don't get the credit they deserve.


----------



## RBrittain

1. Beethoven
2. Tchaikovsky
3. Bach
4. Wagner
5. Sibelius
6. Brahms
7. Mendelssohn
8. Vivaldi
9. Mozart
10. Grieg
11. Schubert 
12. Bruckner
13. Rossini
14. Handel
15. Verdi
16. Elgar
17. Liszt
18. Prokofiev
19. Vaughan Williams
20. Ravel
21. Stravinsky
22. Bruch
23. Puccini
24. Bizet
25. Rachmaninov

The most notable omission is Haydn. Unfortunately, his music just does nothing for me. He would certainly make my top 50. Same goes for Debussy, Chopin, Mahler, Berlioz, Schumann who may all feel somewhat dismayed at missing out on my list.


----------



## Nix

I'll be interested to see how this compares to my own thread. 

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. J.S. Bach
4. Brahms
5. Schubert
6. Haydn
7. Igor Stravinsky
8. Josquin Des Prez
9. Debussy
10. Wagner
11. Chopin
12. Monteverdi
13. Bartok
14. Schoenberg
15. Britten
16. Handel
17. Tchaikovsky
18. Mahler
19. Prokofiev
20. Sibelius
21. Schumann
22. Shostakovich
23. Elgar
24. Berg
25. Barber


----------



## RBrittain

Funny that I used Samuel Barber as a bad example. Just listened to Adagio for Strings. Amazing piece of music. In fairness, I wouldn't mind if people ranked him first just because of that one piece! Tempted to put him in at 25th on my list too, but probably won't (You can edit your lists as much as you like, btw, revising them like Bruckner does his symphonies)


----------



## Nix

If you like Adagio for Strings you should check out the slow movements of his Violin Concerto and Cello Concerto- though really both pieces in their entirety are masterpieces.


----------



## World Violist

Only things missing from my list that I might add later are Debussy and Mussorgsky...


----------



## Rangstrom

1. Schubert
2. Haydn
3. Wagner
4. Beethoven
5. Bach
6. Mahler
7. Sibelius
8. Mozart
9. Verdi
10. Brahms
11. Janacek
12. Prokofiev
13. Rossini
14. Mendelssohn
15. Britten
16. Dvorak
17. R. Strauss
18. Bartok
19. Shostakovitch
20. Nielsen
21. Busoni
22. Mussorgsky
23. Berlioz
24. Bruckner
25. Rzewski

But it bothers me that Puccini, Handel, Monteverdi, Chopin and Copland had to be left out.


----------



## Meaghan

Okay, I'll play the game. Top composers lists are a guilty pleasure.
And as long as there's a precedent for putting personal favorites above the standard three "greatests"...

1. Mahler
2. Beethoven
3. Bach
4. Stravinsky
5. Mozart
6. Britten
7. Brahms
8. Wagner
9. Sibelius 
10. Shostakovich
11. Prokofiev
12. Rimsky-Korsakov
13. Bartok
14. Ravel
15. Debussy
16. Schubert
17. Palestrina
18. Rachmaninov
19. Vaughan Williams
20. Puccini
21. Pӓrt
22. Chopin
23. Hildegard
24. Schoenberg
25. Adams

A somewhat arbitrary mixture of most canonized, most influential, and stuff I like. Hm.


----------



## World Violist

Meaghan said:


> And as long as there's a precedent for putting personal favorites above the standard three "greatests"...


I think I've demonstrated that one can exclude the greatests altogether (though I kept one, but hey).


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Here I go, this all comes from a list a while back where I attempted to organize the hierarchy of favorite composers. Top 3 guys fill up my entire MP3 player right now, almost.

1. *Glazunov*
2. *Prokofiev*
3. *Shostakovich*
4. Dvorak
5. Rimsky-Korsakov
6. Ravel
7. Wagner
8. Brahms
9. Grieg
10. Tchaikovsky
11. Mussorgsky
12. Borodin
13. Saint-Saens
14. Schubert
15. Barber
16. Poulenc
17. Debussy
18. Khachaturian
19. Liadov
20. Kalinnikov
21. Sibelius
22. Rachmaninoff
23. Liszt
24. Scriabin
25. Hanson

Some small people got up there, because although I may know only a few works by them, or they didn't compose much (ex. Liadov and Kalinnikov) yet those few works I love especially much.


----------



## RBrittain

Huilunsoittaja, do you note like Beethoven's music then? Or Mozart's, or Bach's?


----------



## CTCarter

Jean-Marie Leclair


----------



## tdc

Ok, just for fun, and since you said 'please'  

1)J.S. Bach
2)Beethoven
3)Mozart
4)Ravel
5)Debussy
6)Mahler
7)Tchaikovsky
8)Wagner
9)Vivaldi
10)D. Scarlatti
11)Schubert
12)Bruckner
13)Britten
14)J. Rodrigo
15)Rachmaninov
16)Vaughn Williams
17)Chopin
18)Mendelssohn
19)Falla
20)Faure
21)Lully
22)Josquin des Prez
23)Takemitsu
24)Glass
25)Myaskovsky


----------



## jurianbai

very hard...my group of 25 composers that entertainment me the most.

1. Beethoven
2. Paganini
3. Spohr
4. Tartini
5. Hummel
6. Sibelius
7. Myaskovsky
8. Khachaturian
9. R.V. Williams
10. Saint Saens
11. Bach
12. Dohnanyi
13. Grieg
14. Joseph Guy Ropartz
15. Martinu
16. Jeno Hubay
17. Mendelssohn
18. Ravel
19. Mozart
20. Haydn
21. Schubert
22. Prokofiev
23. Korngold
24. Dvorak
25. Rozsa


----------



## Art Rock

Bach JS
Brahms
Mahler
Schubert
Shostakovich
Dvorak
Sibelius
Bruckner
Mendelssohn
Bax
Respighi
Mozart
Takemitsu
Barber
Debussy
Vaughan Williams
Strauss R
Beethoven
Rautavaara
Hyadn
Chopin
Faure
Ravel
Schmidt
Suk


----------



## RBrittain

Pleased to see Vaughan Williams up there in many people's rankings. He was a great composer. I was listening to his London Symphony recently. The second movement (Lento) is astonishing, amazing.


----------



## Air

1) Bach
1) Mozart
1) Prokofiev
4) Schumann
4) Wagner
6) Villa-Lobos
7) Beethoven
7) Bruckner
9) Schubert
9) Bartok
10) R.Strauss
11) Medtner
11) Ravel
11) Varèse
11) Stravinsky
15) Janáček
15) Brahms
15) Ligeti
18) Liszt
19) Handel
19) Mahler
21) Schoenberg
21) Sibelius
23) Alkan
24) Ives
25) Rameau
25) Walton
25) Berlioz
25) Berg


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

RBrittain said:


> Huilunsoittaja, do you note like Beethoven's music then? Or Mozart's, or Bach's?


Nope. I'm a weird person. I already play them like everyday on the flute, I can't take extra listening. Not to say I _hate_ them, that's too strong of a word. I still highly respect them. Schubert is the oldest composer I like the most.


----------



## Rasa

Damn, I can't even name 25 composers I've listened to enoug to be familiar with their style and oeuvre.


----------



## RBrittain

Rasa said:


> Damn, I can't even name 25 composers I've listened to enoug to be familiar with their style and oeuvre.


That's alright.  You can fill out the lower reaches with composers you've only heard a little bit by, if you wish to.


----------



## Musicbox

Brahms
Bruckner
Beethoven
Schubert
JS Bach
Mahler
Shostakovich
Mozart
Sibelius
Prokofiev
Dvorak
Wagner
Ravel
Stravinsky
Vaughan Williams
Britten
R Strauss
John Adams
Maxwell Davies
Bartok
Szymanowski
Janacek
Puccini
Lutoslawski
Walton


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

1. Richard Wagner
2. Ludwig van Beethoven
3. Johann Sebastian Bach
4. Igor Stravinsky
5. Franz Schubert
6. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
7. Claude Debussy
8. Frédéric Chopin
9. Béla Bartók
10. Anton Webern
11. Robert Schumann
12. Jean Sibelius
13. Arnold Schoenberg
14. George Frideric Handel
15. Charles Ives
16. Johannes Brahms
17. Hector Berlioz
18. Domenico Scarlatti
19. György Ligeti
20. Franz Joseph Haydn
21. Gustav Mahler
22. Sergei Prokofiev
23. Richard Strauss
24. Alban Berg
25. Giuseppe Verdi


----------



## zoziejemaar

It 's silly, but here we go:

1. JS Bach
2. van Beethoven
3. Mozart
4. Franz Schubert
5. Claudio Monteverdi
6. Claude Debussy
7. Josquin Desprez
8. György Ligeti
9. Robert Schumann
10. Frédéric Chopin
11. Antonio Vivaldi
12. Alexander Scriabin
13. Gustav Mahler
14. Jean-Baptiste Lully
15. Dieterich Buxtehude
16. Johannes Brahms
17. Dmitri Shostakovitch
18. Joseph Haydn (this is based on superficial knowledge, I admit)
19. Richard Wagner (oh no, I just put Wagner in my top 25! Can I be healed?)
20. Bohislav Martinu (I can't find the o for on the u)
21. Leon Janáček (if his other works are as good as the few things I heard, he might go up the list)
22. Jean-Philippe Rameau
23. Domenico Scarlatti
24. Arnold Schoenberg (hm, ok)
25. CPE Bach

Sorry, Pjotr Iljitsch, sorry, Georg Friedrich...


----------



## gr8gunz

Saariaho??? YIKES!!!

1. Mozart
2. Beethoven
3. JS Bach
4. Brahms
5. Wagner
6. Rachmaninov
7. Tchaikovsky
8. Schubert
9. Mendelssohn
10. Sibelius
11. Debussy
12. Ravel
13. Haydn
14. Grieg
15. Handel
16. Moussorgsky
17. Dvorak
18. Vivaldi
19. Pachelbel
20. Dittersdorf
21. Dukas
22. JC Bach 
23. Liszt
24. Rossini
25. Corelli


----------



## bassClef

Driven by how much I listen and how many of their works I own, rather than any traditional measure of greatness (I know Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, Liszt, Vivalid, Schubert and Strauss are amongst the greats, they just don't make MY top 25!):-

1.Stravinsky
2.Sibelius
3.Prokofiev
4.Bartok
5.Rimsky-Korsakov
6.Shostakovich
7.Bruckner
8.Respighi
9.Mussorgsky
10.Dvorak
11.Tchaikovsky
12.Borodin
13.Mahler
14.Holst
15.John Adams
16.Suk
17.Roussel
18.Debussy
19.Kodaly
20.Elgar
21.Berlioz
22.Khachaturian
23.Wagner
24.Nielsen
25.Orff


----------



## RBrittain

Pleased with the turnout so far. I think we're certainly going to have a large enough sample size, so I will stick to the deadline of 1 week. So, at the end of Friday 4th February, British time, I'll compile the results. Keep 'em coming!


----------



## pjang23

For top 10, I took my previous "objective top 10" list, ordered them to my preferences for a subjective list, and took the average rank. The rest are a mixture of personal preference and historical importance.

1. Brahms
2. Beethoven
3. JS Bach
4. Schubert
5. Wagner
6. Mozart
7. Mahler
8. Haydn
9. Stravinsky
10. Handel
11. Debussy
12. Prokofiev
13. Monteverdi
14. Schumann
15. Verdi
16. R Strauss
17. Mendelssohn
18. Ravel
19. Rachmaninoff
20. Tchaikovsky
21. Shostakovich
22. Dvorak
23. Puccini
24. Faure
25. Elgar


----------



## TresPicos

1. de Falla
2. Bartok
3. Ravel
4. Debussy
5. Schubert
6. Escher
7. Alwyn
8. Bridge
9. Mozart
10. Grieg
11. Jongen
12. Chopin
13. Poulenc
14. Dvorak
15. Dutilleux
16. Larsson
17. Satie
18. Ibert
19. Penderecki
20. Shostakovich
21. Mahler
22. Fauré
23. Honegger
24. Saint-Saëns
25. Vaughan Williams


----------



## Webernite

So I see that people are now making lists purely of their personal favorites. Was this meant to happen? I was under a different impression when I made my own list...


----------



## RBrittain

It's taken a slightly strange turn. I asked people to keep greatness/importance in mind, but to mainly pick based on personal preference. So, for example, only real way Beethoven _can't_ make someone's Top 25 is if they really hate his music.

It was supposed to be a mix of personal taste and objectivity, so I suppose it doesn't surprise me that some of the lunatics )) have made some strange lists.

I'd prefer if such odd lists are rare, as they must be made by odd mindsets outside of the norm. They won't matter much, anyway, as, for example, de Falla is unlikely to appear in anyone else's list so won't make the Top 25.

So, in short, I'll accept some oddities, but I'd prefer people pick sensibly and honestly like you did, Webernite. I can't really force anyone to change their lists though, so we'll just have to accept some strangeness.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*I am pretty sure nobody will read this...*

But OK.

ALBAN BERG
ARNOLD SCHÖNBERG
ANTON WELLESZ
NIKOLAI RIMSKY-KORSAKOV
PIOTR ILLICH TCHAIKOVSKY
ANTON ARENSKY
ALEXANDRE ZEMLINSKY
FRANZ SCHREKER
ANTON ARENSKY
ALBERTO GINASTERA
SILVESTRE REVUELTAS
CARLOS CHAVEZ
RICHARD WAGNER
RICHARD STRAUSS
SERGEY TANEYEV
SERGEI PROKOFIEV
IGOR STRAVINSKY
DMITRI SHOSTAKOVITCH
ARAM KHACHATURIAN
DMITRY KABALEVEKY
GIACCOMO PUCCINI
LEOS JANACEK
GEORGES BIZET
DANIEL AUBER
CLAUDIO MONTEVERDI

OK....it's done. LOL

Sincerely,

Martin


----------



## RBrittain

Also, the thing is, because each lunatic picks differently, favouring his own particular niche, it means that they don't tend to help each other out and thus their obscure composers won't make the Top 25, which is what this is all about. I won't be ranking anything after the Top 25.

For me, the music of Beethoven, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Bach etc, _is great music_, and they each created a vast amount of great music, so I barely had to consider the objectivity in picking them. They were naturally always going to be in my Top 25, as I enjoy their music very much. I would hope that most people who picked them feel the same way.


----------



## opus55

Here's my current list from little that I heard so far.

1. Beethoven
2. Brahms
3. Mahler
4. Mozart
5. R. Schumann
6. Haydn
7. Bach
8. Dvorak
9. Schubert
10. Chopin
11. Debussy
12. Shostakovich
13. Bruckner
14. Sibelius
15. Rachmaninoff
16. Mendelssohn
17. Tchaikovsky
18. Liszt
19. Prokofiev
20. Vieuxtemps
21. Ravel
22. Elgar
23. R. Strauss
24. Vaughan Williams
25. Grieg


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

myaskovsky2002 said:


> But OK.
> 
> ALBAN *BER*G
> ARNOLD SCHÖN*BER*G
> ANTON WELLESZ
> NIKOLAI RIMSKY-KORSAKOV
> PIOTR ILLICH TCHAIKOVSKY
> ANTON ARENSKY
> ALEXANDRE ZEMLINSKY
> FRANZ SCHREKER
> ANTON ARENSKY
> ALBERTO GINASTERA
> SILVESTRE REVUELTAS
> CARLOS CHAVEZ
> RICHARD WAGNER
> RICHARD STRAUSS
> SERGEY TANEYEV
> SERGEI PROKOFIEV
> IGOR STRAVINSKY
> DMITRI SHOSTAKOVITCH
> ARAM KHACHATURIAN
> DMITRY KABALEVEKY
> GIACCOMO PUCCINI
> LEOS JANACEK
> GEORGES BIZET
> DANIEL AUBER
> CLAUDIO MONTEVERDI
> 
> OK....it's done. LOL
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Martin


You know what I say to that? BERRRRRRRR

I like that you don't have Bach, Mozart or Beethoven on there either


----------



## Art Rock

You missed highlightinh AuBER....


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Art Rock said:


> You missed highlightinh AuBER....


 was he a dodecophonist too?


----------



## WillFinn

1. J S Bach
2. W A Mozart
3. G F Händel
4. Dmitri Shostakovitch
5. P Tsaikovsky
6. Jean Sibelius
7. C W Gluck
8. Arnold Schönberg
9. F Schubert
10. L van Beethoven
11. F Chopin
12. Vivaldi
13. Joseph Haydn
14. G F Telemann
15. R Schumann
16. Grieg
17. Palestrina
18. Isaac Albeniz
19. C P E Bach
20. Puccini
21. Verdi
22. Karol Szymanovski
23. Henry Purcell
24. F Mendelssohn-Bartoldy
25. Bartok


----------



## Meaghan

Rasa said:


> Damn, I can't even name 25 composers I've listened to enoug to be familiar with their style and oeuvre.


There are definitely a few composers on my list with whom I am not intimately familiar. They made the list either because I really love what little of their music I've heard (ex: Pӓrt) or because I am aware of their influence (ex: Schoenberg). I don't think it's a big deal.


----------



## TresPicos

RBrittain said:


> It's taken a slightly strange turn. I asked people to keep greatness/importance in mind, but to mainly pick based on personal preference. So, for example, only real way Beethoven _can't_ make someone's Top 25 is if they really hate his music.
> 
> It was supposed to be a mix of personal taste and objectivity, so I suppose it doesn't surprise me that some of the lunatics )) have made some strange lists.


*I can't believe you are calling me a lunatic for not liking the same composers as everybody else! *

Why should I include composers that I don't like on _my_ top 25 list, just because other people happen to like them? They can put them on _their _top 25 lists. If you really had wanted objectivity, then why didn't you give us a list of the 50 "greatest" composers and ask us to pick and rank 25 of those "valid" composers?

I don't get Brahms at all. I think Beethoven is extremely overrated. I don't adore Bach. So, none of them appear on my list. For me, it's impossible to combine "honest" and "realistic". The only alternative would have made a _dishonest but realistic_ list, but what would be the point?



> For me, the music of Beethoven, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Bach etc, is great music, and they each created a vast amount of great music, so I barely had to consider the objectivity in picking them. They were naturally always going to be in my Top 25, as I enjoy their music very much. I would hope that most people who picked them feel the same way.


Sure, if your tastes coincide with those of the majority, then it's easy! Subjective and objective is the _same thing_! But not all of us are that fortunate. To me, subjective and objective would render completely incompatible different top 25s. And since the aggregation of all our top 25 lists will probably show the result you want anyway, then you could have shown the courtesy of not bashing me for not aligning with the expected final list.

People like you make me want to ditch classical and listen to other stuff instead.


----------



## Toccata

This comment brought me some puzzlement:



RBrittain said:


> ... I won't pass judgement on your rankings, but I'll certainly find it odd if Samuel Barber is top of your list and Beethoven does not make it, for example. In extreme cases like that, I may ask you to explain your rankings.


Especially in the light of this comment on your own selection:



RBrittain said:


> The most notable omission is Haydn. Unfortunately, his music just does nothing for me. He would certainly make my top 50. Same goes for Debussy, Chopin, Mahler, Berlioz, Schumann who may all feel somewhat dismayed at missing out on my list.


One could argue that any Top 25 list without any of Haydn, Debussy, Chopin, Schumann, Berlioz is a bit defective, to say the least.

So who are you to lecture other people on what composers they are entitled to include or exclude?


----------



## RBrittain

TresPicos - Your reaction to what I said seems a bit extreme. I put a smiley after the 'lunatic' comment to imply it was mostly tongue-in-cheek. Come on, you had a very unorthodox list:

de Falla top.
Bartok second.

Escher, Alwyn, Bridge in the top 8. At least 5 more minor names in your top 25.

No Beethoven, no Bach, no Wagner.

I'm not even _criticising_ you for it, but you've got to expect people to point out your list as highly unusual.

TresPicos, your explanation is fine. You must have a very unusual mind, to not 'get' Brahms, etc.

I am happy to accept your list. It's fine.


----------



## RBrittain

Toccata said:


> This comment brought me some puzzlement:
> 
> Especially in the light of this comment on your own selection:
> 
> One could argue that any Top 25 list without any of Haydn, Debussy, Chopin, Schumann, Berlioz is a bit defective, to say the least.
> 
> So who are you to lecture other people on what composers they are entitled to include or exclude?


Eh? Why does this puzzle you?

Berlioz? He's nowhere near a stone wall inclusion. So far, he's made around 5 people's lists, usually low down, out of the 24 who have entered. It's certainly not unusual to rank him outside the top 25 (he'd come in at around 30th for me actually).

Schumann? Seems a lot of people here find him overrated. He has only made 10 of the 24 lists so far. At this moment in time, he looks unlikely to make the top 25 but might do it.

Chopin and Debussy? Just not my style of music. They both have a rather specific French style, and it just doesn't appeal to me. I just don't enjoy them. Still, they would both have made my top 40.

Haydn? I'll give you that one. That's a highly unusual omission.

If you compile a list of the Top 25 Composers, you're going to have to leave out some recognised names. We've seen everyone here leave out some big names.

You're the guy who was complaining about the DDD and Goulding lists being copied and too similar, and now you're complaining that my list (which, in fact, isn't all that far off from their lists) is too unusual? Now _I'm_ puzzled.

Have you even given your Top 25 yet? I don't think so. I'd prefer to keep the talk here to people who have been brave enough to give their own Top 25, rather than lurkers who criticise others'. Thank you.


----------



## Comistra

1. Dvořák, Antonín
2. Beethoven, Lv
3. Bruch, Max
4. Schumann, Robert
5. Grieg, Edvard
6. Haydn, FJ
7. Liszt, Franz
8. Tchaikovsky, Piotr
9. Mozart, WA
10. Hanson, Howard
11. Schubert, Franz
12. Smetana, Bedřich
13. Mendelssohn, Felix
14. Rachmaninoff, Sergei
15. Chopin, Frederic
16. Paganini, Niccolò
17. Sibelius, Jean
18. Brahms, Johannes
19. Glazunov, Alexander
20. Beach, Amy 
21. Suk, Josef
22. Weyse, Christoph
23. Berwald, Franz
24. Boccherini, Luigi
25. Strauss, Richard

I'm liking the fact that people are not feeling required to list certain composers.


----------



## Air

RBrittain said:


> Schumann? Seems a lot of people here find him overrated. He has only made 10 of the 24 lists so far. At this moment in time, he looks unlikely to make the top 25 but might do it.


And in these cases subjectivity has taken its bitter toll. Many people on this forum have admitted to not having heard much or _any_ of Schumann's solo piano music, songs, and chamber music. In other words, almost the whole bulk of his best output besides the concerti (there's 7 of them by the way, and none of them are slackers) and a few choral works/oratorios. His symphonies aren't the best, that's true (they ain't bad either). But he's definitely not overrated - if anything, more like underrated - since his better works are more obscure than those of his contemporaries (Chopin, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Brahms).

All so-called objective lists have a legitimate reason for their 'objectivity', and Schumann's high place on such a list is certainly no exception.


----------



## RBrittain

Air said:


> And in these cases subjectivity has taken its bitter toll. Many people on this forum have admitted to not having heard much or _any_ of Schumann's solo piano music, songs, and chamber music. In other words, almost the whole bulk of his best output besides the concerti (there's 7 of them by the way, and none of them are slackers) and a few choral works/oratorios. His symphonies aren't the best, that's true (they ain't bad either). But he's definitely not overrated - if anything, more like underrated - since his better works are more obscure than those of his contemporaries (Chopin, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Brahms).
> 
> All so-called objective lists have a legitimate reason for their 'objectivity', and Schumann's high place on such a list is certainly no exception.


I must admit, most of what I have heard comes from a Best of Schumann CD I bought a few years ago. I didn't really like any of it, and I figured that if _THESE_ are his best and most famous works, then there is no point in me trying more. But admittedly, yes, he is a composer I haven't heard anywhere near enough of to make an accurate judgement. I don't think it's fair to assume that everyone who did not list him is in the same boat as me, though. They may have heard most of his stuff but just don't rate him in their top 25.


----------



## Air

RBrittain said:


> I must admit, most of what I have heard comes from a Best of Schumann CD I bought a few years ago. I didn't really like any of it, and I figured that if _THESE_ are his best and most famous works, then there is no point in me trying more. But admittedly, yes, he is a composer I haven't heard anywhere near enough of to make an accurate judgement. I don't think it's fair to assume that everyone who did not list him is in the same boat as me, though. They may have heard most of his stuff but just don't rate him in their top 25.


Yes, I do agree with that... even if you have heard everything and 'understand' it through and through, it's still ultimately your decision whether you like something or not. 

But since you admit to not knowing much Schumann, you have no excuse!  So get listening!


----------



## Webernite

I have mixed feelings about Schumann. He does seem to be underrated and misunderstood by much of the classical-music community today. His reputation has certainly declined since the second half of the nineteenth century. Even his most famous works have become somewhat obscure. On the other hand, as I wrote my list, I couldn't stop thinking of composers who felt more important or just plain _better_, so gradually he slipped down to 24th place. I know Brahms and Tchaikovsky would have rated him much higher, but...


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Comistra said:


> 19. Glazunov, Alexander


Yay! Someone who knows him!


----------



## World Violist

I've never liked Schumann, and I feel like it's somewhat justified; I've been to three concerts with his music in the program of three different genres and all three bored me almost to sleep. Carnaval was the first (solo piano) and I was not only bored, but lost, not being able to figure out which piece was being played at all. Next was the New York Philharmonic playing the second symphony, which was still worse than Carnaval; the only reason I stayed awake was because I consciously made myself stay awake. The third was actually today; the A minor string quartet, which was remarkably boring probably because the quartet that was playing (Shanghai) did not seem to be making any effort to make it sound any more than just pretty.

So far, the only Schumann that I've been able to like has been the piano quintet. Cello concerto didn't make much impact on me, piano concerto almost did... I think Schumann is just not my kind of composer.


----------



## starry

RBrittain said:


> So, in short, I'll accept some oddities, but I'd prefer people pick sensibly and honestly like you did, Webernite. I can't really force anyone to change their lists though, so we'll just have to accept some strangeness.


You can't be much more honest than say what your favourites are.


----------



## science

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Bach
4. Brahms
5. Dvorak
6. Schubert
7. Chopin
8. Haydn
9. Stravinsky
10. Tchaikovsky
11. Rachmaninov
12. Shostakovich
13. Debussy
14. Janacek
15. Ravel
16. Biber
17. Franck
18. Szymanowski
19. Mendelssohn
20. Mahler
21. Bartok 
22. Schumann
23. Faure
24. Elgar
25. Liszt


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I've never liked Schumann, and I feel like it's somewhat justified; I've been to three concerts with his music in the program of three different genres and all three bored me almost to sleep. Carnaval was the first (solo piano) and I was not only bored, but lost, not being able to figure out which piece was being played at all. Next was the New York Philharmonic playing the second symphony, which was still worse than Carnaval; the only reason I stayed awake was because I consciously made myself stay awake. The third was actually today; the A minor string quartet, which was remarkably boring probably because the quartet that was playing (Shanghai) did not seem to be making any effort to make it sound any more than just pretty.

So far, the only Schumann that I've been able to like has been the piano quintet. Cello concerto didn't make much impact on me, piano concerto almost did... I think Schumann is just not my kind of composer.

First of all, Schumann is perhaps second only to Schubert among the great composers of lieder. You need to listen to his songs:





















I will be the first to admit that Schumann's symphonies are not on par with Beethoven or Brahms or Schubert... but neither are they bad. I personally was quite turned on to them by the more muscular approach taken by the recording of John Eliot Gardiner.

It's in Schumann's smaller chamber works and works for solo piano, however, that you will find his greatest achievements after the lieder. Schumann pushed for the link between poetry and music and often thought of music in poetic terms. Rather that the large sprawling piece, he is the master of the poetic miniature... the musical equivalent of the lyric poem.


----------



## World Violist

St. Luke's, thank you for that post. I'm listening to Dichterliebe right now, and it's wonderful. I'll have to check out some of the other pieces you posted about (and probably eventually give the symphonies another chance under Gardiner's baton). Not top 25 right now (I don't know if he'll ever quite be), but I do adore Dichterliebe.


----------



## Toccata

starry said:


> You can't be much more honest than say what your favourites are.


This comment possibly signifies a misunderstanding about the nature and purpose of this poll. As far as I'm aware it is not about one's personal favourite composers, but about those composers you consider to be the greatest whilst allowing your personal taste to affect your choice but not to allow it to dominate it exclusively. This distinction would seem to be clearly spelled out in the OP.

Therefore, if anyone thinks they have inadequate knowledge of the "greats" to be able to rank them objectively, and instead only have a list of personal favourites, they shouldn't be contributing to this thread. But as might be expected, this hasn't stopped various lists of mere personal favourites to roll in, and the results so far are accordingly potentially tainted with bias. It's like asking a question about opinions on subject X but getting mainly answers about Y because people don't know enough about X.

There are several other potential sources of bias that trouble me about this poll. I hasten to add that they are not problems solely confined to this specific poll., but seem to be characteristic of most such polls. I haven't yet voted in this poll but there is still plenty of time to do so (closing date 4 February). This is one of the problems that it allows far too much time for people to manipulate their votes given what's gone on before. The vote should be based on a snapshot in time of opinion among a reasonable cross-section sample of members, whose votes should be independent of each other and not influenced in any way by what others have said and done previously. That's a core requirement of any properly conducted sample/poll.

Against this requirement, we have all manner of problems. First of all, the thread originator has evidently been trying to manipulate the results by threatening to veto certain results if he doesn't think they're reasonable. It's fair enough to discourage highly esoteric purely personal favourites in a poll like this, but some comments have gone beyond than that in expressing a variety of approving and disapproving comments about how others have or should have voted in regard to certain well-known composers. It doesn't bode well for the reliability of results if the architect and vote counter continually makes such interventions.

An example of such comment relates to the status of Robert Schumann, Chopin and Debussy. There is little doubt that these are very great composers, and should be well within any group of 25 in a well-conducted survey of opinion among people who have any claim to knowledge of classical music. That's not to say that they will be to everybody's liking, but on the other hand if they know anything at all about classical music "greats" they should be included. Debussy was at No 10, Chopin at No 12 and Schumann at No 16 on the recently finished "TC 100 Top Composers". It makes little sense for the author of this thread, of all people involved, to try to minimise their significance by making disparaging comments about their significance based on limited knowledge of them.

Another defect is that it is quite apparent that this poll involves opinions from people with a wide range of experience of classical music. That itself is not a problem because the real world is made up of such people. But for the purposes of this poll it would seem that the numbers in each stratum of experience are not random or otherwise selected optimally. Instead it is a self-selecting sample and this can skew the results considerably. I'm not totally sure about this but would guess that there are a disproportionate number of younger voters and who in a sort of grey zone of knowledge of having some exposure to classical music, with maybe up to a few years of experience, but still way short of enough time to have acquired a good knowledge let alone any well-established tastes. I was quite amazed, for example, at some of the gaping holes in their familiarity with core 19th C repertoire by one or two participants on this thread as disclosed recently on another othread.


----------



## zoziejemaar

Toccata said:


> I'm not totally sure about this but would guess that there are a disproportionate number of younger voters and who in a sort of grey zone of knowledge of having some exposure to classical music, with maybe up to a few years of experience, but still way short of enough time to have acquired a good knowledge let alone any well-established tastes. I was quite amazed, for example, at some of the gaping holes in their familiarity with core 19th C repertoire by one or two participants on this thread as disclosed recently on another othread.


Since I feel being tackled here, I would like to give a short response.

Up to this post, I have always had the impression that this forum was a place encouraging discussions also for people who are still on their way exploring classical music. Also, I think (apart from a few exceptions) that the atmosphere here is generally free from the condescending intellectual arrogance that is so rampant in many discussions about classical music. The thread about "which music you haven't heard" was for me a perfect example of this encouraging atmosphere. Also the addition to this poll "please, participate all" made me feel that anyone's opinion was asked, also those who are so modest as to confess that they have no complete knowledge of all classical music (some lack this modesty, apparently).

This post makes me reconsider all this. If this forum is meant as a club for the very knowledgeable (or people who think they are so), then fine, I will not bother you any more with my ignorance.

Also, it's just a poll, isn't it? So, yes, personal favourites slip in. Of course they do, what did you expect? If for example Schumann now falls outside the top-25 (he is at 9 in my list), than this goes to say that many members here feel that Schumann is a bit over-rated. Fine, let's discuss this (someone already started a thread :tiphat If there is one place where the standard rankings and received canons can be discussed, it's in fora like this one. No?


----------



## Xaltotun

Ok, the topic states "Please, Everyone Take Part", so to me that includes both the experts and those people with more limited exposure to classical music (I'm in the latter group). Here goes:

1) Brahms
2) Beethoven
3) Tchaikovsky
4) Rachmaninov
5) Wagner
6) Mozart
7) Ravel
8) Schubert
9) Sibelius
10) Rimsky-Korsakov
11) Bruckner
12) Saint-Saëns
13) Berlioz
14) Mussgorsky
15) Mahler
16) Schumann
17) Dvorak
18) Grieg
19) Haydn
20) Elgar
21) Schostakovich
22) Borodin
23) Scriabin
24) Debussy
25) Vaughan Williams


----------



## emiellucifuge

Again I think we are witnessing a tragic case of taking trivial and matters intended for leisurely enjoyment far too seriously.


----------



## bassClef

People are taking this too seriously. Lighten up people. Of course people will list their favourites. I guess we were misled by the OPs direction: "All you have to do is list your Top 25" and "Please everyone take part". All these polls are worthless but (I thought) just a bit of fun.


----------



## starry

emiellucifuge said:


> Again I think we are witnessing a tragic case of taking trivial and matters intended for leisurely enjoyment far too seriously.


No doubt. And the fact that it is about beyond just the top 10 means that it is about favourites I think and not just what the general opinion of music historians might be right now. I think individual lists on subjects tend to be more interesting than consensus ones anyway which tend to be fairly predictable.



RBrittain said:


> For example, de Falla is unlikely to appear in anyone else's list so won't make the Top 25.


But he might appear in another list, you don't know for sure. He did do some good music.



RBrittain said:


> You must have a very unusual mind, to not 'get' Brahms, etc.


Not all of Brahms appeals to some people. I'm not sure quite a few performers get Brahms either, like in some of his chamber music. Took me a while to find a performance of some of his string quartets that I liked. You might actually say the same for some of Haydn, who you said you don't like.



Toccata said:


> Therefore, if anyone thinks they have inadequate knowledge of the "greats" to be able to rank them objectively, and instead only have a list of personal favourites, they shouldn't be contributing to this thread.


How do we scientifically gauge at what point someone has adequate knowledge of a composer or not? People will always have preferences and some gaps in their knowledge. Some of these will disappear over time of course but to get a full grasp of music over many centuries isn't easy and most would not have the time. But these gaps in understanding/sympathy for some composers will be filled in by others who do have that. People will have their own specialities.


----------



## RBrittain

emiellucifuge said:


> Again I think we are witnessing a tragic case of taking trivial and matters intended for leisurely enjoyment far too seriously.


This.

Can't really be bothered to respond to Toccata as it seems a waste of time spent on debating something so trivial. I do have a good knowledge of Debussy and Chopin, in fact, and don't like them enough to rank in my top 25. Likewise for Haydn. Schumann is the only one of the 5 (including Berlioz in the 5 also, who I've heard and like, but not enough) who I haven't heard enough of to make a really accurate judgement, but I _have_ heard his (supposed) 'Best of', and didn't like any of it. As someone else here alluded to, it was more like 'Pretty sounds' than 'Sublime music'. That's just my personal opinion of what I _have_ heard, and I haven't heard enough Schumann. Likewise, many people are saying they've listed this or that composer based on one or two lovely pieces they've heard. Same thing. Limited knowledge of their works, but it's fine by me.

If Schumann doesn't make the top 25, that will be because few people voted for him - not just me. I was expecting him to get into the top 25. I've compiled the first 14 lists so far and he's coming in 31st, but there is still plenty to go and he could make it. If he's really objectively worthy of the top 16, then we can expect him to make the top 25 despite my omission. We've seen Beethoven, Bach omitted from the odd list and those two are still top.

Perhaps I shouldn't have criticised anyone's list, but I did mean the 'lunatic' comment tongue-in-cheek (hence the smiley). So I find some of your lists strange. That's fine. Some of you find my list strange. That's fine.

Let's just make this fun. Everyone, your lists are fine, even the very unusual ones. I'm accepting them all. I hope to see more come in. Just try to enjoy it, and I'll do my bit by only speaking positively about people's lists henceforth.


----------



## starry

RBrittain said:


> If he's really objectively worthy of the top 16, then we can expect him to make the top 25 despite my omission.


But how objective is all of this really?


----------



## Toccata

emiellucifuge said:


> Again I think we are witnessing a tragic case of taking trivial and matters intended for leisurely enjoyment far too seriously.


I'm surprised to see this comment as I had rather assumed that you treat very seriously all the various polls and analyses, especially in view of the large amount time you appear to spend organising such activities in this Forum. From now on I will take it that you regard all your activities in these areas as "trivial matters" intended only for leisurely enjoyment.

I will also give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are familiar with what I've been talking about in terms of proper sampling procedures, sources of bias, etc and that your dismissive comments about my observations are not merely an attempt to hide any lack of knowledge you may have in this area.



zoziejemaar said:


> Since I feel being tackled here, I would like to give a short response.


I wasn't targetting you or anyone in particular. I was merely saying that some people have not been answering the question posed in the OP about "greatness", not "favourites"; that polls of this sort can produce biased results if care is not taken; and in one particular context I ventured to suggest that may be a disproportionate number of responses from people who are not representative of the classical music population at large. I guess if I had said simply "polls like this are a waste of time" no-one would have taken any notice. I decided to explain things a bit more fully.


----------



## RBrittain

starry said:


> But how objective is all of this really?


I reckon that the objectively worthy composers will rise to the top, as we have seen that happen so far. The thing is, the music of the 'big names' often _is_ loved by people, and _that's_ why we keep seeing Beethoven near the top. Because many people recognise him as a brilliant composer and enjoy his music.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Toccata said:


> I'm surprised to see this comment as I had rather assumed that you treat very seriously all the various polls and analyses, especially in view of the large amount time you appear to spend organising such activities in this Forum. From now on I will take it that you regard all your activities in these areas as "trivial matters" intended only for leisurely enjoyment.
> 
> I will also give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are familiar with what I've been talking about in terms of proper sampling procedures, sources of bias, etc and that your dismissive comments about my observations are not merely an attempt to hide any lack of knowledge you may have in this area.


I will tell you why I have dedicated some of my time to running these polls:

1. It is fun to share opinions
2. It is interesting to learn about new works and music
3. I enjoy spreading lesser-known works that deserve more attention.
I do not believe the final list will have any real value, other than perhaps acting as a useful starting-point for newcomers.

Concerning statistics; I study all the sciences and am in my last year at school so I understand the importance of sample sizes, the removal of bias and other such factors. I do not know about the formula you used in that other thread to compare various lists.

This thread exists because various people similar to myself think it is fun to do, If you think it is fun to do you may open the thread and join in. If not then there is no reason to post.


----------



## starry

RBrittain said:


> I reckon that the objectively worthy composers will rise to the top, as we have seen that happen so far. The thing is, the music of the 'big names' often _is_ loved by people, and _that's_ why we keep seeing Beethoven near the top. Because many people recognise him as a brilliant composer and enjoy his music.


Partly that of course, but also partly because he is so famous (with the historic reputation) and all his music is out there to be heard and most people hear his music often.


----------



## Toccata

RBrittain said:


> If *Schumann* doesn't make the top 25, that will be because few people voted for him - not just me. I was expecting him to get into the top 25. I've compiled the first 14 lists so far and he's coming in *31st*, but there is still plenty to go and he could make it. If he's really objectively worthy of the top 16, then we can expect him to make the top 25 despite my omission. .


What weighting system are you using, i.e. how do you score the various ranks?

I've been keeping close tabs on the votes so far and score Schumann higher on a range of alternative weighting systems. I get a rank of about No 20 or 21 so far (26 votes counted), so I think you are way out with your figure of 31.


----------



## RBrittain

Toccata said:


> What weighting system are you using, i.e. how do you score the various ranks?
> 
> I've been keeping close tabs on the votes so far and score Schumann higher on a range of alternative weighting systems. I get a rank of about No 20 or 21 so far (26 votes counted), so I think you are way out with your figure of 31.


And I think you can't read. I've only tallied the first 14 so far.


----------



## Toccata

RBrittain said:


> And I think you can't read. I've only tallied the first 14 so far.


I repeat, what weighting system are you using? I thought I had asked this question very clearly.

What is the point telling us about the results based on the first 14 votes when there are 26 votes in? It might appear that you don't seem to like Schumann very much.

I'm watching these votes very carefully.


----------



## Toccata

emiellucifuge said:


> Concerning statistics; I study all the sciences and am in my last year at school so I understand the importance of sample sizes, the removal of bias and other such factors. *I do not know about the formula you used in that other thread to compare various lists.*


Really? The tests I referred to are t-test and F-test. They are about as bog-standard as you can get in statistics once you get into the realm of testing hypotheses, which stage I would assume you haven't yet reached if you haven't heard of them. You might try Googling if you want any further assistance.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Yes - really. Apart from that I dont do statistics in school, I do mechanics instead - only touching on statistics in my Further Maths course.
There is some statistics involved in Biology but we dont get much further than Spearman-Rank etc..


----------



## RBrittain

Toccata said:


> I repeat, what weighting system are you using? I thought I had asked this question very clearly.
> 
> What is the point telling us about the results based on the first 14 votes when there are 26 votes in? It might appear that you don't seem to like Schumann very much.
> 
> I'm watching these votes very carefully.


A very standard weighting system. I will reveal the entire set of statistics, in an Excel spreadsheet, when I'm giving the final results.

You seem to misunderstand a lot of things. I only mentioned casually that Schumann was outside the top 25 after the results I've compiled. That does not mean he will finish outside the top 25. As said, there is loads to go - I've only compiled 14, of 26, and I expect many more entries.

It seems you have an agenda, as you routinely distort others' posts whilst making excuses for your own brazen assumptions and falsehoods.


----------



## Pierrot Lunaire

I just want to have fun with it. The problem is I just can't include composers I don't really listen to just because other people tell me they are "great". And when most people on here say "great" I get the impression that they mean romantic/classical/Bach "great" and not modern/renaissance/baroque-that's-not-Bach "great". You may not like Gérard Grisey or Steve Reich but most cutting edge contemporary composers are likely to be highly influenced by one of these two composers. That's pretty great to me.

1. Frédéric Chopin
2. Arnold Schoenberg
3. Claudio Monteverdi
4. György Ligeti
5. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
6. Béla Bartók
7. Olivier Messiaen
8. Claude Debussy
9. Johann Sebastian Bach
10. Gérard Grisey
11. Josquin des Prez
12. Alexander Scriabin
13. Girolamo Frescobaldi
14. Iannis Xenakis
15. Charles-Valentin Alkan
16. Edgard Varèse
17. Domenico Scarlatti
18. Franz Liszt
19. Morton Feldman
20. Jean-Philippe Rameau
21. Modest Mussorgsky
22. Sofia Gubaidulina
23. Charles Ives
24. Hildegard von Bingen
25. Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina


----------



## Chasman

Allow me to tag one on here with a twist. There are only a few composers I'd be willing to call favourites, but I looked at my inventory to see which ones I have the most CDs of, and here are the results:

FJ Haydn - 169
JS Bach - 165
Handel - 100
Mozart - 75
Telemann - 46
Beethoven - 37
Dvorak - 22
Boccherini - 20
Schubert - 16
Mendelssohn - 15
Brahms - 14
Vaughn Williams - 12
Purcell - 8
Couperin - 8
Sainte Colombe - 8
Spohr - 8
Hovhaness - 7
Onslow - 7
Pleyel - 6
Monteverdi - 6
Debussy - 6
Part - 6
Rolla - 5
Dowland - 5
Schutz - 5
_
edited for spelling and such_


----------



## Toccata

RBrittain said:


> A very standard weighting system. I will reveal the entire set of statistics, in an Excel spreadsheet, when I'm giving the final results.
> 
> You seem to misunderstand a lot of things. I only mentioned casually that Schumann was outside the top 25 after the results I've compiled. That does not mean he will finish outside the top 25. As said, there is loads to go - I've only compiled 14, of 26, and I expect many more entries.
> 
> It seems you have an agenda, as you routinely distort others' posts whilst making excuses for your own brazen assumptions and falsehoods.


Thank you for your comments.

I would still like to know exactly what weighting system you plan to use, so that I and possibly others too may be able to comment upon it before you produce any results, as it could be material to the outcome. As far as I am aware, there is no such thing as "a very standard weighting system", and that is why I'm asking for clarification of this matter. If the one you propose to use is as standard as you claim, I assume you won't mind telling us now what it is if only to avoid any criticism later.

If I may say so, it is not me who has any agenda but rather you. It was you who proposed a new thread to replace the other one (T-C Top 100 Composers). I admit that it was struggling to survive various practical problems it began to encounter, but I can't see that there was any need to repeat the exercise, especially since you intend only to go as far as the top 25 composers which is roughly where the previous one got to before it hit the buffers.

In raising a new thread you did so by declaring that you reserved the right to ignore some results if they didn't meet with your expectations. That was quite extraordinary. As the results began to roll in you then made certain approving comments about composers you like, and various disparaging remarks about several composers whom you don't rate based on your very limited exposure to their works, e.g. having listened to a "best of X" CD.

Then when some dubious results began to occur in the case of much less well-known composers you used personal terminology to describe certain members who submitted these nominations which was hardly tactful. In response to criticism from one of the targets of your obscure terminology you then backtracked and pretended it was all a joke.

Next you next changed your mind about ignoring certain votes, and now say you welcome all-comers.

The latest bizarre twist is that you are quoting some certain selective results for a composer whom you have declared you don't rate based on only half of the available sample results, and now say that the results might change. Of course they might, just as some of the others might.

In the light of all these oddities, I intend to monitor this vote and question your procedures if I don't like the look of what you are doing.


----------



## bassClef

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrghh


----------



## RBrittain

And once again, you're grossly distorting things. I'm going to respond to you once more, but after that, I'm going to ignore you, because I am now almost convinced that you are a troll.



Toccata said:


> I would still like to know exactly what weighting system you plan to use, so that I and possibly others too may be able to comment upon it before you produce any results, as it could be material to the outcome. As far as I am aware, there is no such thing as "a very standard weighting system", and that is why I'm asking for clarification of this matter. If the one you propose to use is as standard as you claim, I assume you won't mind telling us now what it is if only to avoid any criticism later.


That's none of your business. You're not taking part in the game. Every one of your posts in this thread has been complaining about something or other, and your posts are also riddled with assumptions and semi-sinister tones. Out of principle, I won't be telling you the scoring system, but I will tell anyone who has taken part who asks. It is a very standard scoring system. That's all you're getting. You'll have to wait for someone who I respect (who has taken part) to ask, and I will answer them. Or, take part yourself, then ask, and then I will tell you.



> In raising a new thread you did so by declaring that you reserved the right to ignore some results if they didn't meet with your expectations. That was quite extraordinary. As the results began to roll in you then made certain approving comments about composers you like, and various disparaging remarks about several composers whom you don't rate based on your very limited exposure to their works, e.g. having listened to a "best of X" CD.
> 
> Then when some dubious results began to occur in the case of much less well-known composers you used personal terminology to describe certain members who submitted these nominations which was hardly tactful. In response to criticism from one of the targets of your obscure terminology you then backtracked and pretended it was all a joke.
> 
> Next you next changed your mind about ignoring certain votes, and now say you welcome all-comers.


Utter nonsense. I never said I would ignore anyone's votes. I said I would _ask people to explain_ their lists if they appear very odd. So far, I have done that once or twice. Once again, for about the fifth or sixth time, you have grossly distorted what has been written for your own agenda. I never, ever said I was going to ignore votes.

You're also brazenly assuming that every composer I dislike, I mustn't have heard.



> The latest bizarre twist is that you are quoting some certain selective results for a composer whom you have declared you don't rate based on only half of the available sample results, and now say that the results might change. Of course they might, just as some of the others might.
> 
> In the light of all these oddities, I intend to monitor this vote and question your procedures if I don't like the look of what you are doing.


Again, utter bilge. I'm not quoting 'selective results'. I've only compiled 14 so far and just casually mentioned that Schumann wasn't in the top 25 yet, but that he had plenty of chance to get up there.

In this latest post of yours alone, Toccata, you have made at least 4 serious errors - false assumptions or outright lies. I am 99% sure you are a troll, and will be reporting you to the admins as of now, to see what they make of you. It's unfortunate for them that they will have to endure the laborious task of reading through all your nonsense.


----------



## RBrittain

Thank you to all the people who have done their lists so far. Apologies that this thread has had to be filled with such argumentative bilge. I won't tolerate trolls and hopefully the problem will be dealt with swiftly. I am hopeful that this can be a fun and interesting topic again once the problem has been dealt with.


----------



## Toccata

RBrittain said:


> I am 99% sure you are a troll, and will be reporting you to the admins as of now, to see what they make of you. It's unfortunate for them that they will have to endure the laborious task of reading through all your nonsense.


It is you who has been lashing out with accusations, not me. You have accused me of having an "agenda", when all I have done is to ask you to clarify your procedures. I have had to ask repeatedly because you keep dodging the questions or refuse to answer them, e.g. about your proposed weighting system. Why can you not answer it? It's not a good excuse to say that you will only answer anyone who has already voted.

Why you get so annoyed about a question like this I cannot understand. You have used words like "utter bilge" and "utter nonsense" to describe my comments and observations about your procedures. These are expressions which I would guess are not acceptable, despite your annoyance at my persistence. I have not used any offensive comments such as these against you or anyone else in this or any other thread, or at any time since I joined this forum quite a long time ago.

The reason I'm tackling you is because I have an interest in statistics and I see nothing but problems in your plans, which you appear to be making worse for yourself at every stage by inappropriate comments of various sorts, changes of plan, premature prediction of results, adverse comments about certain composers, and the like.


----------



## Charon

Here we go! My list of top 25 favourites looks like this:

1. Mozart
2. Beethoven
3. Bach
4. Schubert
5. Brahms
6. Chopin
7. Mahler
8. Handel
9. Haydn
10. Mendelssohn
11. Wagner
12. Prokofiev
13. Schoenberg
14. Part
15. Debussy
16. Tchaikovsky
17. Schumann
18. Faure
19. Bruckner
20. Dvorak
21. Vivaldi
22. Liszt
23. Gorecki
24. Shostakovich
25. Strauss

Pretty happy with the list. But am not entirely happy that these were left out::
Rachmaninov
Ravel
Paganini
Stravinsky
Gershwin
Barber
Berg


----------



## mamascarlatti

I don't take this seriously either, but I'll add my little opera-lover's list, which of course looks different from a general classical list

1.	Mozart
2.	Wagner
3.	Verdi
4.	Handel
5.	Bach (J S)
6.	Monteverdi
7.	Scarlatti (D)
8.	Puccini
9.	Beethoven 
10.	Massenet
11.	Bellini
12.	Donizetti
13.	Janáček
14.	Strauss (R)
15.	Rameau
16.	Prokofiev
17.	Rossini
18.	Stravinsky
19.	Purcell
20.	Tchaikovsky
21.	Berlioz
22.	Vivaldi
23.	Schubert
24.	Berg
25.	Corelli


----------



## Musicbox

good grief. this is supposed to be fun.

I've realised that I forgot about Nielsen but seems I cannot now edit my list.


----------



## bassClef

One of the reasons I do like perusing lists of people's favourites (rather than generic lists of the "greats" who we all know) is when it throws up some peculiarities. It would be better with some narrative, but even just a name I've not heard of starts me on an exciting quest. I'm trying some Grisey and Rolla as we speak.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

mamascarlatti said:


> I don't take this seriously either, but I'll add my little opera-lover's list, which of course looks different from a general classical list
> 
> 1.	Mozart
> 2.	Wagner
> 3.	Verdi
> 4.	Handel


You have identified the four greatest opera composers of all time, which many folks in the know seem to often agree upon.


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

1- chopin
2- lizst
3- beethoven
4-alkan
5-debussy
6-mozart
7-tchaikovsky ( for his beautiful barcarolle)
8-sibelius
9-edvard grieg
10- wagner
11-J.S.Bach
12-... unknow composer. ((Maybe henry VIII) greensleeves) 


I like the time of Ressanaince and Romance which were the most beautiful at all times!


----------



## mamascarlatti

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> You have identified the four greatest opera composers of all time, which many folks in the know seem to often agree upon.


Hehe you're right, but it gets a little more idiosyncratic after that compared with a more general list.


----------



## RBrittain

Couple of things. Air:



Air said:


> 1) Bach
> 1) Mozart
> 1) Prokofiev
> 4) Schumann
> 4) Wagner
> 6) Villa-Lobos
> 7) Beethoven
> 7) Bruckner
> 9) Schubert
> 9) Bartok
> 10) R.Strauss
> 11) Medtner
> 11) Ravel
> 11) Varèse
> 11) Stravinsky
> 15) Janáček
> 15) Brahms
> 15) Ligeti
> 18) Liszt
> 19) Handel
> 19) Mahler
> 21) Schoenberg
> 21) Sibelius
> 23) Alkan
> 24) Ives
> 25) Rameau
> 25) Walton
> 25) Berlioz
> 25) Berg


I think you've slightly miscounted. Though I'd prefer no ties, I'll accept them, but down to Ives is 25. I think the error occurs when you listed R. Strauss as '10)' rather than '11)'

In total, there are 29 names on your list so I've excluded the last four, who are all joint 26th (rather than joint 25th). You can amend it if you want to, though.

Oh and, please, anyone amending their list late, tell me (I don't think you can edit your original post anyway), so that I can change the data I've entered into the compiler.

ricardo_jvc6: You've only listed 11. I suppose I can accept the odd shortened list, as it's still useful data to add, though I would prefer if you listed 25 (if possible).


----------



## Air

My pathetic attempt to break the ties. I did this for you, bud. Hope it makes the work easier. 

1) Bach
2) Mozart
3) Prokofiev
4) Schumann
5) Wagner
6) Villa-Lobos
7) Beethoven
8) Bruckner
9) Schubert
10) Bartok
11) R.Strauss
12) Ravel
13) Varèse
14) Stravinsky
15) Medtner
16) Janáček
17) Brahms
18) Ligeti
19) Liszt
20) Handel
21) Mahler
22) Schoenberg
23) Sibelius
24) Ives
25) Berlioz
n.b. Alkan


----------



## RBrittain

Thanks Air


----------



## Sid James

In no particular order:

1. Handel
2. Beethoven
3. Mozart
4. Schubert
5. Zemlinsky
6. Schoenberg
7. Xenakis
8. Carter
9. Lutoslawski
10. Feldman
11. Alkan
12. Liszt
13. Stockhausen
14. Partch
15. Varese
16. Ginastera
17. Ives
18. Berg
19. Webern
20. Bartok
21. Dutilleux
22. Ligeti
23. Tippett
24. Schnittke
25. Messiaen


----------



## Kieran

I struggled after a while, so my bottom few are based upon a scanty knowledge of a few works... :tiphat:

1. Mozart 
2. Beethoven 
3. Handel 
4. Bach 
5. Tchaikovski 
6. Haydn 
7. Wagner 
8. Schubert
9. Verdi
10. Monterverdi 
11. Mahler
12. Stravinski
13. Schoenberg
14. Rossini
15. Sibelius
16. R Strauss
17. Bartok
18. Debussy
19. Saint Saens
20. Hildegard de Bingen
21. Palestrina
22. Shostokovitch
23. Chopin
24. Brahms
25. Prokoviev


----------



## Toccata

1	Mozart 
2	Beethoven
3	Bach 
4	Schubert
5	Haydn J
6	Brahms
7	Wagner
8	Handel
9	Schumann 
10	Tchaikovsky
11	Mendelssohn
12	Stravinsky
13	Chopin
14	Liszt
15	Dvorak
16	Verdi
17	Mahler
18	Debussy
19	Prokofiev
20	Berlioz
21	Strauss, R
22	Shostakovich
23	Vivaldi
24	Monteverdi
25 Bruckner


----------



## jhar26

-1 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
-2 Richard Strauss
-3 Giacomo Puccini
-4 Johann Sebastian Bach
-5 Ludwig van Beethoven
-6 Joseph Haydn
-7 George Frideric Handel
-8 Guiseppe Verdi
-9 Sergei Prokofiev
10 Richard Wagner
11 Peter Tchaikovsky
12 Claudio Monteverdi
13 Maurice Ravel
14 Frederic Chopin
15 Franz Schubert
16 Gioacchino Rossini
17 Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy
18 Jean-Philippe Rameau
19 Johannes Brahms
20 Vincenzo Bellini
21 Antonin Dvorak
22 Kaija Saariaho
23 Robert Schumann
24 Gaetano Donizetti
25 Leos Janacek


----------



## starry

bassClef said:


> One of the reasons I do like perusing lists of people's favourites (rather than generic lists of the "greats" who we all know) is when it throws up some peculiarities. It would be better with some narrative, but even just a name I've not heard of starts me on an exciting quest. I'm trying some Grisey and Rolla as we speak.


This is always the case with lists, whether it be for music, film or anything else. The consensus list is normally quite boring but the individual lists are more interesting. I've never really understood why people always seem more interested in the final consensus list in such things rather than the individual ones which make them up.


----------



## Geronimo

01. Dmitri Shostakovich
02. Ludwig van Beethoven
03. Gustav Mahler
04. Alfred Schnittke
05. Richard Strauss
06. Leoš Janáček
07. Georg Friedrich Händel
08. György Ligeti
09. Jean Sibelius
10. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky 
11. Johann Sebastian Bach
12. Benjamin Britten
13. Anton Bruckner
14. Alessandro Scarlatti
15. Hector Berlioz
16. Maurice Ravel
17. Heinrich Ignaz Franz von Biber
18. Alban Berg
19. Arnold Schoenberg
20. Igor Stravinsky
21. Camille Saint-Saëns
22. Edgard Varèse
23. Iannis Xenakis
24. Sergei Prokofiev
25. Johannes Brahms


----------



## Lipatti

Why not?

1. Mozart
2. JS Bach
3. Beethoven
4. Schubert
5. Chopin
6. Scarlatti
7. Ravel
8. Liszt
9. Enescu
10. Tchaikovsky
11. Haydn
12. Monteverdi
13. Handel
14. Mendelssohn
15. CPE Bach
16. Debussy
17. Verdi
18. Wagner
19. Vivaldi
20. Stravinsky
21. Donizetti
22. Boulez
23. Scriabin
24. Hindemith
25. Corelli


----------



## Manxfeeder

Here's the 25 composers who I personally like so much I'd go out in the snow to hear. The ranking is almost arbitrary, because these composers can't stand head to head - Beethoven was dealing with a different set of rules than Dufay or Varese - but they're ranked according to either ability or influence on other composers.

Beethoven
Mozart
Bach
Handel
Haydn
Bruckner
Brahms
Ockeghem
Stravinsky
Schoenberg
Debussy
Dufay
Mahler
Bartok
Obrecht
Josquin
Palestrina
Webern
Sibelius
Varese
Vivaldi
Ravel
Satie
Glazunov
Mendelssohn


----------



## Andrew_MBB

1. W A Mozart
2. J S Bach
3. L V Beethoven
4. R Wagner
5. J Haydn
6. I Stravinsky
7. F Schubert
8. J Brahms
9. G F Handel
10. P I Tchaikovsky
11. F Mendelssohn
12. D Scarlatti
13. D Shostakovich
14. G Mahler
15. R Schumann
16. A Vivaldi
17. G Verdi
18. A Bruckner
19. R Strauss
20. F Chopin
21. S Prokofiev
22. G P Palestrina
23. C Debussy
24. A Schoenberg
25. C Monteverdi


----------



## Tarquinius Superbus

1. Ludwig van Beethoven
2. Joseph Haydn
3. Johannes Brahms
4. Johann Sebastian Bach
5. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
6. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
7. Antonín Dvořák
8. Jean Sibelius
9. Franz Schubert
10. Antonio Vivaldi
11. Gustav Mahler
12. Sergei Rachmaninov
13. Hector Berlioz
14. Frédéric Chopin
15. Béla Bartók
16. Sergei Prokofiev
17. Gustav Holst
18. Carl Nielsen
19. Richard Strauss
20. George Frideric Handel
21. Edvard Grieg
22. Edward Elgar
23. Claudio Monteverdi
24. Alexander Borodin
25. Olivier Messiaen


----------



## Nix

Oh dear... this is going to be a nightmare to rank. Best of luck to you Britten.


----------



## gr8gunz

When is the final tally??


----------



## CathyYCA

Not in any order:

1. Chopin
2. Debussy
3. Liszt
4. Brahms
5. Schumann
6. Beethoven
7. Mozart
8. Mahler
9. Rachmaninoff
10. Prokofieff
11. Ravel
12. Satie
13. Gershwin
14. Puccini
15. Schubert
16. Bach
17. Wagner
18. R. Strauss
19. Dvorak
20. Grieg
21. Barber
22.Stravinsky
23. MacDowell
24. Tchaikowsky
25. Mendelssohn


----------



## RBrittain

Nix said:


> Oh dear... this is going to be a nightmare to rank. Best of luck to you Britten.


Thanks!  (Britten, another composer I haven't heard enough of, despite my name)



gr8gunz said:


> When is the final tally??


End of Friday, British time.


----------



## Almaviva

Oh boy. What is wrong with this forum? It seems like the usual friendly atmosphere has been deteriorating lately. 

All these lists are just for fun. The post questioning emiellucifuge for spending too much time organizing lists was uncalled for. I thank emiellucifuge for taking the time to help us with having some fun and exchanging information about our favorites.

Same with this current effort by RBrittain, it's nice that he's doing this, and I see no hidden agenda.

Again, whether members here are seasoned or not like the same poster was saying, is irrelevant to me. I welcome people of all levels of experience when I'm involved in some discussion. I don't mind guiding the novice when I have more expertise in what they're inquiring about, and I greatly value the veterans who know more than I do, because I learn from them. F-test, t-test? Come on. We're discussing music here. (And yes, I know what they are. My background is scientific. But what I like here is to discuss music, not statistics). So, yes, these rankings are not to be taken seriously, they are not scientifically sound polls, but I like them, they're fun.

What I like a lot less is interacting with condescending snobs. Fortunately they're very rare here. I'd love it to continue to be this way.

End of rant.

Now, for the vote.

I'm not sure if you guys really want me to include my list in this poll because it will be atypical. I am first and foremost an opera lover. I do have some general exposure to other genres of classical music, but it doesn't even start to scratch the surface of my involvement with opera. Therefore, my favorites are all opera composers, and even when the greatest and most acclaimed composers are not so good at opera, I won't like them as much. Case in point, Haydn. Since I consider his operas to be very weak, you won't see him in my top 25 favorites, although I do recognize that he is a formidable composer of non-operatic music.

So, be warned, but if you want to read my list in spite of the above, here it is:

1. Wagner
2. Verdi
3. Mozart
4. Handel
5. Berlioz
6. Richard Strauss
7. Beethoven
8. Monteverdi
9. Donizetti
10. Rossini
11. Bellini
12. Puccini
13. Janacek
14. Stravinsky
15. Shostakovich
16. Offenbach
17. Massenet
18. Bizet
19. Weber
20. Rameau
21. Mussorgsky
22. Tchaikovsky
23. Berg
24. Britten
25. Prokofiev

Important omissions - I don't like Lully as much as Rameau. Purcell and Marc-Antoine Charpentier would be further down although I do like them. I don't care much for Pergolesi either. Gluck should be there however my exposure to him is limited (I'm working on it). Cimarosa is OK but again, I have little exposure to him. I don't like Meyebeer. Same with Ponchielli. Boito's Mefistofele is an interesting work but he isn't a good orchestrator. Humperdinck I consider to be an unfulfilled promise. I like Johann Strauss II but it's operetta so I don't have him in my top 25 although Offenbach did make it. Thomas is a bit sugary, and Gounod is definitely sugary. Saint-Saëns and Delibes are nice but not great. Smetana is fun, should be in the next few spots after the 25. I don't particularly care for Borodin and Rimsky-Korsakov. Mascagni and Leoncavallo are great but I only know one opera from each. Gustave Charpentier is also a bit light weight. Giordano could be good but just doesn't quite get there, I always have the impression that he falls short of the goal. Same with Cilea. Dvorak should be in the next few spots, I like him. Lehár is fun too, but like I said, I consider operettas further down. Debussy and Bartók should also be included in the next few spots after the 25. I don't like Dukas, and Korngold is interesting but a bit overdramatic. Weill is OK but not more than down to the forties. Szymanowski is great, should be in the next spots, and so should Enesco. Zimmermann is too wild for me. Schoenberg - I like him. Could be in the top 25 if I had more exposure to him beyond Moses und Aron. I like Gershwin. Poulenc is good, also could have a spot a bit further down. Bernstein is fun, and so is Corigliano. Saariaho is a growing force. And there are likely some others that I'm forgetting to name.

Why do I place Beethoven so high if he's got only one opera to his name? Oh well, I *do* know his other works, mind you, and it feels obscene to rank him too low.:lol:

Where is J.S. Bach in my list? Nowhere, and rightfully so. Oh well, he made the big mistake of not composing opera. Cantatas won't cut it, for me.:lol:


----------



## Art Rock

Almaviva said:


> Oh boy. What is wrong with this forum? It seems like the usual friendly atmosphere has been deteriorating lately.
> 
> All these lists are just for fun. The post questioning emiellucifuge for spending too much time organizing lists was uncalled for. I thank emiellucifuge for taking the time to help us with having some fun and exchanging information about our favorites.
> 
> Same with this current effort by RBrittain, it's nice that he's doing this, and I see no hidden agenda.
> 
> Again, whether members here are seasoned or not like the same poster was saying, is irrelevant to me. I welcome people of all levels of experience when I'm involved in some discussion. I don't mind guiding the novice when I have more expertise in what they're inquiring about, and I greatly value the veterans who know more than I do, because I learn from them. F-test, t-test? Come on. We're discussing music here. (And yes, I know what they are. My background is scientific. But what I like here is to discuss music, not statistics). So, yes, these rankings are not to be taken seriously, they are not scientifically sound polls, but I like them, they're fun.
> 
> What I like a lot less is interacting with condescending snobs. Fortunately they're very rare here. I'd love it to continue to be this way.
> 
> End of rant.


Well ranted.


----------



## Olias

1 Beethoven
2 Mozart
3 Dvorak
4 Haydn
5 Bach
6 Brahms
7 Tchaikovsky
8 Shostakovich
9 Mendelssohn
10 Copland
11 Schubert
12 Schumann
13 Handel
14 Prokofiev
15 Stravinsky
16 Rachmaninoff
17 Holst
18 Liszt
19 Debussy
20 Mahler
21 Bernstein
22 Rossini
23 Saint Saens
24 Grieg
25 Berlioz


----------



## Barking Spiderz

Hi. I'm new here but this thread is a good place for a first post .I've only really been listening seriously to CM for about a year now although I have my clear faves and know what doesn't do it for me. I mostly like orchestral music, some piano works from late Classical to early 20th century and the lighter end of opera. 
In descending order top 5 are writ in stone 
Beethoven - for the symphonies, overtures, piano concertos and violin concerto
Dvorak - for all his symphonies, the tone poems, serenades and slavonic dances
Tchaikovsky - for all his symphonies, the ballets, tone poems and overtures
Debussy - for most of his orchestral works and most of his piano stuff
Mendelssohn -primarily for his symphonies and overtures

The next 20 in no particular order
Saint Saens - his other symphonies are all underrated but his famous stuff is all superb
Schubert - mostly for his symphonies
Brahms - for his symphonies, concertos, Hungarian dances and serenades
Borodin - all his orchestral stuff and some opera tunes
Smetana - not just for Ma Vlast, Bartered Bride but also lesser known orch works
Rimsky-K - for his orchestral works and several operas
Rossini - esp his overtures
Bizet - for Carmen alone but his orchestral works do it for me esp Symphone in C
Berlioz - mostly for overtures and Symphonie Fantastique - I have 10 versions of this
Grieg - mostly for Pier Gynt and Holberg suites and piano concerto
Schumann - mostly for the symphonies
Von Suppe - I have all 6 Marco Polo volumes of his overtures. Very underrated
Albeniz - not only for his piano works but also for the guitar versions
Haydn - mostly for the London Symphonies and the keyboard and piano concertos
Mozart - mainly for the later symphonies, serenades, operas and piano concertos
Sibelius - for his tone poems but not the symphonies
Prokofiev - for his suites -symphonies 1 & 5 and Romeo and Juliiet
Holst - not only for The Planets but also lesser know tunes like Egdon Heath
Janacek - for his orchestral works
Franz Schmidt - I only know his 4 symphonies but that's enough to warrant inclusion


----------



## Andrew_MBB

Why is Wagner so low?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Can you guys explain to me why you like Beethoven so much? Like, putting him in the top 3 or 5?

(I duck my head)


----------



## gr8gunz

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Can you guys explain to me why you like Beethoven so much? Like, putting him in the top 3 or 5?


Well, I can't answer for everybody but I put him there because he composed some of the greatest music ever written (IMHO). I suspect that is why you placed Anton Wellesz there.


----------



## Lipatti

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Can you guys explain to me why you like Beethoven so much? Like, putting him in the top 3 or 5?
> 
> (I duck my head)


A decisive reason for me is his piano output, and the third symphony.


----------



## Barking Spiderz

I like CM that has of lot of uplifting, up tempo content, excitement and with a beefy sound and no one does this better than LvB. To me his symphonies and concertos are rousing and energising unlike say those of non-favourites of mine like Mahler, Bruckner, Shosta and Sibelius. Most works in minor keys like most of their symphonies sound dirgelike and depressing to me.


----------



## Webernite

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Can you guys explain to me why you like Beethoven so much?


For his development sections, basically. They're the key to his greatness.


----------



## RBrittain

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Can you guys explain to me why you like Beethoven so much? Like, putting him in the top 3 or 5?
> 
> (I duck my head)


Fantastic range of symphonies. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 are all very different and all wonderful works of music which I can listen to again and again and enjoy.

Beethoven's music covers every emotion, every state - There is melancholy, powerful, spiritually uplifting, calming, stoical, bold, even revelatory. Beethoven was brilliantly good at expressing his own feelings and emotions in his music.

I see his symphonies as his greatest works, but in addition to this he wrote many great pieces - Fantastic piano output.. Fur Elise, Moonlight Sonata, other sonatas, piano concertos including The Emperor.

An excellent violin concerto.

Brilliant overtures (The Coriolan being my favourite)..

And quite a lot more.


----------



## RBrittain

Right, I've compiled the first 4 pages so far, which is 26 entries. Still a long, long way to go, but at that point, the top ten are/were:

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

Sibelius is the main surprise. He certainly makes my top 10, but I wasn't expecting him to be this high-ranked. Wagner was doing really well, coming in third for a while, though has since gone through a barren spell. Schumann has indeed broken into the top 25, currently in 23rd. There are no huge surprises in the top 25, other than Bruckner being 19th which is perhaps surprising. But, there's no real point in me telling you all this, because it's probably less than halfway through and things could change dramatically.

Here is the scoring system I'm using:

1st. 30 points
2nd. 29 points
3rd. 28 points
4th. 27 points

etc etc

24th. 7 points
25th. 6 points

A completely linear scale. I was thinking of doing 25 down to 1 at first, but then I thought that 1 is too measly amount for the 25th placed person. For example, suppose someone comes in at 25th 10 times, and one obscure composer ranks 14th once (or a multiple of this situation). The latter would have more points, 12 to 10.

I was seeking to keep the points as low as possible, though, _so that rank is still more important than number of inclusions_ (example, if I'd done 100 down to 76, then each extra inclusion gets a whopping 75 points or more, so rank is almost insignificant). 30 down to 6 seems a good scoring system, as it balances rank and number of inclusions, but with the emphasis on rank.


----------



## Webernite

Interesting.


----------



## RBrittain

Oh and to add: The differences in the scoring systems (whether 25-1, 30-6, etc) is unlikely to have any effect on the outcome, because the ones who make the most lists will tend to rank higher on average anyway. It only really makes a difference in the lower reaches, with obscurer composers and small numbers, which is irrelevant as we're only concentrating on the overall top 25 (counted 155 composers so far).


----------



## Argus

Andrew_MBB said:


> Why is Wagner so low?


He mainly composed opera, and as everyone knows opera is rubbish. Mystery solved.



RBrittain said:


> Right, I've compiled the first 4 pages so far, which is 26 entries. Still a long, long way to go, but at that point, the top ten are/were:
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Bach
> 3. Schubert
> 4. Mozart
> 5. Brahms
> 6. Wagner
> 7. Mahler
> 8. Sibelius
> 9. Haydn
> 10. Tchaikovsky


This thread is more sexist than Messrs Gray and Keys on a night out with the VPO, and more ageist than a BBC-helmed dystopian future a la Logan's Run.

All the 'greatest' composers are old dead dudes.



Webernite said:


> Interesting.


If that's sarcasm: bravo. If not:.


----------



## RBrittain

Compiled all of the first 6 pages now, as 4 through to 6 was mostly arguing and few lists. 

Mozart has gone top! 2 points ahead of Beethoven. I'm still confident Ludwig will win though. This is how tight it is at the top, after 31 lists compiled:

Mozart 664
Beethoven 662
Bach 655

Schubert looks comfortable to make 4th, with 611 points to Brahms in 5th with 503. Wagner is right behind him with 499, then there is another big drop to Mahler with 411, whose position doesn't look too stable. I can't see anyone else breaking into the top 6.


----------



## RBrittain

First 7 pages done!

Beethoven is back at the top. Sibelius has dropped out of the top 10. Haydn and Tchaikovsky have moved ahead of Mahler. Schumann is hanging in there at 23rd. Schoenberg has been hanging in at around 22nd for a while but I'm willing him to drop out and be overtaken by either Liszt, Verdi, Grieg, Rachmaninov or Vivaldi, who are all making strong cases just outside the top 25.

Gonna take a break now!


----------



## Webernite

Argus said:


> If that's sarcasm: bravo. If not:.


It's not. Sibelius being in 8th place _is_ interesting.


----------



## RBrittain

Webernite said:


> It's not. Sibelius being in 8th place _is_ interesting.


I think it demonstrates the good taste of people on this forum. Sibelius is oft underrated, and I talk to a lot of classical music fans who haven't even heard his stuff. I think he's probably generally under-listened and under-publicised, but that's just my personal opinion. 8th _is_ higher than one would expect, but he has since dropped down 3 or 4 places and I think it is probably unlikely that he will break back in to the top 10.

Schoenberg being in 22nd is probably more 'interesting', I suppose. It wouldn't be note-worthy if he failed to make a Top 50, for example (Goulding's and DDD's lists seem to be the ones we refer to most, and he doesn't make Goulding's 50, while he is ranked 46th on DDD's).

Otherwise, Ravel is fairly surprising. Good composer, no doubt, but he's been lurking in 9th-12th place for most of the proceedings so far, when I thought he might struggle to make a top 25.

Anyway, still plenty of time to go. I've only compiled the first 7 pages thus far (about 40 lists).


----------



## emiellucifuge

IMO Schoenberg should make the top 15. 

Possibly in the top 10 most influential. And for me at least in top 20 musically. That averages to 15!


----------



## Aramis

emiellucifuge said:


> IMO Schoenberg should make the top 15.
> 
> Possibly in the top 10 most influential.


I has doubts. He is often considered to be culmination of freeing music from tonal system but at the other hand what he did was throwing it into another system, sometimes even more limiting than previous one. Non-tonal music would continiue even without him (Scriabin and others). And composers for which he was main mentor are limited mostly to his closer students and great composers influenced by Schoenberg the most are limited to Berg and Webern.


----------



## RBrittain

Oh, to add, Ravel is in 16th so far, actually, though he was around 9th-12th for quite a long time. Recent surges by Handel, Stravinsky and Chopin displaced him.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Yeah but which composers took up serialism later?

Boulez
Stockhausen
Milton Babbit
Nono
Barraqué
Stravinsky
Henze
Dallapiccola

Serialism further inspired other styles which included:
Lutoslawski
Xenakis
Carter

His other students were:
Gerhard
Eisler
Wellesz
Skalkottas


A very very significant chunk of post war music


----------



## Webernite

If I remember right, Charles Rosen makes the argument that Schoenberg's enormous influence lies not primarily in his having invented serialism, but in his freeing composers from basically all restraints on dissonance and intellectuality. I think I agree with that.


----------



## Jacob Singer

1. Beethoven
2. Tchaikovsky
3. Chopin
4. Brahms
5. Schubert
6. Mendelssohn
7. Schumann
8. Liszt
9. Dvořák
10. Prokofiev
11. Grieg
12. Debussy
13. Ravel
14. Satie
15. Barber
16. Verdi
17. Stravinsky
18. Machaut
19. Dufay
20. Ockeghem
21. des Prez
22. Palestrina
23. Monteverdi
24. La Rue
25. Tallis


----------



## Almaviva

RBrittain said:


> Right, I've compiled the first 4 pages so far, which is 26 entries. Still a long, long way to go, but at that point, the top ten are/were:
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Bach
> 3. Schubert
> 4. Mozart
> 5. Brahms
> 6. Wagner
> 7. Mahler
> 8. Sibelius
> 9. Haydn
> 10. Tchaikovsky
> 
> Sibelius is the main surprise. He certainly makes my top 10, but I wasn't expecting him to be this high-ranked. Wagner was doing really well, coming in third for a while, though has since gone through a barren spell. Schumann has indeed broken into the top 25, currently in 23rd. There are no huge surprises in the top 25, other than Bruckner being 19th which is perhaps surprising. But, there's no real point in me telling you all this, because it's probably less than halfway through and things could change dramatically.
> 
> Here is the scoring system I'm using:
> 
> 1st. 30 points
> 2nd. 29 points
> 3rd. 28 points
> 4th. 27 points
> 
> etc etc
> 
> 24th. 7 points
> 25th. 6 points
> 
> A completely linear scale. I was thinking of doing 25 down to 1 at first, but then I thought that 1 is too measly amount for the 25th placed person. For example, suppose someone comes in at 25th 10 times, and one obscure composer ranks 14th once (or a multiple of this situation). The latter would have more points, 12 to 10.
> 
> I was seeking to keep the points as low as possible, though, _so that rank is still more important than number of inclusions_ (example, if I'd done 100 down to 76, then each extra inclusion gets a whopping 75 points or more, so rank is almost insignificant). 30 down to 6 seems a good scoring system, as it balances rank and number of inclusions, but with the emphasis on rank.


How do you handle the various posts in which users said "in no particular order?" There was also one in which the user ranked the first five by order, and then said that the next 20 were in no particular order.


----------



## starry

Webernite said:


> If I remember right, Charles Rosen makes the argument that Schoenberg's enormous influence lies not primarily in his having invented serialism, but in his freeing composers from basically all restraints on dissonance and intellectuality. I think I agree with that.


I'm still not convinced that influence matters much to most people though. People just listen to music because they like it.

And RBrittain it's nice that you are excited about it but it seems like you are looking at music like a race and should music really be seen as a sport like that? It is just for fun though so as long as people don't take it seriously.

There are various reasons that Beethoven is so popular and was always likely to be the top one in this. He hasn't really suffered any fluctuations in fashion like others. The energy of much of his music suits modern psychology I think which is quite individualistic. Linked to this is the very 'human' quality that some see in his music, which is really showing himself with his faults as well as virtues in his music. No later composer arguably quite encompases a wide range of genres like him and the earlier ones just feel more distant to some people. That doesn't mean he is objectively the 'greatest' just that he suits the modern sensibility for some people more than other composers.


----------



## RBrittain

Almaviva said:


> How do you handle the various posts in which users said "in no particular order?" There was also one in which the user ranked the first five by order, and then said that the next 20 were in no particular order.


Well, there was only the one that was really in no order.

Barking Spiderz: I'm just going to rank them in the order you wrote them, unless you want to rank them.



> And RBrittain it's nice that you are excited about it but it seems like you are looking at music like a race and should music really be seen as a sport like that? It is just for fun though so as long as people don't take it seriously.


Eh? This isn't music. This is a poll, about an aspect of music. I'm not viewing music as a race, or a sport. I'm viewing this poll as a game which shouldn't be taken too seriously. If you want to listen to music, you shouldn't really be coming to this thread, as you won't find any music here.


----------



## starry

Well I'm just discussing music like other people have been doing in this thread.


----------



## Barking Spiderz

RBrittain said:


> Well, there was only the one that was really in no order.
> 
> Barking Spiderz: I'm just going to rank them in the order you wrote them, unless you want to rank them.
> 
> Might as well but it's only my top 5 that I can give any sort of ranking to. the remaining 20 could all be 6=.


----------



## gr8gunz

Hey RBrittain, I think you should ignore the lists which are not placed in order. It would skew the rankings to be even more meaningless than they are already.  A list which is not ranked in order (as you requested) is pointless and really shouldn't have even been posted.  Just my $.02


----------



## RBrittain

gr8gunz said:


> Hey RBrittain, I think you should ignore the lists which are not placed in order. It would skew the rankings to be even more meaningless than they are already.  A list which is not ranked in order (as you requested) is pointless and really shouldn't have even been posted.  Just my $.02


I won't be ignoring any lists. They're his top 25, even if they're not in the right order. I'm just trying to figure out how to score that list. I certainly won't be giving all of them 25 points (which is the score for 6th place), but I may give them all 15.5 points, which is the middle value from 6th to 25th place. I may just rank them in the order he gave them, for consistency. Let's face it, a lot of our lists are give-and-take anyway. On another day, much of my Top 25 could be in a completely different order. Plus, no one list is very significant. Some lists will have been created hastily, some will have been created with great care, but the importance is the average rather than any single list. Let's not take this too seriously. It would make sense to have every list ranked and no ties (otherwise we could all tie places and it would be silly). I'll probably just rank Barking Spiderz' in the order he wrote them.


----------



## gr8gunz

RBrittain said:


> I won't be ignoring any lists.


Okay, it's your poll.:tiphat:


----------



## Toccata

Fully realising that this is only a bit of fun, I still have some qualms over the procedures.

Looking at the results and various comments, I can't help but think that some people have been struggling to place 25 composers in rank order. I reckon they probably know about a dozen or so composers well enough to have a go at ranking, but after that it's all highly uncertain. 

I wonder with hindsight if it might have been better to ask people to allocate 100 points among their favourite composers, up to a maximum of say 25 composers. This would have involved less guesswork in the lower reaches, and would have had the added advantage of generating a set of weights that reflects users' actual preference rather the arbitrary weighting system which otherwise has to imposed externally. 

The various lists seem to be a mixture of "favourite" composers and "greatest" composers, further complicated by a couple of lists of favourite opera composers. I had understood that the aim of this thread, as set out in the OP, was to generate a list of greatest composers according to members perceptions of whatever factors they deem relevant. That basic idea seems to have been ditched in large measure, and we have merely a list of personal favourites from most people.

I'm not sure about the wisdom of giving advance publicity to the partial results. This could lead to manipulative voting in later stages to try to boost the results for certain composers. It could also have the effect of putting off a large chunk of potential voters whose favourites are clearly out of the running for decent positions in the final results, so they don't bother voting.


----------



## tdc

Toccata said:


> Fully realising that this is only a bit of fun, I still have some qualms over the procedures.
> 
> Looking at the results and various comments, I can't help but think that some people have been struggling to place 25 composers in rank order. I reckon they probably know about a dozen or so composers well enough to have a go at ranking, but after that it's all highly uncertain.
> 
> I wonder with hindsight if it might have been better to ask people to allocate 100 points among their favourite composers, up to a maximum of say 25 composers. This would have involved less guesswork in the lower reaches, and would have had the added advantage of generating a set of weights that reflects users' actual preference rather the arbitrary weighting system which otherwise has to imposed externally.
> 
> The various lists seem to be a mixture of "favourite" composers and "greatest" composers, further complicated by a couple of lists of favourite opera composers. I had understood that the aim of this thread, as set out in the OP, was to generate a list of greatest composers according to members perceptions of whatever factors they deem relevant. That basic idea seems to have been ditched in large measure, and we have merely a list of personal favourites from most people.
> 
> I'm not sure about the wisdom of giving advance publicity to the partial results. This could lead to manipulative voting in later stages to try to boost the results for certain composers. It could also have the effect of putting off a large chunk of potential voters whose favourites are clearly out of the running for decent positions in the final results, so they don't bother voting.


Seriously?


----------



## gr8gunz

As much as Mr. Brittain would like this to be as accurate as possible, there is little doubt that a list such as this is highly subjective and is really just for fun. I'll wager most will view it simply as a bit of humor and just compare it to their own list and have a laugh. I personally view it as a comparison of my own taste and that of the posters on TC and in no way a comparison of the competency of the composers themselves.


----------



## starry

gr8gunz said:


> As much as Mr. Brittain would like this to be as accurate as possible, there is little doubt that a list such as this is highly subjective and is really just for fun. I'll wager most will view it simply as a bit of humor and just compare it to their own list and have a laugh. I personally view it as a comparison of my own taste and that of the posters on TC and in no way a comparison of the competency of the composers themselves.


Absolutely. Just that some say it's just fun and yet seem to take it quite seriously and personally.  People can take it however they want, fun, seriously...up to them. But people are bound to take about issues like this and music in this thread just like in others as this is a music forum. People will have different opinions that is how things are on discussions in forums.


----------



## Toccata

starry said:


> Absolutely. Just that some say it's just fun and yet seem to take it quite seriously and personally.  People can take it however they want, fun, seriously...up to them. But people are bound to take about issues like this and music in this thread just like in others as this is a music forum. People will have different opinions that is how things are on discussions in forums.


I liked the way a similar exercise was done on DDD best of all. There were lots of heated discussions about composer ranks among some very well-informed participants. They all thought that their comments might have an effect on the final rankings, and I suppose to some extent they did, but in the main it appeared that the Moderator organising the exercise knew what the final result would be because he had it all worked out based on various external sources that he kept close to his chest. All the time, he kept of focusing on issues concerning the attributes of "greatest" composers rather than favourites. I found that focus far more interesting than listening to stories about members' favourites (some of which are very obscure) which don't generally interest me much at all, unless they agree with mine.


----------



## RBrittain

Toccata said:


> Fully realising that this is only a bit of fun, I still have some qualms over the procedures.
> 
> Looking at the results and various comments, I can't help but think that some people have been struggling to place 25 composers in rank order. I reckon they probably know about a dozen or so composers well enough to have a go at ranking, but after that it's all highly uncertain.
> 
> I wonder with hindsight if it might have been better to ask people to allocate 100 points among their favourite composers, up to a maximum of say 25 composers. This would have involved less guesswork in the lower reaches, and would have had the added advantage of generating a set of weights that reflects users' actual preference rather the arbitrary weighting system which otherwise has to imposed externally.
> 
> The various lists seem to be a mixture of "favourite" composers and "greatest" composers, further complicated by a couple of lists of favourite opera composers. I had understood that the aim of this thread, as set out in the OP, was to generate a list of greatest composers according to members perceptions of whatever factors they deem relevant. That basic idea seems to have been ditched in large measure, and we have merely a list of personal favourites from most people.
> 
> I'm not sure about the wisdom of giving advance publicity to the partial results. This could lead to manipulative voting in later stages to try to boost the results for certain composers. It could also have the effect of putting off a large chunk of potential voters whose favourites are clearly out of the running for decent positions in the final results, so they don't bother voting.


So, make your own poll? We've already seen that people here enjoy ranking things. Even ranking the same thing but with different systems. So, I'm sure you'll get plenty of rankers. Go for it. Instead of always criticising others, be bold and try something yourself! You'll get more out of it. I'll vote in your poll if you make one.


----------



## starry

Toccata said:


> I liked the way a similar exercise was done on DDD best of all. There were lots of heated discussions about composer ranks among some very well-informed participants. They all thought that their comments might have an effect on the final rankings, and I suppose to some extent they did, but in the main it appeared that the Moderator organising the exercise knew what the final result would be because he had it all worked out based on various external sources that he kept close to his chest. All the time, he kept of focusing on issues concerning the attributes of "greatest" composers rather than favourites. I found that focus far more interesting than listening to stories about members' favourites (some of which are very obscure) which don't generally interest me much at all, unless they agree with mine.


You can just lift a list of greatest composers from a book. Plenty of those lists are all over the internet. After a dozen or so though I think it really does become very subjective, you are comparing completely different periods and styles.


----------



## RBrittain

I think you two are confusing the words 'subjective' and 'objective'. The former just means one person's individual tastes. Any list in a book is likely to be subjective. Is there such thing as an objective list of the greatest composers? No, not really, but how does one get as close to objectivity as possible? By taking an average of many subjective lists.


----------



## starry

But is the average more interesting than the individual lists in best of polls? Not sure it is for me.


----------



## Toccata

RBrittain said:


> I think you two are confusing the words 'subjective' and 'objective'. The former just means one person's individual tastes. Any list in a book is likely to be subjective. Is there such thing as an objective list of the greatest composers? No, not really, but how does one get as close to objectivity as possible? By taking an average of many subjective lists.


I don't buy this notion that objectivity is not possible in measuring quality in art. If we were discussing painters we could estimate the market value of their works and rank the greatness of painters accordingly.

I agree that it's more difficult for classical music composers, but it is possible to conceive of an economic test involving a situation where no-one is allowed to listen to or perform classical music without a licence from a monopolist seller. That monopolist would be the winner of a competitive tender for the right to license listening/performing all of each composer's music. The winning amounts of $million would encapsulate all that is necessary to quantify the worth of each composer, and thus provide a quantifiable measure of each composer's greatness.

In other words, greatness is all about how much each composer's works are valued by the relevant market relative to other composers, and nothing whatsoever to do with influence, or how many genres they covered, etc.


----------



## starry

Market value is influenced by fashion.


----------



## gr8gunz

RBrittain said:


> So, make your own poll? We've already seen that people here enjoy ranking things. Even ranking the same thing but with different systems. So, I'm sure you'll get plenty of rankers. Go for it. Instead of always criticising others, be bold and try something yourself! You'll get more out of it. I'll vote in your poll if you make one.


BRAVO!!

How about I start a poll of the "Top ten most annoying posters on TC"???
Nah, I'm new but I'll still probably rank high on the list.


----------



## RBrittain

gr8gunz said:


> BRAVO!!
> 
> How about I start a poll of the "Top ten most annoying posters on TC"???
> Nah, I'm new but I'll still probably rank high on the list.


Go for it.


----------



## Almaviva

Toccata said:


> I liked the way a similar exercise was done on DDD best of all. There were lots of heated discussions about composer ranks among some very well-informed participants. They all thought that their comments might have an effect on the final rankings, and I suppose to some extent they did, but in the main it appeared that the Moderator organising the exercise knew what the final result would be because he had it all worked out based on various external sources that he kept close to his chest. All the time, he kept of focusing on issues concerning the attributes of "greatest" composers rather than favourites. I found that focus far more interesting than listening to stories about members' favourites (some of which are very obscure) which don't generally interest me much at all, unless they agree with mine.


While I'm able to easily consult the DDD lists, I can't find the threads with the discussions that have originated the lists. How do we get access to the threads?


----------



## Art Rock

Toccata said:


> I don't buy this notion that objectivity is not possible in measuring quality in art. If we were discussing painters we could estimate the market value of their works and rank the greatness of painters accordingly.
> 
> I agree that it's more difficult for classical music composers, but it is possible to conceive of an economic test involving a situation where no-one is allowed to listen to or perform classical music without a licence from a monopolist seller. That monopolist would be the winner of a competitive tender for the right to license listening/performing all of each composer's music. The winning amounts of $million would encapsulate all that is necessary to quantify the worth of each composer, and thus provide a quantifiable measure of each composer's greatness.
> 
> In other words, greatness is all about how much each composer's works are valued by the relevant market relative to other composers, and nothing whatsoever to do with influence, or how many genres they covered, etc.


It is interesting that you equate greatness to market value.

So I take it that you think that Michael Jackson, Britney Spears and Lady Gaga are greater than any classical composer?


----------



## Almaviva

RBrittain said:


> Well, there was only the one that was really in no order.


No, RBrittain, there were more. There was World Violist who said that only his first 10 were in order, and the next 15 were in no particular order. Andre's entire list was said by him to be in no particular order (although he typed numbers - but this must be interpreted as being only his way to write down a list, what counts in my opinion is his clear statement that they were in no particular order). Then CathyYCA did the same. And Barking Spiderz only ranked the top 5.

What I'm saying doesn't imply any criticism, I'm just bringing your attention to the problem, because like you said yourself, if this was the member's intention, then maybe the entries should be weighed differently (by the average of points between the highest and lowest points of each chunk on unordered composers, for example).


----------



## RBrittain

Almaviva said:


> No, RBrittain, there were more. There was World Violist who said that only his first 10 were in order, and the next 15 were in no particular order. Andre's entire list was said by him to be in no particular order (although he typed numbers - but this must be interpreted as being only his way to write down a list, what counts in my opinion is his clear statement that they were in no particular order). Then CathyYCA did the same. And Barking Spiderz only ranked the top 5.
> 
> What I'm saying doesn't imply any criticism, I'm just bringing your attention to the problem, because like you said yourself, if this was the member's intention, then maybe the entries should be weighed differently (by the average of points between the highest and lowest points of each chunk on unordered composers, for example).


Ah, I see what you mean.

I'm quite reluctant to do any ties. If I do that, for an entire set of 25 tied composers, I'd be giving 18 points, the middle value, to each composer. I don't think it seems fair - because then some composers are missing out on points, while some are getting more points than they should be getting. I would prefer to do 30 points down to 6 for every list, for reasons of consistency. I did miss a couple of those saying "In no particular order", and tallied them according to their numbered lists, but I suppose I also presumed they meant, "In a loose order. Couldn't really decide on a definite order but this will have to do." In Andre's, for example, Beethoven, Mozart and Schubert were right near the top. I think the composers they like most will have come to mind first, so it is a rough order.

I really do think there should be no ties. Most of us have made an order, even though that is very difficult, and it would be consistent to score every list the same. There shouldn't be such thing as an absolute tie anyway when we're ranking human people on their musical output. So, I will say, to those people you mentioned... If you wish to, rank them as best you can before the deadline. Otherwise, I will rank them according to the order in which you wrote them.

This isn't the perfect poll, but it's fun and would be best to have total consistency in the scoring. Toccata's idea of assigning points isn't actually a bad one, because these lists are totally linear and do not reflect how much more you like the 3rd placed composer than the 4th placed composer, for example. If he wishes to do a new poll sometime soon, nothing's stopping him and the same people will still vote I'm sure, because we enjoy wasting time in this sort of way. But, this particular poll is almost finished, and I outlined the scoring and asked people to rank their 25 at the start, so that won't change now.


----------



## Toccata

Almaviva said:


> While I'm able to easily consult the DDD lists, I can't find the threads with the discussions that have originated the lists. How do we get access to the threads?


I believe you asked the Administrator of DDD the same question on 21 November last year in relation to the opera thread, and he gave you an answer on the same day. As you will see, it's a link to the previous DDD site but you need to be a registered user to be able to access it.

Please note that my comment was mainly in relation to the "greatest composers" thread, which was one of the longest running. There are several other threads which generated lists of "top 50 or 100" items in each of the main classical genres, which are not so interesting. However, for a novice, I can't think of any better lists since they do provide a pretty comprehensive guide to the best in classical music listening, together with a commentary in the body of the threads. Furthermore the various lists are accessible as "stickies", and one doesn't have to wade through hundreds of often silly posts to get the drift of what's going on.

As I noted previously, there seemed to be a large element of autocratic selection by the Moderator, despite the appearance of a vote taking place in each area. After the ending of the long discussions on "greatest composers" it would seem that many users drifted away completely, and the whole classical section of DDD became very quiet, and still is.


----------



## Toccata

Art Rock said:


> It is interesting that you equate greatness to market value.
> 
> So I take it that you think that Michael Jackson, Britney Spears and Lady Gaga are greater than any classical composer?


Clearly I don't regard these artists as being greater than classical composers because they are not in the same relevant market, which I stressed if you care to re-read the last bit of what I wrote.

If you don't believe in market value as an indicator of worth/value then perhaps you could tell us how you estimate "greatness" among classical composers.

Suppose you were giving a lecture on the subject to a group of students who know little or nothing about classical music but who are eager to learn more. How exactly would you rate the composers without making it purely a personal list of favourites? Which factors would you include for consideration, and how would you measure them?


----------



## Toccata

RBrittain said:


> Toccata's idea of assigning points isn't actually a bad one, because these lists are totally linear and do not reflect how much more you like the 3rd placed composer than the 4th placed composer, for example. If he wishes to do a new poll sometime soon, nothing's stopping him and the same people will still vote I'm sure, because we enjoy wasting time in this sort of way.


Thank you for acknowledging the "greatness" of my suggestion, but if you think I'm going to create another thread on the same subject right now, no way. I reckon that by the end of this one the whole subject will have been ranked to death.


----------



## Lipatti

Toccata said:


> In other words, greatness is all about how much each composer's works are valued by the relevant market relative to other composers


Isn't this just another way to say that the value of music is subjective? You're just using other parameters.


----------



## starry

The problem with market value is it not all good art is as famous and in demand as it should be and so it isn't valued properly. The only way someone can honestly assess a work is through their own experience with it, and that takes effort and understanding.


----------



## Toccata

Lipatti said:


> Isn't this just another way to say that the value of music is subjective? You're just using other parameters.


Broadly yes. The sum total of opinions, measured by what people are prepared to pay to have access to that music, is an indicator of greatness of the music, and it becomes a more reliable the longer the time period we're looking at and the more stable the results.

At any rate, I can't think can be bettered by any alternative system. If greatness is measured by any other measure, or combination of measures, (e.g. influence, variety, complexity, novelty, etc) there is no way of putting reliable values on any of these, or a method of weighting them together.

If anyone thinks otherwise, please say how "influence" or "novelty" is to be measured. And what if some of the most influential or novel composers who ever lived wrote a load of stuff that no one hardly listens to these days? How are the two features to be reconciled?



starry said:


> The problem with market value is it not all good art is as famous and in demand as it should be and so it isn't valued properly. The only way someone can honestly assess a work is through their own experience with it, and that takes effort and understanding.


Fair enough, I'm not suggesting that markets are always perfect. Sometimes they overshoot or undershoot, and some markets are prone to systemic failures which need correction. I would hazard a guess and suggest that Handel was under-rated for a long time until recently. But I don't believe that, as a general rule, the market for classical music is that imperfect that market values can't be relied upon to a large extent. Just because some composers go in and out of fashion over longish cycles doesn't mean that markets don't work. Tastes changes, and yesteryears' great composers may not be considered so great any longer. That's life.

I would guess that market's opinion on the relative worth of composers would be roughly in line with the results of this survey up to about rank 12-15, after which there would be a severe flattening in the curve, so that there was little difference in market value at each gradation albeit still subject to a downward slope.

If you or anyone else believe that market value is consistently no good in the context of assessing who's best among classical music composers, can you name a few of composers who you reckon are currently undervalued, bearing in mind that you'll have to allow for others to be downgraded in order to make way for them? Can you you provide any proof that the names of those you put forward as being under-valued or over-valued are genuinely so?


----------



## Art Rock

Toccata said:


> Clearly I don't regard these artists as being greater than classical composers because they are not in the same relevant market, which I stressed if you care to re-read the last bit of what I wrote.
> 
> If you don't believe in market value as an indicator of worth/value then perhaps you could tell us how you estimate "greatness" among classical composers.
> 
> Suppose you were giving a lecture on the subject to a group of students who know little or nothing about classical music but who are eager to learn more. How exactly would you rate the composers without making it purely a personal list of favourites? Which factors would you include for consideration, and how would you measure them?


I would not. I do not believe in objective greatness. One man's masterpiece is another man's junk. You can only say that many people think something is great, but that does not make it objectively great.


----------



## starry

What's the difference between something which is very good and great anyway? People with understanding of a style may agree a piece is good, but how do they agree whether it is great?


----------



## Toccata

Art Rock said:


> I would not. I do not believe in objective greatness. One man's masterpiece is another man's junk. You can only say that many people think something is great, but that does not make it objectively great.


What's the difference between a situation where many people think something is great and it being objectively great?

For example, if many classical music fans down the ages have consistently regarded Beethoven as a great composer, why can't he be considered objectively great to all intents and purposes?

Of course, some people may not like his music, and no one is suggesting that they should like it, but they're in the minority as most people do regard Beethoven as a great composer. That's good enough for me.

I recognise that "greatness" is not absolute but relative, and that there are shades of greatness. Personally, I wouldn't describe composers outside the top 15-20 as being "great", but that's getting more into semantics.

Your viewpoint, by suggesting that there are no absolutes in classical music, and that it's all entirely a matter of personal taste, throws the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## Art Rock

No, you prove my point. You now equate greatness with sufficient people *considering *someone or something great (rather than financial arguments) - so *subjective*, followed by polling. If that's good enough for you, fine, but it is not objective. And my argument goes way beyond classical music, all art appreciation is in my opinion subjective.


----------



## Aramis

> One man's masterpiece is another man's junk


Two extremes. There is much place between - place in which "I don't like nor enjoy, but appreciate and respect" fits very well. Total relativism was made up by people who are not smart and knowledgeable enough to say anything else than "I like it" and "I don't like it".


----------



## Andrew_MBB

Agree. Absolutely.


----------



## Almaviva

RBrittain said:


> Ah, I see what you mean.
> 
> I'm quite reluctant to do any ties. If I do that, for an entire set of 25 tied composers, I'd be giving 18 points, the middle value, to each composer. I don't think it seems fair - because then some composers are missing out on points, while some are getting more points than they should be getting. I would prefer to do 30 points down to 6 for every list, for reasons of consistency. I did miss a couple of those saying "In no particular order", and tallied them according to their numbered lists, but I suppose I also presumed they meant, "In a loose order. Couldn't really decide on a definite order but this will have to do." In Andre's, for example, Beethoven, Mozart and Schubert were right near the top. I think the composers they like most will have come to mind first, so it is a rough order.
> 
> I really do think there should be no ties. Most of us have made an order, even though that is very difficult, and it would be consistent to score every list the same. There shouldn't be such thing as an absolute tie anyway when we're ranking human people on their musical output. So, I will say, to those people you mentioned... If you wish to, rank them as best you can before the deadline. Otherwise, I will rank them according to the order in which you wrote them.
> 
> This isn't the perfect poll, but it's fun and would be best to have total consistency in the scoring. Toccata's idea of assigning points isn't actually a bad one, because these lists are totally linear and do not reflect how much more you like the 3rd placed composer than the 4th placed composer, for example. If he wishes to do a new poll sometime soon, nothing's stopping him and the same people will still vote I'm sure, because we enjoy wasting time in this sort of way. But, this particular poll is almost finished, and I outlined the scoring and asked people to rank their 25 at the start, so that won't change now.


Fair enough.:tiphat:


----------



## Argus

Aramis said:


> Two extremes. There is much place between - place in which "I don't like nor enjoy, but appreciate and respect" fits very well. Total relativism was made up by people who are not smart and knowledgeable enough to say anything else than "I like it" and "I don't like it".


Wake up, laddie. I could just as easily say that your standpoint shows arrogance or ignorance in believing that knowledge or intelligence have any bearing upon musical taste.

Art Rock and starry are on my wavelength.


----------



## starry

Argus said:


> Art Rock and starry are on my wavelength.


erm....not completely, I don't believe in complete relativism.  I always want to have some knowledge of a style before I judge anything in it.


----------



## Toccata

Art Rock said:


> No, you prove my point. You now equate greatness with sufficient people *considering *someone or something great (rather than financial arguments) - so *subjective*, followed by polling. If that's good enough for you, fine, but it is not objective. And my argument goes way beyond classical music, all art appreciation is in my opinion subjective.


I disagree. The sum total of all subjective opinions on an artistic topic can be used to determine a measure of greatness which is independent of the opinions of any particular person. For example, there is nothing inherently "great" about the companies Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, or General Electric. These are merely the names of companies, which trade in particular markets. However, they happen to be the four largest (or greatest) companies in terms of market value. Their market values are based on the collective opinion of investors, and these opinions are nothing other than the subjective assessments of all shareholders of the expected future profit streams of these companies. It's the same argument applied to composers or to other forms of art: the collective wisdom of all consumers can be used to determine the overall standing of various composers and have some objective validity.


----------



## starry

Toccata said:


> What's the difference between a situation where many people think something is great and it being objectively great?
> 
> For example, if many classical music fans down the ages have consistently regarded Beethoven as a great composer, why can't he be considered objectively great to all intents and purposes?
> 
> Of course, some people may not like his music, and no one is suggesting that they should like it, but they're in the minority as most people do regard Beethoven as a great composer. That's good enough for me.
> 
> I recognise that "greatness" is not absolute but relative, and that there are shades of greatness. Personally, I wouldn't describe composers outside the top 15-20 as being "great", but that's getting more into semantics.
> 
> Your viewpoint, by suggesting that there are no absolutes in classical music, and that it's all entirely a matter of personal taste, throws the baby out with the bathwater.


Beethoven is an easy example to use for you, but what about some less acclaimed composer who some say is great but others say is just good?


----------



## Argus

starry said:


> erm....not completely, I don't believe in complete relativism.  I always want to have some knowledge of a style before I judge anything in it.


Well, wake up then, laddie.

Lets say your opinion is within the range of consonance. If Art Rock and I are in unison, you are within a few Hz to give a pleasant chorus effect like a gamelan, whereas Aramis or Toccata are at some high number ratio around the tritone.


----------



## gr8gunz

Argus said:


> Well, wake up then, laddie.
> 
> Lets say your opinion is within the range of consonance. If Art Rock and I are in unison, you are within a few Hz to give a pleasant chorus effect like a gamelan, whereas Aramis or Toccata are at some high number ratio around the tritone.


WELL!!! That's easy for *you* to say


----------



## Almaviva

Toccata said:


> I believe you asked the Administrator of DDD the same question on 21 November last year in relation to the opera thread, and he gave you an answer on the same day. As you will see, it's a link to the previous DDD site but you need to be a registered user to be able to access it.
> 
> Please note that my comment was mainly in relation to the "greatest composers" thread, which was one of the longest running. There are several other threads which generated lists of "top 50 or 100" items in each of the main classical genres, which are not so interesting. However, for a novice, I can't think of any better lists since they do provide a pretty comprehensive guide to the best in classical music listening, together with a commentary in the body of the threads. Furthermore the various lists are accessible as "stickies", and one doesn't have to wade through hundreds of often silly posts to get the drift of what's going on.
> 
> As I noted previously, there seemed to be a large element of autocratic selection by the Moderator, despite the appearance of a vote taking place in each area. After the ending of the long discussions on "greatest composers" it would seem that many users drifted away completely, and the whole classical section of DDD became very quiet, and still is.


Yeah, I seem to remember that I got that link at the time, clicked on it, and nothing happened. OK, I'll see if I register myself there and try again.

I'm only interested in their opera list. As you may know, we did a similar thread here, and got to our own list which differs in several aspects, so I'm curious to know about the discussions that have motivated them to include in their list, for example, three operas by Meyerbeer (a mediocre opera composer in my opinion) while only one of his made our list.

Thanks for the information.

Edit - Nah, it doesn't work. I can't register for the old forum, which doesn't accept my new forum log in credentials. It keeps sending me back to the new forum. I have asked again the administrator there (named Brian) to give me access to the old forum and the archived discussion. We'll see.


----------



## Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadoo

1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Mozart
4. Wagner
5. Haydn
6. Tchaikovsky
7. Brahms
8. Schubert
9. Mendelssohn
10. Handel
11. Schumann
12. Verdi
13. Liszt
14. Chopin
15. Mahler
16. Berlioz
17. Dvorak
18. Debussy
19. Vivaldi
19. Bruckner
20. Rossini
21. Gluck
22. Puccini
23. Richard Strauss
24. Saint-Saens
25. Carl Maria Von Weber


----------



## RBrittain

Only about 3 hours left to go! Anyone reading this who hasn't submitted an entry, I recommend doing so now!

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadoo - There are 26 on your list (you tied Vivaldi with Bruckner at 19, presumably by accident?). I ranked them in the order given and excluded Von Weber. Amend it if you wish to, though. Cheers.


----------



## Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadoo

oops - sorry about that. thanks for catching my mistake.


----------



## RBrittain

Sorry about the delay. Here are the official results!

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Bach
4. Schubert
5. Brahms
6. Wagner
7. Tchaikovsky
8. Haydn
9. Mahler
10. Debussy
11. Handel
12. Chopin
13. Dvorak
14. Sibelius
15. Prokofiev
16. Stravinsky
17. Mendelssohn
18. Shostakovich
19. Ravel
20. Schumann
21. Richard Strauss
22. Bruckner
23. Liszt
24. Verdi
25. Monteverdi

Points totals can be seen here: http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/2141/top52.png

I have also attached the zipped list to this post. It's an Excel file.

Overall, a pretty solid list. The top 7 looks especially standard. As you can see, the points differences in the top 10 were generally quite significant. Beethoven won by a hefty 69 points, while Bach ended up 80 points behind Mozart. Schubert was 83 points behind him, and the gap to Brahms was a further 140. The only close call in the top 10 was Mahler-Debussy, with 4 points separating them.

Another close call was Shostakovich-Ravel, with 2 points separating them. Then you had a real close call for the last few places. Schoenberg missed out by 5 points. It was quite thrilling to watch him drop - He was totally absent from the last 7 lists (Columns J-P), while Liszt, Verdi and Monteverdi kept on steadily rising. I must admit, I'm satisfied, because it would have been a travesty (IMO) if Liszt or Verdi had missed out while Schoenberg had got in (though, in the end, it was Monteverdi who pipped him).

Then you had Bartok, Rachmaninov, Grieg and Vivaldi who all put in strong cases but missed out.

There's no real point in ranking anything after the top 25, because if I had wanted a Top 50, for example, I would have asked people to rank their Top 50s, and we would have had twice as much data. So, while it's tempting to say that Grieg ranked 29th, Vivaldi ranked 30th, etc, we can't really say this - We can only look at the top 25.

I'm confident that there were no mistakes, but as you can see, there was quite a lot of data input. I double-checked every list I entered, but I can't totally rule out the possibility of a mistake. If everyone looks at their own list to check I ranked it correctly (30 points for top, down to 6 points for last), then we can eliminate that possibility, though I'd say it's more than 99% likely that there are no mistakes.

Hope you enjoyed it! I did. As for my subjective view on the list, well - you can see how it differs from my own. I'm probably never going to rank Schubert in the top 4, great composer though he was, but it seems that the people of TC rate him very highly indeed. Interestingly, the DDD and Goulding lists both rank him seventh, which I agree with more. Also, it seems that Haydn is a little less highly rated here than on the DDD and Goulding lists, who rank him 5th.

Mahler making 9th is really surprising to me, but there you go. Debussy is also very highly rated here. Also, Sibelius placing 14th when he made 28th on both DDD and Goulding's lists, is very impressive. For all the song and dance about Schumann, he made the Top 25 quite comfortably though, interestingly, placed a lot higher on the DDD and Goulding lists.


----------



## Art Rock

Thanks for all your work!


----------



## Air

Well, now I see it, I have to say that the final list is quite impressive! The list beyond 25 is not bad either. 

Of course, we still need to get rid of a few Tchaikovsky fans. :devil:

Thanks for all the time and work RBrittain


----------



## RBrittain

You're welcome! (Going to go to bed now..)


----------



## tdc

Ditto. ^ Thanks. Not a bad looking list. Mahler and Debussy making top ten stands out as pretty cool to me.


----------



## gr8gunz

BRAVO ZULU!!! 

I just wish Rachmaninov could have squeezed in there somewhere.

Thanks


----------



## emiellucifuge

Pretty standard.

Im just dissapoint that Schoenberg/Webern/Berg or Varese/Ligeti didnt make it. At least one from each group should have made it.


----------



## starry

RBrittain said:


> Overall, a pretty solid list. The top 7 looks especially standard. As you can see, the points differences in the top 10 were generally quite significant. Beethoven won by a hefty 69 points, while Bach ended up 80 points behind Mozart.


Solid, meaning you agree with it pretty much I think. 

The top 3, even the order i thought, was a bit predictable. JS Bach does feel a bit more distant as the style is so long gone, so there is probably more of a personal link for many people with Beethoven and Mozart.



RBrittain said:


> Schoenberg missed out by 5 points. It was quite thrilling to watch him drop






RBrittain said:


> We can only look at the top 25.


I don't see why. And the image you put up shows beyond the top 25 anyway.



RBrittain said:


> Hope you enjoyed it! I did.


We know. 



RBrittain said:


> I'm probably never going to rank Schubert in the top 4, great composer though he was, but it seems that the people of TC rate him very highly indeed. Interestingly, the DDD and Goulding lists both rank him seventh, which I agree with more. Also, it seems that Haydn is a little less highly rated here than on the DDD and Goulding lists, who rank him 5th.


Not major differences really. And Schubert is normally ranked quite high, achieving in piano music, chamber ensemble, orchestral and vocal music.



RBrittain said:


> Mahler making 9th is really surprising to me, but there you go. Debussy is also very highly rated here.


Debussy arguably achieved more than Mahler, excelled in more areas.

And of course we shouldn't forget this list is just for fun.


----------



## Webernite

RBrittain said:


> I must admit, I'm satisfied, because it would have been a travesty (IMO) if Liszt or Verdi had missed out while Schoenberg had got in.


Not at all. He wrote Richard Strauss's _Four Last Songs_ in 1903. That on its own puts him above Liszt. 

But at least Rachmaninoff got beaten. The solo works are well-crafted, but the concertos are frankly abominable.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Interesting list. I wish somebody pre-Bach would have made it, but I'm just glad Bruckner squeaked in.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Manxfeeder said:


> Interesting list. It's a shame nobody pre-Bach made it, but I'm just glad Bruckner squeaked in.


Monteverdi?


----------



## Manxfeeder

emiellucifuge said:


> Monteverdi?


True. I was thinking pre-Baroque.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Webernite said:


> Not at all. He wrote Richard Strauss's _Four Last Songs_ in 1903.


Off-topic: You mean Shoenberg's Six Orchestral Songs? I wasn't aware of these. I'll have to pull up the YouTubes. Thanks for the heads-up.


----------



## RBrittain

starry said:


> Solid, meaning you agree with it pretty much I think.


Nope. I'm saying that it looks a pretty standard list. My list was pretty different. I excluded Debussy, Mahler and Haydn from my Top 25, who all ranked in the Top 10, while many of those I listed did not make it (Vivaldi, Grieg, Rachmaninov, Elgar, Vaughan Williams, Rossini..).

Also, I just realised - You didn't submit a list? Just here to criticise? Your criticisms are generally wrong too..



> I don't see why. And the image you put up shows beyond the top 25 anyway.


You really don't understand? If we wanted a Top 30, everyone would have to list their Top 30 and we would have a lot more data to work with. We _can_ 'look' at stuff beyond the top 25, as a loose order, but we can't 'officially' rank anything beyond the 25.



> And of course we shouldn't forget this list is just for fun.


Not sure how fun it was for you - Lurking and criticising without participating. It was fun for us though.


----------



## starry

Of course my opinions can be relevant, as much as yours or others. I'd rather look at it as opinions than criticism, and people will sometimes have different opinions. And I'm not really into ranking things, but I do like discussing things which is exactly what forums are for. This thread was about discussing music and not just ranking. And I always have fun discussing things, but maybe some people don't so much. 

If solid list means standard list then ok you are comparing it to what you see as a general opinion out there. But you do mix that with showing your opinions clearly on composers through this thread too. And from that table you did I think you did rank composers down to 51 so I just commented on that.

Anyway getting back to the music, Haydn gets overshadowed in his own period by Beethoven and Mozart and that is obviously detrimental to him.


----------



## RBrittain

Some more fun statistics!

No-one actually ranked the top 4 in that order. Only three people ranked the top 3 in that order: Nix, science and Manxfeeder.

Two people had the same top 5 but in a jumbled order: Nix and Charon.

Most nightmarish list to rank: myaskovsky2002's. Was constantly scrolling up and down to find obscure names or input new ones.

Easiest link to rank: Toccata's. Didn't really have to do any scrolling down, because all his names were towards the top already.

Here are the top 25 with their number of inclusions (of the 47 lists):

Beethoven made 41 lists,
Mozart made 41 lists,
Bach made 37 lists,
Schubert made 40 lists,
Brahms made 35 lists,
Wagner made 31 lists,
Tchaikovsky made 33 lists,
Haydn made 30 lists,
Mahler made 30 lists,
Debussy made 32 lists,
Handel made 25 lists,
Chopin made 26 lists,
Dvorak made 26 lists,
Sibelius made 24 lists,
Prokofiev made 28 lists,
Stravinsky made 23 lists,
Mendelssohn made 24 lists,
Shostakovich made 24 lists,
Ravel made 24 lists,
Schumann made 21 lists,
Strauss made 23 lists,
Bruckner made 18 lists,
Liszt made 18 liszts,
Verdi made 17 lists,
Monteverdi made 17 lists.

So you can see from that who placed higher on average (Example, Bach placed significantly higher on most lists than Schubert, despite being included 3 less times. Wagner was included less than Tchaikovsky but tended to rank higher... Prokofiev made a lot of lists but quite low down..)

In total, there were 189 composers spread across 47 lists. Thus, on average, 4 new composers per list.


----------



## Webernite

Manxfeeder said:


> Off-topic: You mean Shoenberg's Six Orchestral Songs? I wasn't aware of these. I'll have to pull up the YouTubes. Thanks for the heads-up.


Yep. They're not really as good as Strauss's, I must admit. No one except late Strauss was capable of the sheer smoothness of orchestration that charactarizes works like the _Four Last Songs_ and _Metamorphosen_. But Schoenberg's are still excellent, and it was nice to be able to mention an early work of his that isn't _Verklärte Nacht_. (There's a Youtube link in my previous post, if you hadn't noticed.)


----------



## Nix

RBrittain said:


> Beethoven made 41 lists,
> Mozart made 41 lists,
> Bach made 37 lists,
> Schubert made 40 lists,
> Brahms made 35 lists,
> Wagner made 31 lists,
> Tchaikovsky made 33 lists,
> Haydn made 30 lists,
> Mahler made 30 lists,
> Debussy made 32 lists,
> Handel made 25 lists,
> Chopin made 26 lists,
> Dvorak made 26 lists,
> Sibelius made 24 lists,
> Prokofiev made 28 lists,
> Stravinsky made 23 lists,
> Mendelssohn made 24 lists,
> Shostakovich made 24 lists,
> Ravel made 24 lists,
> Schumann made 21 lists,
> Strauss made 23 lists,
> Bruckner made 18 lists,
> Liszt made 18 liszts,
> Verdi made 17 lists,
> Monteverdi made 17 lists.


Compare it to the list from my thread:

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

_The exact_ same composers made the list with the exception of Shostakovich replaced with Schoenberg. And Shostakovich was in my top 30 (and I think it was like 26 or something).

To be honest I'd take mine over yours in terms of order, but I applaud you for the work you put it into this. You were certainly able to get a better voter turn out then me.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

RBrittain said:


> Beethoven made 41 lists,


Back to that old question I asked, why do you all like Beethoven so much. I read the responses people made. That he made great symphonies, had great development sections, etc.

My only response is that I view music at it's basic form: the notes. The only way I can ever explain to anyone why or why not I like a composer comes down to this: their choice of notes. I simply don't like Beethoven's choice of notes. From that one point stems other things: I don't like his melodies, so I don't like his harmonies, and thus don't like his tone. Because of that, I don't like his development/form however great it is, and it all leads down to that I never have an emotional response to his music.

I think I can only begin to like Beethoven when I get over his choice of notes. 



> Prokofiev made a lot of lists but quite low down


In other words, I lot of people can't help liking him, but perhaps lukewarmly.


----------



## emiellucifuge




----------



## Guest

From another discussion on another board: "I was incredulous when I saw that not everyone shared my reaction...."

That does seem to sum things up nicely, dunnit? (It is, as I said on that other thread, the entire history of all discussions about music.)


----------



## Webernite

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Back to that old question I asked, why do you all like Beethoven so much. I read the responses people made. That he made great symphonies, had great development sections, etc.
> 
> My only response is that I view music at it's basic form: the notes. The only way I can ever explain to anyone why or why not I like a composer comes down to this: their choice of notes. I simply don't like Beethoven's choice of notes. From that one point stems other things: I don't like his melodies, so I don't like his harmonies, and thus don't like his tone. Because of that, I don't like his development/form however great it is, and it all leads down to that I never have an emotional response to his music.
> 
> I think I can only begin to like Beethoven when I get over his choice of notes.


So which works of his have you heard (decetly performed and with decent sound quality)?


----------



## RBrittain

Nix said:


> To be honest I'd take mine over yours in terms of order, but I applaud you for the work you put it into this. You were certainly able to get a better voter turn out then me.


In my subjective preference, I would marginally favour the order of your top 6. I don't rate Mozart quite as highly as others do and I can't deny that I was hoping Bach would pip him to second. But the people of TC have spoken, and Mozart won that duel quite comfortably.

Objectively, I prefer this poll because of the greater sample size and more consistent method. It's interesting to compare them though, indeed. Schoenberg was around 22nd-25th for a long time in my list, so I suppose the people who got him to 23rd in yours were probably the same people who voted him highly in here early on. As it went on, though, he steadily dropped and ultimately missed out by a snippet.


----------



## RBrittain

Webernite said:


> But at least Rachmaninoff got beaten. The solo works are well-crafted, but the concertos are frankly abominable.


Biggest over-exaggeration of the century! A lot of people love his concertos. I like the first 3 a lot.


----------



## starry

Huilunsoittaja said:


> In other words, I lot of people can't help liking him, but perhaps lukewarmly.


Or they know a few works which they like alot, but not as many as other composers. Alot of it is about what you know and are used to hearing.

Really there are hundreds of composers who have written good pieces anyway.


----------



## Webernite

RBrittain said:


> Biggest over-exaggeration of the century! A lot of people love his concertos. I like the first 3 a lot.


Let me assure you, I am well aware of how many people love his concertos! I don't mean to offend anyone, but they are simply not works for which I have much respect...

Incidentally, I'm not surprised that you don't like the fourth concerto. So many people aren't really fans of Sergei Rachmaninoff - who after all was influenced by Scriabin, and heavily influenced by jazz - so much as fans of an imaginary Romantic composer who happened to compose some of his works.


----------



## starry

The 2nd concerto is listenable, but I've never really liked the others.


----------



## RBrittain

Only heard the Fourth once, so can't say whether I like it or not, whereas I have the other three on CD and listen to them quite often. Second is probably my favourite, followed by Third, followed by First, but I like all three.


----------



## Toccata

My comments:

1. What still bothers me about this poll is that it's a curious mixture of favourites and greatests, according to how individuals felt obliged to vote. I reckon that the two concepts are different, and it is noteworthy that polls on other Boards in the past have tried to separate the two concepts of greatest and favourites. This poll attempted to do the same, and to get people to vote for composers they considered to be the greatest, but the whole effort went awry when it became clear that many people were not taking heed of the request in the OP (probably didn't understand it).

2. I'm not making a big issue out of it but the weighting system adopted is totally arbitrary, and the results are partly sensitive to it. For example, if the votes cast in this poll were assessed on the same criteria as used in the TC Top Opera thread and TC Top Symphonies thread - that is, based primarily on the number of votes cast, with points being used only to split tied votes - the results for the top 10 would be: 1 =Beethoven, 2 =Mozart, 3 =Schubert, 4 =Bach, 5 =Brahms, 6 =Tchaikovsky, 7 =Debussy, 8 =Wagner, 9 =Haydn, 10 =Mahler.

3. The main surprise result for me is Sibelius finishing as high as No 14. I think that's way too generous and I prefer the DDD and Goulding's ranking of No 28. Schumann was robbed of a deservedly higher position than No 20. The early votes for these two were misleading, just as I suspected. On a couple of other big Boards I reckon Schumann would have finished up much higher. Perhaps his style takes a while to appreciate, and to some extent the relatively young age structure of this Board may be a factor working against him. 

4. The fact that Schubert finished up at No 4 doesn't surprise me as I have detected a growing interest on this Board lately. He is strong not just in lieder but in orchestral and chamber works. I placed Schubert at No 4 on the criterion of greatness, but if this had been a poll of my favourites I would have placed him higher at joint No 1 along with Mozart. 

5. To me Wagner is very much a one-trick monkey, and I only placed as high as I did (No 7) out of respect for his clear greatness as perceived in wider musical circles. But I don't care much for his style, which I found quite enjoyable for a while but which I grew tired of after a few years of it. 

6. I'm pleased to see that among the 25 winners the number of those out I selected is good, although modesty prevents me from saying exactly how well.

7. I must say that there were several rubbish lists but the number of these didn't surprise me in the slightest.


----------



## Guest

And what I wonder about is the distinction between "favorite" and "greatest."

The two concepts are indeed different, as Toccata points out, but I think the difference is that between a concept with content and one without. And the lack of content for "greatness" is part of why endeavors of this sort go awry, not because people are confused or stubborn or capricious, but because the concept of "greatness" is so elusive.

The best I've seen, in many discussions, in many books and articles, is that greatness is a consensus. So many people agree that Mozart is great and voilà he IS great. But we have no information about Mozart in this formula, only about consensus.

And despite many people's insistence that adding up enough subjectives gives you, magically, an objective, it simply ain't so. And if we weren't, by and large, so enamoured of "objectivity," none of this would be a problem. Greatness and favorite are both subjective. OK. Only if you think that subjective is somehow wrong or somehow inferior to objective do you have any problem at this point.

I would ask anyone enamoured of greatness, anyone convinced (as I once was) that there are favorites and there are greats and there's a real and important difference between them to think for a minute about what happens to you when you listen to a piece. Do you ever think, while listening, "I'm listening to a great piece here by a great composer"? Or even, which I strongly suspect it often comes down to, "I'm listening to a great piece therefore I'm a great person for recognizing that fact."

If you answer "No, of course not," then I wonder if thinking about greatness when you're not listening has any utility. Does it help you enjoy a piece to think, or to have thought, "this is a great piece"? Or is it the sounds and the combinations of sounds and the patterns and the working out of those patterns in that piece that you attend to, enjoying those sounds for what they are at that time? If so, then I would propose that the concept of greatness has no utility.

If, however, you can answer "Yes" to that question, then I really have to wonder about the quality of your listening experiences. To be caught up in the sounds as they're sounding, to revel in the working out of themes and motifs (if it's that kind of piece), or just to enjoy the sounds in themselves as themselves (if it's that kind of piece), that is surely what listening to music is all about. Does it really matter if you have a "first-rate" experience with "third-rate" music? Does it really matter if you have a "fourth-rate" experience with a "second-rate" piece? Is the whole business of rating and ranking just one huge distraction from the real matter at hand, which is enjoying each piece as it comes along for itself, unique, individual?

Besides, how many of you have had the experience of disliking a piece one hearing and thoroughly enjoying it the next? And there's where this whole business of ranking the "greats" is so futile: it leaves out a crucial element of the equation, the listener. In a variant of the tree falling in the forest: no listener, no music. And no matter what putative quality any given piece may be said by however many experts to have, your experience of that is yours and yours alone, and it will change from listening to listening.

People have referred to many of the things I think are quite attractive as being ugly or unpleasant or unlistenable. Are they any of those things? No. All of those terms describe one thing and one thing only, the experience of one listener to hearing one piece at one time. And if you add up all the one listeners to make a thousand or a million does that really make any real difference? I think not. Those pieces are still attractive to me. And still ugly to, oh, say HarpsichordConcerto, for instance.

Let's give over thinking we've done anything real or clever or important--and for sure let's give over the disingenous "It's just for fun"--by ranking things that cannot be ranked, by making lists of ten or 25 or 100 or whatever number and thinking we've somehow accomplished something, made the world a safer place for classical music, I guess!

What have we accomplished by making this list--or any of the other TC lists that have so exercised the faithful in recent weeks? Well, we've shown that TCers, or at least those that have contributed to the lists, are a very conservative bunch on the whole, conservative and not terribly knowledgeable outside a certain narrow range. And we've shown that despite our individual needs and tastes, no one dare question the validity of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart being on any list of "the greatest."

But we knew both of those things already, didn't we?

Finally, it's too late for this, I know, but I apologize to RBrittain for singling out his list for this screed. Truly, all the lists, from the recent New York Times one to any of a dozen on any of a dozen other boards, are equally silly and futile. Nothing _especially_ egregious about this one!


----------



## augustinus

*Top 25*

Johann Sebastian Bach, period.


----------



## Toccata

some guy said:


> And what I wonder about is the distinction between "favorite" and "greatest."
> 
> The two concepts are indeed different, as Toccata points out, but I think the difference is that between a concept with content and one without. And the lack of content for "greatness" is part of why endeavors of this sort go awry, not because people are confused or stubborn or capricious, but because the concept of "greatness" is so elusive.
> 
> ....


I cannot see why any reasonable person should doubt that there is a major difference between the concepts of "greatness" and "favourite" when applied to the arts. I have a clear distinction between the two concepts in the context of classical composers, and I am surprised this is a source of continual debate on Boards like this. I am not maintaining that "greatness" is a fixed for all time or has any easily measurable physical attributes. I accept that both concepts are ultimately determined by one's personal opinion, but the important thing is that a list of favourites is entirely subject whereas the notion of greatness is, or ought to be, partly driven by objective considerations.

The objective considerations involve a range of factors that one considers relevant to determining the quality of each artist's (in this case composer's) works. I accept that these factors may vary from person to person. In my estimation factors relating to influence or novelty do not affect the quality of the works they themselves produced. I am impressed by what musical experts and musicians say about various composers. I am also impressed by which composers have appealed to a lot of people down the ages. There is often a strong interplay between these more objective factors and the shaping on one's own musical tastes.

The point about having a distinction between favourite and greatest composers is that there is potentially far more educational value in greatest than favourites. For example, when we go to school and learn about political history we don't expect to be taught about teacher's favourite historical characters (in whatever context you like) but about those whom society as a whole has deemed to be the ones most worthy of attention.

I do not deny that there is a huge problem ranking the greatest composers from an overall societal viewpoint. Nor do I pretend that any list of greatest composers is necessarily fixed for decades, as I fully accept that it is subject to changes in tastes and fashions. As I have explained before, a measure of objective greatness can be construed out of the sum total of personal opinions. I gave the example (see my post number 176) of how a stock market ranks the "greatest companies" in terms of market value resulting from the sum total of all shareholders' expected future earnings of those composers, reflected in the price at which they are prepared to hold the shares. Thus, out of the totality of personal opinions can result a concept of greatness which transcends the individual nature of the decisions involved.

An analogous procedure (in concept only) for determining the greatness of classical composers is to estimate how much people, en masse, are prepared to pay to have continued access to the works of those composers. I do not under-estimate the practical difficulties involved in determining ranks on this or any other basis. A possible proxy procedure would be to carry out a sample, but the appropriate questions and testing procedures need to be followed if spurious results are to be avoided.


----------



## starry

People have not listened to all of the same music, so there is no exact equivalent between any listener's choices.


----------



## starry

Toccata said:


> I am impressed by what musical experts and musicians say about various composers. I am also impressed by which composers have appealed to a lot of people down the ages.


But musical experts disagree about the exact placings of composers. And later you talk of it having to be about individual minds but here you talk about them having to be influenced by others. People still have to think for themselves. And you admit fashion changes which composers are popular later too. If people are more aware of a composer they will be more popular, if they aren't aware of them much they won't hear them and won't rate them.


----------



## Toccata

starry said:


> But musical experts disagree about the exact placings of composers. And later you talk of it having to be about individual minds but here you talk about them having to be influenced by others. People still have to think for themselves. And you admit fashion changes which composers are popular later too. If people are more aware of a composer they will be more popular, if they aren't aware of them much they won't hear them and won't rate them.


Of course musical experts disagree about placings of composers, but I made it clear that this is only one factor among many to be considered. Look back and you will see that I am not dictating how people should arrive at their viewpoints on greatest composers. Likewise I am not pretending that there is any simple way of determining greatness of composers, even in one's own mind.

The process of determining greatness is up to each individual. People who are very new to classical music may choose their favourites because that is all they know. Others who have moved on a bit would be foolish to deny that Beethoven, Mozart etc are not great composers, even though they may not like them, or have possibly grown tired of some of them.

One's list of greatest or favourite composers will be subject to a range of influences, and will no doubt change over time. In my case, I have tired of several former favourites but I still rate them as great. My current list of favourites, per se, probably wouldn't interest many members here, and I wouldn't wish to bore them with any details, as I'm sure they couldn't care less what they are.

The reason why this matters is that a list of what people think are the greatest composers is far more interesting, to me at least, than a list of their personal favourites. I am not interested in their favourite uncles and aunts, toys in their cupboard, or flavour of ice creams, or holiday destinations places they have visited. Taking the latter, I would be interested in hearing about those places in the world they have visited which they think people of similar general interest to them might wish to investigate further.

In summary, any reasonably intelligent listener should be able to conceptualise the difference between a list of personal favourites and a list of the greatest. I have also been saying that if we are trying to determine a list of greatest composers, you should not go about it by asking for/admitting a list of personal favourites.


----------



## starry

Toccata said:


> Others who have moved on a bit would be foolish to deny that Beethoven, Mozart etc are not great composers, even though they may not like them, or have possibly grown tired of some of them.
> 
> One's list of greatest or favourite composers will be subject to a range of influences, and will no doubt change over time. In my case, I have tired of several former favourites but I still rate them as great. My current list of favourites, per se, probably wouldn't interest many members here, and I wouldn't wish to bore them with any details, as I'm sure they couldn't care less what they are.
> 
> The reason why this matters is that a list of what people think are the greatest composers is far more interesting, to me at least, than a list of their personal favourites. I am not interested in their favourite uncles and aunts, toys in their cupboard, or flavour of ice creams, or holiday destinations places they have visited. Taking the latter, I would be interested in hearing about those places in the world they have visited which they think people of similar general interest to them might wish to investigate further.


But why would you tire of something you think is great?

I'm interested in what people enjoy as I might enjoy them. I might not too of course which is why it's best for people to look through as much as they can from what people say and explore for themselves. There is no single place to find all the good music listed and never will be as it is such a big area. It takes time, research and effort from the individual, there is no shortcut to understanding music.

As for liking things of similar interest well I listen to all kinds of styles of music so where does that put me? I want to find good music in every style, I think there can be good music in every style.


----------



## Kieran

I'm at a loss as to why Beethoven regularly wins these polls, given his reticence/difficulty with regards to composing opera. Surely a person who's the "greatest" of all the great composers should display an evident mastery of all the major forms of music, without exception? I placed him second, based upon his remarkable late compositions, but I wouldn't have him close to number 1, and it was touch and go in my heart as to whether he was actually better than Handel and Bach.

I know more of Beethoven's music, so he got the nod.

I enjoy polls and comparisons, but I wonder if the distinction between "favourite" and "greatest" is ever breeched, given that our favourites are preferred for a reason, ie - we might just think they're the greatest! :trp:

Though not always, of course...:tiphat:


----------



## Nix

Kieran said:


> I'm at a loss as to why Beethoven regularly wins these polls, given his reticence/difficulty with regards to composing opera. Surely a person who's the "greatest" of all the great composers should display an evident mastery of all the major forms of music, without exception?


I think the thing about Fidelio that people don't give enough credit to is that the music isn't bad. Actually it's pretty damn good. But it's the story and the pacing that lead to its downfall- and should Beethoven really be judged as a _composer_ based on his ability to stage something theatrically? Because it's opera, maybe a little bit, but not that much I would think.

Besides, Beethoven beats out the composers you mentioned by a mile in innovation- which is a quality I consider far greater then the ability to stage a good opera. And if we're talking about composers who could write in every genre and innovate at the same time, then Mozart would be your answer (who is someone you didn't mention). But then Mozart didn't have 'mastery' in staying alive. So Beethoven ends up on top.


----------



## starry

How long a composer lives isn't something we should judge them on I suppose. Beethoven in general wasn't really a major composer of vocal music, whereas the major rivals to him (Mozart, JS Bach, even Schubert) are.


----------



## Kieran

Nix said:


> But then Mozart didn't have 'mastery' in staying alive. So Beethoven ends up on top.


Hey Nix,

Beethoven didn't have mastery over staying alive, either! :lol:

That's interesting about Fidelio, but I think the composer should be the driving force in the drama, making suggestions to the librettist so that the dialogue and drama match the pace of the music. But he took a while to nail _Fidelio_, didn't he? Nothing wrong with that, it's just that he experienced evident difficulties in this form - just as, I'm sure, Chopin did, if he tried, or Wagner did with symphonies, if he bothered.

Perhaps Beethoven wasn't overly interested in opera, I don't know, but I think a composer faces a different set of challenges in writing for both voice and orchestra in a dramatic/comic setting, and this is one thing he avoided or found difficult to do.

Mozart dying so young shouldn't be held against him: he still composed more than enough in his short life to keep me going! :tiphat:


----------



## Webernite

Maybe, but on the other hand, do Mozart's piano sonatas and symphonies (except the _Jupiter_) compare to Beethoven's? Not really.


----------



## starry

Webernite said:


> Maybe, but on the other hand, do Mozart's piano sonatas and symphonies (except the _Jupiter_) compare to Beethoven's? Not really.


Oh Mozart did plenty in the symphony and orchestral music in general. And for piano music apart from the sonatas (some of which are very good) he did some other pieces like fantasias and rondos and of course the piano concertos.


----------



## Jacob Singer

Nix said:


> Besides, Beethoven beats out the composers you mentioned by a mile in innovation- which is a quality I consider far greater then the ability to stage a good opera.


Agreed. Innovation/originality is paramount across virtually all forms of art, and is a consistent characteristic of most of those individuals who are considered the greatest artists to ever live. As I like many kinds of music, the one factor that makes all of my favorites stand out from the rest within their respective genres is originality.


----------



## Webernite

starry said:


> How long a composer lives isn't something we should judge them on I suppose. Beethoven in general wasn't really a major composer of vocal music, whereas the major rivals to him (Mozart, JS Bach, even Schubert) are.


Not sure about this. Beethoven considered the _Miss Solemnis_ to be his greatest work, didn't he? We also can't overlook the _Choral Fantasy_ and the _Mass in C major_.


----------



## starry

The Missa Solemnis might be the best work using vocals he did. That Beethoven considered it his greatest work after he finished it I wouldn't say is that important, he probably said that after he finished other works as well. He puts major demands on the vocalists as well in parts like the Gloria (which I love) but it feels more orchestral or about the chorus than anything at times. It's not really like the arias in Bach or Mozart or songs in Schubert.

And 3 choral works doesn't really rival the output of those others I mention I think. 

On Mozart and the piano he also did pieces for 2 pianos and piano duet, an adagio, fugue and quite a few sets of variations. He also wrote some pieces featuring the organ.


----------



## Webernite

Well, I see the _Missa Solemnis_ as being in quite a different category from the likes of Schubert's songs. There's a difference between choral works, songs, and arias. So far as choral works are concerned, I think Beethoven comes off better than either Mozart or Schubert, but worse than Bach and Handel. Obviously, Schubert was the best at writing songs, and obviously, Beethoven isn't famous for his arias. But I'm not sure where exactly we are going with this?

Mozart wrote plenty for keyboard, yes. But his keyboard writing is basically inferior to that of Bach and Beethoven, and arguably Haydn. I think it's an uncontroversial claim to say that Mozart's piano sonatas are to the _Well-Tempered Clavier_ (or the _Hammerklavier_) what _Fidelio_ is to _Don Giovanni_.


----------



## Nix

I should clarify- I'm not 'holding it against' Mozart that he died young. All I'm saying that had he lived longer he would have innovated more, and written more and probably would have become significantly more important then Beethoven (but of course we'll never know). 

I think it was Beethoven's style that didn't suit him to write vocal music as well. Beethoven was all about condensing everything- from rhythms to motifs. Songs are mostly about being lyrical, and lyricism doesn't submit as well to being condensed (if that makes sense). Incidentally, the Missa Solemnis is notorious for not being 'condensed'- it's all one idea after another, very un-Beethovenesque. Not to mention that I think Beethoven had enough going on in his own life that he didn't need to express himself using someone else's words- which may have led to a lack of inspiration in that department.


----------



## starry

Webernite said:


> Mozart wrote plenty for keyboard, yes. But his keyboard writing is basically inferior to that of Bach and Beethoven, and arguably Haydn. I think it's an uncontroversial claim to say that Mozart's piano sonatas are to the _Well-Tempered Clavier_ (or the _Hammerklavier_) what _Fidelio_ is to _Don Giovanni_.


I'm not saying that Mozart's keyboard writing rivals, for example, Beethoven but just that it isn't that insubstantial, particularly if you add in the writing in the piano concertos. And course Mozart was considered a great pianist, like Beethoven.


----------



## Webernite

I agree. I mean, even without the piano concertos, Mozart's piano output is a substantial and respectable achievement. But so is _Fidelio_!


----------



## tdc

Nix said:


> I should clarify- I'm not 'holding it against' Mozart that he died young. All I'm saying that had he lived longer he would have innovated more, and written more and probably would have become significantly more important then Beethoven (but of course we'll never know).


This is an incredibly good point, and something I hadnt really pondered until now. I dont know why...listening to his final Requiem Mass, and late symphonic works, its amazing the artistic growth there. It staggers the mind to think of how he may have evolved had he lived even another decade.

I just have to say, I am really enjoying all this banter from several of the posters here in this thread keep it up.


----------



## starry

Of course all of the big three composer trio were considered great performers too, they could shape their music exactly as they wanted it, at least at the keyboard.


----------



## Nix

starry said:


> Of course all of the big three composer trio were considered great performers too, they could shape their music exactly as they wanted it, at least at the keyboard.


Interesting to note though is that Beethoven wasn't all that taken with Mozart's solo piano works. He loved the concerto's, and he certainly took inspiration from the c minor sonata, but he didn't consider him (or Haydn) to be a master in the form. It was actually Muzio Clementi who he admired the most- and I think took a lot from (listen to Clementi's f# minor piano sonata- it almost sounds like Chopin). Also, Mozart was having joint problems in his hand and wasn't preforming all that much towards the end of his life... which is something else interesting to note: all of the three greats experienced major disabilities that hindered their performing careers: Beethoven with hearing, Bach with eyesight, and Mozart with hand problems.


----------



## Kieran

I'm sitting here listening to the ballroom scene in Don Giovanni and wishing Wolfgang coulda been just a little more innovative in his approach 

Innovation is something all the great masters have in common. Mozart took the piano concerto from chamber music to being almost symphonic - and even operatic - by the time he finished. He died at maybe the age Beethoven was when he entered his great middle period, so his achievements were significant, but I wonder if he didn't practice the kind of innovation Beethoven became a renowned master of because he was always composing so fast in order to fulfill his obligations? 

He was a musical gun for hire and didn't enjoy the independence from which Beethoven was to benefit. Unfortunately for Mozart, he died just when his popularity was growing again, and he was busy with commissions.

His piano music is marvellous! His 27 piano concertos represent maybe the greatest body of work in that field, and his quartets are original and highly expressive. Sonatas, duets, trios. The great quintet. He's got so much piano work, and for its time, on such a small piano, I think he couldn't have composed more. His sonatas for violin and piano grow on me daily.

I didn't query Beethoven's place at the top of the pile to denigrate him, by the way, as that would be beyond me. He was a musical genius, but he didn't concentrate on opera for some reason. Perhaps because he composed so painstakingly slow, he may have been loathe to commit himself to undertaking tasks which would tie him up indefinitely. And when he began to go deaf, it might have seemed pointless to him.

But I think the composer of Figaro, Cosi and Don Giovanni was special in a way few people ever are. He's my favourite, and so I know I'm biased. :trp:

Cheers! :tiphat:


----------



## LordBlackudder

1. Nobuo Uematsu

and some others.


----------



## starry

I suppose as anyone gets older they are likely to have more health problems, either new ones or some problem they already have getting worse. And as performers they are probably more of a sensation earlier on as their skills are fresh to the public. But as the performance factor diminishes perhaps they can concentrate on composition even more and the challenge of writing for other people and even more different instruments.

Beethoven was able to build on what had been achieved by earlier composers in their becoming freelance, and the changing piano certainly enabled him to expand his expression there. In general he built on what had gone before by expanding the scale of pieces in various genres. There is no reason to think Mozart couldn't have done that.


----------



## emiellucifuge

LordBlackudder said:


> 1. Nobuo Uematsu
> 
> and some others.


From what Ive heard its just cliché superficial rhythms and melodies badly orchestrated. So old-fashioned to sound as if its 200 years old, yet it doesnt fit anywhere because it doesnt represent anything serious at all.
There is nothing new, nothing interesting.


----------



## Charon

No big surprises with the results. I was kinda hoping one of the Second Viennese Schooler's would have made it in but oh well.


----------



## Guest

Toccata said:


> I cannot see why any reasonable person should doubt that there is a major difference between the concepts of "greatness" and "favourite" when applied to the arts.


Maybe you're just not trying hard enough.

Besides, my point was that "greatness" is empty. Try as one may to fill it, and the rest of your post eloquently chronicles many of the difficulties doing that, it remains empty.



Toccata said:


> I accept that both concepts are ultimately determined by one's personal opinion, but the important thing is that a list of favourites is entirely subject[ive] whereas the notion of greatness is, or ought to be, partly driven by objective considerations.


Decide what you want, to have your cake or to eat your cake. (And none of this "sorta eating it" business!)

But seriously, if you put ten sheep in a pen, then ten more, then ten more, and so on, at no point will you have anything other than sheep in your pen. Those sheep will not at some point magically turn into a lion, say. (Though any lions in the area might be interested in your sheep collecting activities, it's true.)

Same with opinions. No matter how many opinions you stack up, there will never come a point where those opinions turn into a fact. You will never have anything more than a big collection of opinions.



Toccata said:


> As I have explained before, a measure of objective greatness can be construed out of the sum total of personal opinions.


Yes. We disagree.

And however much construing you do, you are still left, in the end, with those sounds of that piece and your ears connected to your mind, which is the total of all your tastes and experiences and biasses. However much you desire to give over your decisions to other people, to people you don't even know--what's more--ultimately, it's just you and each piece. Alone, together.

Enjoy!


----------



## gr8gunz

some guy said:


> But seriously, if you put ten sheep in a pen, then ten more, then ten more, and so on, at no point will you have anything other than sheep in your pen. Those sheep will not at some point magically turn into a lion, say. (Though any lions in the area might be interested in your sheep collecting activities, it's true.)
> 
> Same with opinions. No matter how many opinions you stack up, there will never come a point where those opinions turn into a fact. You will never have anything more than a big collection of opinions.


Therefore, according to you, no one can ever achieve greatness???


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

some guy said:


> And however much construing you do, you are still left, in the end, with those sounds of that piece and your ears connected to your mind, which is the total of all your tastes and experiences and biasses. However much you desire to give over your decisions to other people, to people you don't even know--what's more--ultimately, it's just you and each piece. Alone, together.


You are describing a listener's listening experience, which often has nothing to do with how great/good or bad a piece of music is itself. Even if one listener hates Bach's B minor mass, fact is Bach's B minor mass is a great piece of art that can objectively assessed to show it is so, and even if one listener enjoy's Stockhausen's _Helicopter String Quartet_, fact is it really is just plain experimental crap.

Yes, I do not believe all art is good, none are bad, nor do I believe that art cannot or should not be objectively assessed, as difficult as that task may be (member Toccata already discussed that). If a composer today produces a piece whereby all it does is hitting the metal cover of a rubbish bin with a baseball bat for sixty times per minute at the steady beat of sixty seconds, despite what if any listener might appreciate it (good for them lucky listeners), it's still a crappy piece.


----------



## Webernite

I suppose I disagree both with some guy and with Tocatta's ideas about the market. I believe that musical works (like paintings and architecture) can be evaluated using the conventions of aesthetic judgement which have developed in Western society over the centuries. These conventions are not definable and are open to interpretation, but they exist inasmuch as all music criticism implicitly makes use of them. The purely hedonistic view of music that is so common nowadays (including on this forum) is, in my opinion, just a combination of bad reasoning and fashionable nihilism.


----------



## Art Rock

If these undefinable conventions are open to interpretation, they are by definition subjective. Greatness exists in my opinion, but in the eye or ear (or mouth if we include haute cuisine) of the beholder. Subjective.
You will not be able to find a single example of art that everyone, even in the subgroup of lovers of that type of art (such as classical music), will agree upon is great. Therefore there is no objective greatness. You could calculate that e.g. Mozart is the most recorded composer, or that Beethoven is the most sold composer - but those qualifications would be just that, and in no way align with greatness. And if we go that latter way, as Toccata has advocated on and off in this thread, the logical conclusion is that extending the art subset from classical music to music, Michael Jackson is far greater than Beethoven as far as general music is concerned. And even sticking to claasssical music, this criterion would probably lead to the conclusion that Andrea Bocelli is the greatest tenor in the history of classical music.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> You are describing a listener's listening experience, which often has nothing to do with how great/good or bad a piece of music is itself.


This is a very strange comment. And if you ever find yourself questioning it, and perhaps even rejecting it, then I for sure want to get credit for that!!

Edit: Oh, and gr8gunz, no, I am definitely NOT saying that no one can achieve greatness. I'm saying something along the lines of what Art Rock just said, that greatness is not some objective thing, but what happens (HarpsichordConcerto) when a listening mind encounters a sonic object.

And I wouldn't even use "greatness" for that. I do think that the important stuff happens when the object and the subject collide. Not the object by itself. Not the subject (eye/ear of the beholder) by itself. But the dynamic and magical thing that happens when the two get together.

Some pieces have provided a lot of listeners with "great" experiences many times over many years. It's tempting, I know, to conclude that such pieces in and of themselves are thus "great." But really, is there any such thing as an object in and of itself? Or a subject in and of itself? Aren't these two _always_ found in some sort of relation with each other?

The relation is what really matters, I'd say.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

The relation is what matters during the listening experience, yes, but if the work itself is a piece of junk, then the piece is likely to be forgotton when listeners grow tired of it quickly over time. Except of course, when the work itself is truely great.


----------



## Toccata

some guy said:


> Maybe you're just not trying hard enough.
> 
> Besides, my point was that "greatness" is empty. Try as one may to fill it, and the rest of your post eloquently chronicles many of the difficulties doing that, it remains empty.


I can fully see where you are coming from on this topic. You have to reject the notion of greatness among classical composers beyond the purely personal level because otherwise it would leave the vast majority of the mere minions of contemporary so-called "composers" (with their cacophonous bells, whistles and assorted farts), whom you so laboriously champion against all the odds, looking even more silly than they do already, by virtue of their zero showing.

That apart, like you, I do not believe that greatness in music, or greatness among composers, exists on its own independently of perception or experience. Therefore, I can fully agree with you and Art Rock that there is no such thing as inherent greatness in any artwork or its creator. Rather I agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If it were true that greatness in music has intrinsic properties, there would be little or no change in societies' judgements about past great composers, and we know this not to be the case. I agree that greatness depends on the interaction between the subject of attention and the person contemplating that work. Greatness among composers comprises a multi-faceted list of largely aesthetic criteria, and each person will react almost uniquely to those features.

However, I depart company from you both hereon. In my opinion the existence of differing views among each member of the entire audience does not mean that nothing more can be said about greatness other than that it is entirely a personal matter whether or not a particular artistic work or its creator is great. Instead, I believe that there is meaning in the aggregated subjective opinions of all members of the audience. I have not pretended that it is always easy to measure this aggregated quantity, and in the case of classical composers, I have stated explicitly that it is not an easy task at all. This is because there is no market as such in which a "price" for the services of each composer can be established. "Price" is the normal market mechanism for reconciling the interests of buyers (read: listeners) and sellers (read: composers). If there were such a market in the situation we are now discussing, composers could be ranked according to the price they command for services rendered, in much the same fashion as the prices determined in markets for more tangible valuables like real estate, old paintings, antiques of various descriptions, vintage motor vehicles, or whatever.

Because no straightforward conventional market exists, and hence no "price" exists for their musical services, we have to look for alternative indicators of greatness based on mass appeal. Sampling people's views is one possible method which goes straight to the heart of the issue by asking the question directly. But it's not as good as price because there is no hardship in merely expressing an opinion whereas there is in the case of being obliged actually to pay a fee since it involves sacrificing the consumption of some other good or service. Alternatively, various necessarily crude proxies for price can be construed (e g the various DDD criteria of aesthetic quality, historical significance, influence on later works etc), but they are very prone to measurement error, and overall are poor surrogates for a competitively determined price if that were possible.

Despite all these measurement problems, I still maintain that there is nothing wrong in principle with the empirical notion of greatness among composers based on mass appeal. I fully realise that this involves accepting the possibility of some volatility in the rankings over time, and possibly a few surprising results may be thrown up. To reject the idea of greatness based on mass appeal seems silly to me, as it flies in the face of simple economics.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Toccata said:


> Because no straightforward conventional market exists, and hence no "price" exists for their musical services, we have to look for alternative indicators of greatness based on mass appeal. Sampling people's views is one possible method which goes straight to the heart of the issue by asking the question directly. But it's not as good as price because there is no hardship in merely expressing an opinion whereas there is in the case of being obliged actually to pay a fee since it involves sacrificing the consumption of some other good or service. Alternatively, various necessarily crude proxies for price can be construed (e g the various DDD criteria of aesthetic quality, historical significance, influence on later works etc), but they are very prone to measurement error, and overall are poor surrogates for a competitively determined price if that were possible.
> 
> Despite all these measurement problems, I still maintain that there is nothing wrong in principle with the empirical notion of greatness among composers based on mass appeal. I fully realise that this involves accepting the possibility of some volatility in the rankings over time, and possibly a few surprising results may be thrown up. To reject the idea of greatness based on mass appeal seems silly to me, as it flies in the face of simple economics.


Using your microeconomic/price theory argument, the indicator of greatness based on mass appeal, as far as classical composers are concerned, has often been the amount of resources allocated to the production of recordings and live concerts of works by great composers. Why has J. S. Bach's two hundred plus church cantatas been recorded in full several times already (with two other cycles currently in progress, at least, that I'm aware of)? Why have the record companies provided capital and undertaken business risk to these projects? Why have they chose not to record as many versions of the complete oevure of another fellow composer with the same Christian name - John Cage?


----------



## jhar26

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Using your microeconomic/price theory argument, the indicator of greatness based on mass appeal, as far as classical composers are concerned, has often been the amount of resources allocated to the production of recordings and live concerts of works by great composers. Why has J. S. Bach's two hundred plus church cantatas been recorded in full several times already (with two other cycles currently in progress, at least, that I'm aware of)? Why have the record companies provided capital and undertaken business risk to these projects? Why have they chose not to record as many versions of the complete oevure of another fellow composer with the same Christian name - John Cage?


Toccata's theory works best when applied to composers of the same time frame and/or field of music.


----------



## Toccata

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Using your microeconomic/price theory argument, the indicator of greatness based on mass appeal, as far as classical composers are concerned, has often been the amount of resources allocated to the production of recordings and live concerts of works by great composers. Why has J. S. Bach's two hundred plus church cantatas been recorded in full several times already (with two other cycles currently in progress, at least, that I'm aware of)? Why have the record companies provided capital and undertaken business risk to these projects? Why have they chose not to record as many versions of the complete oevure of another fellow composer with the same Christian name - John Cage?


Thank you for reading my post.

You are correct that the amount of resources devoted to individual composers, in the form of the number of alternative recordings etc, is one measure that has been used to rank classical composers according to their greatness. It is one among several factors, so I gather, that were taken into consideration by DDD in their compilation of their "greatest composers" some 4 years ago.

This measure looks at the supply side of the market by giving an indication of the extent to which "producers" - the record companies, musicians, et al - are prepared to commit resources to reproduce the works of individual composers. They do so, however, not because record company moguls or musicians themselves like these composers (they may do so but that is entirely incidental) and are merely trying to foist their preferences on an unwilling market, but because they are responding to consumer demand in pursuit of profit.

Consumer sovereignty is the term normally used in economics to refer to this mechanism. Other similar terms describe the consumer as the "king," or "ruler", but they all mean the same thing, namely that it is the prerogative of consumers (read: music fans in this instance) in markets to decide what gets produced, and the producers in the market respond to that demand, with the interests of both groups being reconciled by price.

You may question why there are many more versions of J S Bach's Cantatas than, say, John Cage's works. Based on the above, presumably consumer demand for the latter's works is relatively low compared with JSB's, and the record companies/artists have responded accordingly. On the whole, consumers in this market are not prepared to forgo further expenditure on other items of their budget in order to gain greater access to the works of Cage. This does not mean that Cage's works are a load of crap compared with Bach's in any intrinsically quantifiable, but simply that the market doesn't rate Cage's works in anything like the same degree of esteem as Bach's.

In response to the above clarification (which I strongly suspect you don't really need, being a very intelligent observer of such matters), I now await the usual Neanderthal reaction from the economically illiterate, or the very young, who reckon that anything they do not like is some weird capitalist plot to suppress "good" art. Of course, it's no such thing, but simply the market at work. These people probably don't like markets or don't understand how they work. They will moan about the price (or supply) of anything which they deem too high or too low. I would far prefer to have markets determine what gets produced in the music market, and in what quantities, rather than accept the alternative of some kind of State rationing system, or whatever other allocative system they may care to dream up.


----------



## starry

Sorry if you answered this, but I don't remember seeing it. Why do you go off 'great' music so it is no longer among your favourites? If something is great surely it will always be among your favourites.


----------



## Toccata

jhar26 said:


> Toccata's theory works best when applied to composers of the same time frame and/or field of music.


My comments:

1. This is not my theory but elementary economics. I have simply been identifying certain relevant elementary aspects of the "theory of value" which is at the core of microeconomics. Obviously I know we are not here to discuss economics or statistical theory but some of it does have a bearing on the issues raised in this thread about the possibility of calibrating the "greatness" of classical composers. I'm focusing on these issues because I'm not interested so much in discussing the fine detail of the results composer by composer as I've seen it all many times before, all the "banter" and all, both here and on several other sites.

2. Regards your observation about applicability of this "theory", the relevant market is crucial and has to be defined carefully. This is not always a straightforward exercise in any market situation, and several competition authorities around the world have devised various alternative criteria at different times. All such tests essentially try to identify gaps in the "chain of substitutes", such that where a gap appears this is deemed to form the boundary of separate market from the next one, and so on. One procedure among several for identifying such gaps is the so-called "_small but significant and non-transitory increase in the price"_ test, which explores the scope for implementing a hypothetical concerted increase in price by those deemed to be in that market.

3. Suffice to say that considerations of this type would eliminate the assertions repeatedly forward by _Art Rock_ that, for example, Michael Jackson would be deemed to be a greater musician than say Beethoven on the criteria I have set out. I have already responded to this point, but he has come back again and evidently hasn't understood the relevance of market definition, to which I referred. To repeat this point, the answer is that these "greats" are in different markets, and so the comparisons he makes are invalid. It would like saying for example that Microsoft is a more successful software company than Royal Dutch Shell - true but so what, you are not comparing like with like.


----------



## Toccata

starry said:


> Sorry if you answered this, but I don't remember seeing it. Why do you go off 'great' music so it is no longer among your favourites? If something is great surely it will always be among your favourites.


Sorry but I have time and patience to respond to only so much of the stuff that is posted here.

By the same token there is only so much time available in one's spare time to listen to classical music. One has to allocate that time between competing spare time interests. I do not listen to as much Tchaikovsky, Bach, or Chopin (to take just a few examples) as I once used to. Currently I spend more of my time listening to the likes of Byrd, Rameau and Purcell. However, I wouldn't name any of these latter composers as topping my list of greatest composers merely because I currently have an interest in them relative to others. I can look at things objectively enough to appreciate that they are not in the same league as the likes of Tchaikovsky, Bach, or Chopin et al.

Thus, one can easily "tire" of individual composers and yet still think they are great. To tire can be a relative concept as well as an absolute one. I meant this in the relative sense insofar that some composers have gone up while others have gone down my current list of favourites, although I still regard them all as great.

The list I gave earlier in this thread comprised the composers I reckon are the greatest composers, not my current favourites. That's what the OP called for, and that's exactly what I provided.


----------



## jhar26

Toccata, my one sentence comment was basically a way of saying that I agree. I do however also think that the only ambition of the polls that are done here (greatest composers, symphonies, operas, etc.) is to come up with an end-result that reflects the opinions and/or tastes of the members of this forum - or at least of those that participate in them, and not necessarily those of the classical music community as a whole.


----------



## starry

Toccata said:


> Sorry but I have time and patience to respond to only so much of the stuff that is posted here.
> 
> By the same token there is only so much time available in one's spare time to listen to classical music. One has to allocate that time between competing spare time interests. I do not listen to as much Tchaikovsky, Bach, or Chopin (to take just a few examples) as I once used to. Currently I spend more of my time listening to the likes of Byrd, Rameau and Purcell. However, I wouldn't name any of these latter composers as topping my list of greatest composers merely because I currently have an interest in them relative to others. I can look at things objectively enough to appreciate that they are not in the same league as the likes of Tchaikovsky, Bach, or Chopin et al.
> 
> Thus, one can easily "tire" of individual composers and yet still think they are great. To tire can be a relative concept as well as an absolute one. I meant this in the relative sense insofar that some composers have gone up while others have gone down my current list of favourites, although I still regard them all as great.
> 
> The list I gave earlier in this thread comprised the composers I reckon are the greatest composers, not my current favourites. That's what the OP called for, and that's exactly what I provided.


Well of course time is limited. And certainly I listen to music which I wouldn't say is all great, but that is because I listen to stuff that is new to me which I need to assess. I pick out what I think is great from that. Most music I like I don't really go off, I continue liking it. There are some favourites I suppose that I happen to come back to more than others, through habit I suppose.


----------



## shamisengirl

1. Beethoven
2. Tchaikovsky
3. Mozart
4. Rachmaninov
5. Ravel
6. Bach
7. Handel
8. Chopin
9. Rimsky-Korsakov
10. Debussy
11. Vivaldi
12. Puccini
13. Verdi
14. Mussorgsky
15. Dvorak
16. Mendelssohn
17. Shostakovich
18. Elgar
19. Sibelius
20. Berlioz
21. Mahler
22. Liszt
23. Albeniz
24. Grieg
25.Schumann


----------



## Webernite

Art Rock said:


> If these undefinable conventions are open to interpretation, they are by definition subjective. Greatness exists in my opinion, but in the eye or ear (or mouth if we include haute cuisine) of the beholder. Subjective.


I'm not sure what you're saying here, really. Whether you call it subjective or objective, the point is that there is a long history of critical discussion which evaluates music by appealing to a certain set of criteria - development, counterpoint, melody, harmony, tastefulness, accessibility, originality, influence, etc. "Greatness" is just a word conventionally used for music that does well in these tests. The word "favorite" means something different. I have never heard anybody use them to mean the same thing.

You might not care about "greatness" in this sense, but many other people do, and that's why the critical discussion of music will probably always continue.


----------



## starry

Normally I think that something that is a favourite of mine is great in some way.


----------



## Guest

Toccata said:


> I can fully see where you are coming from on this topic. You have to reject the notion of greatness among classical composers beyond the purely personal level because otherwise it would leave the vast majority of the mere minions of contemporary so-called "composers" (with their cacophonous bells, whistles and assorted farts), whom you so laboriously champion against all the odds, looking even more silly than they do already, by virtue of their zero showing.


Yes. This must be it. Why, you see more clearly into my mind than I do. It's a miracle!!

No. I'm afraid it's you who's laboring. Laboring to deny beauty and pleasure and delight to anything but what YOU already know and like.

Good luck with that. May you convince no one but yourself. (And if you ever develop enough to be able to enjoy what you now describe as "cacaphonous bells, whistles and assorted farts" I also for sure want to get credit for THAT, too.:trp


----------



## TWhite

Well here's my list--at least a current one. And these are in no particular ranking: Simply as they come to mind. 

1: Richard Strauss
2: Gustav Mahler
3: Johannes Brahms
4: Sergei Rachmaninov 
5: Isaac Albeniz
6: Manuel deFalla
7: Alberto Ginastera
8: Aaron Copland
9: Samuel Barber
10: William Walton
11: Jean Sibelius
12: Claude Debussy
13: Maurice Ravel
14: Ludwig Van Beethoven
15: Richard Wagner
16: Robert Schumann
17: Karol Symanowski
18: Franz Liszt
19: Eric Korngold
20: Dimitri Shostokovitch
21: Sir Edward Elgar
22: Sergei Prokofiev
23: Alban Berg
24: Guiseppi Verdi
25: Modest Mussorgsky

Tom


----------



## starry

some guy said:


> "cacaphonous bells, whistles and assorted farts"


Sounds a wonderful piece, I can't wait to hear it.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*One of my favotite composers:*

Бори́с Ми́колайович Лятоши́нський

Martin


----------



## Guest

starry said:


> Sounds a wonderful piece, I can't wait to hear it.


Haha, it's true. Me either. (I wonder if Toccata is referring to Clarence Barlow's _Farting Quietly in Church?_)


----------



## tdc

shamisengirl said:


> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Tchaikovsky
> 3. Mozart
> 4. Rachmaninov
> 5. Ravel
> 6. Bach
> 7. Handel
> 8. Chopin
> 9. Rimsky-Korsakov
> 10. Debussy
> 11. Vivaldi
> 12. Puccini
> 13. Verdi
> 14. Mussorgsky
> 15. Dvorak
> 16. Mendelssohn
> 17. Shostakovich
> 18. Elgar
> 19. Sibelius
> 20. Berlioz
> 21. Mahler
> 22. Liszt
> 23. Albeniz
> 24. Grieg
> 25.Schumann


A HA ! there is someone else here that places Ravel higher than Debussy.

Kudos. :tiphat:


----------



## World Violist

tdc said:


> A HA ! there is someone else here that places Ravel higher than Debussy.
> 
> Kudos. :tiphat:


I had Ravel on my list and Debussy not at all... Debussy was great, but Ravel was just better at piano writing and orchestration. Obviously, though, we have to turn to Debussy for opera.


----------



## gr8gunz

starry said:


> Sounds a wonderful piece, I can't wait to hear it.


OR SMELL IT!!


----------



## tdc

World Violist said:


> I had Ravel on my list and Debussy not at all... Debussy was great, but Ravel was just better at piano writing and orchestration. Obviously, though, we have to turn to Debussy for opera.


Woah, I never noticed that. All though Debussy not on your list at all?! I had him right behind Ravel. (But then I guess you might feel the same way as Ravel was at #25 for you). I still need to get listening to a lot of the guys on your list.


----------



## World Violist

tdc said:


> Woah, I never noticed that. All though Debussy not on your list at all?! I had him right behind Ravel. (But then I guess you might feel the same way as Ravel was at #25 for you). I still need to get listening to a lot of the guys on your list.


Yes, later on in the thread I remarked two composers I might put in later would be Debussy and Mussorgsky. Jury's still out on it though.


----------



## tdc

I've heard a lot of new music since the initial list I posted in this thread, so my current list would be closer to this: (keeping in mind its impossible to get in all the great names on such a short list, there were so many I wanted to include - Shostakovich, Vivaldi, Scarlatti etc, but I ran out of room):

1. J.S. Bach
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Schubert
5. Ravel
6. Debussy
7. Wagner
8. Bartok
9. Mahler
10. Mendelssohn
11. Chopin
12. Handel
13. Monteverdi
14. Brahms
15. Schumann
16. Haydn
17. Stravinsky
18. Prokofiev
19. Britten
20. R. Strauss
21. Rachmaninov
22. Tchaikovsky
23. Szymanowski
24. Schoenberg
25. Penderecki


----------



## Couchie

1) Ludwig van Beethoven

2-25) Hacks, or the "_why am I not listening to Beethoven right now?_" composers.


----------



## tdc

Couchie said:


> 1) Ludwig van Beethoven
> 
> 2-25) Hacks, or the "_why am I not listening to Beethoven right now?_" composers.


Interesting, considering you've also said this:

---
Couchie:



> Very simply. First, one asks himself:
> 
> "Is it by Bach?"
> 
> If YES: Good music
> 
> If NO: Not as good as it could have been..


Post can be found here --> http://www.talkclassical.com/12566-how-do-you-define-2.html#post147732

----
And even more recently:

---
Couchie:



> 1. Buy the damn Ring Cycle.
> 2. Put in DVD player and hit play.
> 
> Have you *really* got better things to do than *watch what may be the greatest thing humanity has ever produced?*
> - Didn't think so.
> 
> Finding it slow or boring?
> - Press pause, go mix yourself a drink, stretch your legs, then resume. Repeat as necessary.
> 
> Made it all the way through, but didn't "get it"?
> - Eject Götterdämmerung disk 2. Insert Das Rheingold. Press play. Repeat as necessary.


Post can be found here --> http://www.talkclassical.com/4594-wagner-r-strauss-3.html#post156817

---

So, let me get this straight, Bach _was_ the best, and The Ring _the greatest thing humanity has produced_, yet somehow these two composers have now been reduced to the status of _talentless hacks _in your mind? 

You know it is possible to like something without putting down everything else in the process...it works for dramatic effect, but wears thin when you are not consistent. It also comes across as kind of insulting to the many many other great composers out there.


----------



## Xaltotun

Hmm, have I answered to this thread already? Cannot bother to check, but since this thread is up again, let me whip up a right-now top 25. It's always a nice moment of self-reflection to write up these.

1. Mahler
2. Beethoven
3. Wagner
4. Brahms
5. Sibelius
6. Bruckner
7. Tchaikovsky
8. Schubert
9. Ravel
10. Rachmaninov
11. Berlioz
12. Saint-Saëns
13. Mozart
14. Rimsky-Korsakov
15. Mussorgsky
16. Schumann
17. Nielsen
18. Elgar
19. Dvorak
20. Smetana
21. Borodin
22. Grieg
23. Shostakovich
24. Mendelssohn
25. R. Strauss


----------



## Kieran

Couchie said:


> 1) Ludwig van Beethoven
> 
> 2-25) Hacks, or the "_why am I not listening to Beethoven right now?_" composers.


Unless ya wanna listen to opera, huh? You wouldn't ask the "greatest composer of all time" to sit down and churn out one of them... :trp:


----------



## Guest

1. J. S. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Haydn
4. Mahler
5. Mozart
6. Brahms
7. Dvorak
8. Schubert
9. Rachmaninoff
10. Tchaikovsky
11. Barber
12. Handel
13. Grieg
14. Monteverdi
15. Bruckner
16. Sibelius
17. Vivaldi
18. Part
19. C. P. E. Bach
20. Chopin
21. Messiaen
22. Mendelssohn
23. Tallis
24. Elgar
25. R. Strauss


----------



## An Die Freude

1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Mozart
4. Chopin
5. Tchaikovsky
6. Vivaldi
7. Mussorgsky
8. Haydn
9. Dvorak
10. Mendelssohn
11. Grieg
12. Liszt
13. Bizet
14. Johann Strauss II
15. Handel
16. Wagner
17. Rimsky-Korsakov

Can't think of any others right now.


----------



## mmsbls

1. Mozart
2. Beethoven
3. Bach
4. Brahms
5. Schubert
6. Wagner
7. Dvorak
8. Mendelssohn
9. Tchaikovsky
10. Schumann 
11. Haydn
12. Chopin
13. Mahler
14. Handel
15. Prokofiev
16. Strauss
17. Saint-Saens
18. Verdi
19. Sibelius
20. Debussy
21. Shostakovich
22. Telemann
23. Berlioz
24. Vivaldi
25. Grieg


----------



## Couchie

tdc said:


> So, let me get this straight, Bach _was_ the best, and The Ring _the greatest thing humanity has produced_, yet somehow these two composers have now been reduced to the status of _talentless hacks _in your mind?
> 
> You know it is possible to like something without putting down everything else in the process...it works for dramatic effect, but wears thin when you are not consistent. It also comes across as kind of insulting to the many many other great composers out there.


Haha, very good! :lol: You'll have to forgive me, the above was written while under the influence of the Op. 131. You have certainly outlined my top three there, however! (In order: Beethoven, Bach, Wagner).


----------



## Terrapin

1. Beethoven
2. Tchaikovsky
3. Brahms
4. Haydn
5. Mozart
6. Dvorak
7. Schubert
8. Mahler
9. Mendelssohn
10. Sibelius
11. Prokofiev
12. Shoshtakovich
13. Schumann
14. Bartok
15. Bruckner
16. Nielsen
17. Rimsky-Korsakov
18. Martinu
19. Elgar
20. Grieg
21. Spohr
22. Saint-Saens
23. Berwald
24. Arnold
25. Arensky


----------



## Ravellian

I'll update my list. This more closely reflects the composers I enjoy listening to most often. Most notably, I like Sibelius, Brahms, and Scriabin a lot more than I used to. 

1. Beethoven
2. Tchaikovsky
3. Chopin
4. Sibelius
5. Brahms
6. Ravel
7. Wagner
8. Scriabin
9. Prokofiev
10. Schubert
11. JS Bach
12. Mahler
13. Liszt
14. Mozart
15. Faure
16. Rachmaninov
17. Debussy
18. Janacek
19. Satie
20. Haydn
21. Bartok
22. Schumann
23. R. Strauss
24. D. Scarlatti
25. Mendelssohn


----------



## Webernite

I posted here before, but that was a list of greatest composers rather than favourites. Right now I suppose my favourites are:

1. Bach
2. Brahms
3. Late Mozart
4. Beethoven
5. Schoenberg
6. Schumann
7. Webern

Bach's always been my favourite - the others vary. I'm also interested in the music of Sibelius, Wagner, Mahler and Haydn, but I wouldn't call myself a proper fan just yet.


----------



## Stasou

1. J.S. Bach
2. Ludwig van Beethoven
3. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
4. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky 
5. Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy
6. Bela Bartok
7. Dmitri Shostakovich
8. Gustav Mahler
9. Richard Strauss
10. Maurice Ravel
11. George Bizet
12. Camille Saint-Saens
13. Nikolai Rimski-Korsakov
14. Igor Stravinsky 
15. Aaron Copland
16. Franz Joseph Haydn
17. Modest Mussorgsky
18. Alexander Borodin
19. Mili Balakirev
20. George Gershwin
21. Robert Muczynski
22. Aram Khachaturian
23. Sergei Prokofiev
24. Carl Nielsen
25. Johannes Brahms

This would be a little more refined if I had spent more time on it. As it is, it is partially in order of greatness and partially of the order that they came to my head. I'm sure there are many that I have forgotten.


----------



## Air

I'm going to update my list as well. Most notable are the inclusion of Handel and Messiaen since my previous attempt. The top few are pretty much set in stone, with J.S. Bach and Mozart in the top two positions and the rest of the top 10 just a few steps below.


PRIMARY TIER (fixed)

1. J.S. Bach
2. Mozart

SECONDARY TIER

3. Schumann
4. Schubert
5. Wagner
6. Beethoven
7. Prokofiev

TERTIARY TIER

8. Bartók
9. Handel
10. Brahms

QUARTERNARY TIER

11. Messiaen
12. R. Strauss
13. Varèse
14. Ravel

QUINARY TIER

15. Ligeti
16. Villa-Lobos
17. D. Scarlatti
18. Chopin
19. Stravinsky

SENARY TIER

20. Medtner
21. Bruckner
22. Mahler
23. Sibelius
24. Janáček
25. Rameau


----------



## Delicious Manager

I have tried to put-aside my personal preferences (thereby leaving-out some of my favourite composers such as Enescu, Kraus, Prokofiev, etc) and tried to come-up with a list of whom I considered the 25 MOST IMPORTANT composers - composers without whose influence and innovation the course of music might have turned-out differently. This means I have left-out several great composers whom I do not regard as having had any lasting important influence (eg I don't believe that had Brahms, Handel and Tchaikovsky never existed, music would have developed any differently).

My list is alphabetical as I couldn't begin to put them into order.

CPE Bach
JS Bach
Bartók
Beethoven
Berlioz
Debussy
Dufay
Dvořák
Frescobaldi
Haydn
Machaut
Mahler
Messiaen
Monteverdi
Mozart
Nielsen
Palestrina
Rameau
Schoenberg
Schubert
Shostakovich
Sibelius
Stravinsky
Vivaldi
Wagner


----------



## Trout

As of right now:

1. Beethoven
2. Tchaikovsky
3. Bach
4. Stravinsky
5. Schubert
6. Wagner
7. Strauss, Richard
8. Haydn
9. Dvořák
10. Prokofiev
11. Brahms
12. Liszt
13. Mozart
14. Bartók
15. Mahler
16. Chopin
17. Shostakovich
18. Ravel
19. Monteverdi
20. Rachmaninoff
21. Scriabin
22. Schoenberg
23. Vaughan Williams
24. Hindemith
25. Janáček


----------



## Conor71

My top 25:

1. Johann Sebastian Bach
2. Ludwig Van Beethoven
3. Dmitri Shostakovich
4. Jean Sibelius
5. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
6. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
7. Gustav Mahler
8. Felix Mendelssohn
9. Franz Schubert
10. Johannes Brahms
11. Gabriel Faure
12. Antonin Dvorak
13. Robert Schumann
14. Anton Bruckner
15. Ralph Vaughan Williams
16. Heitor Villa-Lobos
17. Gyorgy Ligeti
18. Edvard Grieg
19. Frederic Chopin
20. Richard Strauss
21. Sergei Prokofiev
22. Richard Wagner
23. Edward Elgar
24. Guiseppe Verdi
25. Joseph Haydn

Not really in order, just as they occurred to me!


----------



## CaptainAzure

Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Amade Mozart
J. S. Bach
Ludwig van Beethoven
Johann Strauss II
Antonin Dvorak
Frederic Chopin
Sergei Rachmaninov
Pyotr Tchaikovsky
Antonio Vivaldi
G. F. Handel
Giacomo Puccini
Jean Sibelius
Felix Mendelssohn
Guiseppe Verdi
Franz Liszt
Henry Purcell
Sergei Prokofiev
Gustav Mahler
Johannes brahms
F. J. Haydn
Schumann
Rossini
Donizetti
Igor Stravinsky
Franz Schubert


----------



## science

1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Mozart
4. Haydn
5. Stravinsky
6. Debussy 
7. Brahms
8. Schubert
9. Monteverdi
10. Vivaldi
11. Verdi
12. Chopin
13. Palestrina
14. Wagner
15. Mussorgsky
16. Bartok 
17. Dvorak 
18. Schoenberg
19. Liszt
20. Tchaikovsky
21. Ravel 
22. Shostakovich 
23. Mahler
24. Rachmaninov 
25. Ives


----------



## Miz

Here's my top 25:

1. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
2. Giovanni Battista Pergolesi
3. Johann Sebastian Bach
4. Franz Schubert
5. Joseph Haydn
6. Richard Wagner
7. Giuseppe Verdi
8. Luigi Boccherini
9. Frederic Chopin
10. George Frederic Handel
11. Johannes Brahms
12. Sergei Prokofiev
13. Igor Stravisky
14. John Williams
15. Dmitri Shostakovich
16. Charles Gounod
17. Pytor Ilyich Tchaikovsky
18. Ferdinand Herold
19. Edward Elgar
20. Franz Liszt
21. Camille Saint-Saenes
22. Georges Bizet
23. George Gershwin
24. Jaques Offenbach
25. Modest Mussorgsky

Since Beethoven was grumpy, he must be left out.


----------



## Vesteralen

Hmmm..never saw this thread before.

Welcome to the forum, Miz, and thanks for resurrecting it. Boccherini in the Top 10? Unusual, but we all have our preferences, don't we? For example:

1. Brahms
2. Nielsen
3. Schumann
4. Barber
5. Vaughan Williams
6. Elgar
7. Haydn
8. Mozart
9. Schubert
10. Beethoven
11. Ravel
12. Mendelssohn
13. Dvorak
14. Bach, J S
15. Alfven
16. Saint-Saens
17. Bruckner
18. Handel
19. Arnold
20. Sibelius
21. Novak
22. Debussy
23. Shostakovich
24. Weber
25. Hanson
26. Grieg
27. Monteverdi
28. Walton
29. Spohr
30. Rimsky-Korsakov


Switchable: 1-3; 4-9; 10-14; the rest subject to change as more names come to mind (and experience)


----------



## Klavierspieler

1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Chopin
4. Schumann
5. Tchaikowsky
6. Schubert
7. Elgar
8. Händel
9. Rachmaninov
10. Vaughan-Williams
11. Wagner
12. Grieg
13. Dvorak
14. Mozart
15. Haydn
16. Walton
17. Byrd
18. Dowland
19. Purcell
20. Monteverdi
21. Liszt
22. Shostakovitch
23. Brahms
24. Prokofiev
25. Palestrina


----------



## Xaltotun

Top 25 for today, right now:

Tier one - the composers almost set in stone, the order might change though:

1. Mahler
2. Bruckner
3. Wagner
4. Beethoven
5. Sibelius
6. Brahms

Tier two - I like these VERY much, some change possible:

7. Schubert
8. Rachmaninov
9. Tchaikovsky
10. Nielsen
11. Richard Strauss
12. Berlioz
13. Schumann
14. Mozart
15. Ravel

Tier three - this cauldron is always bubbling with new names:

16. Saint-Saëns
17. Elgar
18. Mussorgsky
19. Rimsky-Korsakov
20. Franck
21. Scriabin
22. Grieg
23. Dvorak
24. Smetana
25. Schoenberg


----------



## Miz

Hmmm, never saw this thread before.

Welcome to this forum Xaltotun, I've never saw Berlioz, Mahler, and Schumann above Mozart. Mozart SHOULD at LEAST be in the top 2. He wrote over 600 pieces which makes him the greatest composer of all time, or at least the second greatest. You SHOULDN'T place Mozart as Nr. 14.


----------



## Miz

Hmmm, never saw this thread latley,

I've never saw Chopin as Nr. 21. He should at least be in the top 10.


----------



## GoneBaroque

First time I have found this thread.

Not exactly in any particular order:

Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Amade Mozart
Johann. Sebastian Bach
Ludwig van Beethoven
Franz Peter Schubert
Johan (Jean) Julius Christian Sibelius

Johannes Brahms
Edward Benjamin Britten
Georg Frederick Handel
Gustav Mahler
Claude Debussy

Dimitri Shostakovich
Igor Stravinsky
Olivier Eugène Prosper Charles Messiaen
Hugo Wolf
Robert Schumann

Gabriel Faure
Modeste Mussorgsky
Edvard Grieg
Ralph Vaughan Williams
John Stanley

Franz Joseph Haydn
Samuel Osborne Barber, II
Sir William Turner Walton
Sir Edward William Elgar
Sir Peter Maxwell Davies


And I must cheat a little to include that most prolific and long lived composer of the Medieval and Renaissance era: Anonymous


----------



## bumtz

Favorite, rather than "top":

JS Bach
Stravinsky
Ravel
Prokofiev
Debussy
Monteverdi
Honegger
Xenakis
Stockhausen
Berio
Shostakovich
Bizet
Britten
Riley
Desprez
D. Scarlatti
Feldman
Ives
Fux
Mosolov
Janacek
Byrd
Scelsi
Webern
Buxtehude


----------



## clavichorder

Current attempt at a top 25, like the above poster, favorite is more accurate:

Chabrier
CPE Bach
Tchaikovsky
Medtner
Berlioz
Brahms
WF Bach
Mozart
Bruckner
Telemann
Clementi
Haydn
Beethoven
R. Strauss
Rachmaninov
Balakirev
Prokofiev
Corelli
Dvorak
Ravel
Shostakovich
Vivaldi
J Strauss II
Holst
J.C. Bach


----------



## jalex

Order is very loose outside top 10. And I've done favourites:

1) JS Bach
2) Beethoven
3) Mozart
4) Schubert
5) Haydn
6) Schoenberg
7) Palestrina
8) Webern
9) Handel
10) Brahms
11) Bartok
12) des Prez
13) Purcell
14) Mahler
15) Dvorak
16) Wagner
17) Stravinsky
18) Prokofiev
19) Berg 
20) Shostakovich
21) Schumann
22) Sibelius
23) Messiaen
24) Berio
25) CPE Bach


----------



## Tapkaara

I only have a top two. Everyone else, even though I love them, is secondary.


----------



## nosmelc

beethoven
bach
debussey
stravinski
schoenberg
mozart
haydn
brahms
copeland
ives
carter
chopin
mendelssohn
schubert
boulez
berg
verdi
wagner
bartok
jelly roll morton:tiphat:


----------



## Llyranor

I think my top5 may be a little accurate. The rest is probably completely all over the place.

1) Sibelius
2) Bach
3) Beethoven
4) Brahms
5) Saint-Saens
6) Tchaikovsky
7) Dvorak
8) Shostakovich
9) Barber
10) Mozart
11) Elgar
12) Schumann
13) Rachmaninoff
14) Bruch
15) Mendelssohn
16) Ravel
17) Grieg
18) Vivaldi
19) Chopin
20) Mahler
21) Vaughan Williams
22) Holst
23) Schubert
24) Prokofiev
25) Paganini


----------



## sabrina

Never too late for some playing!

1. *Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart,* for me, God himself expressed through music...
2. *Beethoven*, amazing
3. *Bach*, not necessarily among my favorites, but his innovations were great
4. *Rossini*, dazzling
5. *Chopin*, forever in love
6. *Rachmaninoff*- for his piano concerts, and his little known operas
7. *Brahms* for his Hungarian Dances, symphonies, concerts
8. *Vivaldi*-meraviglioso
9. *Haydn*-for playing musical tricks toward sleeping/bored spectators...LOL, great symphonies
10. *Tchaikovsky* (a big/great name for me)-beautiful concerts
11. Liszt-piano virtoso
12. Paganini
13. Schubert
14. Puccini
15. Verdi
16. Offenbach
17. Berlioz
18. Handel
19. Enescu
20. Felix Mendelssohn
21. Schumann
22. Donizetti
23. Bellini
24. Dvorak
25. Massenet
After 25: Wagner-sometimes interesting, sometimes boring (for my taste)
I surely forgot some important enough for me...among them Eduard Grieg, Sibelius and the Russians Borodin, Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Khachaturian 
After no 10, the order is aleatory.


----------



## GoneBaroque

First time I have found this thread.

Not exactly in any particular order:

Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Amade Mozart
Johann. Sebastian Bach
Ludwig van Beethoven
Franz Peter Schubert
Johan (Jean) Julius Christian Sibelius
Johannes Brahms
Edward Benjamin Britten
Georg Frederick Handel
Gustav Mahler
Claude Debussy
Dimitri Shostakovich
Igor Stravinsky
Olivier Eugène Prosper Charles Messiaen
Hugo Wolf
Robert Schumann
Gabriel Faure
Modeste Mussorgsky
Edvard Grieg
Ralph Vaughan Williams
John Stanley
Franz Joseph Haydn
Samuel Osborne Barber, II
Sir William Turner Walton
Sir Edward William Elgar
Sir Peter Maxwell Davies

And I must cheat a little to include that most prolific and long lived composer of the Medieval and Renaissance era: Anonymous


----------



## Klavierspieler

clavichorder said:


> Current attempt at a top 25, like the above poster, favorite is more accurate:
> 
> Chabrier
> CPE Bach
> Tchaikovsky
> Medtner
> Berlioz
> Brahms
> WF Bach
> Mozart
> Bruckner
> Telemann
> Clementi
> Haydn
> Beethoven
> R. Strauss
> Rachmaninov
> Balakirev
> Prokofiev
> Corelli
> Dvorak
> Ravel
> Shostakovich
> Vivaldi
> J Strauss II
> Holst
> J.C. Bach


I am surprised that while CPE, WF, and JC Bach have all found places on your list, JS himself has not.


----------



## clavichorder

Klavierspieler said:


> I am surprised that while CPE, WF, and JC Bach have all found places on your list, JS himself has not.


Not to say I don't like him, I just can't claim to be very knowledgeable, its pretty ridiculous, a huge blind spot, so far of his orchestral pieces I enjoy his 4th Brandeburg concerto the most, and I always melt when I hear his organ music, maybe a part of me is just excluding him to be unusual for the sake of it, I certainly like him, but like I said I don't know much. I also love to play his music on the keyboard though, knowing six of his inventions, so maybe that is strange... I suppose now that I think about it, I've given more attention to his body of works on the whole than I have to Johann Christian's, but there is something melodic about his youngest sons music that I really enjoy at its best.

This is my no means a permanent condition, it can be remedied with time. My list is always being modified. Lately, I'd be forced to add William Schuman to my list, and at the rate I'm going, Copland, and Harris as well, Bartok for sure, and maybe Benjamin Britten, although I may find him not to my tastes in the long run, I can't say for sure. And Sergei Taneyev of course.


----------



## 4'33"

*The only thing.....*



World Violist said:


> Only things missing from my list that I might add later are Debussy and Mussorgsky...


I like your attempt at diversity. Enescu and no Beethoven though? Sounds like your trying too hard. It's like leaving off Shakespeare on a list of great writers - comes across rather contrived.


----------



## 4'33"

*The list*

1. BEETHOVEN
2. BACH

3-25 (in somewhat chronological order)
Hildegard, Leonin, Josquin, Palestrina, Monteverdi, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Schumann, Schubert, Brahms, Wagner, Debussy, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Webern, Cage, Messiaen, Ligeti, Feldman, Reich, Carter, Boulez.

Left off on purpose - Tchaikovsky (the Andrew Lloyd Weber of his day), and Mahler (insufferably long formless schlock)

Honorable mentions: Bartok, Varese, Berg, Penderecki, Buxtehude, Victoria, Lassus, Machaut


----------



## 4'33"

Miz said:


> Hmmm, never saw this thread before.
> 
> Welcome to this forum Xaltotun, I've never saw Berlioz, Mahler, and Schumann above Mozart. Mozart SHOULD at LEAST be in the top 2. He wrote over 600 pieces which makes him the greatest composer of all time, or at least the second greatest. You SHOULDN'T place Mozart as Nr. 14.


What does the quantity of his output have anything to do with his greatness? If anything, the ratio of popular works vs. total output kind of works against his ranking, no?


----------



## FrankieP

4'33" said:


> Mahler (insufferably long formless schlock)


'insufferably long'.. and you list Wagner as one of your tops? Mahler's form is not formless, not at all. It's perfectly formed. PERFECT.

My Top 25 (in no order apart from Mahler):

Mahler, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Crumb, Penderecki, Schoenberg, Berg, Górecki, Leonin, de Victoria, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Bartok, Debussy, Ravel, Bach, Beethoven, Berio, Mozart, Schubert, Barber, Montiverdi, Vivaldi, Wagner.

I'm sure I've missed off ones that I actually prefer to some of those listed.. oh well!


----------



## jalex

Miz said:


> 15. Dmitri Shostakovich
> 
> 17. Pytor Ilyich Tchaikovsky





> Since Beethoven was grumpy, he must be left out.


I don't think Shosty or Tchaikovsky were known for being bundles of fun...


----------



## Headache

My own somewhat chaotic list and in no particular order:

Debussy
Messiaen
Schoenberg
Berg
Webern
Brueckner
Mahler
Wagner
Gombert
Josquin
Machaut
Orlandus Lassus
Schreker
Bach
Charlemagne Palestine (obscure favorite)
Schumann
Morton Feldmann
Stravinsky
Bartok
Ockeghem

Special mentions for Brueckner, Schoenberg, Gombert, Di Lassus, Debussy, Bach and Messiaen

I love medieval and renaissance music, and also enjoy listening to late 19th century and 20th century repertoire, but most music between say, 1600 and 1850 leaves me cold. I really did try liking most of the big names from that period, but most of their music passes me by. I know it isn't cool. I've got piles of CD's with second Viennese school music that I keep playing again and again, even when I don't always 'get it. But my Mozart and Schubert CD's hardly ever leave the shelf.


----------



## Webernite

Headache said:


> My own somewhat chaotic list and in no particular order:
> 
> Debussy
> Messiaen
> Schoenberg
> Berg
> Webern
> Brueckner
> Mahler
> Wagner
> Gombert
> Josquin
> Machaut
> Orlandus Lassus
> Schreker
> Bach
> Charlemagne Palestine (obscure favorite)
> Schumann
> Morton Feldmann
> Stravinsky
> Bartok
> Ockeghem
> 
> Special mentions for Brueckner, Schoenberg, Gombert, Di Lassus, Debussy, Bach and Messiaen
> 
> I love medieval and renaissance music, and also enjoy listening to late 19th century and 20th century repertoire, but most music between say, 1600 and 1850 leaves me cold. I really did try liking most of the big names from that period, but most of their music passes me by. I know it isn't cool. I've got piles of CD's with second Viennese school music that I keep playing again and again, even when I don't always 'get it. But my Mozart and Schubert CD's hardly ever leave the shelf.


What do you think the Renaissance and late Romantic styles have in common that makes you like them both? Is it that they're polyphonic?


----------



## Terrapin

1. Beethoven
2. Tchaikovsky
3. Brahms
4. Haydn
5. Dvorak
6. Schubert
7. Mozart
8. Mahler
9. Sibelius
10. Prokofiev
11. Mendelssohn
12. Schumann
13. Shostakovich
14. Bruckner
15. Bartok
16. Nielsen
17. Saint-Saens
18. Rimsky-Korsakov
19. Arensky
20. Elgar


----------



## larifari

This is like asking who is greater, Jesse Owens or Carl Lewis.

Johann Strauss not classical enough? Or Offenbach? 

Because, unless I missed something, I did not see their names on anyone's list.


----------



## violadude

larifari said:


> This is like asking who is greater, Jesse Owens or Carl Lewis.
> 
> Johann Strauss not classical enough? Or Offenbach?
> 
> Because, unless I missed something, I did not see their names on anyone's list.


Huh? Not classical enough? What's that got to do with anything? No one put their names on their list because no one here likes them enough to put them on a top 25 list apparently.


----------



## altosax

Today's list for me:

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Bach
4. Bruckner
5. Mahler
6. Shostakovich
7. Tchaikovsky
8. Nielsen
9. Haydn
10. Vaughan Williams
11. Prokofiev
12. Martinu
13. Wagner
14. Sibelius
15. Holmboe
16. Rautavaara
17. R. Strauss
18. Berlioz
19. Brahms
20. Dvorak
21. Rubbra
22. Ives
23. Copland
24. Tubin
25. Hanson


----------



## moosmann

1. Respighi
2. Berlioz
3. Shostakovich
4. Mozart
5. Beethoven
6. Brahms
7. Stravinsky
8. Dvorak
9. Mahler
10. Saint Saens
11. Verdi
12. Sibelius
13. Bartok
14. Vaughan Williams
15. Tchaikovsky
16. Copland
17. Kodaly
18. Hindemith
19. R Strauss
20. Hummel


----------



## Miz

> 1) Ludwig van Beethoven
> 
> 2-25) Hacks, or the "why am I not listening to Beethoven right now?" composers.


I going to guess your top 10 okay. Your top 10 should be:

1) Beethoven
2) Mozart
3) Bach
4) Wagner
5) Haydn
6) Verdi
7) Schubert
8) Brahms
9) Vivaldi
10) Handel

My guess is true or false?



clavichorder said:


> Current attempt at a top 25, like the above poster, favorite is more accurate:
> 
> Chabrier
> CPE Bach
> Tchaikovsky
> Medtner
> Berlioz
> Brahms
> WF Bach
> Mozart
> Bruckner
> Telemann
> Clementi
> Haydn
> Beethoven
> R. Strauss
> Rachmaninov
> Balakirev
> Prokofiev
> Corelli
> Dvorak
> Ravel
> Shostakovich
> Vivaldi
> J Strauss II
> Holst
> J.C. Bach


I don't think Holst, Ravel, Berlioz, CPE Bach, WF Bach, JC Bach are bundles for fun. I think JS Bach should be in your list.



LordBlackudder said:


> 1. Nobuo Uematsu
> 
> and some others.


I don't know Uematsu. My guess on your top 10 would be:

1. Nobuo Uematsu
2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
3. Johann Sebastian Bach
4. Johannes Brahms
5. Giacomo Puccini
6. Antonio Vivaldi
7. Joseph Haydn
8. Franz Schubert
9. Ludwig Van Beethoven
10. George Frederic Handel



jurianbai said:


> very hard...my group of 25 composers that entertainment me the most.
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Paganini
> 3. Spohr
> 4. Tartini
> 5. Hummel
> 6. Sibelius
> 7. Myaskovsky
> 8. Khachaturian
> 9. R.V. Williams
> 10. Saint Saens
> 11. Bach
> 12. Dohnanyi
> 13. Grieg
> 14. Joseph Guy Ropartz
> 15. Martinu
> 16. Jeno Hubay
> 17. Mendelssohn
> 18. Ravel
> 19. Mozart
> 20. Haydn
> 21. Schubert
> 22. Prokofiev
> 23. Korngold
> 24. Dvorak
> 25. Rozsa


I know that Mozart must not be lower than nr. 2 unfortunatley.



RBrittain said:


> Right, I've compiled the first 4 pages so far, which is 26 entries. Still a long, long way to go, but at that point, the top ten are/were:
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Bach
> 3. Schubert
> 4. Mozart
> 5. Brahms
> 6. Wagner
> 7. Mahler
> 8. Sibelius
> 9. Haydn
> 10. Tchaikovsky
> 
> Sibelius is the main surprise. He certainly makes my top 10, but I wasn't expecting him to be this high-ranked. Wagner was doing really well, coming in third for a while, though has since gone through a barren spell. Schumann has indeed broken into the top 25, currently in 23rd. There are no huge surprises in the top 25, other than Bruckner being 19th which is perhaps surprising. But, there's no real point in me telling you all this, because it's probably less than halfway through and things could change dramatically.
> 
> Here is the scoring system I'm using:
> 
> 1st. 30 points
> 2nd. 29 points
> 3rd. 28 points
> 4th. 27 points
> 
> etc etc
> 
> 24th. 7 points
> 25th. 6 points
> 
> A completely linear scale. I was thinking of doing 25 down to 1 at first, but then I thought that 1 is too measly amount for the 25th placed person. For example, suppose someone comes in at 25th 10 times, and one obscure composer ranks 14th once (or a multiple of this situation). The latter would have more points, 12 to 10.
> 
> I was seeking to keep the points as low as possible, though, _so that rank is still more important than number of inclusions_ (example, if I'd done 100 down to 76, then each extra inclusion gets a whopping 75 points or more, so rank is almost insignificant). 30 down to 6 seems a good scoring system, as it balances rank and number of inclusions, but with the emphasis on rank.


I don't tnink Sibelius or Mahler are bundles of fun.



CaptainAzure said:


> Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Amade Mozart
> J. S. Bach
> Ludwig van Beethoven
> Johann Strauss II
> Antonin Dvorak
> Frederic Chopin
> Sergei Rachmaninov
> Pyotr Tchaikovsky
> Antonio Vivaldi
> G. F. Handel
> Giacomo Puccini
> Jean Sibelius
> Felix Mendelssohn
> Guiseppe Verdi
> Franz Liszt
> Henry Purcell
> Sergei Prokofiev
> Gustav Mahler
> Johannes brahms
> F. J. Haydn
> Schumann
> Rossini
> Donizetti
> Igor Stravinsky
> Franz Schubert


 I think that you should put numbers in your list. You're forgeting them.



Headache said:


> My own somewhat chaotic list and in no particular order:
> 
> Debussy
> Messiaen
> Schoenberg
> Berg
> Webern
> Brueckner
> Mahler
> Wagner
> Gombert
> Josquin
> Machaut
> Orlandus Lassus
> Schreker
> Bach
> Charlemagne Palestine (obscure favorite)
> Schumann
> Morton Feldmann
> Stravinsky
> Bartok
> Ockeghem
> 
> Special mentions for Brueckner, Schoenberg, Gombert, Di Lassus, Debussy, Bach and Messiaen
> 
> I love medieval and renaissance music, and also enjoy listening to late 19th century and 20th century repertoire, but most music between say, 1600 and 1850 leaves me cold. I really did try liking most of the big names from that period, but most of their music passes me by. I know it isn't cool. I've got piles of CD's with second Viennese school music that I keep playing again and again, even when I don't always 'get it. But my Mozart and Schubert CD's hardly ever leave the shelf.


 I really think that Mozart should be in the top 2.


----------



## Taneyev

OK; mine are:
Tchaikovsky
Borodin
Glazunov
Rachmaninoff
Goldmark
Hubay
Paganini
Wieniawski
Liszt
Gottschalk
Smetana
Dvorak
Rimsky Korsakoff
Miaskovsky
Bach
Vieuxtemps
Saint-Saëns
Brahms
Albeniz
Lalo


----------



## Trout

Odnoposoff said:


> OK; mine are:
> Tchaikovsky
> Borodin
> Glazunov
> Rachmaninoff
> Goldmark
> Hubay
> Paganini
> Wieniawski
> Liszt
> Gottschalk
> Smetana
> Dvorak
> Rimsky Korsakoff
> Miaskovsky
> Bach
> Vieuxtemps
> Saint-Saëns
> Brahms
> Albeniz
> Lalo


Are you by any chance a violinist?


----------



## HerlockSholmes

1. J. S. Bach
2. W. T. F. Bach
3. B. S. Bach
4. P. D. Q. Bach
5. L. O. L. Bach
6. G. F. Y. Bach
7. C. P. E. Bach
8. J. C. P. E. N. N. E. Y. Bach
9. C. O. F. F. E. E. L. O. V. E. R. Bach
10. I. S. U. C. K. A. T. N. A. M. I. N. G. C. H. I. L. D. R. E. N. Bach
11. Johannes Brahms
12. Franz Schubert
13. W. H. A. T. S. H. I. S. F. A. C. E. Bach
14. Dmitri Shostakovich
15. I. H. A. V. E. S. O. M. A. N. Y. C. H. I. L. D. R. E. N. I. C. A. N. T. B. E. B. O. T. H. E. R. E. D. T. O. N. A. M. E. T. H. E. M. A. N. Y. M. O. R. E. Bach


----------



## Miz

HerlockSholmes said:


> 1. J. S. Bach
> 2. W. T. F. Bach
> 3. B. S. Bach
> 4. P. D. Q. Bach
> 5. L. O. L. Bach
> 6. G. F. Y. Bach
> 7. C. P. E. Bach
> 8. J. C. P. E. N. N. Y. Bach
> 9. C. O. F. F. E. E. L. O. V. E. R. Bach
> 10. I. S. U. C. K. A. T. N. A. M. I. N. G. C. H. I. L. D. R. E. N. Bach
> 11. Johannes Brahms
> 12. Franz Schubert
> 13. W. H. A. T. S. H. I. S. F. A. C. E. Bach
> 14. Dmitri Shostakovich
> 15. I. H. A. V. E. S. O. M. A. N. Y. C. H. I. L. D. R. E. N. I. C. A. N. T. B. E. B. O. T. H. E. R. E. D. T. O. N. A. M. E. T. H. E. M. A. N. Y. M. O. R. E. Bach


 Well, I'm surprised to see a lot of Bachs there.


----------



## Webernite

HerlockSholmes said:


> 1. J. S. Bach
> 2. W. T. F. Bach
> 3. B. S. Bach
> 4. P. D. Q. Bach
> 5. L. O. L. Bach
> 6. G. F. Y. Bach
> 7. C. P. E. Bach
> 8. J. C. P. E. N. N. Y. Bach
> 9. C. O. F. F. E. E. L. O. V. E. R. Bach
> 10. I. S. U. C. K. A. T. N. A. M. I. N. G. C. H. I. L. D. R. E. N. Bach
> 11. Johannes Brahms
> 12. Franz Schubert
> 13. W. H. A. T. S. H. I. S. F. A. C. E. Bach
> 14. Dmitri Shostakovich
> 15. I. H. A. V. E. S. O. M. A. N. Y. C. H. I. L. D. R. E. N. I. C. A. N. T. B. E. B. O. T. H. E. R. E. D. T. O. N. A. M. E. T. H. E. M. A. N. Y. M. O. R. E. Bach


J.C. Bach and W.F. Bach must be fuming right now. Getting left off the list like that!


----------



## Miz

Nix said:


> I'll be interested to see how this compares to my own thread.
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Mozart
> 3. J.S. Bach
> 4. Brahms
> 5. Schubert
> 6. Haydn
> 7. Igor Stravinsky
> 8. Josquin Des Prez
> 9. Debussy
> 10. Wagner
> 11. Chopin
> 12. Monteverdi
> 13. Bartok
> 14. Schoenberg
> 15. Britten
> 16. Handel
> 17. Tchaikovsky
> 18. Mahler
> 19. Prokofiev
> 20. Sibelius
> 21. Schumann
> 22. Shostakovich
> 23. Elgar
> 24. Berg
> 25. Barber


 I think that Beethoven wrote less than 600 works and Mozart wrote over 600 works. That's why Mozart ends up in the top.


----------



## Miz

Kieran said:


> I struggled after a while, so my bottom few are based upon a scanty knowledge of a few works... :tiphat:
> 
> 1. Mozart
> 2. Beethoven
> 3. Handel
> 4. Bach
> 5. Tchaikovski
> 6. Haydn
> 7. Wagner
> 8. Schubert
> 9. Verdi
> 10. Monterverdi
> 11. Mahler
> 12. Stravinski
> 13. Schoenberg
> 14. Rossini
> 15. Sibelius
> 16. R Strauss
> 17. Bartok
> 18. Debussy
> 19. Saint Saens
> 20. Hildegard de Bingen
> 21. Palestrina
> 22. Shostokovitch
> 23. Chopin
> 24. Brahms
> 25. Prokoviev


 I only agree with your number 1.


----------



## clavichorder

I would add J.S. Bach to my list now, I just hadn't really taken the time to appreciate his music when I made the list, but things have changed. I still love the other composers on my list.


----------



## pjang23

Miz said:


> I think that Beethoven wrote less than 600 works and Mozart wrote over 600 works. That's why Mozart ends up in the top.


I guess that means Telemann (>3000 works) is greater than Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart combined then.


----------



## Miz

Tapkaara said:


> I only have a top two. Everyone else, even though I love them, is secondary.


 My guess on your top 2 is:

1. WA Mozart
2. JS Bach

True or false?


----------



## chrislowski

This is difficult. My opinion changes day to day. But I've never really enjoyed anything pre-romantic (I know, I know...) so my list is pretty much romantic composers onwards. These are the composers I listen to the most, and who give me the most pleasure. I doubt many of you will agree why I can put Rautavaara above Sibelius for instance, considering the latter taught the former, but that's just the way it is. I listen to Rautavaara and enjoy his work more than I do Sibelius. And while I do like Beethoven for example, I listen to him far less than the these 25.

1. Mahler
2. Shostakovich
3. Stravinksy
4. Bruckner
5. Rachmaninoff
6. Prokofiev
7. Rautavaara
8. Bartok
9. Liszt
10. Honegger
11. Brahms
12. Tchaikovsky
13. Grieg
14. Berlioz
15. Schoenberg
16. Webern
17. Vagn Holmboe
18. Miaskovsky
19. Sibelius
20. Szymanowski
21. Lutoslawski
22. R. Strauss
23. Scriabin
24. Nielsen
25. Kalevi Aho

Honorable mentions to Schnittke, Penderecki, Langgaard, Glazunov, Shebalin, Kabalevsky, Rimksy-Korsakov, Saint-Saens...


----------



## Trout

Miz said:


> My guess on your top 2 is:
> 
> 1. WA Mozart
> 2. JS Bach
> 
> True or false?


Not everyone is supposed to have Bach and Mozart as their favorites. And from what I've learned of Tapkaara, his favorite two composers are Sibelius and Ifukube.


----------



## DavidMahler

Resurrecting this great thread....

25. Saint-Saens
24. Machaut
23. Borodin
22. Shostakovich
21. Rachmaninov
20. Wagner
19. Haydn
18. Rameau
17. Faure
16. Tchaikovsky
15. Chopin
14. Liszt
13. Mozart
12. Dvorak
11. Bartok
10. Bruckner
9. Bach
8. Beethoven
7. Ravel
6. Debussy
5. Sibelius
4. Schumann
3. Schubert
2. Brahms
1. Mahler


----------



## Lisztian

This took me at LEAST two hours.

1. Liszt (23rd overall? Please.......)
2. Beethoven
3. Chopin
4. Rachmaninoff
5. Tchaikovsky
6. Schubert
7. Brahms
8. Scriabin
9. Debussy
10. Schumann
11. Prokofiev
12. Wagner
13. Ravel
14. Grieg
15. Mozart
16. Bach
17. Rimsky-Korsakov
18. Haydn
19. Albeniz
20. Bartok
21. Shostakovich
22. Alkan
23. Bruckner
24. Berlioz
25. Paganini


----------



## violadude

1. That one composer that wrote a lot of symphonies
2. That one composer that wrote a little bit less symphonies
3. That one composer that only wrote one or two symphonies
4. That one composer that didn't write any symphonies
5. That one composer that mostly stuck to Opera
6. That one composer that people think is too lightweight
7. That one composer that people think is too bombast
8. That one composer that people think is too emotional
9. That one composer that people think is too mathematical
10. That one composer that people think is a joke
11. That one composer that supposedly destroyed music forever
12. That one composer that apparently wasn't that good in any medium they wrote in
13. That one composer that was apparently wrote everything perfectly, no matter what medium they wrote in
14. That one homosexual composer
15. That one composer that was actually a God that came to earth and blessed everyone with their music and anyone who hears it and reveres it are going to heaven
16. That one composer that was actually Satan in disguise and him and his evil music will actually drag you to hell
17. That one composer that everyone thinks was too dissonant 
18. That one composer that wore a wig
19. That one composer that didn't wear a wig
20. That one composer that is an assault on the ears
21. That one composer that puts everyone to sleep
22. That one composer that was grumpy
23. That one composer that really liked writing Chamber music
24. That one composer that was ahead of their time
25. That one composer who's average day comprised of eating, writing music, doing some other stuff, and then going to bed.

Honorable mentions
That one composer who couldn't write melodies for ****
That one composer who was all melody and no substance
and that one composer that is too complex for Homo Sapiens but one day, millions of years from now, will be enjoyable to a more evolved form of man, the Homo Atonalitus.


----------



## DavidMahler

Lisztian said:


> This took me at LEAST two hours.
> 
> 1. Liszt (23rd overall? Please.......)
> 2. Beethoven
> 3. Chopin
> 4. Rachmaninoff
> 5. Tchaikovsky
> 6. Schubert
> 7. Brahms
> 8. Scriabin
> 9. Debussy
> 10. Schumann
> 11. Prokofiev
> 12. Wagner
> 13. Ravel
> 14. Grieg
> 15. Mozart
> 16. Bach
> 17. Rimsky-Korsakov
> 18. Haydn
> 19. Albeniz
> 20. Bartok
> 21. Shostakovich
> 22. Alkan
> 23. Bruckner
> 24. Berlioz
> 25. Paganini


where is the list where Liszt is 23?


----------



## Lisztian

DavidMahler said:


> where is the list where Liszt is 23?


Page 13, the official results.


----------



## Trout

DavidMahler said:


> Resurrecting this great thread....
> 
> 1. Mahler


I see what you did there.


----------



## DavidMahler

Schumann at 20 is disgusting


----------



## Lisztian

DavidMahler said:


> Schumann at 20 is disgusting


Agreed....


----------



## violadude

DavidMahler said:


> Schumann at 20 is disgusting


Disgusting because he's too high or too low?


----------



## DavidMahler

I'm a HUGE Mahler fan, but even I know that on a list of the greatest composers of all time Schumann needs to be in the top 10 before Mahler.

Heres the way I feel a top 25 should read....

1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Mozart
4. Wagner
5. Schubert
6. Brahms
7. Haydn
8. Schumann
9. Mahler
10. Debussy
11. Handel
12. Stravinsky
13. Tchaikovsky
14. Palestrina
15. Chopin
16. Sibelius
17. Dvorak
18. Liszt
19. Verdi
20. Shostakovich
21. Monteverdi
22. Machaut
23. Berlioz
24. Josquin
25. Bartok

Bruckner as much as I love him is not a top 25er

I feel like Schoenberg deserves a spot in the top 30

A top 12 without Schumann devalues the list for me....

He was the archetype romantic more than anyone.... a case could be made that he is the most important composer born in 19th century......to put him at 20 was amazing....though i know it was all based on votes..


Thank you to the OP for doing this, I don't mean any disrespect to the list or its participants....its just heartbreaking to see a community really undervalue the truest romantic.


----------



## violadude

DavidMahler said:


> I'm a HUGE Mahler fan, but even I know that on a list of the greatest composers of all time Schumann needs to be in the top 10 before Mahler.
> 
> Heres the way I feel a top 25 should read....
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Bach
> 3. Mozart
> 4. Wagner
> 5. Schubert
> 6. Brahms
> 7. Haydn
> 8. Schumann
> 9. Mahler
> 10. Debussy
> 11. Handel
> 12. Stravinsky
> 13. Tchaikovsky
> 14. Palestrina
> 15. Chopin
> 16. Sibelius
> 17. Dvorak
> 18. Liszt
> 19. Verdi
> 20. Shostakovich
> 21. Monteverdi
> 22. Machaut
> 23. Berlioz
> 24. Josquin
> 25. Bartok
> 
> Bruckner as much as I love him is not a top 25er
> 
> I feel like Schoenberg deserves a spot in the top 30
> 
> A top 12 without Schumann devalues the list for me....
> 
> He was the archetype romantic more than anyone.... a case could be made that he is the most important composer born in 19th century......to put him at 20 was amazing....though i know it was all based on votes..
> 
> Thank you to the OP for doing this, I don't mean any disrespect to the list or its participants....its just heartbreaking to see a community really undervalue the truest romantic.


I think you are overrating him a bit...but that's just me. Schumann might have been the archetype romantic, but Mahler was a major figure in the transition from the Romantic period to the 20th century. His adventures in tonality partly inspired Schoenberg and his adventures in atonality.


----------



## DavidMahler

Schumann's Piano Concerto sits just behind Brahms's and Beethoven's as the greatest composed in 19th Century

He wrote the first significant Piano Quintet using the later-standard Piano Quintet ensemble

He wrote 4 symphonies which are in my opinion all greater than any of Mendelssohn's....the 2nd of which I think is one of the most underrated masterworks of the repertoire.

He is the second greatest Lied composer after Schubert, and Dichterliebe is probably a better cycle than Wintereise

His String Quartets are in my opinion, the best composed after Beethoven's and before Bartok's.

I think his Piano Quartet is the finest ever composed.

His Cello Concerto is vastly underrated

His sole opera Genoveva is overlooked unfairly


BUT....

His piano writing alone should be enough to secure him a spot in the top 12. With no disrespect to Chopin, Schumann's piano composition is more important to the history of piano. It carried greater influence and all in all its more imaginative. 

Kreisleriana
Fantasiestucke
Carnaval
Fantasie
Davidsbundlertanze
Papillons
Kinderszenen
Humoresque
Arabeske
Symphonic Etudes

^
These pieces right here are the height of Romanticism

It's such a shame to see him so far down the list.....It would be more appropriate to see him at 5 than at 20 honestly


----------



## Lisztian

DavidMahler said:


> I'm a HUGE Mahler fan, but even I know that on a list of the greatest composers of all time Schumann needs to be in the top 10 before Mahler.
> 
> Heres the way I feel a top 25 should read....
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Bach
> 3. Mozart
> 4. Wagner
> 5. Schubert
> 6. Brahms
> 7. Haydn
> 8. Schumann
> 9. Mahler
> 10. Debussy
> 11. Handel
> 12. Stravinsky
> 13. Tchaikovsky
> 14. Palestrina
> 15. Chopin
> 16. Sibelius
> 17. Dvorak
> 18. Liszt
> 19. Verdi
> 20. Shostakovich
> 21. Monteverdi
> 22. Machaut
> 23. Berlioz
> 24. Josquin
> 25. Bartok
> 
> Bruckner as much as I love him is not a top 25er
> 
> I feel like Schoenberg deserves a spot in the top 30
> 
> A top 12 without Schumann devalues the list for me....
> 
> He was the archetype romantic more than anyone.... a case could be made that he is the most important composer born in 19th century......to put him at 20 was amazing....though i know it was all based on votes..
> 
> Thank you to the OP for doing this, I don't mean any disrespect to the list or its participants....its just heartbreaking to see a community really undervalue the truest romantic.


While I agree with you, Schumann IMO is definately top 10, I can't see someone write he's the most important composer born in the 19th century without intervening. I hate to rag on about my guy, who i'm obviously biased towards, but I cannot see how Schumann was more important than Liszt. And the case violadude made about Mahler being a major figure in the transition between 19th and 20th centuries, Liszt was perhaps THE MOST major figure in that transition. He got it all started.

But then again this is my opinion. And what you said about a top 12 without Schumann, I say the same about Liszt.


----------



## DavidMahler

Lisztian said:


> While I agree with you, Schumann IMO is definately top 10, I can't see someone write he's the most important composer born in the 19th century without intervening. I hate to rag on about my guy, who i'm obviously biased towards, but I cannot see how Schumann was more important than Liszt. And the case violadude made about Mahler being a major figure in the transition between 19th and 20th centuries, Liszt was perhaps THE MOST major figure in that transition. He got it all started.
> 
> But then again this is my opinion. And what you said about a top 12 without Schumann, I say the same about Liszt.


Schumann is not more important than Liszt.... I just don't comment on Liszt because 1, I think he's just slightly less great than Schumann overall (mainly cause of certain genres he did not attempt much)....

but mainly because....

It's already known to me the amount of unwarranted disrespect Liszt gets in the classical world for the simple fact that he wrote with a lot of notes and was a more showy player....

An argument could be made that Liszt was more important than Wagner as Wagner took a lot of Liszt's harmonic ideas knowingly.... Liszt and him both knew this.

My personal email address is named after Liszt's Sonata btw


----------



## DavidMahler

Liszt wrote way too much.....there comes a point I think when if you compose 140 hours piano music (almost of half of which is transcription)......people just get lost..........

Based on the B Minor sonata alone........ Liszt is one of the greatest composers of all time... I would rank B Minor Sonata as the 2nd or 3rd greatest of all piano sonatas


----------



## violadude

DavidMahler said:


> Schumann's Piano Concerto sits just behind Brahms's and Beethoven's as the greatest composed in 19th Century
> 
> He wrote the first significant Piano Quintet using the later-standard Piano Quintet ensemble
> 
> He wrote 4 symphonies which are in my opinion all greater than any of Mendelssohn's....the 2nd of which I think is one of the most underrated masterworks of the repertoire.
> 
> He is the second greatest Lied composer after Schubert, and Dichterliebe is probably a better cycle than Wintereise
> 
> His String Quartets are in my opinion, the best composed after Beethoven's and before Bartok's.
> 
> I think his Piano Quartet is the finest ever composed.
> 
> His Cello Concerto is vastly underrated
> 
> His sole opera Genoveva is overlooked unfairly
> 
> BUT....
> 
> His piano writing alone should be enough to secure him a spot in the top 12. With no disrespect to Chopin, Schumann's piano composition is more important to the history of piano. It carried greater influence and all in all its more imaginative.
> 
> Kreisleriana
> Fantasiestucke
> Carnaval
> Fantasie
> Davidsbundlertanze
> Papillons
> Kinderszenen
> Humoresque
> Arabeske
> Symphonic Etudes
> 
> ^
> These pieces right here are the height of Romanticism
> 
> It's such a shame to see him so far down the list.....It would be more appropriate to see him at 5 than at 20 honestly


Hmm I don't know how you're defining the word "better." Schumann sounds really repetitive and fragmenty to me. Anyway, I should stop. It's really not like me to bash other composers like this. But I just got done playing 3 Romances Op. 94 on my viola for my chamber music class and the last movement was so repetitive and it was so fragmented and he changed tempos like every 5 measures so nothing really got started. It was just a not very good piece and not very fun to play and it put me in a bad mood about Schumann


----------



## DavidMahler

violadude said:


> Hmm I don't know how you're defining the word "better." Schumann sounds really repetitive and fragmenty to me.


I only really refer to better when I'm talking about Dichterliebe, is this what you're referring to?

Schumann's music is fragmentary, but that's part of its charm because he himself was fragmentary. If a composer is to succeed in honestly portraying themselves, Schumann succeeds over almost anyone. The ideas are not repetitive to me, though Schumann's most awesome period is in the 1835-1845 span.


----------



## violadude

DavidMahler said:


> I only really refer to better when I'm talking about Dichterliebe, is this what you're referring to?
> 
> Schumann's music is fragmentary, but that's part of its charm because he himself was fragmentary. If a composer is to succeed in honestly portraying themselves, Schumann succeeds over almost anyone. The ideas are not repetitive to me, though Schumann's most awesome period is in the 1835-1845 span.


I edited my response just so you know.


----------



## DavidMahler

violadude said:


> Hmm I don't know how you're defining the word "better." Schumann sounds really repetitive and fragmenty to me. Anyway, I should stop. It's really not like me to bash other composers like this. But I just got done playing 3 Romances Op. 94 on my viola for my chamber music class and the last movement was so repetitive and it was so fragmented and he changed tempos like every 5 measures so nothing really got started. It was just a not very good piece and not very fun to play and it put me in a bad mood about Schumann


Those aren't his prime works.... his prime works came when he was clear minded.... he's a not a violist's dream composer


----------



## Lisztian

DavidMahler said:


> Schumann is not more important than Liszt.... I just don't comment on Liszt because 1, I think he's just slightly less great than Schumann overall (mainly cause of certain genres he did not attempt much)....
> 
> but mainly because....
> 
> It's already known to me the amount of unwarranted disrespect Liszt gets in the classical world for the simple fact that he wrote with a lot of notes and was a more showy player....
> 
> An argument could be made that Liszt was more important than Wagner as Wagner took a lot of Liszt's harmonic ideas knowingly.... Liszt and him both knew this.
> 
> My personal email address is named after Liszt's Sonata btw


Well that's fair enough  When I compare the actual music of Liszt and Schumann, while I love them both dearly, being as objective as I possibly can i'd say it's a toss up. Liszt was, in my opinion, the greater solo piano composer, orchestral music...around even, Schumann obviously beats Liszt in the chamber music area as Liszt was not involved there, Choral music Liszt - his choral music is terrific and Christus is so terribly underrated. Lied... it's close but Schumann wins here. Liszt was perhaps the best composer for organ aside from Bach and maybeee Franck but it's close there. Liszt was also far and away the greatest composer of transcriptions. Overall, really for both Schumann and Liszt, in my opinion them not being top 10 is absolutely criminal.

BUT THEN AGAIN...I don't even have Mozart OR Bach in my top ten, so I am being unbelieveably hypocritical. If I was to create a completely objective list, without personal preference I think it SHOULD go something like this. Obviously this is just my opinion.

1. Bach
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Wagner
5. Liszt
6. Brahms
7. Schubert
8. Schumann 
9. Mahler
10. Haydn

This will obviously stir up some controversy, but I don't care, as far as music AND influence goes, that's my list.


----------



## DavidMahler

Mahler's really climbed over time....

In 50 years I predict he will outrank Wagner on these lists.... often popping in the top 5

I also predict that Mozart will fall out of the top 3 in the next 50 to 75 years


----------



## maxshrek

first two position are stable, the other .....

1.Bach
2.Beethoven.
3.Wagner
4.Mozart 
5.Schoenberg
6.Webern
7.Strauss
8.Mahler
9.Bruckner
10.Tchaikovsky


----------



## Air

A top 10 list without Handel is in my opinion disgraceful.

I've never tried making an "objective" list before, but if I had to it would probably look like this:

1. Bach
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Wagner
5. Handel
6. Schubert
7. Brahms
8. Schumann
9. Haydn
10. Debussy / Stravinsky

Compared to my personal top 10, which is currently something like this:

1. Bach
2. Mozart
3. Schumann
4. Wagner
5. Beethoven
6. Handel
7. Prokofiev
8. Schubert
9. Ravel 
10. Bartok


----------



## aleazk

1-Ravel
2-Bach (J.S.)
3-Stravinsky
4-Beethoven
5-Chopin
6-Debussy
7-Prokofiev
8-Schumann
9-Vivaldi
10-Brahms
11-Grieg
12-Gesualdo
13-Rachmaninov
14-Tchaikovsky
15-Liszt
I prefer a top-15, i think 25 is too much, after the 15 position, at least in my case, the list becomes somewhat vague.


----------



## Lisztian

Air said:


> A top 10 list without Handel is in my opinion disgraceful.
> 
> I've never tried making an "objective" list before, but if I had to it would probably look like this:
> 
> 1. Bach
> 2. Mozart
> 3. Beethoven
> 4. Wagner
> 5. Handel
> 6. Schubert
> 7. Brahms
> 8. Schumann
> 9. Haydn
> 10. Debussy / Stravinsky
> 
> Compared to my personal top 10, which is currently something like this:
> 
> 1. Bach
> 2. Mozart
> 3. Schumann
> 4. Wagner
> 5. Beethoven
> 6. Handel
> 7. Prokofiev
> 8. Schubert
> 9. Ravel
> 10. Bartok


*Facepalm* How could I forget Handle. But now I don't know who to take out...Bleh.


----------



## tdc

Air said:


> A top 10 list without Handel is in my opinion disgraceful.
> 
> I've never tried making an "objective" list before, but if I had to it would probably look like this:
> 
> 1. Bach
> 2. Mozart
> 3. Beethoven
> 4. Wagner
> 5. Handel
> 6. Schubert
> 7. Brahms
> 8. Schumann
> 9. Haydn
> 10. Debussy / Stravinsky


I'd say its a pretty good list, but I think it could be argued guys like Monteverdi and Chopin could be as deserving of being somewhere in that 7-9 place as the individuals currently in there.


----------



## pjang23

Objective:
1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Mozart
4. Wagner
5. Brahms
6. Schubert
7. Haydn
8. Debussy
9. Stravinsky
10. Handel or Mahler

Personal:
1. Brahms
2. Schubert
3. Haydn
4. Beethoven
5. Bach
6. Mahler
Hard to pick afterwards... Mozart, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Ravel, Dvorak, Debussy, Verdi


----------



## Trout

I had some extra time today so I compiled all the lists (including the data already given by RBrittain), using the same method as the OP, and created this list that more or less reflects the tastes of the TC community.

1.	Ludwig van Beethoven
2.	Johann Sebastian Bach
3.	Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
4.	Franz Schubert
5.	Johannes Brahms
6.	Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
7.	Richard Wagner
8.	Gustav Mahler
9.	Joseph Haydn
10.	Claude Debussy
11.	Frédéric Chopin
12.	George Frideric Handel
13.	Antonín Dvořák
14.	Jean Sibelius
15.	Sergei Prokofiev
16.	Igor Stravinsky
17.	Dmitri Shostakovich
18.	Robert Schumann
19.	Felix Mendelssohn
20.	Maurice Ravel
21.	Richard Strauss
22.	Franz Liszt
23.	Sergei Rachmaninoff
24.	Béla Bartók
25.	Anton Bruckner
26.	Giuseppe Verdi
27.	Claudio Monteverdi
28.	Arnold Schoenberg
29.	Edvard Grieg
30.	Antonio Vivaldi
31.	Hector Berlioz
32.	Ralph Vaughan Williams
33.	Camille Saint-Saëns
34.	Edward Elgar
35.	Giacomo Puccini
36.	Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov
37.	Modest Mussorgsky
38.	Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina
39.	Gioachino Rossini
40.	Anton Webern
41.	Josquin des Prez
42.	Samuel Barber
43.	Alban Berg
44.	György Ligeti
45.	Domenico Scarlatti
46.	Leoš Janáček
47.	Benjamin Britten
48.	Oliver Messiaen
49.	Carl Nielsen
50.	Gabriel Fauré
51.	Alexander Borodin
52.	Jean-Philippe Rameau
53.	Alexander Scriabin
54.	Georges Bizet
55.	Aaron Copland
56.	Niccolò Paganini
57.	Gaetano Donizetti
58.	Edgard Varèse
59.	Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach
60.	Charles Ives
61.	Isaac Albéniz
62.	Iannis Xenakis
63.	Morton Feldman
64.	Henry Purcell
65.	Gustav Holst
66.	Georg Philipp Telemann
67.	Erik Satie
68.	Ottorino Respighi
69.	Bedřich Smetana
70.	Aram Khachaturian
71.	Vincenzo Bellini
72.	Alexander Glazunov
73.	George Enescu
74.	Johannes Ockeghem
75.	Pierre Boulez
76.	William Walton
77.	Charles-Valentin Alkan
78.	Karol Szymanowski
79.	Elliott Carter
80.	Alberto Ginastera
81.	Guillaume de Machaut
82.	Arthur Honegger
83.	Luigi Boccherini
84.	Nikolai Myaskovsky
85.	Max Bruch
86.	Einojuhani Rautavaara
87.	Alexander von Zemlinsky
88.	Guillaume Dufay
89.	Arvo Pärt
90.	Jules Massenet
91.	Manuel de Falla
92.	Bohuslav Martinů
93.	Girolamo Frescobaldi
94.	Luciano Berio
95.	Johann Strauss II
96.	Louis Spohr
97.	Hildegard of Bingen
98.	Tomás Luis de Victoria
99.	Karlheinz Stockhausen
100.	Witold Lutosławski

I didn't think data passed 100 was accurate enough to be included. Mozart and Bach were neck and neck until the very end in which the latter prevailed. Dvorak, Sibelius, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, and Schumann also were undecided for the longest time. Gershwin just failed to make the list (at 103) while the biggest surprise, in my opinion, is Feldman. 79 users submitted a list which, collectively, consisted of over 200 different composers.


----------



## jalex

I'll put in slightly more thought this time:

1) Beethoven
2) Bach
3) Mozart
4) Wagner
5) Schubert
6) Shostakovich
7) Mahler
8) Webern
9) Brahms
10) Handel
11) Haydn
12) Prokofiev
13) Bartok
14) Berlioz
15) Stravinsky
16) Schumann
17) Schoenberg
18) Dvorak
19) Messiaen
20) Mendelssohn
21) Berio
22) Sibelius
23) Monteverdi
24) Josquin
25) Ligeti


----------



## Couchie

1. Wagner
2. Wagner
3. Wagner
4. Wagner
5. Wagner
6. Wagner
7. Wagner
8. Wagner
9. Wagner
10. Wagner
11. Wagner
12. Wagner
13. Wagner
14. Wagner
15. Wagner
16. Wagner
17. Wagner
18. Wagner
19. Wagner
20. Wagner
21. Wagner
22. Wagner
23. Wagner
24. Wagner
25. Wagner

I *really* like Wagner. Are you guys getting that?


----------



## Webernite

I've posted in this thread a few times before, but my opinions have probably changed since then. My "objective" top 10 at the moment, excluding Renaissance composers:

1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Mozart
4. Wagner
5. Brahms
6. Schubert
7. Mahler
8. Chopin
9. Haydn
10. Handel


----------



## Polednice

I am envious of anyone who has listened to enough music to give an objective top 10.


----------



## jalex

Webernite said:


> I've posted in this thread a few times before, but my opinions have probably changed since then. My "objective" top 10 at the moment, excluding Renaissance composers:
> 
> 1. Bach
> 2. Beethoven
> 3. Mozart
> 4. Wagner
> 5. Brahms
> 6. Schubert
> 7. Mahler
> 8. Chopin
> 9. Haydn
> 10. Handel


Unusually high placing of Chopin, and no-one from after 1900 (except the slight Mahler overspill)?

I am a little curious about why Beethoven tops the most 'subjective' lists but more poeple place Bach at the top of their 'objective'. What are these factors which make Bach less endearing yet held in higher esteem?

Bach is revered most highly for his counterpoint and harmony. In general it's fair to say that Beethoven lags some way behind him in these respects. But this is clearly a conscious choice from Beethoven to 'achieve great effects by simple means', not a lack of ability. The Hammerklavier fugue alone is enough to make me respect his grasp of counterpoint as much as Bach's; the theme is ludicrously difficult to compose a fugue on, it is in my estimation in exactly the same league as Bach's greatest contrapuntal achievements. The Grosse Fuge speaks for itself. And the harmonies in the late quartets and especially the Diabelli Variations are truly incredible and sublime, a world away from the V-I-V-I perhaps more traditionally associated with Beethoven. It is understandable that Bach should get his place at the top a certain number of times out of ten, but I find a curious disparity here.

Another thing about these 'objective' lists is that as far as I can tell they really aren't 'objective' at all. They are subjective lists using different criteria; rather than choosing x number of composers who appeal to you most, you choose x number of composers who _you think_ are the 'best', whatever you might take that to mean.


----------



## Webernite

jalex said:


> Unusually high placing of Chopin, and no-one from after 1900 (except the slight Mahler overspill)?


Maybe Chopin is a bit too high, but he did write an incredible amount of great music. I suppose I could have included Stravinsky or Schoenberg instead of Handel, if the 20th-century seems underrepresented.



jalex said:


> I am a little curious about why Beethoven tops the most 'subjective' lists but more poeple place Bach at the top of their 'objective'. What are these factors which make Bach less endearing yet held in higher esteem?
> 
> Bach is revered most highly for his counterpoint and harmony. In general it's fair to say that Beethoven lags some way behind him in these respects. But this is clearly a conscious choice from Beethoven to 'achieve great effects by simple means', not a lack of ability. The Hammerklavier fugue alone is enough to make me respect his grasp of counterpoint as much as Bach's; the theme is ludicrously difficult to compose a fugue on, it is in my estimation in exactly the same league as Bach's greatest contrapuntal achievements. The Grosse Fuge speaks for itself. And the harmonies in the late quartets and especially the Diabelli Variations are truly incredible and sublime, a world away from the V-I-V-I perhaps more traditionally associated with Beethoven. It is understandable that Bach should get his place at the top a certain number of times out of ten, but I find a curious disparity here.


I can't go along with the idea that Beethoven was as great a contrapuntist as Bach but simply chose not to use his ability most of the time. The _Hammerklavier_ fugue is full of long passages of two-part counterpoint, and even at its most complex it doesn't come close to the five-part and even six-part textures that Bach produced on a number of occasions. Of course, as a finale, it works wonderfully. But I don't think Beethoven was really trying to rival Bach with this piece. Personally, if I were arguing for Beethoven's superiority to Bach, I'd point to the slow-movements of the _Hammerklavier _and Op. 111 sonatas, rather than to Beethoven's fugues.



jalex said:


> Another thing about these 'objective' lists is that as far as I can tell they really aren't 'objective' at all. They are subjective lists using different criteria; rather than choosing x number of composers who appeal to you most, you choose x number of composers who _you think_ are the 'best', whatever you might take that to mean.


Well, duh!


----------



## tdc

^I don't think you ranked Chopin too high. I would also rank him in the top ten, and I have seen him ranked on other lists as high as number 5. Nobody (aside from _perhaps_ Bach and _maybe_ Beethoven) wrote definitively better keyboard music than Chopin, and few composers are as influential and universally appealing.


----------



## Polednice

tdc said:


> ^I don't think you ranked Chopin too high. I would also rank him in the top ten, and I have seen him ranked on other lists as high as number 5. Nobody (aside from _perhaps_ Bach and _maybe_ Beethoven) wrote definitively better keyboard music than Chopin, and few composers are as influential and universally appealing.


I intensely dislike Chopin's music. Am I broken?


----------



## Webernite

What do you intensely dislike about it?


----------



## Polednice

Webernite said:


> What do you intensely dislike about it?


I find it a little too... meandering. I love the first movement of the 2nd Piano Sonata and some of the Waltzes and Polonaises can be fun, but I find the Nocturnes, Etudes, Ballades and Preludes (with a couple of exceptions) to be lacking in the kind of thematic material that interests me. It all sounds a bit too wistful. I like thick and stodgy textures!


----------



## tdc

Polednice said:


> I intensely dislike Chopin's music. Am I broken?


No! Nobody likes all composers, but if you intensely dislike Chopin, I think that is your issue, and doesn't really speak to the quality of the music. Also, I'd say your musical tastes are very narrow. I've actually never encountered a fan of classical music that likes a smaller range of the classical repertoire than yourself, except for maybe Tapkaara.


----------



## Webernite

Polednice said:


> I find it a little too... meandering. I love the first movement of the 2nd Piano Sonata and some of the Waltzes and Polonaises can be fun, but I find the Nocturnes, Etudes, Ballades and Preludes (with a couple of exceptions) to be lacking in the kind of thematic material that interests me. It all sounds a bit too wistful. I like thick and stodgy textures!


I sort of understand what you mean as regards the absence of Dvorak/Schubert type themes. But don't you think a lot of Chopin's textures _are _quite thick and stodgy, especially in the longer works like Ballades?


----------



## Polednice

tdc said:


> No! Nobody likes all composers, but if you intensely dislike Chopin, I think that is your issue, and doesn't really speak to the quality of the music. Also, I'd say your musical tastes are very narrow. I've actually never encountered a fan of classical music that likes a smaller range of the classical repertoire than yourself, except for maybe Tapkaara.


Exactly what do you think I listen to?


----------



## tdc

Polednice said:


> Exactly what do you think I listen to?


Well, I would guess - mostly Brahms, Brahms and more Brahms, followed by a smattering of other 'romantic' composers?


----------



## jalex

Webernite said:


> Maybe Chopin is a bit too high, but he did write an incredible amount of great music. I suppose I could have included Stravinsky or Schoenberg instead of Handel, if the 20th-century seems underrepresented.


Hey, it's up to you. If you don't think anyone in C20th has matched the heights of earlier composers then you are welcome to exclude them from your list. I don't agree with the idea that each musical 'movement' should automatically be accorded equal status; there is no obligation to represent all styles in any list.



> I can't go along with the idea that Beethoven was as great a contrapuntist as Bach but simply chose not to use his ability most of the time. The _Hammerklavier_ fugue is full of long passages of two-part counterpoint, and even at its most complex it doesn't come close to the five-part and even six-part textures that Bach produced on a number of occasions. Of course, as a finale, it works wonderfully. But I don't think Beethoven was really trying to rival Bach with this piece. Personally, if I were arguing for Beethoven's superiority to Bach, I'd point to the slow-movements of the _Hammerklavier _and Op. 111 sonatas, rather than to Beethoven's fugues.


The main point I was trying to make is that I think it can be argued that the gap between the contrapuntal/harmonic skill of Bach and Beethoven is smaller than the gap between their development of musical material or use of rhythm for example, hence allowing Beethoven to come out on top overall.

Even if the Hammerklavier fugue isn't of Ricercar a 6 standard, I would be very wary of dismissing it on account of its having only three voices. The subject is a real ******* and even in the free counterpoint style passages he seems to be making it as difficult as possible for himself; it's chromatic in the most horrible way all sorts of awkward places.



Polednice said:


> I intensely dislike Chopin's music. Am I broken?


Hehe.

I only really like the 24 Preludes and the nocturnes though I acknowledge the greatness of Ballades 1 & 4 as well.

A comment on Renaissance composers: it seems to me that most people come to appreciate these later on and their opinion generally steadily rises. I've had exactly the opposite experience; I find that where I used to rate Josquin and Palestrina quite highly I now don't see much there at all. Berlioz comments that their music, although requiring some small ingenuity, lacks melody and craftsmanship and after listening for a while this is the impression I am also getting. Although no doubt these two were very good for their time I would struggle to justify placing them in any top 25 list.


----------



## Webernite

I don't agree with the comment about Renaissance music, but your post makes some interesting points.


----------



## Webernite

tdc said:


> Well, I would guess - mostly Brahms, Brahms and more Brahms, followed by a smattering of other 'romantic' composers?


Polednice's silence speaks volumes.


----------



## Aramis

Polednice said:


> I intensely dislike Chopin's music. Am I broken?


Yes, you are, and you will be even more broken, literally, when I'll finish with you.


----------



## Polednice

Webernite said:


> Polednice's silence speaks volumes.


My silence was because I was having an afternoon nap, thank you very much! 

To my listening habits: I rave about Brahms on the forum, but, actually, I listen to him comparatively little because I am so familiar with everything and have largely sucked most of the pieces dry! I do have a Romantic listening bias, usually of the Schubert/Mendelssohn/Schumann or Grieg/Dvorak/Tchaikovsky kind (rather than anything remotely Mahlerian), but I also regularly listen to Mozart, dabble in a smaller amount of Haydn, have recently developed an interest in Albeniz and Medtner, love me some Rimsky-Korsakov and Borodin no end, and, if I'm in the right mood, will thoroughly enjoy Prokofiev and Shostakovich, and even some explorations into the second half of 20th century, such as with Rzewski.

Don't let my one track mind deceive you. 

P.S. Does this make my distaste for Chopin more valid now?


----------



## Webernite

Polednice said:


> I do have a Romantic listening bias, usually of the Schubert/Mendelssohn/Schumann or Grieg/Dvorak/Tchaikovsky kind (rather than anything remotely Mahlerian), but I also regularly listen to Mozart, dabble in a smaller amount of Haydn, have recently developed an interest in Albeniz and Medtner, love me some Rimsky-Korsakov and Borodin no end, and, if I'm in the right mood, will thoroughly enjoy Prokofiev and Shostakovich, and *even some explorations into the second half of 21st century*, such as with Rzewski.


This is how we know you're lying.

:tiphat:


----------



## Polednice

Webernite said:


> This is how we know you're lying.
> 
> :tiphat:


Hahaha, whoops, slip of the tongue! You know I meant 20th! Jeeeeeeeez.


----------



## Trout

Webernite said:


> This is how we know you're lying.
> 
> :tiphat:


Nah, it explains why his tastes are misunderstood, being ahead of our time :lol:


----------



## Air

Webernite said:


> 1. Bach
> 2. Beethoven
> 3. Mozart
> 4. Wagner
> 5. Brahms
> 6. Schubert
> 7. Mahler
> 8. Chopin
> 9. Haydn
> 10. Handel


Webernite, how high would you put Schumann on such a list? Because I don't really see a good argument in favor of Chopin being the better composer of the two.

Sure, his piano works are scintillating, and as a pianist I am faced with this truth every single day of my life. His oeuvre for piano is surely larger, if not more popular, than Schumann's. But was there ever such a magnificent body of piano works as Schumann's opp. 1-32? Think about op. 11-18 alone (Sonata No. 1, Fantasiestucke, Symphonic Etudes, Sonata No. 3, Kinderszenen, Kreisleriana, Fantasie in C, Arabeske in C), eight masterpieces written in a row - did Chopin every write such high quality music with such wonderful consistency? Surely Schumann's thought process, his idealism, his double personality, and his absolute mastery of the piano cycle have proved as influential as the wonderful forms and harmonies that Chopin quite fully made his own.

But even if Chopin was to be given the edge here, what about Schumann's valuable contributions to other genres? The lieder, of course, and his part-songs put him next to Schubert in a category of their own. Try listening to any of Schumann's vast output of songs, the Spanisches Liederspiel for instance, and I guarantee that as long as you are a fan of songs in general you cannot be disappointed. His Piano Quartet and Quintet too, were groundbreakers that led the way for Brahms, Dvorak, and even Shostakovich. The Trios, Quartets, and many other duos continue to be underrated but reveal an equal mastery of the chamber genre. Chopin never gave a hand at opera, nor at large-scale choral works - and at least two of these, Das Paradies und die Peri and the Faust Scenes, are gorgeous and grand works, though maybe not as well-known as Schumann's other works. And the concerti - the Piano Concerto which is indisputably one of the greatest of all time, the underrated violin concerto, the well-loved Konzertstuck for four horns, the two one-movement allegros for piano, and last but not least, the cello concerto, by far the most important between those of Haydn and that of Dvorak - are at the peak of their form. Schumann's symphonies have garnered a lot of criticism, but such criticism is becoming quite unfashionable these days, especially since HIP instruments have transformed them into new works ready to be re-evaluated. Perhaps they don't stand out as much as Brahms, Beethoven, or even Dvorak and Schubert, but not even these last two composers can claim to have written four symphonies that are continually and consistently performed as part of the standard repertory. In Germany, these are even held in as high esteem as Brahms' venerable cycle.

No, I don't think it's easy for one to consider Chopin a greater composer than Schumann.

I'm also not seeing Mahler in the top 10, but that may just be due to a lack of exposure to his lieder and choral work.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Top fifteen as of now:

1. Beethoven
2. Schumann
3. J. S. Bach
4. Chopin
5. Elgar
6. Vaughan Williams
7. Tschaikowsky
8. Dvorak
9. Brahms
10. Schubert
11. Mozart
12. Haydn
13. Medtner
14. Liszt
15. Händel


----------



## Aramis

> The lieder, of course, and his part-songs put him next to Schubert in a category of their own.


I'm quite fond of Chopin's songs and would put them over Schumann's. Chopin's aesthetic was very close to Italian masters and when he got to write for voice in became even more visible than in his nocturnes. And he was damn good at writing this way - Schumann's songs are plain German stuff while Chopin's are related to tradition which brought human voice and art of singing to it's highest. Some of his songs are like bel canto arias mixed with his personal style. Such mixture, for me, is much more precious than songs of Schumann (which I still consider beautiful of course).








> No, I don't think it's easy for one to consider Chopin a greater composer than Schumann.


Then I'm glad I've achieved such uneasy thing.

Anyway, I don't like to participate in battles between two composers when I love both of them.


----------



## Polednice

Klavierspieler said:


> New list:
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Schumann
> 3. J. S. Bach


Congratulations, Air!


----------



## Air

Aramis said:


> Anyway, I don't like to participate in battles between two composers when I love both of them.


I can't agree more. Instead of making one-by-one lists, I think it's healthier to make general tiers (but not too general - Mozart and Salieri, after all, are not equals). For goodness sake, I'm not going to argue with myself for hours about whether Vivaldi's RV ZZZ is greater than Vivaldi's RV YYY, because truth is, they're both probably pretty boring and I don't need to bore myself anymore. 

I'd say that Schumann and Chopin probably land on the same tier.

And now I'm off to indulge myself in some of Schumann's "plain German stuff"! But I'm also going to check out some Chopin lieder since you tell me they are terribly underrated.

Thanks for the recommendation. :tiphat:


----------



## Aramis

Air said:


> But I'm also going to check out some Chopin lieder since you tell me they are terribly underrated.


Yes, they are - I recommend you to dig the Szmytka/Martineau recording from Complete Chopin DG release (the same which example I've linked in my post). It's the best performance I've heard.


----------



## DavidMahler

My attempt at an objective top 50

1. Beethoven

2. Bach

3. Mozart

4. Haydn

5. Palestrina

6. Wagner

7. Schubert

8. Brahms

9. Machaut

10. Handel

11. Schumann

12. Mahler

13. Monteverdi

14. Debussy

15. Josquin

16. Stravinsky

17. Tchaikovsky

18. Dvorak

19. Sibelius

20. Chopin

21. Liszt

22. Berlioz

23. Verdi

24. Shostakovich

25. Dufay

26. Rameau

27. Mendelssohn

28. Bartok

29. Prokofiev

30. Byrd

31. Schoenberg

32. De Lassus

33. Prokofiev

34. Purcell

35. Ravel

36. R. Strauss

37. Telemann

38. Bruckner

39. Ockeghem

40. Messiaen

41. Mussorgsky

42. Rossini

43. Britten

44. Saint-Saens

45. Rachmaninov

46. Faure

47. Tanayev

48. Tallis

49. Vivaldi

50. Puccini


----------



## kv466

Hey, you guys have been having fun in here...how come no one told me! :lol:


----------



## poconoron

The first 10 are in strict order of preference, the next 15 too close to call.


1. Mozart
2. Beethoven
3. Schubert
4. JS Bach
5. Brahms
6. Handel
7. Haydn
8. Rossini
9. Tchaikovsky
10. Mendelsohn
11. Dvorak
12. Schumann
13. Suppe
14. Vivaldi
15. Ravel
16. Wagner
17. Verdi
18. J Strauss
19. Stravinsky
20. Shostakovich
21. Saint-Saens
22. Mahler
23. Chopin
24. Puccini
25. Bartok


----------



## Miz

Lisztian said:


> This took me at LEAST two hours.
> 
> 1. Liszt (23rd overall? Please.......)
> 2. Beethoven
> 3. Chopin
> 4. Rachmaninoff
> 5. Tchaikovsky
> 6. Schubert
> 7. Brahms
> 8. Scriabin
> 9. Debussy
> 10. Schumann
> 11. Prokofiev
> 12. Wagner
> 13. Ravel
> 14. Grieg
> 15. Mozart
> 16. Bach
> 17. Rimsky-Korsakov
> 18. Haydn
> 19. Albeniz
> 20. Bartok
> 21. Shostakovich
> 22. Alkan
> 23. Bruckner
> 24. Berlioz
> 25. Paganini


 In my opinion, Mozart (Because he wrote more pieces than many other composers) should at least be in the top 2.


----------



## Trout

Miz said:


> In my opinion, Mozart (Because he wrote more pieces than many other composers) should at least be in the top 2.


So more pieces equals better composer, eh? Then if I just wrote 1000 two-second compositions I would be greater than Mozart?


----------



## pjang23

Trout said:


> So more pieces equals better composer, eh? Then if I just wrote 1000 two-second compositions I would be greater than Mozart?


Yes, that, and Telemann is literally greater than Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven combined.


----------



## Miz

pjang23 said:


> Yes, that, and Telemann is literally greater than Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven combined.


 Oh really? Then if I wrote more than 4,000 compositions, would I be greater than Mozart, Beethoven, Telemann and Bach?
And by the way, on YouTube.com, I heard that Orlando De Lasso composed more than 2,000 works. Does that make that renaissance composer the greatest renaissance composer of all time?


----------



## pjang23

Miz said:


> Oh really? Then if I wrote more than 4,000 compositions, would I be greater than Mozart, Beethoven, Telemann and Bach?
> And by the way, on YouTube.com, I heard that Orlando De Lasso composed more than 2,000 works. Does that make that renaissance composer the greatest renaissance composer of all time?


Nope, and therefore, "writing more pieces than many other composers" is not a good reason for calling Mozart top 2.



Miz said:


> In my opinion, Mozart (Because he wrote more pieces than many other composers) should at least be in the top 2.


----------



## DavidMahler

technically speaking.... year for year, Schubert wrote more music than any other composer.


----------



## Miz

Trout said:


> So more pieces equals better composer, eh? Then if I just wrote 1000 two-second compositions I would be greater than Mozart?


 I might think you'd be greater than Mozart if you wrote 1000 compositions because Mozart wrote over 600 pieces. I'd love to see you try to write 1000 compositions.


----------



## Miz

pjang23 said:


> Nope, and therefore, "writing more pieces than many other composers" is not a good reason for calling Mozart top 2.


 I wasn't calling Mozart top 2, I was calling him "The Greatest Composer Of All Time In The World".


----------



## Trout

Miz said:


> I wasn't calling Mozart top 2, I was calling him "The Greatest Composer Of All Time In The World".


I'm sorry, but this post is so contradictory it's hilarious. :lol:


----------



## DavidMahler

Of the three composers who regularly crown the top 3 spots in these lists (I doubt I need to name them) .... Mozart has the best chance at losing a spot in this trilogy in the future, despite his name being the most recognizable right now.


----------



## jalex

DavidMahler said:


> Of the three composers who regularly crown the top 3 spots in these lists (I doubt I need to name them) .... Mozart has the best chance at losing a spot in this trilogy in the future, despite his name being the most recognizable right now.


What makes you say that? His genius has been consistently recognised from his own time to the present, and no other composer (possibly excepting Bach) has had more praise rained on him by other musicians of all kinds. I think the position of all three is secure.


----------



## DavidMahler

jalex said:


> What makes you say that? His genius has been consistently recognised from his own time to the present, and no other composer (possibly excepting Bach) has had more praise rained on him by other musicians of all kinds. I think the position of all three is secure.


That's not true at all. In the late 19th, early 20th Century, Mozart was not nearly as celebrated as he is today. In historical documents, you find that while Mahler pushed Mozart on audiences, they were not often receptive and at the time both Wagner and Brahms were in higher regard. It wasn't until the mid 20th Century that Mozart was placed in the lists where he is today. And this name hollywoodized in the 80s. In his own time, Mozart was not highly praised as a composer.

My grandmother who is 92 still thinks of Mozart as the "4th composer"...saying that in the 20s and 30s when she was in elementary school, Brahms was represented above Mozart.


----------



## Aramis

It's because XIXth century gave birth to so many fresh and magnificent styles that Mozart and other classics got put aside. When Wagner and others filled the scene, audiences got mad and thought that all that was before is passe - same thing happened to Donizetti and Bellini, people didn't want to hear their operas when Wagner came out with totally new idea of what opera can be. The same way Mozart's symphonies were loosing their populairty in decades of Brahms, then Mahler and Tchaikovsky. Such thing may happen again only if classical music audiences will be massively drunk with something new again - I can't see that happening with what we get these days. All in all, for most of great and valueable works there is always come-back and they end where they should, among regarded and praised. 

Bach was long-forgotten too, before geezers like Mendelssohn brought his music back. Should we consider him "temporary great" because of that?


----------



## DavidMahler

Aramis said:


> It's because XIXth century gave birth to so many fresh and magnificent styles that Mozart and other classics got put aside. When Wagner and others filled the scene, audiences got mad and thought that all that was before is passe - same thing happened to Donizetti and Bellini, people didn't want to hear their operas when Wagner came out with totally new idea of that opera can me. The same way Mozart's symphonies were loosing their populairty in decades of Brahms, then Mahler and Tchaikovsky. But for most of great and valueable works there is always come-back and they end where they should, among regarded and praised.
> 
> Bach was long-forgotten too, before geezers like Mendelssohn brought his music back. Should we consider him "temporary great" because of that?


I don't think Mozart is a temporary great. I just was pointing out that in my opinion, his name is the most likely to be reassessed when it comes the big 3.

I feel Beethoven's impact and influence is unsurpassed
I feel Bach will forever be the genius of highest rank

I feel Mozart does not have something as clear cut to latch onto.

I think Brahms, Wagner, and Schubert stand a chance in the future to be of higher rank


----------



## jalex

DavidMahler said:


> That's not true at all. In the late 19th, early 20th Century, Mozart was not nearly as celebrated as he is today. In historical documents, you find that while Mahler pushed Mozart on audiences, they were not often receptive and at the time both Wagner and Brahms were in higher regard. It wasn't until the mid 20th Century that Mozart was placed in the lists where he is today. And this name hollywoodized in the 80s. In his own time, Mozart was not highly praised as a composer.
> 
> My grandmother who is 92 still thinks of Mozart as the "4th composer"...saying that in the 20s and 30s when she was in elementary school, Brahms was represented above Mozart.


Eh, maybe not by average concertgoers whose tastes fluctuate with the times. His position has always been secure amongst great composers and presumably other musical connoisseurs; even the great exponents of Romantic excess such as Berlioz, Mahler and Wagner held him in extremely high regard. The thing I think gives these three fairly clear places at the top is the combination of extraordinary genius and prolificness; no others have been so consistently great in so many works.


----------



## poconoron

DavidMahler said:


> Of the three composers who regularly crown the top 3 spots in these lists (I doubt I need to name them) .... Mozart has the best chance at losing a spot in this trilogy in the future, despite his name being the most recognizable right now.


Based on what?


----------



## Nix

DavidMahler said:


> In his own time, Mozart was not highly praised as a composer.


Not true. Mozart got plenty of commissions, and was paid more than the average amount to write operas. Haydn called him the greatest living composer, and when the Prague opera house called upon him to write an opera he said 'no, give it to Mozart- opera is his thing.' Similar thing with piano concertos... after Mozart started writing them, Haydn stopped because he didn't think he could top it. Mozart was considered one of the greatest composers of his day, and was about as popular as one could be- hence his output and the amount of work he received. I think the thing that confuses people is that Haydn was often called the greatest composer of his day by his contemporaries, but this was really only a title that solidified _after_ Mozart's death, when Haydn went to London. Granted he was still plenty famous beforehand, but he had longevity on his side.


----------



## jhar26

DavidMahler said:


> That's not true at all. In the late 19th, early 20th Century, Mozart was not nearly as celebrated as he is today. In historical documents, you find that while Mahler pushed Mozart on audiences, they were not often receptive and at the time both Wagner and Brahms were in higher regard. It wasn't until the mid 20th Century that Mozart was placed in the lists where he is today.


Because during all that time Mozart and the music of every other pre-Beethoven composer was played as though it was romantic music. Even in the mid-20th century recordings of Haydn, Handel, Vivaldi and other classical and baroque composers were relatively rare. If Mozart wasn't top 3 in terms of popularity in the late 19th/early 20th century than Handel probably wasn't top 10, Haydn wasn't top 20 and Gluck, Vivaldi and Monteverdi probably weren't even top 100. It was only after they started performing pre-19th century music in a manner that was appropriate for it's time that people could hear how great these composers were and that the floodgates opened as a result.


----------



## DavidMahler

It's just my intuition, I could see a composers rank in the top 3. I don't think the top 3 are carved in stone. 

I could make the case that Brahms was all-round a greater composer than Mozart. I wouldn't attempt to make that argument about any one else.


----------



## Dodecaplex

DavidMahler said:


> I could make the case that Brahms was all-round a greater composer than Mozart. I wouldn't attempt to make that argument about any one else.


I agree. Mozart's music, while nice and all, is essentially too frivolous and lightweight to be taken any seriously once it's compared to Brahms, Beethoven, Mahler, or any Romantic master. Sure, he had _some_ respectable works such as the Jupiter or Don Giovanni, but overall, his music is nothing but a combination of catchy melodies. In my opinion, he's like the Classical version of muzak.

sarcasm


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I agree. Mozart's music, while nice and all, is essentially too frivolous and lightweight to be taken any seriously once it's compared to Brahms, Beethoven, Mahler, or any Romantic master. Sure, he had some respectable works such as the Jupiter or Don Giovanni, but overall, his music is nothing but a combination of catchy melodies. In my opinion, he's like the Classical version of muzak.

Not this nonsense again!









Please inform us how you come to the definitions "lightweight" (as opposed to what? "ponderous"?) and "frivolous"? (as opposed to "pretentious"?). Then tell us, please, how you came up with the idea that Mozart pales in comparison to Beethoven, Mahler, Brahms, and any other Romantic master. Were you making an honest comparison based upon the strengths and weaknesses of each... or rather (like most Romantic "fanboys") were you coming from the assumption that Romanticism represents the ideal and so anything removed from that is inherently a "failure"? In other words, is it fair to compare Matisse to Rembrandt based solely upon the values and standards of Rembrandt?


----------



## DavidMahler

Dodecaplex said:


> I agree. Mozart's music, while nice and all, is essentially too frivolous and lightweight to be taken any seriously once it's compared to Brahms, Beethoven, Mahler, or any Romantic master. Sure, he had _some_ respectable works such as the Jupiter or Don Giovanni, but overall, his music is nothing but a combination of catchy melodies. In my opinion, he's like the Classical version of muzak.
> sarcasm


Well! Thank you for agreeing, but I hardly dislike Mozart Calling his stuff muzak is a rough one to swallow considering he's one of my favorite composers. I think Mozart's music deserves a place surely in the top 10, maybe even top 3, but I am just trying to make the case that I think Bach and Beethoven are untouchable whereas Mozart's stature is more dependent on the musical zeitgeist.

I like your boldness though! I personally prefer Mahler to Mozart, but I don't know if I could convince myself he was greater. I am more than persuaded of Brahms' superiority over any composer save for Beethoven and Bach, and yet Mahler is my favorite composer. Mahler's music as amazing as it is to me is too far from perfect to weigh in, in the top 3 in my mind.


----------



## poconoron

Ah, yes - Mozart, that most _*simplistic*_ of composers! The same guy generally acknowleged as perhaps the greatest musical genius in history, the guy who these guys following had something to say about. _That _Mozart???

*For one moment in the history of music all opposites were reconciled; all tensions resolved; that luminous moment was Mozart. 
- (Phil Goulding)

Mozart is the highest, the culminating point that beauty has attained in the sphere of music. 
- (Tchaikovsky)

A phenomenon like Mozart remains an inexplicable thing.
- (Goethe)

Mozart is happiness before it has gotten defined.
- (Arthur Miller)

A light, bright, fine day this will remain throughout my whole life. As from afar, the magic notes of Mozart's music still gently haunts me.
- (Franz Schubert)

Mozart is the musical Christ.
- (Tchaikovsky)

Mozart creates music from a mysterious center, and so knows the limits to the right and the left, above and below. He maintains moderation.
- (Karl Barth)

Mozart's music always sounds unburdened, effortless, and light. This is why it unburdens, releases, and liberates us. 
- (Karl Barth)

Mozart's music is so beautiful as to entice angels down to earth.
- (Franz Alexander von Kleist)

Mozart makes you believe in God because it cannot be by chance that such a phenomenon arrives into this world and leaves such an unbounded number of unparalleled masterpieces. 
- (Georg Solti)

How can such a disproportionately large number of people have a definite, and unusually positive relationship to Mozart?
- (Wolfgang Hildesheimer)

Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement.
- (George Szell)

Mozart's music is an invitation to the listener to venture just a little out of the sense of his own subjectivity.
- (Karl Barth)

Mozart never did too little and never too much; he always attains but never exceeds his goal.
- (Grillparzer)

Mozart is the most inaccessible of the great masters.
- (Artur Schnabel)

Mozart's mental grip never loosens; he never abandons himself to any one sense; even at his most ecstatic moments his mind is vigorous, alert, and on the wing. He dives unerringly on to his finest ideas like a bird of prey, and once an idea is seized he soars off again with an undiminished power.
- (W. J. Turner)

It may be that when the angels go about their task praising God, they play only Bach. I am sure, however, that when they are together en famille they play Mozart. 
- (Karl Barth)

Mozart's music represents neither the prolonged sigh of faith that characterizes so much of the music written before his time, nor the stormy idealism which cloaks most music after him. Rather he is that mercurial balance of the skeptic and the humane. Like him, and in him, we can always discover new worlds.
- (Joseph Solman)

Most wrote everything with such ease and speed as might at first be taken for carelessness or haste. His imagination held before him the whole work clear and lively once it was conceived. One seldom finds in his scores improved or erased passages. 
- (Franz Niemetschek)

The riddle of Mozart is precisely that "the man" refuses to be a key for solving it. In death, as in life, he conceals himself behind his work.
- (Wolfgang Hildesheimer)

Mozart does not give the listener time to catch his breath, for no sooner is one inclined to reflect upon a beautiful inspiration than another appears, even more splendid, which drives away the first, and this continues on and on, so that in the end one is unable to retain any of these beauties in the memory. 
- (Karl Ditters von Dittersdordf)

If any fault had to be found in Mozart, it could surely be only this: that such abundance of beauty almost tires the soul, and the effect of the whole is sometimes obscured thereby. But happy the artist whose only fault lies in all too great perfection.
- (Music reviewer)

Does it not seem as if Mozart's works become fresher and fresher the oftener we hear them?
- (Robert Schumann)

If we cannot write with the beauty of Mozart, let us at least try to write with his purity.
- (Johannes Brahms)

Beethoven I take twice a week, Haydn four times, and Mozart every day!
- (Rossini)

Before Mozart, all ambition turns to despair.
- (Charles Gounod)

Mozart encompasses the entire domain of musical creation, but I've got only the keyboard in my poor head.
- (Chopin)

What gives Bach and Mozart a place apart is that these two great composers never sacrificed form to expression. As high as their expression may soar, their musical form remains supreme and all-efficient.
- (Camille Saint-Saens)

The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts. 
- (Richard Wagner)

In Bach, Beethoven and Wagner we admire principally the depth and energy of the human mind; in Mozart, the divine instinct.
- (Edvard Grieg)

Together with the puzzle, Mozart gives you the solution. 
- (Ferruccio Busoni)

I find consolation and rest in Mozart's music, wherein he gives expression to that joy of life which was part of his sane and wholesome temperament.
- (Peter Tschaikovsky)

Mozart tapped the source from which all music flows, expressing himself with a spontaneity and refinement and breathtaking rightness.
- (Aaron Copland)

Mozart's music is particularly difficult to perform. His admirable clarity exacts absolute cleanness: the slightest mistake in it stands out like black on white. It is music in which all the notes must be heard.
- (Gabriel Faure)

Mozart shows a creative power of such magnitude that one can virtually say that he tossed out of himself one great masterpiece after another. 
- (Claudio Arrau)

Mozart's music is free of all exaggeration, of all sharp breaks and contradictions. The sun shines but does not blind, does not burn or consume. Heaven arches over the earth, but it does not weigh it down, it does not crush or devour it. 
- (Karl Barth)

The works of Mozart may be easy to read, but they are very difficult to interpret. The least speck of dust spoils them. They are clear, transparent, and joyful as a spring, and not only those muddy pools which seem deep only because the bottom cannot be seen.
- (Wanda Landowska)

I never heard so much content in so short a period. 
- (Pinchas Zukerman)

Mozart 's music is very mysterious.
- (W. J. Turner)

Mozart resolved his emotions on a level that transformed them into moods uncontaminated by mortal anguish, enabling him to express the angelic anguish that is so peculiarly his own. 
- (Yehudi Menuhin)

Designing an opera by Mozart is like doing something for God-it's a labor of love.
- (Maurice Sendak)

I my dreams of heaven, I always see the great Mozart gathered in a huge hall in which they are reside. Only Mozart has his own suite. 
- (Victor Borge)

Mozart's joy is made of serenity, and a phrase of his music is like a calm thought; his simplicity is merely purity. It is a crystalline thing in which all the emotions play a role, but as if already celestially transposed. Moderation consists in feeling emotions as the angels do.
- (Andre Gide)

Mozart said profound things and at the same time remained flippant and lively.
- (Michael Kennedy)

Mozart began his works in childhood and a childlike quality lurked in his compositions until it dawned on him that the Requiem he was writing for s a stranger was his own.
- (Will and Ariel Durant)

Mozart touched no problem without solving it to perfection. 
- (Donald Tovey)

Mozart's music is the mysterious language of a distant spiritual kingdom, whose marvelous accents echo in our inner being and arouse a higher, intensive life.
- (E. T. A. Hoffmann)

The best of Mozart's works cannot be even slightly rewritten without diminishment. 
- (Peter Shaffer)

Mozart is the greatest composer of all. Beethoven created his music, but the music of Mozart is of such purity and beauty that one feels he merely found it-that it has always existed as part of the inner beauty of the universe waiting to be revealed. 
- (Albert Einstein)

Most of all I admire Mozart's capacity to be both deep and rational, a combination often said to be impossible.
- (Allan Bloom)

Sometimes the impact of Mozart's music is so immediate that the vision in the mind remains blurred and incomplete, while the soul seems to be directly invaded, drenched in wave upon wave of melancholy.
- (Stendhal)

Mozart combined high formality and playfulness that delights as no other composition in any other medium does.
- (Roy Blount, Jr.)

It is hard to think of another composer who so perfectly marries form and passion. 
- (Leonard Bernstein)

In Mozart's music, all intensity are crystallized in the clearest, the most beautifully balanced and proportioned, and altogether flawless musical forms.
- (Phil Goulding)

The sonatas of Mozart are unique: too easy for children, too difficult for adults. Children are given Mozart to paly because of the quantity of notes; grown ups avoid him because of the quality of notes. 
- (Artur Schnabel)

There are three thing in the world I love most: the sea, Hamlet, and Don Giovanni.
- (Gustave Flaubert)

Lengthy immersion in the works of other composers can tire. The music of Mozart does not tire, and this is one of its miracles. 
- (George Snell)

Mozart has reached the boundary gate of music and leaped over it, leaving behind the old masters and moderns, and posterity itself.
- (A. Hyatt King)

Mozart, prodigal heaven gave thee everything, grace and strength, abundance and moderation, perfect equilibrium.
- (Charles Gounod)

Who has reached the extreme limits of scale with the same infallible precision, equally guarded against the false refinement of artificial elegance and the roughness of spurious force? Who has better known how to breathe anguish and dread into the purest and most exquisite forms? 
- (Charles Gounod)

It is a real pleasure to see music so bright and spontaneous expressed with corresponding ease and grace.
- (Brahms)

Give Mozart a fairy tale and he creates without effort an immortal masterpiece.
- (Saint Saens)

I listened to the pure crystalline notes of one of Mozart's concertos dropping at my feet like leaves from the trees.
- (Virgil Thompson)

What was evident was that Mozart was simply transcribing music completely finished in his head. And finished as most music is never finished. Displace one note and there would be diminishment. Displace one phrase and structure would fall. I was staring through the cage of those meticulous ink strokes at Absolute Beauty. 
- (Peter Shaffer)

Mozart's music is constantly escaping from its frame, because it cannot be contained in it. 
- (Leonard Bernstein)

Mozart combines serenity, melancholy, and tragic intensity into one great lyric improvisation. Over it all hovers the greater spirit that is Mozart's-the spirit of compassion, of universal love, even of suffering--a spirit that knows no age, that belongs to all ages. 
- (Leonard Bernstein)

21 piano sonatas, 27 piano concertos, 41 symphonies, 18 masses, 13 operas, 9 oratorios and cantata, 2 ballets, 40 plus concertos for various instruments, string quartets, trios and quintets, violin and piano duets piano quartets, and the songs. This astounding output includes hardly one work less than a masterpiece. 
- (George Szell)

What a picture of a better world you have given us, Mozart!
- (Franz Schubert)

*


----------



## Dodecaplex

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I agree. Mozart's music, while nice and all, is essentially too frivolous and lightweight to be taken any seriously once it's compared to Brahms, Beethoven, Mahler, or any Romantic master. Sure, he had some respectable works such as the Jupiter or Don Giovanni, but overall, his music is nothing but a combination of catchy melodies. In my opinion, he's like the Classical version of muzak.
> 
> Not this nonsense again!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please inform us how you come to the definitions "lightweight" (as opposed to what? "ponderous"?) and "frivolous"? (as opposed to "pretentious"?). Then tell us, please, how you came up with the idea that Mozart pales in comparison to Beethoven, Mahler, Brahms, and any other Romantic master. Were you making an honest comparison based upon the strengths and weaknesses of each... or rather (like most Romantic "fanboys") were you coming from the assumption that Romanticism represents the ideal and so anything removed from that is inherently a "failure"? In other words, is it fair to compare Matisse to Rembrandt based solely upon the values and standards of Rembrandt?


Read it again. It says "sarcasm" right under the paragraph. 
Mozart is actually right in my top 3 favorite composers list. And in fact, I've actually read many of your posts regarding this topic and I admire how you always defend Mozart and Haydn against those who make such comments. The reason I actually posted that was because I thought DavidMahler was one of those people (I guess he's not, but it was worth the try).


----------



## DavidMahler

Dodecaplex said:


> Read it again. It says "sarcasm" right under the paragraph.


....where?


----------



## violadude

DavidMahler said:


> ....where?


It is in white letters, you have to highlight it to see it.


----------



## DavidMahler

Oh haha clever!


----------



## Aramis

DavidMahler said:


> Oh haha clever!


Not more clever than me writing the same way "if you want to give your soul to me, please reply to this post". I've done it many times and now I'm proud owner of souls of, say... half of active members. And they don't even know.


----------



## DavidMahler

Question to you Mozart Defenders:

Had Mozart lived well into the 19th Century and had he been composing at a time when Berlioz was composing his Symphonie Fantastique and Schumman his Fantasie etc...

Do you think Mozart would have evolved into a Romantic, or do you feel he would have continued down his path of classical balance.

Had he been writing exemplary classical works in 1830, do you think this would have tarnished his legacy? I mean, it seems all too fitting that this master did not exist in the time of the Eroica. He is like a snapshot of classical perfectionism. What I am getting at is had he lived into more modern times would he still be considered as tremendous?


----------



## poconoron

DavidMahler said:


> Question to you Mozart Defenders:
> 
> Had Mozart lived well into the 19th Century and had he been composing at a time when Berlioz was composing his Symphonie Fantastique and Schumman his Fantasie etc...
> 
> Do you think Mozart would have evolved into a Romantic, or do you feel he would have continued down his path of classical balance.
> 
> Had he been writing exemplary classical works in 1830, do you think this would have tarnished his legacy? I mean, it seems all too fitting that this master did not exist in the time of the Eroica. He is like a snapshot of classical perfectionism. What I am getting at is had he lived into more modern times would he still be considered as tremendous?


I suspect he would have evolved into a post-Classicist...... along the lines of Beethoven's path. He would have greatly benefitted by study of Beethoven's music, as Beethoven had benefitted in study of Mozart's music.

When Beethoven came along, Bach, Handel and others had "perfected" Baroque style, Mozart, Haydn and others had "perfected" the classical style - and Beethoven's greatness as a composer dictated to him that he had to go off in a new direction. And he did it with spectacular results. Beethoven had the distinct advantage of following Bach, Handel, Haydn and Mozart - and learned well from all of them. Many of his works are patterned after certain Mozart works, including Mozart's Piano and Winds Quintet K452, Paino Concerto 24 K491 and a number of others.

_Anyway, Beethoven's distinct advantage in following all of these greats gave him a tremendous foundation to leap forward into a new age of music. Which is why I believe the Great Top 3, in order, should be *Mozart, Bach and then Beethoven*............ or *Bach, Mozart and then Beethoven*. So much of the "groundwork", so to speak, had aleady been established for Beethoven to build upon.
_


----------



## DavidMahler

poconoron said:


> I suspect he would have evolved into a post-Classicist...... along the lines of Beethoven's path. He would have greatly benefitted by study of Beethoven's music, as Beethoven had benefitted in study of Mozart's music.
> 
> When Beethoven came along, Bach, Handel and others had "perfected" Baroque style, Mozart, Haydn and others had "perfected" the classical style - and Beethoven's greatness as a composer dictated to him that he had to go off in a new direction. And he did it with spectacular results. Beethoven had the distinct advantage of following Bach, Handel, Haydn and Mozart - and learned well from all of them. Many of his works are patterned after certain Mozart works, including Mozart's Piano and Winds Quintet K452, Paino Concerto 24 K491 and a number of others.
> 
> _Anyway, Beethoven's distinct advantage in following all of these greats gave him a tremendous foundation to leap forward into a new age of music. Which is why I believe the Great Top 3, in order, should be *Mozart, Bach and then Beethoven*............ or *Bach, Mozart and then Beethoven*. So much of the "groundwork", so to speak, had aleady been established for Beethoven to build upon.
> _


good answer!

I guess the question I'm really getting at is, does the lifespan of great composers have a distinct impact on the composer's legacy? If so, how much?


----------



## poconoron

DavidMahler said:


> good answer!
> 
> I guess the question I'm really getting at is, does the lifespan of great composers have a distinct impact on the composer's legacy? If so, how much?


Wow, that one may be beyond my paygrade!


----------



## tdc

DavidMahler said:


> I could make the case that Brahms was all-round a greater composer than Mozart. I wouldn't attempt to make that argument about any one else.


Personally, I don't think you could make this argument successfully. I think I could make a pretty strong argument that Mozart surpasses Beethoven though, although I think Beethoven's spot in the top 3 is at the time being pretty solid, if not for sure top 5. Brahms, however I personally don't see this composer as even top ten (top 15 though). I think I could make a strong argument for - Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Wagner, Handel, Monteverdi, and Debussy all surpassing Brahms. I also consider Chopin, Haydn, Stravinsky, Mahler, Ravel, Bartok and Schumann as better composers than Brahms, though admittedly these would be harder to argue.


----------



## Miz

Aramis said:


> It's because XIXth century gave birth to so many fresh and magnificent styles that Mozart and other classics got put aside. When Wagner and others filled the scene, audiences got mad and thought that all that was before is passe - same thing happened to Donizetti and Bellini, people didn't want to hear their operas when Wagner came out with totally new idea of what opera can be. The same way Mozart's symphonies were loosing their populairty in decades of Brahms, then Mahler and Tchaikovsky. Such thing may happen again only if classical music audiences will be massively drunk with something new again - I can't see that happening with what we get these days. All in all, for most of great and valueable works there is always come-back and they end where they should, among regarded and praised.
> 
> Bach was long-forgotten too, before geezers like Mendelssohn brought his music back. Should we consider him "temporary great" because of that?


 I like the composers of the XIX Century too even if I prefer Mozart.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Huilunsoittaja said:


> was he a dodecophonist too?


??????????????????????

Look at this!






Very classical indeed...and about Mozart...he's my 26th...LOL


----------



## sehmett

1.	Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
2.	Ludwig van Beethoven
3.	Franz Schubert
4.	Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
5.	Johann Sebastian Bach
6.	Sergei Rachmaninov
7.	Giuseppe Verdi
8.	Franz Liszt
9.	Maurice Ravel
10.	Frederic Chopin
11.	Dmitri Shostakovich
12.	Claude Debussy
13.	Robert Schumann
14.	Richard Wagner
15.	Joseph Haydn
16.	Sergey Prokofiev
17.	Igor Stravinsky
18.	Richard Strauss
19.	Johannes Brahms
20.	Rimsky-Korsakov
21.	Alexander Scriabin
22.	Domenico Scarlatti
23.	Jean Sibelius
24.	Antonin Dvorak
25.	Gustav Mahler


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

1. Edgard Varese
2. Scriabin
3. Gesualdo da Venosa
4. Richard Wagner
5. Alessandro Stradella
6. Hugo Wolf
7. Peter Warlock
8. Arensky
9. Sorabji
10. Stockhausen 
11.Alexander the Great
12. Ambrose
then all on equal 13.
13. Anaxagoras
13. Anaximander
13. Antoninus Pius - Roman E...
13. Apuleius
13. Aristophanes
13. Percy Grainger
13. Ashurbanipal
13. Attila the Hun


----------



## Sonata

I may have done this before but these are fun 

1) Brahms
2) Mahler
3) Mendelssohn
4) Chopin
5) Tchaikovsky
6) Ravel
7) Mozart
8) Nobuo Uematsu
9) Dvorak
10) Beethoven
11) Grieg
12) J.S. Bach 
13) Puccini
14) Rachmaninoff
15) Strauss
16) Schubert
17) Schumann
18) Bruckner
19) Haydn
20) Prokofiev
21) Faure
22) Clara Schumann
23) Granados
24) Debussy
25) Adrian Munsey


----------



## RJay

My two cents:

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. JS Bach
4. Schubert
5. Haydn
6. Wagner
7. R. Strauss
8. Brahms
9. Chopin
10. Tchaikovsky
11. Schumann
12. Prokofiev
13. Mahler
14. Rossini
15. Dvorak
16. Handel
17. Elgar
18. Shostakovich
19. Ravel
20. Saint-Saens
21. Verdi
22. Smetana
23. Rachmaninoff
24. Scarlatti
25. Bartok

Notable omissions: Debussy, Grieg, Bruckner, Mendelssohn, Liszt, Schoenberg, Berlioz not that I don't like some of their pieces...


----------



## rborganist

1. J. S. Bach
2. G. F. Handel
3. Beethoven
4. Mozart (probably wouldn't have been as great as he was had not Bach come first)
5. Brahms (wonderful songs, piano music, and symphonies, but don't miss the organ music)
6. Tchaikovsky (a very eclectic output--symphonies, ballets, opera, piano music, etc.)
7. Verdi
8. Richard Strauss (famous for operas, symphonies, and tone poems as well as at least one horn concerto)
9. Schubert
10. Britten
11. Mendelssohn
12. Mahler
13. Rossini
14. Franck (quite a varied output, including a piano and violin sonata and a symphony,though his organ works are probably best known)
15. Faure
16. Barber
17. Berlioz
18. Stravinsky
19. Wagner (if he hadn't confined himself almost entirely to opera, I would have ranked him higher)
20. Vivaldi
21. Bizet (mainly remembered for Carmen, but also wrote a very fine symphony)
22. Puccini (great composer, but restricted himself mainly to opera, whereas Verdi wrote a wonderful string quartet and some songs as well as the Requiem)
23. Copland
24. Ravel (a master orchestrator)
25. Leo Sowerby (wrote in every form except opera, but an especially fine composer of organ music and anthems)


----------



## FLighT

I'll bite,

Mahler
Beethoven
Wagner
JC Bach
Sibelius
Debussy
Ravel
Prokofiev
Stravinsky
Schoenberg
Berg
Bartok
Shostakovich
Janacek
Schumann
Chopin
Schubert
Brahms
R. Strauss
Mozart
Rimsky-Korsakov
Rachmaninov
Vaughn-Williams
Mendelssohn
Bruckner


----------



## Ingélou

My list - idiosyncratic because a) I don't know a lot & b) I'm weird.

1. J-B Lully
2. Turlough O'Carolan
3. Anon - medieval
4. Anon in Mr Playford's Dancing Master
5. Handel
6. J. S. Bach
7. Purcell
8. Mozart
9. Tchaikovsky
10. Beethoven
11. Anon - Klezmer
12. Chopin
13. Scarlatti
14. Vivaldi
15. Barbara Strozzi
16. Byrd
17. Tallis
18. Rameau
19. Brahms
20. Haydn
21. Bizet 
22. Mendelssohn
23. Delibes
24. Jean-Fery Rebel
25. Boccherini - love the name! Bocchering Boccherini & his Band of Bocchers.


----------



## Taggart

My three cents:

1. JS Bach
2. Scarlatti
3. Handel
4. Corelli
5. Purcell
6. Dowland
7. Tallis
8. Vivaldi
9. Mozart
10. Byrd
11. Jean-Baptiste Lully
12. Rameau
13. Louis Couperin
14 Haydn
15. Carolan
16. Teleman
17. Monteverdi
18. Chopin
19. Beethoven
20.Luigi Boccherini
21.Josquin Des Prez
22.Tchaikovsky
23.Palestrina
24.Grieg
25.Bizet


----------



## ahammel

I'm rubbish at these things, so I just named 25 composers I have warm feelings about at the moment and quicksorted them.

01. Johann Sebastian Bach
02. Richard Wagner
03. Maurice Ravel
04. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
05. Richard Strauss
06. Franz Schubert
07. Anton Bruckner
08. Ludwig van Beethoven
09. Ralph Vaughan Williams
10. Joseph Haydn
11. Antonín Dvořák
12. Bartók Béla
13. Felix Mendelssohn
14. George Frideric Handel
15. Ligeti György
16. Arnold Schoenberg
17. Johannes Brahms
18. Jean Sibelius
19. Claude Debussy
20. Paul Hindemith
21. Leoš Janáček
22. Sergei Prokofiev
23. Alban Berg
24. Frédéric Chopin
25. Pierre Boulez

I came to the rather surprising conclusions that I'm somewhat unenthusiastic about Beethoven, and my feelings towards Brahms have markedly cooled.


----------



## Jimm

J.S. Bach, Wagner, Fauré, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Bartók, Webern, Ligeti, Stockhausen .. these are the ones that really touched my core.


----------



## Lisztian

Currently...

1. Liszt.
2. Beethoven.
3. Berlioz.
4. Chopin.
5. Rachmaninoff.
6. Brahms.
7. Schubert.
8. Schumann.
9. Debussy.
10. Tchaikovsky.
11. Wagner.
12. Scriabin.
13. Prokofiev.
14. Richard Strauss.
15. Ravel.
16. Dvorak.
17. Grieg.
18. Ligeti.
19. J.S Bach.
20. Verdi.
21. Bellini.
22. Mozart.
23. Scarlatti.
24. Bartok.
25. Haydn.


----------



## Op.123

At the moment 

1.Schumann
2.Brahms
3.Mendelsssohn
4.Chopin
5.Dvorak
6.Beethoven
7.Tchaikovsky
8.Rachmaninoff
9.Grieg
10.Mozart

I will just do my top 10...


----------



## schuberkovich

Burroughs said:


> At the moment
> 
> 1.Schumann
> 2.Brahms
> 3.Mendelsssohn
> 4.Chopin
> 5.Dvorak
> 6.Beethoven
> 7.Tchaikovsky
> 8.Rachmaninoff
> 9.Grieg
> 10.Mozart
> 
> I will just do my top 10...


Wow you hate romantic music


----------



## Ravndal

ravel
debussy
brahms
chopin
grieg
tchaikovsky
rachmaninoff
schubert
beethoven
bach
handel
bartok
prokofiev
stravinsky
faure
satie
mendelssohn
schumann
sibelius
janacek
liszt
vaugn-williams
william walton
dvorak
bruckner

In no order, except Ravel at the top.


----------



## Karabiner

Mozart
Bach
Purcell
Schubert
Beethoven
Handel
Mendellsohn
F. Couperin
Dvorak
Haydn
Liszt
Vivaldi

Can't really rank them past that.


----------



## trajcep

I won't write a list of the Top 25, but I would share my feelings and opinion for the best of the best. With no doubt I award the first place to Ludwig van Beethoven. His 9th Symphony - unique masterpiece. I don't know if you've heard, but Beethoven was nearly 100% deaf when he finished it. Second place - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Third - Giuseppe Verdi (I sorted him here because of his opera Nabucco). Good day everyone.

P.S. I've seen the name Prokofiev above. He is famous Macedonian composer and his correct name is Prokopiev (Trajko Prokopiev). I appreciate the fact that some of you sorted him in Top 25 of all the time.


----------



## Cheyenne

1. Händel
2. Bartók
3. Brahms
4. Corelli
5. Mahler
6. Beethoven
7. Ralph Vaughan Williams
8. Shostakovich
9. Schnittke
10. Mozart
11. Schubert
12. J.S. Bach
13. Haydn
14. Sibelius
15. Ligeti
16. Stravinsky
17. Prokofiev
18. Wagner
19. Debussy
20. Telemann
21. Vivaldi
22. C.P.E. Bach
23. Bruckner
24. Schumann
25. Mendelssohn

I really miss Berlioz, Ravel, Saint-Saëns and Tchaikovsky, among others, but oh well. No particular order.


----------



## violadude

It's kinda weird to compare composers across the time span of 500 years or so. At some point down the line (and I imagine that point is when Machaut and Xenakis would be on the same list, as they would be with mine) you start comparing apples with pears.


----------



## PetrB

trajcep said:


> P.S. I've seen the name Prokofiev above. He is famous Macedonian composer and his correct name is Prokopiev (Trajko Prokopiev). I appreciate the fact that some of you sorted him in Top 25 of all the time.


No one placing _Sergei Prokofiev_, (Russian, Ukraine born, deceased) in this rated list was mistaking 'Prokofiev,' for Trajko Prokopiev.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Prokofiev

Trajko Prokopiev, it seems, is not known even enough known to rate a Wikipedia article


----------



## PetrB

violadude said:


> It's kinda weird to compare composers across the time span of 500 years or so. At some point down the line (and I imagine that point is when Machaut and Xenakis would be on the same list, as they would be with mine) you start comparing apples with pears.


You don't have to go that far at any point along the line:
Mozart, overlapped by Beethoven, is already hopping from one orchard / vendor booth to another.


----------



## ahammel

violadude said:


> It's kinda weird to compare composers across the time span of 500 years or so. At some point down the line (and I imagine that point is when Machaut and Xenakis would be on the same list, as they would be with mine) you start comparing apples with pears.


Meh. I'm interpreting ranking of my subjective enjoyment of the composers.

I prefer pears to apples. I prefer Gesualdo to Xenakis. See? Easy.

(Interestingly, Firefox's spelling dictionary recognizes "Xenakis", but not "Gesualdo".)


----------



## violadude

ahammel said:


> Meh. I'm interpreting ranking of my subjective enjoyment of the composers.
> 
> I prefer pears to apples. I prefer Gesualdo to Xenakis. See? Easy.
> 
> (Interestingly, Firefox's spelling dictionary recognizes "Xenakis", but not "Gesualdo".)


I think my point is that if you are the type of person that loves both Xenakis and Gesualdo, there's no good criteria by which to rank one better than the other on the list.


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> No one placing _Sergei Prokofiev_, (Russian, Ukraine born, deceased) in this rated list was mistaking 'Prokofiev,' for Trajko Prokopiev.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Prokofiev
> 
> Trajko Prokopiev, it seems, is not known even enough known to rate a Wikipedia article


Are you kidding me? EVERYBODY knows Trajko Prokopiev! He is particularly well known for that ever popular work, beloved of adults and children alike . . . Piotr and the Hyena. It is about a boy, living with his grandfather, who traps a wild hyena in the vicinity of his house. There are several well known recordings with various celebrities taking the role of narrator, including the star of TV and film, Gyorgy Clooneyoff, or the famous Scottish/Russian actor Sean Connerovski. Interesting sidenote - this highly popular work is occasionally confused for a more obscure work, with the off-putting title Peter and the Wolf, composed by an obscure Russian composer named Sergei Prokofiev, who had a much less celebrated career than Prokopiev.


----------



## Ravndal

Yes, this is really embarrasing _PetrB_.


----------



## Crudblud

Joking aside, I actually quite like this Prokopiev piece:






Were I to contrive a Top 25 composer list this guy wouldn't be on it, but it's really not bad stuff.


----------



## chalkpie

Ives
Zappa
Bach
Mahler
Copland
Ravel
Ligeti
Messiaen
Sibelius
Vaughan Williams
Shostakovich
Bartok
Dowland
Tallis
Stravinsky
Debussy
Villa-Lobos
Prokofiev
Webern
Lutolsawski
Wagner
Partch
Varese
Leifs
Carter


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

chalkpie said:


> Ives
> Zappa
> Bach
> Mahler
> Copland
> Ravel
> Ligeti
> Messiaen
> Sibelius
> Vaughan Williams
> Shostakovich
> Bartok
> Dowland
> Tallis
> Stravinsky
> Debussy
> Villa-Lobos
> Prokofiev
> Webern
> Lutolsawski
> Wagner
> Partch
> Varese
> Leifs
> Carter


Finally, someone else with some good taste in music...........

Just need to work on the problematic Wagner!


----------



## unpocoscherzando

1. Brahms
2. Grieg
3. Beethoven
4. Puccini
5. Tchaikovsky
6. Bizet
7. Granados
8. Sibelius
9. Rodrigo
10. Albeniz
11. Mozart
12. J. S. Bach
13. Wagner
14. Borodin
15. Mendelssohn
16. Handel
17. Poulenc
18. Massenet
19. St Hildegard of Bingen
20. Palestrina
21. Ravel
22. Tavener
23. Honegger
24. Schumann
25. Chopin


----------



## geve

I am new here, this is my first post. I've been listening to classical music since my childhood, that's a span of 60+ years.
It's very difficult to list the top 25 as just the top 25, because they composed in different musical genre/styles, Baroque, Classical, Romantic. My understanding of these various styles is rather broad. I dislike modern classical, period 
So I would list in the following manner: Baroque- Bach, Handel, Vivaldi. 
Classical - Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart. 
Late Classical/Romantic: Liszt, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, Sibelius, Chopin, Richard Strauss, Mahler, Wagner, Dvorak, Grieg, Prokofiev, Berlioz, Elgar, Mendelssohn, Rimsky Korsakov, Schubert, Puccini.


----------



## Symphonical

1. Beethoven (Mostly for his Symphonies, and the fact that he was the most legendary musician in history)
2. Bach (For everything really)
3. Tchaikovsky (Symphonies 4, 5 & 6, 1812)
4. Liszt (Just because)
5. Mozart (Mostly brilliant works)
6. Verdi (Operas & Requiem)
7. Vivaldi (For beautiful music)
8. Rossini (For more beautiful music)
9. Wagner 
10. Handel
11. Ravel (For Bolero(One of my first pieces))
12. Mendelssohn (Violin Con. & Hebrides)
13. Saint Saens (Organ Sym., Car. des Anim. & Danse Macabre)
14. Brahms
15. Strauss
16. Berlioz (For Symphonie Fantastique)
17. Grieg (For Peer Gynt (Olso one of my first pieces)
18. Schubert
19. Chopin
20. Gershwin (Classical + Jazz = What's not to like?)
21. Elgar (Patriotic pieces)
22. Dvorak
23. Debussy
24. Holst (The Planets Suite)
25. Haydn


----------



## Arsakes

My most updated list!:

1. Dvorak
2. Haydn
3. Sibelius
4. Schumann
5. Brahms
6. Beethoven
7. Wagner
8. Handel
9. Saint Saens
10. Bruckner
11. Liszt
12. Mozart
13. Schubert
14. Mendelssohn
15. Korsakov
16. Smetana
17. Mahler
18. Johann Strauss II
19. Tchaikovsky 
20. Bach
21. Vivaldi
22. Vaughan Williams
23. Mussorgsky
24. Shostakovich
25. Bartok


----------



## Art Rock

I am preparing a five tier post for my blog with my 121 favourite composers (1-3-9-27-81). The top 25:

*Hors concours (1):
J.S. Bach

The immortals (3):
J. Brahms, G. Mahler, F. Schubert

The geniuses (9):
C. Debussy, A. Dvorak, F. Mendelssohn, E.J. Moeran, W.A. Mozart, M. Ravel, D. Shostakovitch, J. Sibelius, R. Wagner*

The grandmasters (12 out of 27, the bolded names make up my top 25):
W. Alwyn, *A. Bax*, *S. Barber*, L. van Beethoven, H. Berlioz, B. Britten, *A. Bruckner*, *F. Chopin*, G. Faure, E. Grieg, *S. Gubaidulina*, *J. Haydn*, M. Mussorgsky, C. Nielsen, S. Prokofiev, G. Puccini, J*. Raff*, E. Rautavaara, *O. Respighi*, *C. Saint-Saens*, A. Sallinen, *R. Strauss*, *J. Suk*, *T. Takemitsu*, P. Tchaikovsky, P. Vasks, R. Vaughan Williams


----------



## Op.123

Burroughs said:


> At the moment
> 
> 1.Schumann
> 2.Brahms
> 3.Mendelsssohn
> 4.Chopin
> 5.Dvorak
> 6.Beethoven
> 7.Tchaikovsky
> 8.Rachmaninoff
> 9.Grieg
> 10.Mozart
> 
> I will just do my top 10...


Right Ok.. top 25

1.Schumann
2.Chopin
3.Mendelsssohn
4.Brahms
5.Beethoven
6.Grieg
7.Tchaikovsky
8.Rachmaninoff
9.Dvorak
10.Mozart
11.Liszt
12.Bruch
13.Paganini
14.Sibelius
15.Bach
16.Debussy
17.Schubert
18.Prokofiev
19.Wagner
20.Berlioz
21.Vivaldi
22.Handel
23.Saint-saens
24.Haydn
25.Vieuxtemps


----------



## MarzipanCat

This list is more Russo-centric than most, but that is what I like! Brahms and Sibelius don't do it for me somehow
Dvorak
Tchaikovsky
Borodin
Grieg
Stravinsky
Bizet
Shostakovich
Rimsky-Korsakov
Mozart
Mendelssohn
Bach
Beethoven
Khachaturian
Rossini
Debussy
Lehar
Mahler
Schubert
Saint-Saens
Strauss II
Handel
Mussorgsky
Puccini
Prokofiev
Bartok


----------



## Saintmike

1. Mozart
2. Mahler
3. Sibelius
4. Beethoven
5. Rachmaninov
6. Tchaikovsky
7. J.S.Bach
8. Dvorak
9. Wagner
10. Schubert
11. Mendelssohn
12. Grieg
13. Schumann
14. Chopin
15. Bruckner
16. Khachaturian
17. Rimsky-Korsakov
18. Brahms
19. Adams
20. Elgar
21. Vaughn-Williams
22. Puccini
23. Saint-Saens
24. Liszt
25. Verdi

Honourable mentions go to Haydn, Ravel, Rossini, Vivaldi and Handel. Try a bit harder next time guys!


----------



## Neo Romanza

Top 25? Oh boy....(only the first five are in order):

1. Shostakovich
2. Ravel
3. Bartok
4. Vaughan Williams
5. Villa-Lobos
6. Stravinsky
7. Debussy
8. Prokofiev
9. Tippett
10. Britten
11. Sibelius
12. W. Schuman
13. Berg
14. Honegger
15. Martinu
16. Koechlin
17. Part
18. Barber
19. Ives
20. Roussel
21. Szymanowski
22. Rubbra
23. Sculthorpe
24. Hartmann
25. Revueltas


----------



## Neo Romanza

chalkpie said:


> Ives
> Zappa
> Bach
> Mahler
> Copland
> Ravel
> Ligeti
> Messiaen
> Sibelius
> Vaughan Williams
> Shostakovich
> Bartok
> Dowland
> Tallis
> Stravinsky
> Debussy
> Villa-Lobos
> Prokofiev
> Webern
> Lutolsawski
> Wagner
> Partch
> Varese
> Leifs
> Carter


Nice list! Very surprised to see Leifs on it. I love his music. That whole BIS series is indispensable.


----------



## JLTNJUSA1963

Hello,

My top 25? I'm not sure I could come up with 25.

Vivaldi
Mozart
Beethoven
J.S. Bach
Brahms
Telemann
Chopin
Dvorak
Mendelssohn
Tchaikovsky
Shostakovich
Sibelius
R. Strauss
Rachmaninov
Liszt 
Albonini
Borodin
Bruch
Bruckner
C.P.E. Bach
Elgar
de Falla
Rodrigo
Abel
Ginastera


Jim


----------



## Sonata

1) Brahms
2) Mahler
3) Mozart
4) Chopin
5) Mendelssohn
6) Ravel
7) Beethoven
8) Tchaikovsky
8) Dvorak
9) Haydn
10) R. Strauss
11) Puccini
12) Grieg
13) Schubert
14) Schumann
15) Sibelius
16) Rachmaninoff
17) Prokofiev
18) Bach
19) Shostakovich
20) Faure
21) Debussy
22) C. Schumann
23) Granados
24) Philip Glass
25) Verdi


----------



## Op.123

Burroughs said:


> Right Ok.. top 25
> 
> 1.Schumann
> 2.Chopin
> 3.Mendelsssohn
> 4.Brahms
> 5.Beethoven
> 6.Grieg
> 7.Tchaikovsky
> 8.Rachmaninoff
> 9.Dvorak
> 10.Mozart
> 11.Liszt
> 12.Bruch
> 13.Paganini
> 14.Sibelius
> 15.Bach
> 16.Debussy
> 17.Schubert
> 18.Prokofiev
> 19.Wagner
> 20.Berlioz
> 21.Vivaldi
> 22.Handel
> 23.Saint-saens
> 24.Haydn
> 25.Vieuxtemps


At the moment Chopin and Schumann are battling for first place.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> 1. Edgard Varese
> 2. Scriabin
> 3. Gesualdo da Venosa
> 4. Richard Wagner
> 5. Alessandro Stradella
> 6. Hugo Wolf
> 7. Peter Warlock
> 8. Arensky
> 9. Sorabji
> 10. Stockhausen
> 11.Alexander the Great
> 12. Ambrose
> then all on equal 13.
> 13. Anaxagoras
> 13. Anaximander
> 13. Antoninus Pius - Roman E...
> 13. Apuleius
> 13. Aristophanes
> 13. Percy Grainger
> 13. Ashurbanipal
> 13. Attila the Hun


 Edgard Varese and Scriabin are still battling it out in my list!


----------



## Sonata

Sonata said:


> 1) Brahms
> 2) Mahler
> 3) Mozart
> 4) Chopin
> 5) Mendelssohn
> 6) Ravel
> 7) Beethoven
> 8) Tchaikovsky
> 8) Dvorak
> 9) Haydn
> 10) R. Strauss
> 11) Puccini
> 12) Grieg
> 13) Schubert
> 14) Schumann
> 15) Sibelius
> 16) Rachmaninoff
> 17) Prokofiev
> 18) Bach
> 19) Shostakovich
> 20) Faure
> 21) Debussy
> 22) C. Schumann
> 23) Granados
> 24) Philip Glass
> 25) Verdi


I realized I forgot Bruckner. I'd probably give Philip Glass the boot for him.


----------



## Kleinzeit

In order of 'most often listened to', so far as I can figure since it's all cds and not iTunes:

1 Sibelius
2 J.S. Bach
3 Haydn
4 Bartok
5 Beethoven
6 Nørgård
7 Janacek
8 Martinu
9 Brahms
10 Shostakovich
11 Prokofiev
12 Webern
13 Nielsen
14 Schubert
15 Ligeti
16 Xenakis
17 Feldman
18 Schoenberg
19 Berg
20 Mozart
21 Holmboe
22 early music
23 the Mighty Five Могучая кучка
24 Poulenc
25 Stravinsky

Yes, Morton Feldman spins more often than Mozart. But when the summer comes there'll be more Wolfie. And Villa-Lobos. And Aulis Sallinen. And Bruckner.


----------



## Vaneyes

Bacewicz, Berio, Britten, Carter, Dutilleux, Enescu, Gerhard, Ginastera, Gubaidulina, Honegger, Janacek, Khachaturian, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, Moeran, Myaskovsky, Penderecki, Poulenc, Rawsthorne, Roussel, Schnittke, Scriabin, Szymanowski, Walton, Wuorinen.


----------



## Symphonical

Symphonical said:


> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Bach
> 3. Tchaikovsky
> 4. Liszt
> 5. Mozart
> 6. Verdi
> 7. Vivaldi
> 8. Rossini
> 9. Wagner
> 10. Handel
> 11. Ravel
> 12. Mendelssohn
> 13. Saint Saens
> 14. Brahms
> 15. Strauss
> 16. Berlioz
> 17. Grieg
> 18. Schubert
> 19. Chopin
> 20. Gershwin
> 21. Elgar
> 22. Dvorak
> 23. Debussy
> 24. Holst
> 25. Haydn


When I look back at this I think 'What was I thinking?' Things have changed and I need to rethink...


----------



## TitanisWalleri

Mahler
Holst
Sibelius
Respighi
Shostakovich
Copland
Mussorgsky
Bernstein

That's eight.


----------



## Joris

I would never take Part, too static, oh wait


----------



## Benny

1)	Brahms
2)	Debussy
3)	Bach
4)	Sibelius
5)	Ravel
6)	Schumann
7)	Mozart
8)	Mussorgsky
9)	Faure
10)	Rachmaninoff
11)	Kodaly
12)	Mahler
13)	Tchaikovsky
14)	Chopin
15)	Khachaturian (Oh yes, he too!)
16)	Satie
17)	Barber
18)	Beethoven
19)	Bartok
20)	Prokofiev
21)	Copland
22)	Bernstein
23)	Grieg
24)	Dvorak
25)	Elgar

I would gladly add Offenbach for only one work – The Tales of Hoffmann. And Albeniz should also get there. 


Benny


----------



## ticovanzant

The order and content changes regularly, but here goes...

1. Mahler
2. Beethoven
3. Mozart
4. Brahms
5. Wagner
6. Bach
7. Sibelius
8. Nielsen
9. Debussy
10. Schubert
11. Schumann
12. Stravinsky
13. Ravel
14. Verdi
15. Feldman
16. Shostakovich
18. Prokofiev
19. Part
20. Golijov
21. Saariaho
22. Simpson
23. Elgar
24. Handel
25. Chopin


----------



## ticovanzant

As I look at other lists, I realize I forgot Berlioz, Britten and Bruckner. I would have to find room for them too.


----------



## ahammel

ticovanzant said:


> As I look at other lists, I realize I forgot Berlioz, Britten and Bruckner. I would have to find room for them too.


How could you forget the famous 'three Bs' of classical music?


----------



## Prodromides

25 composers who are "top"s with me! 

1. Charles Koechlin
2. Giacinto Scelsi
3. Andre Jolivet
4. Aarre Merikanto
5. Richard Rodney Bennett
6. Karol Szymanowski
7. Maurice Ohana
8. Arne Nordheim
9. Jon Leifs
10. Meyer Kupferman
11. Toru Takemitsu
12. Heitor Villa-Lobos
13. Andre Caplet
14. Roberto Gerhard
15. Jean Prodromides
16. Luigi Dallapiccola
17. Pierre Jansen
18. Tristram Cary
19. Edgard Varese
20. Vaino Raitio
21. Erik Bergman
22. Fartein Valen
23. Henri Dutilleux
24. Karl-Birger Blomdahl
25. Luis De Pablo


----------



## Nevum

Here is my list:

1. Mozart
2. Bach
3. Beethoven
4. Schubert
5. Wagner
6. Bruckner
7. Schumann
8. Brahms
9. Mendelssohn
10. Chopin
11. Mahler
12. Dvorak
13. von Weber
14. Scriabin
15. Sibelius
16. Saint-Saens
17. Langgaard
18. Rott
19. Handel
20. Berlioz
21. Nielsen
22. Purcel
23. Guilmant
24. Pettersson
25. Farrenc


----------



## spradlig

Here's my list. If I had more room, I'd probably include at least Saint-Saens, Milhaud, Sibelius, and Rachmaninoff

1	Bach (JS)
2	Brahms
3	Beethoven
4	Debussy
5	Ravel
6	Mahler
7	Prokofiev
8	Shostakovich
9	R. Strauss
10	Tchaikovsky
11	Ives
12	Mozart
13	Gershwin
14	Schubert
15	Berg
16	Dvorak
17	Nielsen
18	Vaughn Williams
19	Schumann
20	Berlioz
21	Bruckner
22	Bartok
23	Wagner
24	Haydn
25	Janacek


----------



## Funny

OK, here we go...

Haydn
Saint-Saens
Beethoven
JS Bach
Dvorak
Berlioz
Ravel
Grieg
Glass
R Strauss
Debussy
Milhaud
Khatchaturian
Shostakovich
Mahler
Sibelius
Marenzio
Prokofiev
Wagner
Rachmaninoff
F Durante
Schickele
Sullivan
WH Fry
Rossini


----------



## AClockworkOrange

There is no specific order to this list, it doesn't reflect preference or listening frequency. Admittedly, Beethoven was the first that came to mind but the rest of the list was written with constant thought of forgetting composer x or y :lol:


Beethoven
Brahms
Bruckner
Britten
Chopin
Mahler
Saint-Saens
Verdi
Puccini
Wagner
Bax
Havergal Brian
Holst
Vaughan Williams
JS Bach
Haydn
Mozart
Tchaikovsky
Richard Strauss
Sibelius
Liszt
Berlioz
Schubert
Schumann
Dvorak

I would have liked to have included Nielsen, Grieg, Copland, Shostakovich, Smetana and Berg but 25 is the limit and I am happy with my list... For now :lol:


----------



## Winterreisender

I just attempted top 11 on another thread, but I might as well extend it to 25...

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart 
3. Bach
4. Schubert

5. Wagner
6. Berlioz
7. Liszt
8. Handel
9. Schumann
10. Grieg
11. Dowland
12. Haydn
13. Sibelius
14. Mahler
15. Brahms
16. Vaughan Williams
17. Tchaikovsky
18. Mendelssohn
19. D. Scarlatti
20. Tallis
21. Rachmaninoff
22. Elgar
23. Stravinsky
24. Couperin
25. Josquin


----------



## StevenOBrien

1. Mozart
2. J.S. Bach
3. Beethoven
4. Chopin
5. Schubert
6. Sibelius
7. Brahms
8. Wagner
9. Mahler
10. Shostakovich
11. Tchaikovsky
12. Stravinsky
13. Mendelssohn
14. Glass
15. Handel
16. Vivaldi
17. Schumann
18. Ravel
19. Bruckner
20. Dvorak
21. Haydn
22. Puccini
23. Debussy
24. Webern
25. Scriabin


----------



## TurnaboutVox

I also composed a First XI on the other thread - I hope a '25' will be easier, based as before on those composers I've returned to repeatedly over a period of years or even decades.

1. J. S. Bach
2. F-J. Haydn
3. Mozart
4. Beethoven
5. Schubert
6. Felix Mendelssohn
7. Robert Schumann
8. Liszt
9. Faure
10. Bruckner
11. Mahler
12. Debussy
13. Richard Strauss
14. Schoenberg
15. Berg
16. Webern
17. Bartok
18. Hindemith
19. Bridge
20. Busoni
21. Delius
22. Ravel
23. Poulenc
24. Shostakovich
25. Sibelius

There are others I've sampled and liked who may become favourites in time - amongst them Messaien, Ligeti, Boulez, carter Simpson, Reich etc. Maybe Handel too if I can get to hear more of his work.


----------



## Cosmos

Wow ok well this is in no particular order, simply whoever comes to mind:

1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Mahler
4. Chopin
5. Rachmaninov
6. Medtner
7. Prokofiev
8. Shostakovich
9. Bruckner
10. Liszt
11. Verdi
12. Tchaikovsky
13. Reich
14. Stravinsky
15. Busoni
16. Faure
17. Scriabin
18. Godowsky
19. Poulenc
20. Ravel
21. Gorecki
22. Wagner
23. Schubert
24. Strauss
25. Schoenberg

That was quite difficult


----------



## spradlig

I like your list, especially the inclusion of Dvorak, who is missing from many lists. Have you heard the album of Wendy Carlos's music for the film _A Clockwork Orange_/ (it includes a lot of music that didn't make it into the movie)



AClockworkOrange said:


> There is no specific order to this list, it doesn't reflect preference or listening frequency. Admittedly, Beethoven was the first that came to mind but the rest of the list was written with constant thought of forgetting composer x or y :lol:
> 
> 
> Beethoven
> Brahms
> Bruckner
> Britten
> Chopin
> Mahler
> Saint-Saens
> Verdi
> Puccini
> Wagner
> Bax
> Havergal Brian
> Holst
> Vaughan Williams
> JS Bach
> Haydn
> Mozart
> Tchaikovsky
> Richard Strauss
> Sibelius
> Liszt
> Berlioz
> Schubert
> Schumann
> Dvorak
> 
> I would have liked to have included Nielsen, Grieg, Copland, Shostakovich, Smetana and Berg but 25 is the limit and I am happy with my list... For now :lol:


----------



## Reinhold

1.) Tchaikovsky
2.) Beethoven
3.) Brahms
4.) Wagner
5.) R. Strauss
6.) Mahler
7.) Saint-Saëns
8.) Shostakovich
9.) Dvořák
10.) Glière
11.) Ravel
12.) Mozart
13.) Stravinsky
14.) Telemann
15.) Haydn
16.) Bruckner
17.) Prokofiev
18.) Schumann
19.) Sibelius
20.) Vaughan-Williams
21.) Puccini
22.) Mendelssohn
23.) Bach
23.) Hindemith
24.) Glazunov
25.) Jacob

This list changes every day, I dare say, but at the moment, it's pretty accurate.


----------



## farmboy

1. Stravinsky
2. Ravel
3. Beethoven
4. Tchaikovsky
5. Brahms
6. Chopin
7. Schubert
8. Dvorak
9. Rachmaninov
10. Copland
11. Thomas de Hartmann
12. Debussy
13. Prokofiev
14. Vaughan Williams
15. Shostakovich
16. Mozart
17. Mendelssohn
18. Reich
19. Grieg
20. John Adams
21. Elgar
22. Barber
23. John Williams
24. Rimsky-Korsakov
25. Wagner


----------



## hashes

1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Mozart
4. Zorn (most of his work is not "classical" in the strict sense, but whatever)
5. Shostakovich
6. Feldman
7. Mahler
8. Schubert
9. Schoenberg
10. Nono

11. Debussy
12. Messiaen
13. Haydn
14. Xenakis
15. Chopin
16. Stockhausen
17. Varese
18. Ligeti
19. Stravinsky
20. Scelsi

21. Brahms
22. Penderecki
23. Webern
24. Gubaidulina
25. Grisey

My knowledge of music is quite limited though, some composers have made the list based on few awesome works alone, and I've yet to seriously tackle opera, hence the lack of Wagner, Puccini, Verdi etc. Perhaps in a few years my list will be better.


----------



## cihlomorka

1. Prokofiev
2. Brahms
3. Janáček

4. Wagner 
5. Dvořák
6. Debussy
7. Mozart
8. Beethoven
9. Bach
10. Khachaturian
11. Tchaikovsky
12. Kabalevsky
13. Saint-Saëns
14. Grieg
15. Schubert
16. Rimsky Korsakoff
17. Rachmaninov
18. Ravel
19. Verdi
20. Stravinsky
21. Liszt
22. Gershwin
23. Chopin
24. Delius
25. Smetana! Lully? Vivaldi! awww, the final cut hurts so much. :lol:


I also love Elgar, Ponce, Korngold, Tyberg, Bernstein, Bowen and Dvarionas for particular pieces.

:tiphat:


----------



## LancsMan

Being a pedant I thought I should do my list on the basis of the amount of music in my collection. It comes out like this: -
1	Beethoven
2	J.S. Bach
3	Mozart
4	Handel
5	Haydn
6	Wagner
7	Britten
8	Schubert
9	Vivaldi
10	Mahler
11	Elgar
12	Berlioz
13	Brahms
14	Tchaikovsky
15	Bartok
16	Dvorak
17	Prokofiev
18	Richard Strauss
19	Debussy
20	Chopin
21	Monteverdi
22	Shostakovich
23	Sibelius
24	Walton
25	Liszt

Now there are some issues here because I am not as huge fan of Tchaikovsky as his ranking here implies he shouldn't really be in my top 25. Berlioz is also rather too high on the rankings. Not sure how I accumulated more Walton than Vaughan Williams and Stravinsky, as I would rate those composers as significantly greater - obviously need to buy more VW and Stravinsky. Plus composers of a relatively small output are missing - such as Berg and Janacek.


----------



## GiulioCesare

LancsMan said:


> Being a pedant I thought I should do my list on the basis of the amount of music in my collection. It comes out like this: -
> 1	Beethoven
> 2	J.S. Bach
> 3	Mozart
> 4	Handel
> 5	Haydn
> 6	Wagner
> 7	Britten
> 8	Schubert
> 9	Vivaldi
> 10	Mahler
> 11	Elgar
> 12	Berlioz
> 13	Brahms
> 14	Tchaikovsky
> 15	Bartok
> 16	Dvorak
> 17	Prokofiev
> 18	Richard Strauss
> 19	Debussy
> 20	Chopin
> 21	Monteverdi
> 22	Shostakovich
> 23	Sibelius
> 24	Walton
> 25	Liszt
> 
> Now there are some issues here because I am not as huge fan of Tchaikovsky as his ranking here implies he shouldn't really be in my top 25. Berlioz is also rather too high on the rankings. *Not sure how I accumulated more Walton than Vaughan Williams and Stravinsky, as I would rate those composers as significantly greater* - obviously need to buy more VW and Stravinsky. Plus composers of a relatively small output are missing - such as Berg and Janacek.


I just came back from a concert featuring Walton's violin concerto. I was positively impressed. Would you happen to have some particular recordings of his works to recommend?


----------



## Mohayeji

For now:

1. Mozart
2. Bach
3. Beethoven
4. Chopin
5. Rachmaninov
6. Vivaldi
7. Grieg
8. Tchaikovsky
9. Sibelius
10. Vaughan Williams

11-25: Handel, Haydn, Schubert, Schumann, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Bruch, Mahler, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Barber, ...


----------



## Polyphemus

For what its worth here goes :-
1 Mahler
2 Bartok
3 Rachmaninov
4 Bruckner
5 Haydn
6 Penderecki
7 Simpson
8 Mozart
9 Dvorak
10 Schubert
11 Beethoven
12 Tchaikovsky
13 R V W
14 Copland
15 Sibelius
16 Pettersson
17 Walton
18 Nielsen
19 Bach
20 Rimsky Korsakov
21 Ligeti
22 Shostakovich
23 Messiaen
24 Barber
25 Stravinsky

Wow that was harder than I expected, so many left out. The selections are not in any particular order, just a reflection of my listening over the past few months.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Can't do any more than 20 for now: If I could, I would list Brahms and Haydn as my co-favorites.

1 Brahms
2 Haydn
3 Sibelius
4 Debussy
5 Dvorak
6 Mozart
7 Mendelssohn
8 Ravel
9 Vaughan Williams
10 Schubert
11 Borodin
12 Tchaikovsky
13 Grieg
14 Mahler
15 Rachmaninoff
16 Beethoven
17 Prokofiev
18 Schumann
19 Vivaldi
20 Butterworth


----------



## MusicSybarite

More or less in this order:

Beethoven
Brahms
Tchaikovsky
Dvorák
Sibelius
Nielsen
Shostakovich
Prokofiev
Martinu
Saint-Saëns
Respighi
Vaughan Williams
Bruckner
Strauss, R.
Atterberg
Tubin
Schubert
Janácek
Mahler
Langgaard
Berlioz
Villa-Lobos
Hindemith
Schnittke
Bach


----------



## Agamemnon

1. Mozart
2. Beethoven
3. Berg
4. Debussy
5. Schubert
6. Messiaen
7. R. Strauss
8. Berio
9. Grieg
10. Sibelius
11. J.S. Bach
12. Tchaikovsky
13. Stockhausen
14. Gubaidulina
15. Mahler
16. Brahms
17. Mussorgsky
18. Wagner
19. Schumann
20. Ravel
21. Haydn
22. Stravinsky
23. Varese
24. Verdi
25. Cage


----------



## Mal

1. Mozart
2. Beethoven
3. JS Bach
4. Brahms
5. Haydn
6. Tchaikovsky
7. Mahler 
8. Schubert
9. Mendelssohn
10. Sibelius
11. Shostakovich
12. Elgar
13. Bruckner
14. Rachmaninov
15. Ravel
16. Vaughan Williams
17. Debussy
18. Saint-Saëns
19. Liszt
20. Dvorak 
21. Prokofiev
22. Vivaldi
23. Strauss, R.
24. Grieg
25. Handel


----------



## 20centrfuge

These lists are impossible. I could easily put 20 more on this list, and could change the order almost completely. Number 10 could as easily be number 2, and number 25 could as easily be number 12, but here goes:

1. Prokofiev
2. Adams, John
3. Debussy
4. Sibelius
5. Elgar
6. Barber
7. Hindemith
8. Messiaen
9. Brahms
10. Bartok
11. Schubert
12. Mozart
13. Beethoven
14. Dvorak
15. Bach
16. Puccini
17. Stravinsky
18. Rachmaninoff
19. Milhaud
20. Tchaikovsky
21. Grieg
22. Bruckner
23. Chopin
24. Saint-Saens
25. Gubaidulina


----------



## Xaltotun

I'll answer and then check my old list from years back and compare.

1. Bruckner
2. Wagner
3. Beethoven
4. Haydn
5. Brahms
6. Sibelius
7. Liszt
8. Schubert
9. Dvorak
10. Mahler
11. Mendelssohn
12. Cherubini
13. Mozart
14. JS Bach
15. Franck
16. Berlioz
17. Schoenberg
18. Schmidt
19. Nielsen
20. Ravel
21. Scriabin
22. Tchaikovsky
22. von Weber
23. Palestrina
24. Rachmaninov
25. Shostakovich


----------



## Art Rock

1. Bach, JS
2. Mahler
3. Brahms
4. Schubert
5. Shostakovich
6. Sibelius
7. Mendelssohn
8. Dvorak
9. Mozart
10. Ravel
11. Moeran
12. Wagner
13. Debussy 
14. Faure
15. Bruckner
16. Bax
17. Grieg
18. Tchaikovsky
19. Vaughan Williams
20. Chopin
21. Takemitsu
22. Barber
23. Gubaidulina
24. Respighi
25. Saint-Saens


----------



## larold

In order: 

Mozart
J.S. Bach
Beethoven

Brahms
Haydn
Tchaikovsky

Handel 
Schubert
Schumann

Wagner
Verdi
Richard Strauss

Dvorak
Prokofiev
Shostakovich

Sibelius
Stravinsky
Mendelssohn

Ravel
Britten
Chopin

Debussy
Liszt
Vivaldi

Vaughan Williams


----------



## ORigel

1. Beethoven
2. JS Bach
3. Brahms
4. J Haydn
5. WA Mozart
6. Schubert
7. Bruckner
8. Mahler
9. Bartok
10. Monteverdi
11. Handel
12. Stravinsky
13. Schoenberg
14. Felix Mendelssohn
15. Shostakovich
16. Xenakis
17. Dvorak
18. Chopin
19. Tchaikovsky
20. Schnittke
21. Sibelius
22. Lully
23. Schumann
24. Verdi
25. Corelli


----------



## Rogerx

If OP only knew the polls are rolling.


----------



## SanAntone

Today:

1	Bach
2	Brahms
3	Stravinsky
4	Debussy
5	Beethoven
6	Liszt	
7	Durufle
8	Ravel	
9	Poulenc
10	Machaut
11	Schumann	
12	Webern
13	Feldman
14	Carter
15	Palestrina
16	Dufay
17	Fauré 
18	Boulez
19	Ockeghem
20	Gesualdo
21	Bernstein
22	Schoeck
23	Satie
24	Weinberg
25	Meyer, K.

Changes a little each day.


----------



## larold

my survey from 2008; these are not necessarily my favorites

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

11. Verdi
12. R. Strauss
13. Dvorak
14. Prokofiev
15. Shostakovich
16. Sibelius
17. Stravinsky
18. Mendelssohn
19. Ravel
20. Britten

21. Chopin
22. Debussy
23. Liszt
24. Vivaldi
25. Vaughan Williams


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Why not again?

1. Bach
2. Brahms
3. Sibelius
4. Mahler
5. Schubert
6. Beethoven
7. Chopin
8. Ravel
9. Dvorak
10. Shostakovich
11. Bruckner
12. Debussy
13. Mozart
14. Faure
15. Haydn
16. Rachmaninoff
17. Prokofiev
18. Bartok
19. Wagner
20. Messiaen
21. Vaughan Williams
22. Elgar
23. R. Strauss
24. Nielsen
25. Liszt


----------



## Xisten267

My favorites today without thinking much:

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


----------



## Beebert

If the list means what I consider to be the greatest(not the same as favorites). Mozart first today... Top 3 is could be in any order whatsoever and I would be okay. I could as well be Beethoven on 1st place and Mozart on 3rd. 


1. Mozart;
2. Bach;
3. Beethoven;
4. Schubert;
5. Debussy;
6. Brahms;
7. Mahler;
8. Schumann;
9. Chopin;
10. Tchaikovsky;
11. Haydn;
12. Verdi;
13. Wagner;
14. Ravel;
15. Webern;
16. Bruckner;
17. Dvorak;
18. Palestrina;
19. Händel;
20. Bartok;
21. Prokofiev;
22. Sibelius;
23. Monteverdi;
24. Stravinsky;
25. Josquin de Prez.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Updated from about 3 years ago:

1) Brahms
2) Mozart and Haydn (tie)
4) Dvorak, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams (tie)
7) Debussy, Ravel (tie)
9) Mendelssohn
10) Grieg
11) Vivaldi
12) Respighi
13) Mahler
14) Schubert
15) Bruckner
16) Moeran
17) Prokofiev
18) Wagner
19) Beethoven
20) Rachmaninoff
21) Stravinsky
22) Borodin
23) Tchaikovsky
24) Schumann
25) Richard Strauss


----------



## Gray Bean

In no particular order:
1. Brahms
2. Beethoven
3. JS Bach
4. Haydn
5. Mozart
6. Tchaikovsky
7. Stravinsky
8. Vaughan Williams
9. Elgar
10. Bruckner
11. Debussy 
12. Mahler
13. Verdi
14. R. Strauss 
15. Berlioz
16. Bartok 
17. Shostakovich 
18. Schumann
19. Sibelius
20. Dvorak
21. Barber
22. Copland
23.Wagner
24. Schubert
25. Britten
And I had to omit so many! Gliere, Glazunouv, Rachmaninov, Grieg, Nielsen, Bruch, Khachaturian, Gershwin, d’Indy, Franck, Saint Saens, Ravel, Prokofiev, Raff, Handel...


----------



## SanAntone

SanAntone said:


> My old list is completely different today.


Chronological order:

Erik Satie (1866-1925)
Charles Ives (1874-1954)
Arnold Schoenberg (1874-1951)
Maurice Ravel (1875-1937)
Igor Stravinsky (1882-1971)
Othmar Schoeck (1886-1957)
George Gershwin (1898-1937)
Kurt Weill (1900-1950)
Harry Partch (1901-1974)
Maurice Duruflé (1902-1986)
Marc Blitzstein (1905-1964)
Ross Lee Finney (1906-1997)
Dmitri Shostakovich (1906-1975)
Elliott Carter (1908-2012)
John Cage (1912-1992)
Lou Harrison (1917-2003)
Leonard Bernstein (1918-1990)
Pierre Boulez (1925-2016)
Morton Feldman (1926-1987)
Charles Wuorinen (1938-2020)
Meredith Monk (1942- )
Krzysztof Meyer (1943- )
Laurie Anderson (1947- )
Pascal Dusapin (1955- )
Osvaldo Golijov (1960- )


----------



## christomacin

Not sure if I responded to this already, but I'll do it (again?) breaking them down chronologically within broad groupings. If you want an "edgy" list you'll have to look elsewhere:

(Top 8) [above the rest but not ranked}
Handel, G.F.
Bach, J.S.
Haydn, F.J.
Mozart, W.A.
Beethoven, Lv
Schubert, F.
Wagner, R.
Brahms, J.

(Rest of the Top 25)*
Berlioz, H.
Mendelssohn, F.
Chopin, F.
Schumann, R.
Liszt, F.
Verdi, G.
Bruckner, A.
Tchaikovsky, P.I.
Dvořák, A.
Mahler, G.
Debussy, C.
Strauss, R.
Sibelius, J.
Ravel, M.
Stravinsky, I.
Prokofiev, S.
Shostakovich, D.

*squeeze Bartók and Vivaldi in there too, if you like


----------



## Andante Largo

1. Sibelius, Jean (1865 - 1957) [Finland] 
2. Respighi, Ottorino (1879 - 1936) [Italy] 
3. Brahms, Johannes (1833 - 1897) [Germany] 
4. Castelnuovo-Tedesco, Mario (1895 - 1968) [Italy] 
5. Karłowicz, Mieczysław (1876 - 1909) [Poland] 
6. Reinecke, Carl (1824 - 1910) [Germany]
7. Perosi, Lorenzo (1872 - 1956) [Italy]
8. Rheinberger, Josef (1839 - 1901) [Liechtenstein]
9. Wieniawski, Henryk (1835 - 1880) [Poland]
10. Chopin, Fryderyk (1810 - 1849) [Poland]
11. Noskowski, Zygmunt (1846 - 1909) [Poland]
12. Rachmaninov, Sergei (1873 - 1943) [Russia]
13. Melartin, Erkki (1875 - 1937) [Finland]
14. Delius, Frederick (1862 - 1934) [England]
15. Saint-Saëns, Camille (1835 - 1921) [France]
16. Paganini, Niccolò (1782 - 1840) [Italy]
17. Fuchs, Robert (1847 - 1927) [Austria]
18. Peterson-Berger, Wilhelm (1867 - 1942) [Sweden]
19. Bruch, Max (1838 - 1920) [Germany]
20. Glazunov, Alexander (1865 - 1936) [Russia]
21. Novák, Vítězslav (1870 - 1949) [Czechia]
22. Żeleński, Władysław (1837 - 1921) [Poland]
23. Sgambati, Giovanni (1841 - 1914) [Italy]
24. Lipiński, Karol (1790 - 1861) [Poland]
25. Różycki, Ludomir (1884 - 1953) [Poland]


----------



## Art Rock

Bach JS
Mahler
Brahms
Schubert
Shostakovich
Sibelius
Wagner
Dvorak
Bruckner
Mozart
Ravel
Bax
Mendelssohn
Strauss
Moeran
Vaughan Williams
Takemitsu
Gubaidulina
Debussy
Faure
Grieg
Respighi
Saint-Saens
Britten
Beethoven


----------



## Waehnen

In order of greatness perceived by me, with no real surprises… Many great had to be left out, though.

1 Beethoven
2 Bach
3 Brahms
4 Mozart
5 Schubert
6 Wagner
7 Chopin
8 Sibelius
9 Tchaikovsky
10 Mahler
11 Stravinsky
12 Debussy
13 Ravel
14 Mendelssohn
15 Shostakovich
16 Schumann
17 Liszt
18 Bruckner
19 Ligeti
20 Haydn
21 Dvorak
22 Grieg
23 Prokofiev
24 Haendel
25 Richard Strauss


----------



## Highwayman

1. Brahms
2. Bach, JS
3. Beethoven
4. Schumann
5. Dvořák
6. Schubert
7. Fauré
8. Sibelius
9. Mahler
10. Mendelssohn
11. Shostakovich
12. Prokofiev
13. Debussy
14. Reger
15. Medtner
16. Bartók
17. Messiaen
18. Poulenc
19. Schnittke
20. Schoenberg
21. Hindemith
22. Takemitsu
23. Palestrina
24. Lassus
25. Dowland


----------



## advokat

J.S. Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Rachmaninov
Tchaikovsky
Taneyev
Brahms
Bruckner
Schubert
Schumann
Chopin
Faure
Poulenc
Scriabin
Bruch
Haydn
Handel
Mendelssohn
Mahler
Raff
Tallis
Josquin
Couperin
Granadas
Albeniz


----------



## Chilham

1.	Beethoven
2.	Bach JS
3.	Mozart
4.	Monteverdi
5.	Haydn F
6.	Sibelius
7.	Handel
8.	Brahms
9.	Tchaikovsky
10.	Gluck
11.	Mahler
12.	Bruckner
13.	Berlioz
14.	Vivaldi
15.	Dvořák
16.	Byrd
17.	Borodin
18.	Donizetti
19.	Schubert
20.	Verdi
21.	Bruch
22.	Mussorgsky
23.	Mendelssohn
24.	Smetana
25.	Satie


----------



## Phil loves classical

Wow, I really can't. Too much work, and it changes. Main-stays are the better known early 20th C composers.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Current:

1) Brahms
2) Mozart
3) Sibelius
4) Debussy
5) Dvorak
6) Vaughan Williams
7) Ravel
8) Mendelssohn
9) Haydn
10) Grieg
11) Schubert
12) Vivaldi

Remaining 13 in no special order:

Wagner
Schumann
Beethoven
Tchaikovsky
Borodin
Rachmaninoff
Respighi
Moeran
Howells
George Butterworth
Mahler
Bruckner
Richard Strauss


----------



## science

I can't even think of 25 composers now. I don't know how I ever did this.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Britten
Wagner
DSCH
Beethoven
Bruckner
Mahler
Verdi
Sibelius
Ravel
Debussy
RVW
Birtwistle
Mozart
Dvorak
Tchaikovsky
Messiaen
Stockhausen
Boulez
Simpson
Bax
Elgar
Ives

To be continued ........


----------



## HenryPenfold

Scriabin ......


----------



## HenryPenfold

Vivaldi .........


----------



## HenryPenfold

Schumann ........


----------



## Prodromides

HenryPenfold said:


> Schumann ........


Happy New Year!


----------

