# '1' through '10' scale?



## linz (Oct 5, 2006)

I curious as to how people would rank the well-known composers on a '1' through '10' scale, not in terms of importance, but their own personal taste?
Vivaldi 8
Handel 9
J. S. Bach 10
Haydn 8
Mozart 10
Schubert 10
Beethoven 10
Schumann 8
Rossini 6
Mendelssohn 6
Chopin 8
Berlioz 9
Liszt 9
Wagner 10
Tchaikovsky 8
Mussorgsky 9
Dvorak 8
Verdi 8
Brahms 9
Bruckner 9
Debussy 8
Mahler 10
Sibelius 8
R. Strauss 9


----------



## Hexameron (Oct 7, 2006)

Assuming the list of composers you gave are the ones we rank:

Beethoven 10
Liszt 10
Chopin 10
Brahms 10
J. S. Bach 10
Schubert 9
Tchaikovsky 9
Mozart 8
Schumann 8
Berlioz 8
Wagner 8
Handel 8
Mendelssohn 7
Mussorgsky 7
Bruckner 7
Mahler 6
Vivaldi 6
Verdi 5
Rossini 5
Dvorak 5
Sibelius 5
R. Strauss 5
Haydn 4
Debussy 4


----------



## JfW (Dec 14, 2006)

I think this thread is a good way to go about it. I'm assuming 10 means you're pleased when just about anything from that composer enters your ear, 5-6 for 'I find his stuff so-so' or a has a few pieces you like, and 1 for not finding much of anything you can remotely stand:

J. S. Bach 10
Handel 10
Vivaldi 9
Rossini 7
Mussorgsky 7
Wagner 6
Tchaikovsky 6
Dvorak 6
Brahms 6
Haydn 5
Mahler 5
Mendelssohn 5
Schubert 5
Beethoven 5
Schumann 5
Berlioz 5
Liszt 5
Verdi 5
Mozart 4
Sibelius 4
Chopin 4
R. Strauss 3
Debussy 2

Bruckner NA

There are a few composers on this list that I appreciate:

Prokofiev 8
Ravel 8
Shostakovich 7


----------



## Hexameron (Oct 7, 2006)

JfW said:


> Beethoven 5


Blasphemy! Or did you mean Beethoven 50? I think we'll all forgive you if it was a simple typo. B)


----------



## JfW (Dec 14, 2006)

Hexameron said:


> Blasphemy! Or did you mean Beethoven 50? I think we'll all forgive you if it was a simple typo. B)


Ah well. As you can see my interests seem to strattle the proper Classical Era. I love the Baroque, and have progressed my interests into the latter half of the 19th Century into the 20th. For many, Mozart and Beethoven are the epitome of Literary Music; for me, not so much. I'm currently trying to 'get' Mozart to very little avail. Beethoven is next on my list...


----------



## BassFromOboe (Oct 1, 2006)

> Vivaldi 5
> Handel 2
> J. S. Bach 2
> Haydn 5
> ...


Bartok 9
V.Williams 7
Ravel 7
Shotakovich 7
Prokofiev 8


----------



## vonK (Dec 11, 2006)

J. S. Bach 10
Beethoven 10
Mozart 10
Brahms 10
Schubert 10
Haydn 10
Bruckner 10
Messiaen 10
Boulez 10
Vivaldi 9
Händel 9
Dvorak 9
Schumann 9
Mahler 9
Tallis 8
Vaughan-Williams 8
Mendelssohn 8
Tchaikovsky 8
Berlioz 8
Wagner 8
Faure 8
R. Strauss 8
Debussy 7
Liszt 4


----------



## Topaz (Oct 25, 2006)

I find this difficult, so I'm going to one decimal place in order to split what would otherwise appear as equal preferences.

10.0 LvB (excellent in all departments)
9.0 Schubert (excellent in most departments)
8.0 Schumann (not quite so melodic as Schubert but otherwise as good)
7.7 Brahms (excellent orchestral, choral, slightly weaker in solo piano, chamber)
7.2 Chopin (excellent, but narrow focus)
7.0 Mozart (obviously exceptional, but some weak stuff and I find the classical style a bit lacking in substance)
6.5 Tchaikovsky (excellent melody and first class ballet, but lacks a certain something)
6.2 Wagner (brilliant orchestration, Tristan und Isolde, Lohengrin wow)
5.9 Mendelssohn (charming, elegant, good all round)
5.5 Liszt (first class piano but I'm not keen on all of it, outside of piano not my favourite)
5.3 Bach (obviously first rate, but I have gone off baroque)
5.2 Elgar (excellent typifier of English flavour)
5.1 Sibelius (some excellent symphony and tone poems, lacking in piano solo) 
5.0 RVW (same as Elgar but with rather heavier style, and I generally prefer a lighter flavour)
4.9 Puccini (glorious)
4.8 Dvorak (excellent symphony and cello concerto)
4.8 Rachmaninov (first rate piano cons and symphs)
4.7 Berlioz (Symphony Fantastique is worth a million, plus Requiem) 
4.5 Franck (small output, rather narrow, but high quality)
4.2 Handel (same as for Bach)
4.0 Mahler (some symphonies are good, but I'm not that wild about the rest of his output)
3.7 Smetana (tone poem, string quartet)
3.7 Bartok (still trying to work it out but I quite like some of it)
3.5 Bruckner (2 or 3 symphonies good, not impressed with much other)
3.3 Rimsky-Korsakov (I love Scheherazade and Russian Easter Festival)
3.2 Mussorgsky (Night on Bare/Bald Mountain wonderful, Pics @ Exhib brilliant)
3.1 Grieg (piano con excellent, Peer Gynt, holdberg suite lovely too)
3.0 Shostakovich (some symphonies are not bad, Festive o/t and Jazz suites good, rest am not keen on)
2.0 Ravel (some nice pieces, but not that keen overall)
1.5 Debussy (very over-rated, 90% I do not like)
1.5 Haydn (over-rated, some chamber OK, but I can't get through one symphony any longer, so pedestrian)
1.0 Stravinsky (virtually no appeal whatsoever)
-10.0 Anything atonal (worse than a nightmare)
...........

I hope you'll forgive some of my comments but pure numbers are a bit boring, and we all have our likes and dislikes. I wouldn't wish to be called "pretentious", but I have been listening to classical music for some years now and know what I like.


Topaz


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Vivaldi 8
Handel 8
J. S. Bach 10
Haydn 4
Mozart (the real one) 3
Schubert 8
Beethoven 9
Schumann 8
Rossini 6
Mendelssohn 8
Chopin 6
Berlioz 9
Liszt 7
Wagner 7
Tchaikovsky 6.5
Mussorgsky 7
Dvorak 8
Verdi 7
Brahms 8
Bruckner 8
Debussy 8
Mahler 9
Sibelius 8
R. Strauss 8


----------



## IAmKing (Dec 3, 2006)

Vivaldi 5
Handel 3
J. S. Bach 10
Haydn 6
Mozart 10
Beethoven 8
Chopin 8
Wagner 10
Tchaikovsky 7
Mussorgsky 9
Verdi 6
Brahms 4
Debussy 10
Mahler 10
Sibelius 10
Prokofiev 5
Ravel 5
Shostakovich 8
Bartok 9

And a few not yet mentioned in this thread:

Olivier Messiaen 9
Edgard Varese 10
Frank Zappa 10
John Zorn 10
Pierre Boulez 8


----------



## Saturnus (Nov 7, 2006)

Palestrina 6
Vivaldi 7
Albinoni 8
Handel 8
J. S. Bach 9
Haydn 4
Mozart (the popular one) 3
Schubert 6
Beethoven 10
Schumann 8
J. Strauss 5
Mendelssohn 6
Chopin 5
Berlioz 7
Liszt 6
Tchaikovsky 9
Mussorgsky 7
Dvorak 8
Brahms 9
Bruckner 5
Debussy 6
Mahler 9
R. Strauss 9
Bartók 10
Schoenberg 6
Messiaen 8
Boulez 1

@Topaz: I see you mention Tchaikovsky for his ballets, I'm just curious if you have heard his symphonies. Because for me they have this "something" I think the ballets lack, I was just wondering if we are thinking of the same "something".


----------



## Hexameron (Oct 7, 2006)

> I see you mention Tchaikovsky for his ballets, I'm just curious if you have heard his symphonies. Because for me they have this "something" I think the ballets lack, I was just wondering if we are thinking of the same "something".


That's one of the reasons why I gave Tchaikovsky a 9 myself; his symphonies, especially 4, 5 and 6 are true achievements in symphonic literature. I'm sure Topaz's taste is just different, but Tchaikovsky's symphonies, piano sonatas and piano concertos definitely have that "something" for me.


----------



## Topaz (Oct 25, 2006)

I think there may be a confusion of terminology here. Linz originally asked " ... how people would rank the well-known composers on a '1' through '10' scale ...".

The word "*rank"* is ambiguous. It could mean "rank", as in order of preference, or "rate" as in "how much you like them in general terms".

I took the first interpretation, and hence I ranked the top composers in order of preference, with numbers to indicate roughly how much difference I see between them. This explains why I don't have 5 number 10s and five number 8s etc. Most others, it seems, have taken the second interpretation, but even so I'm surprised there are so many with the same score in some lists.

Regards my comment about *Tchaikvosky*, I can assure Saturnus that I have heard all of his symphonies, plus a lot of other material, many times. At one time he and Mozart were my overall favourities. But over time I have lost some of my former interest, as other composers have come along who now appear greater. I still rate him highly. I love all the ballets, S 4-6, Marche Slave, Serenade for Strings, Variations on a Rococo Theme, String Quartet No 3, and Piano Trio in A minor. However, while I still enjoy a lot of his work, in comparison with those composers higher up my list I do not think he compares quite so well in terms of depth and consistency.

A *challenge*: I have placed Tchaikovsky at No 7 in my list, which is high. Where exactly where would you place Tchaikovsky in your rank order? And why not higher, by saying what you find lacking (not merely that you like others more)? Indeed why not rank your favourite composers 1-10 in the normal conventional manner as I have done?

I'd like to ask *Robert *what score he would give the "fictitous Mozart" as he would see it. Incidentally why 6.5 for Tchaikovsky?

I see there's not much support here for Stravinsky. That's interesting.

Topaz


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Topaz, 

In giving scores to these composers (which I agree is really difficult) I tried to think of their greatest achievements. Unlike Beethoven, who had immense impact on musical history in virtually every form, I don't think one can say Mozart had any such lasting impact on any form of music. The saccharine safety of his music is perhaps its single greatest appeal. Beautiful for sure, often wonderfully scored, nimble, filigree work in music - all this, but not, I think, more than musical marzipan of a very high degree of sophistication. Music of the roccoco. And of those attributed to him (since a great number of other people can be shown to have had input into his final 'official' list of works - such as M. Haydn, Myslivececk, JM Kraus, etc etc etc.) one must try to be fair about who and what we are talking of. 

If I can give a single but (to me) very revealing example or two - 

1) Until the turn of the 20th century the Symphony No. 37 of Mozart was KV444. We know today that, in fact, this work is not by Mozart. It MAY be by Michael Haydn. But it's definitely not by Mozart. Is not this fact, in itself, amazing ? Setting aside the decline and fall of literally dozens of symphonies from the official Mozart lists (a staggering, almost unprecdented thing in the entire history of music) we pause on this single work, KV444, to see what it really tells us. 

OK, if KV444 is a symphony wrongly attributed by 'experts' at the Mozarteum and elsewhere for over a century just how much DO we know of Mozart's symphonic ability, style and even his real symphonic career ? I think we need look no further than the few bars of KV444 (which he indisputably did write). I have an MIDI file of those bars but can't post it here. 

Anyone who listens to that slow introduction is non-plussed by its badness. It is full of poor harmonisations. A rare glimpse, if you like, of the real Mozart. Or so I suggest. 

Again, we could consider the 1 act Singspiel 'Der Schauspieldirektor', this written within weeks of the premiere, in Vienna during 1786 of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. How is it possible that Mozart was the composer of both these works. 'Der Schauspieldirektor' is not and never has been rated highly by any lover of Mozart's music. In fact, it's very poor. With the exception of the frothy Overture it's pallid stuff. And yet, of course, it was written in a very public context, premiered at Schonbrunn on the same day as a rival opera by Salieri. Here, surely, is Mozart's chance to shine. An occasion graced by visiting dignataires where German singspiel (favoured by the Emperor Joseph 2nd) was matched against Italian opera. But what a fiasco was THIS poor work. 

I scored Mozart so low for these and a hundred other reasons. Frankly, there are hundreds of works attributed to him which it can be shown he never wrote. 

It's pefectly true that showing who DID write these works is another issue - far more hard, in fact, than showing he, Mozart, did not. But, in any investigation we must first prove there is a thing worth studying before we can attempt to explain it. In the case of Mozart (virtually from the start of his musical career to the end) we just keep running in to major problems of attribution. And this siutation does not alter regardless of what period of his life and supposed career we are discussing. 

At the same time I do credit Mozart (and those in his immediate circle) with the ability to create great/memorable arrangements and of the fact that he was a very talented pianist. 
So I scored him on what I know is true, though I do not know him to be a genius composer. He is attributed with some of the greatest music of any century but I am convinced he never composed it. On piece after piece I think this can be shown true. 

As far as Tchaikowsky is concerned, yes, I greatly admire various works by him. I really love his ballet music. His 1st Piano Concerto, his Serenade for Strings, his Overtures etc etc. These are all wonderful. And I rate him very highly as perhaps one of the very greatest melodists of all time. Having said this, there are many works where he simply does not seem to rise about the level of the ordinary. I think, as a whole, he merits more than a 6 but less than a 7. But I greatly like his most famous works. There are still works of his that I've never heard, including various songs. The Manfred Symphony does nothing for me. But I do like his symphonies as a whole. Specially the 4th and the 5th. 

A hugely talented composer. But one quite capable of mediocre work also. At least that's my opinion of him now. I am sure I have much to learn. 

For what it's worth I would rate Glazunov around the same score - 6.5 

(Forgive me !)

Regards


























Introduction that Mozart indisputably DID write for this very work. They are appallingly bad. So bad, in fact, that it's amazing. 



I'd like to ask Robert what score he would give the "fictitous Mozart" as he would see it. Incidentally why 6.5 for Tchaikovsky? 

I see there's not much support here for Stravinsky. That's interesting.


----------



## Hexameron (Oct 7, 2006)

robert newman said:


> A hugely talented composer. But one quite capable of mediocre work also. At least that's my opinion of him now. I am sure I have much to learn.
> 
> For what it's worth I would rate Glazunov around the same score - 6.5
> 
> (Forgive me !)


You have nothing to apologize for, Robert; these are your opinions, which is what dictates our individual ranking. I place Liszt at 10 and others place him at 2; it's all opinion. Placing Beethoven below 5 is not allowed, though, under any circumstances and should require immediate banning from the forum . I respect your words about Tchaikovsky and admit that some of his works can be dull. But he has too many gems to rank lower than 6. The Seasons, his Violin Concerto, his Piano Sonatas (he wrote some?) Eugene Onegin opera, The Nutcracker, Romeo and Juliet overture, Capriccio Italien, Symphonies 4-6, Piano Concertos 1-3, and even his String Quartet No. 1: these, along with his other two famous ballets and some other orchestral works are all I've heard from him, but they're enough (for me) to raise him to #9 on my own list. I think in-depth exploration is required for all composers before any kind of judgment is made. I'd say 10 works (perhaps famous) from each composer should be heard before even making the list. And even then, they should survey as broadly as possible into every form the composer touched.

Hearing 10 Mozart piano concertos is enough for me to keep him at his current rank, along with his two fantasias and at least 5 piano sonatas. Or are they disputed too?  If Mozart is allowed to have the Marriage of Figaro, Don Giovanni, the Rondos, the Serenades and the Ave Verum Corpus considered his own works, then his rank is sustained even more.


----------



## Topaz (Oct 25, 2006)

*Robert:* I was asking how you would rate *Mozar*t assumimg he wrote everything attributed to him. I know very well you dispute this, but that is another matter. If you make the assumption that he did write it all, presumably you would rate him a lot higher than 3? I agree with you about *Tchaikovsky*. Your view seems to be very much the same as mine. He's very good (with some excellent works) and is deservedly in the top ranks. But for me there's not that extra touch of magic that comes through with the likes of Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert and in my view Schumann or Wagner, at their best. These latter people have produced works of rather higher quality, and more consistently so. (In the case of Beethoven, much higher).

*Hexameron:* I agree with the suggestion that it's not possible to form a proper opinion unless you've heard at least 10 highly-rated works of each composer, and listened to them thoroughly. Just basing it on two or three works is daft. I think it's wise to do a bit of reading up too, in order to find out from real experts what's special about these composers' works and why they're considered good. We are obviously talking about very great works of art (not pop music) that have been studied by many for decades, centuries even, by highly qualified musicians. It's not possible for a bunch of amateurs (with no disrespect intended to anyone here) to give a few pieces a listen and hope to reach proper views. All manner of mistakes and ill-informed opinions would otherwise result. Call me somewhat elitist if you like, but that's my view.

Sorry to harp on about it, but I still don't think anyone but me has actually ranked these composers, unless you are saying that all those with the same score all rank equally. I can't believe you are saying that all those with, say, rank 10 you rate the same. Surely not. I haven't done that. I have ranked them in a conventional manner in terms of preference, (best, second best, etc) difficult though it was. Oh, the constraints imposed by written chat!

Topaz


----------



## Saturnus (Nov 7, 2006)

Topaz: I'll try to take your challenge; but please bear in mind that I am not a native speaker of english and many of my opinions might sound confusing or even stupid when translated. I'll take Hexameron's advice and won't rate composers I know too little about.

Bartók 10 - (can't find anything lacking in his music)
Bach 9,4 - (sometimes his music becomes too mechanical)
Beethoven 9,2 - (his orchestralwork lack the swiftness of his fourth symphony (except that symphony of course), and can become a little bit boring at times)
Brahms 9,0 - (more colorful than Beethoven, but lack his equilibrium/harmony)
Schumann 8,5 - (excellent chamber, orchestral has much of Beethovens equilibrium and quality but lacks swifness)
Tchaikovsky 8,4 - (the excess of emotion make his works loose the brilliance the composers above have, but the excess of emotion is the reason why I love his works)
Dvorak 8,3 - (excellent chamber and excellent orchestral, but overall I think his music lacks some "weight" for my taste)
R. Strauss 8 - (in too many places is his music gets too noisy without gaining anything but more noise)
Messiaen 7,8 - (sometimes I get the feeling his music is unnecessarily atonal)
Handel 7,5 - (never mechanical, but simply not as good as Bach)
Liszt 6 - (too virtuosic and lacks seriousness (maturity?))
Chopin 5 - (same as Topaz; too narrow focus)
Haydn 4 - (his symphonies bore me to death, he has OK concertos and some fine chamber though)
Mozart 3 - (I simply find him way too light for my taste (he completely lacks bitterness!), gets a big bonus for 'Gran Partita' though)
Boulez 1 - (Is this music? This sounds so much like random nonsense that I think Boulez is simply kidding us all, his music not only bores me but is also irritating as hell (excuse the language))


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Dear Hexameron, 

I think there's already a case for saying Mozart/da Ponte got the credit for but did not compose/write 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. Nor did Mozart compose 'Idomeneo', various Serenades which were later turned by him in to symphonies, did not even compose the little motet 'Ave Verum Corpus', nor even the Clarinet Concerto. The piano concertos (the first four of which were attributed to him for over a century before people finally realised they were pastiches of other keyboard works by contemporary composers) are as murky a pond as the symphonies. One thing is sure - Nannerl had a hand in them arriving at their final form in Salzburg before Mozart ever saw them. 

What if I was to post that Mozart's first Vienna opera 'Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail' was actually composed by someone else ? That no less than 10 mature symphonies of the last 50 supposed symphonies of 'Mozart' (down from 102 or so) are not, in fact, symphonies by him ? And that the 6 quartets dedicated to Haydn and published in 1785 are not his too ? We could continue with the extraordinary Serenade for 13 Woodwinds, KV361, or, again, with literally dozens of minuets and contradances.

We have for some time (I honestly believe) been prepared to suspend our own rationality when it comes to Mozart's 'official' status, even although doing so is grossly unfair on ourselves and on the achievements of other composers. We know well that Koechel catalogue after Koechel catalogue will present us with works NOT by him as a sort of illogical superstructure on which bits of Mozartean masonry have been glued. But judging by the rate of collapse of greater lumps of brick from it over the past 50 years or so there is surely a need for erecting some scaffolding and making warning signs to the unwary. 

The myth of Mozart's musical life and achievements may not be harmful in themselves. But if it's taught that children can, without diligence and hard work become 'another Mozart' isn't this worrying ? On that ground alone it's surely right that we separate fact from fiction. Others deserve credit. 

Mozart (and Haydn) became like the musical 'Adidas' and 'Nike' of their times. To supply them with a stream of works they never wrote (this in an age where there was no real copyright), and to realise that their inflated achievements have largely been responsible for making 'Vienna - city of music' - well, I just think it's all a bit sad. Add to this the highly sanitised and much edited early biographies, wholesale untruths and exaggerations. 

I personally will be suprised if, within the next decade or so, Mozart is not agreed widely to have been a sort of hoax. But, until this music (much of it lovely) is soundly attributed to others it should, in all fairness, be still attributed to him. 

Regards


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Topaz wrote -

' _I was asking how you would rate Mozart assumimg he wrote everything attributed to him. I know very well you dispute this, but that is another matter. If you make the assumption that he did write it all, presumably you would rate him a lot higher than 3? I agree with you about Tchaikovsky. Your view seems to be very much the same as mine. He's very good (with some excellent works) and is deservedly in the top ranks. But for me there's not that extra touch of magic that comes through with the likes of Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert and in my view Schumann or Wagner, at their best. These latter people have produced works of rather higher quality, and more consistently so. (In the case of Beethoven, much higher'._

//

Well, if Mozart really wrote all that is usually attributed to him I would certainly rank him alongside Beethoven.

Regards


----------



## Hexameron (Oct 7, 2006)

Topaz said:


> It's not possible for a bunch of amateurs (with no disrespect intended to anyone here) to give a few pieces a listen and hope to reach proper views. All manner of mistakes and ill-informed opinions would otherwise result. Call me somewhat elitist if you like, but that's my view.


I agree with you here.



> Sorry to harp on about it, but I still don't think anyone but me has actually ranked these composers, unless you are saying that all those with the same score all rank equally. I can't believe you are saying that all those with, say, rank 10 you rate the same. Surely not. I haven't done that. I have ranked them in a conventional manner in terms of preference, (best, second best, etc) difficult though it was. Oh, the constraints imposed by written chat!


Well, I felt the 1 through 10 scale was based on our _listening_ preference. 10 means I would listen to anything from them with no problem, 9 means I would listen to most, 8 means a good portion with an exception of a few and 7 means a fair amount but I dislike some, 6 means... etc etc. I wasn't ranking composers as equal in their compositional powers or their genius, but rather on how well I enjoy their music or how much time I spend listening to them.

If that's not the objective of this scale, I'll certainly revise my list to reserve a single digit for one composer alone. (Beethoven will always take 10 of course)


----------



## Hexameron (Oct 7, 2006)

robert newman said:


> Dear Hexameron,
> 
> ...
> 
> I personally will be suprised if, within the next decade or so, Mozart is not agreed widely to have been a sort of hoax. But, until this music (much of it lovely) is soundly attributed to others it should, in all fairness, be still attributed to him.


If you can prove all this, Robert, with sufficient musicological evidence, overwhelming documentary evidence, and a general consensus from unbiased musicians, conductors and music historians, then the future history books are going to have a lot of explaining to do.

But beyond the duplicity, I'd be more upset that so many budding geniuses who provided Mozart with his works will never have a chance to be recognized or fulfill their potential to write even greater music. Whoever wrote the last three (attributed) Mozart symphonies, the Requiem and The Magic Flute has made the worst mistake of their posthumous legacy by handing them over to an impish scoundrel like Mozart. Even the poor fella(s) who provided the Serenades and Violin Concertos pretty much forfeited their chance at a life with decent patrons. It's hard to believe that there were shadowy figures or disguised mediocrities writing such brilliant works of art... why didn't human flaws like greed and ambition take one of them over if they knew their works were making Mozart a living legend, not to mention money?

Are the piano sonatas also bereft of Mozart authenticity?


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2006)

Vivaldi 7 
Handel 10 + 
J. S. Bach 10 
Haydn 8 
Mozart 8
Schubert 8
Beethoven 10+ 
Schumann 8
Rossini 6
Mendelssohn 8 
Chopin 7
Berlioz 7
Liszt 7
Wagner 6
Tchaikovsky 7
Mussorgsky 7
Dvorak 8
Verdi 8
Brahms 10
Bruckner 8
Debussy 8
Mahler 9+
Sibelius 8
R. Strauss 7


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Hexameron, 

If we took one of the great 'Mozart' works (one that you or another forum member listed here recently as specially wonderful - which it is) - KV361, the Serenade for 13 Woodwinds, it might seem unthinkable to argue that he, Mozart, was not its true composer. First, Mozart has ALWAYS been credited with its composition, even during his lifetime. Second, it was published first in his name. And third, there are two known performances in Vienna refered to even in Mozart's own correspondence. All these things are true. But I still don't believe he wrote it. And I have reasons. 

I won't argue the case here on this thread. But if a person has a track record of being attributed works he never wrote (as Mozart by the 1780's undoubtedly had) it may be right to approach such a question less 'starry-eyed' and more critically than we might otherwise do. Let it be admitted that KV361 is one of THE great works for wind instruments. A work of considerable genius. But I still think if you heard the other side of the story you'd agree it's attribution to Mozart cannot be automatic. 

As far as the Piano Sonatas are concerned, these are a mixed bunch, are they not ? Certainly, of the early sonatas there are more than a few that are definitely not Mozart. In fact, up to around 1780 (when Mozart was 24) his sister was the one being praised for her technique, rarely Mozart. Bear in mind too that it's only in the early 1780's that he stopped playing a Luchesi concerto given to him during one of his tours to Italy and still refered to by his family in their correspondence (though now lost). And yet, of course, it was a series of subscription concerts after his arrival in Vienna that made his reputation there. So this quite sudden arrival of Mozart's concertos for piano and orchestra that were introduced to Vienna in a series is well worth examining. 

Just to mention one name again (still little appreciated). That of Josef Myslivececk. Recent research (i.e. within the last 10 years or so) has shown how indisputably Mozart's style was greatly helped by close friendship witht this hugely overlooked composer, Myslivececk. The very first opera seria of Mozart, 'Mitridate' shows clear borrowings from Myslivececk's earlier 'Nitteti'. In December of 1770 Leopold Mozart scribbles bars from Myslivececk's overture to 'Demofoonte' in a letter to his son. (Myslivececk's work was clearly in Salzburg at this time). And (according to at least one source refered to in 'Groves Dictionary' - (Freeman, 1995) Myslivececk 'had a hand in numerous Mozart concertos, symphonies and even in the piano sonatas'. I haven't actually read Freeman's article myself but it's on my list. The reference can be found in the current edition of 'Groves' under Myslivececk. 

So, yes, these things are all in a state of flux. 

I did hear a series of 6 symphonies by Myslivececk recently which are really very pretty - time and time again directly comparable with those of 'Mozart' in the late 1770's. 

Regards


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

I'm not sure I'm able to do this to the specificity that has been displayed in the previous posts.

The problem for me is that I may really love a certain piece by a certain composer... _*Serenade for Tenor, Horn and Strings*_, for example. But I don't like Britten's other pieces nearly as much. So do I give Britten a *9* on the merit of one piece? Furthermore, I don't like anything by Tchaikovsky as much as I like Britten's _Serenade_, but there are many many many pieces by Tchaikovsky that I like a lot... so how do I rank him in comparison to Britten?

So I will abstain from these rankings and express my admiration to those that are able to order these things in their minds so well.

Also, *Topaz*, respect to you for having the courage to give Stravinsky a "1" but having the awareness to realize that his music is _not_ atonal! Good call.


----------



## Topaz (Oct 25, 2006)

*Kurkikohtaus:*

To answer your point above, I can think of two possible approaches:

(i) Think of having, say, US $2,000 to spend on a set of classical CDs (assuming you are starting from scratch) and all CDs cost the same $10 each for simplicity, and that each contains 70 minutes of music. Make any other simplifying assumptions you wish, like you only spend what you need to, or you can have them for a trial period and return if you do not like etc. How much would you spend on the different composers? Once you have allocated your budget, work out the percentages, taking your highest spend as numeraire with 10 points.

To be slightly more sophiticated, you could ask yourself how much you would pay to prevent some 'orrible oink from pinching all your CD collection from you, to prevent you being left with nothing, on the assumption that none of the CDs could be replaced. Assume that for this "slush fund" you have a fixed budget of the same US$2,000.

(ii) Think of your concert programme over the next 10 years. If it comprised only works that you liked, what percentages of time would you allocate to each of the various composers?

Topaz


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

Interesting technique, *Topaz*, obviously reflecting the market-oriented approach that you have helped me appreciate.

But this does not tackle my dilemma. In my above stated example, I would obviously spend more on Tchaikovsky (_Symphonies 4-5-6, Piano concerto, Violin Concert, the Ballets, Romeo and Juliet_...) than on Britten, _but I like the Serenade more than all of those Tchaik pieces_. So by your calculation, Tchaikovsky would come out miles above Britten based on volume... but how do I calculate my preference of that one piece? I'm not sure, that's why I'm avoiding trying to publish my rankings and am simply enjoying browsing through the rankings that others have posted.


----------



## Topaz (Oct 25, 2006)

*RESULTS*

I have attempted an *overall analysis * of the scores made above. In so doing, I have had to make a number of adjustments, but I think they are all reasonable, and it is better than making none at all.

*Adjustments:*


There were ten respondents who attempted a full scoring. Several adopted a slightly different list of composers from the first one proposed by Linz. Where new names were put forward, I added most of them.

Each poster gave a different total number of points. I pro-rated all posters' total to 1000. Example, Linz gave a total of 199. Therefore, I adjusted each of his scores by the ratio 1000/199.

For Robert Newman I took a score of 9 for Mozart assuming all the works are genuine (we know Robert's views on this, but it would mess up the results otherwise, and I took his stated adjustment)

 For Saturnus I took the first set of results, as they were more complete.

I then added up all scores, and derived the rank positions. I stopped at rank 25. The total points awarded were 10,000 = 10 x 1,000.
Here are the *results*, showing rank, name, and the relative scores with Beethoven set at numeraire = 1000. I stress that the results are only indicative. I would say that beyond rank about No. 20 they are not that reliable because people did not always give a score for all the composers listed below:

1	Beethoven 1000
2	J. S. Bach 992
3	Tchaikovsky	890
4	Mozart 870
5	Mahler 853
6	Brahms 843
7	Schubert 829
8	Handel 812
9	Dvorak 758
10	Berlioz 754
11	Schumann 752
12	Wagner 717
13	Chopin 715
14	Mendelssohn 708
15	Debussy	698
16	Mussorgsky 692
17	Sibelius 665
18	Liszt	635
19	Haydn 619
20	Bruckner 581
21	R. Strauss 580
22	Vivaldi	551
23	Verdi 495
24	Bartok	388
25	Rossini	386

The results speak for themselves. Among those who voted, and assuming my adjustments are valid, our primary love is clearly Romantic Era, followed by Baroque followed by "Classical". The super high positions of Tchaikovsky and Mahler surprises me a little.

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

The *most consistent * composers - in terms of the ratio of mean score to variance (i.e. amount of variation between scorers in terms of preferences) were (best first):


Tchaikovsky
Mahler
Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Berlioz
Haydn
Mendelssohn
Handel
Dvorak

This means that Tchaikovsky had the most even set of results, or that most people scored him consistently.

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

*Which posters are closest to the "norm"? *In terms of correlation between each poster's scores and the overall results, the highest five were (N.B a perfect correlation = 1.00, none at all = 0.00)


Hexameron (correlation coefficient 0.89) 
Andante (correlation coefficient 0.88)
Linz (correlation coefficient 0.87) 
Robert Newman (correlation coefficient 0.85) 
Topaz (correlation coefficient 0.72)
...........

If anyone fancies revising his or her scores, feel free to do so. Try to allocate 1000 points among the composers listed above. If any of the regular posters has not voted, again please also feel free to do so. What about Admin? I will do the calculations once more if it's worth it. Now you can see the results, hopefully it makes things slightly more interesting. I trust also you will see why I was previously going on about giving proper scores and ranks. That is what all this boils down to in the final analysis, when a sample of people's views is pooled.

Topaz


----------



## Hexameron (Oct 7, 2006)

Wow, thank you for the efforts, Topaz. Fascinating aftermath there. Beethoven at 1000 is excellent and quite telling that while some of us love Mahler, Tchaikovsky, or Liszt, the supreme Master is almost always preferred. Tchaikovsky has indeed stolen a crown with his eminently high rank, but overall, it looks reasonable.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2006)

I think Mr Newman, that I will now have to read all of your postings, all of the way through,
I have always been the odd man out with my views of Mozart, and at last I find someone who will stand up and be counted, and to boot has simular views as my own,


----------



## Hexameron (Oct 7, 2006)

Care to explain your suspicions about Mozart further, Andante?


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2006)

Hexameron said:


> Care to explain your suspicions about Mozart further, Andante?


They are only just becoming suspicions hexameron, as you know I am not a Mozart fan, up to now I wondered why I was not bowled over by Mozart as others were, why I liked some works and found others less likable, how on earth he managed to write so many. 
I am starting to wade through Robert Newman's posts but I tire quickly when reading from a PC? Also you are going to ask me to give examples which at this stage I cant as I have never kept track of the pieces, I am a music lover and very 2nd rate musician, not a musicologist so let me have time to regroup my thoughts, I know that I will have a lot of questions and probably no answers


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

The values I assign are approximations, subject to change at any time.

Vivaldi 8
Handel 7
J. S. Bach 4
Haydn 9.5
Mozart 9.5
Schubert 9
Beethoven 7.5
Schumann 7.5
Rossini 3
Mendelssohn 8.5
Chopin 2
Berlioz 6
Liszt 4
Wagner 8.5
Tchaikovsky 10
Mussorgsky 5
Dvorak 10
Verdi no rating
Brahms 10
Bruckner 8 
Debussy 10
Mahler 9
Sibelius 10
R. Strauss 7

Extras not on original list:

Rachmaninoff 8.5
Borodin 9
Prokofiev 8
Vaughan Williams 8.5
Ravel 9
Grieg 8


----------



## Retrograde Inversion (Nov 27, 2016)

Wow, epic 10 year necro! :clap: Is that a record?

Personally, I'm allergic to any such attempt at numerically ranking such disparate musical voices, and in any case, some of those old rankings look depressingly conservative to me. And then there's that rant about Mozart: just plain daft. :lol:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Wow IAmKing you have done the voting for me thanks - I'll just take 3 off the top list and we are there 



IAmKing said:


> Vivaldi 5-3=2
> Handel 3 -3 = 0
> J. S. Bach 10 -3= 7
> Haydn 6 -3 = 3
> ...


----------



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

Vivaldi 7
Handel 7
J. S. Bach 9
Haydn 6
Mozart 9
Schubert 9
Beethoven 9
Schumann 7
Rossini 5
Mendelssohn 5
Chopin 9
Berlioz 8
Liszt 7
Wagner 10
Tchaikovsky 8
Mussorgsky 7
Dvorak 7
Verdi 7
Brahms 8
Bruckner 8
Debussy 7
Mahler - 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Sibelius 8
R. Strauss 7


----------



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

I'm not qualified for this :lol:


----------



## Rhinotop (Jul 8, 2016)

My list:

Vivaldi 7
Handel 7
J. S. Bach 8
Haydn 8
Mozart 10
Schubert 10
Beethoven 10
Schumann 7
Rossini 5
Mendelssohn 7
Chopin 7
Berlioz 8
Liszt 8
Wagner 8
Tchaikovsky 10
Mussorgsky 5
Dvorak 10
Verdi 6
Brahms 10
Bruckner 9
Debussy 7
Mahler 9
Sibelius 10
R. Strauss 9


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

David OByrne said:


> I'm not qualified for this :lol:


No, I'm not sure that many of us would think we are...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

linz said:


> I curious as to how people would rank the well-known composers on a '1' through '10' scale, not in terms of importance, but their own personal taste?
> Vivaldi 8
> Handel 9
> J. S. Bach 10
> ...


Bruckner 2
Vivaldi 1
Rossini 3
Wagner 3
Handel 6
Schubert 4
Mussorgsky 3
Chopin 6
Rachmaninov 5
Dvorak 3
R. Strauss 3
Mendelssohn 5
Berlioz 6
Debussy 6
Ravel 7
Verdi 8
Sibelius 8
J. Strauss 7
Schumann 6
Tchaikovsky 9
Mozart 10
Haydn 10
Brahms 10
Mahler 10
Beethoven 10
J.S. Bach 12

This is not etched in stone. Some days I would rate Bruckner a 1, other days as much as a 3. Wagner, sometimes a 4, for when Siegmund pulls that darn sword out of the tree.


----------



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

hpowders said:


> Bruckner 2
> Vivaldi 1
> Rossini 3
> Wagner 3
> ...


How can you rate Mahler a 10 but Wagner a 3. They are very similar in many ways.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Francis Poulenc said:


> How can you rate Mahler a 10 but Wagner a 3. They are very similar in many ways.


I don't find them similar at all. You and I must be listening to different composers.

Mahler hits me right in the gut with incredibly moving music. Wagner does not. In his operas, Wagner wrote long stretches of dull, tedious music. One gets tired of waiting for the next "high point". Mahler's music for me is never boring. A 75 minute Mahler symphony seems to take only 15 minutes-completely mesmerizing.

It doesn't really matter. This is all subjective. Like whom you like. I will not argue with you. It's a fruitless exercise.

You can rate Wagner a 10 and Mahler a 3. Doesn't matter to me at all.

We are all different.


----------



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

I am not criticizing your taste, I am just surprised that someone could like one but not the other. A lot of Mahler's music is in fact based on Wagner.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Francis Poulenc said:


> I am not criticizing your taste, I am just surprised that someone could like one but not the other. A lot of Mahler's music is in fact based on Wagner.


Where did you get that "fact" from?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Francis Poulenc said:


> I am not criticizing your taste, I am just surprised that someone could like one but not the other. A lot of Mahler's music is in fact based on Wagner.


i would rank Mahler 10 and Wagner 2. I don't find many similarities between the two. If Wagner had written more symphonies than operas, my ranking might be different.


----------



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

hpowders said:


> Where did you get that "fact" from?


It's hard to deny both the heavy influence of Bruckner and Wagner on Mahler's music. There is even a reference to Tristan in the 10th Symphony. Without Wagner, we probably wouldn't have Mahler's music as we know it today.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Where did you get that "fact" from?


Do we have another Couchie in our mist..............


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I rate both Wagner and Mahler highly, I might do the whole list later.

From what I've read Mahler was influenced by Wagner and became a renowned conductor of his works. On one occasion composer Vaughan Williams witnessed a Tristan performance conducted by Mahler and stumbled home after in a daze and could not sleep for two nights.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

10 - J. S. Bach
9 - Beethoven
Berlioz
Brahms
Chopin
Dvorak
Handel
Haydn
Mahler
Mozart
Schubert
Schumann
Shostakovich

8 - Bruckner
Debussy
Prokofiev
Rachmaninov
Ravel
Sibelius
R. Strauss
Stravinsky
Wagner

Special mention to lesser-known composers whose music I love:
Berwald
de Cabezon
Myaskovsky
Scheidemann
Taneyev
Weinberg
Zemlinsky


----------



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

tdc said:


> I rate both Wagner and Mahler highly, I might do the whole list later.
> 
> From what I've read Mahler was influenced by Wagner and became a renowned conductor of his works. On one occasion composer Vaughan Williams witnessed a Tristan performance conducted by Mahler and stumbled home after in a daze and could not sleep for two nights.


Yes, Mahler became known as one of the greatest conductors of Wagner's operas that ever lived.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

hpowders said:


> It doesn't really matter. This is all subjective. Like whom you like.
> 
> You can rate Wagner a 10 and Mahler a 3. Doesn't matter to me at all.
> 
> We are all different.


Bingo and ditto


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I'll take a stab at this even though I can't rate a majority of them.

*Vivaldi 8
Handel 8*
J. S. Bach (can't rate, not familiar enough with)
Haydn (can't rate, not familiar enough with)
Mozart (can't rate, not familiar enough with)
Schubert (can't rate, not familiar enough with)
*Beethoven 10*
Schumann (can't rate, not familiar enough with)
*Rossini 8
Mendelssohn 10*
Chopin (can't rate, not familiar enough with)
Berlioz (can't rate, not familiar enough with)
Liszt (can't rate, not familiar enough with)
*Wagner 7*
Tchaikovsky (can't rate, not familiar enough with)
*Mussorgsky 9*
Dvorak (can't rate, not familiar enough with)
Verdi (can't rate, not familiar enough with)
*Brahms 5*
Bruckner (can't rate, not familiar enough with)
Debussy (can't rate, not familiar enough with)
*Mahler 10*
Sibelius (can't rate, not familiar enough with)
R. Strauss (can't rate, not familiar enough with)


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2016)

Haydn67 said:


> The values I assign are approximations, subject to change at any time.
> 
> Vivaldi 8
> Handel 7
> ...


I wonder what made you revive a thread that was almost 10 years old. The OP member is probably long gone. Anyway:

Vivaldi 5
Handel 6
J. S. Bach 10
Haydn 4
Mozart 10
Schubert 9
Beethoven 10
Schumann 7
Rossini 3
Mendelssohn 8
Chopin 8
Berlioz 5
Liszt 6
Wagner 1
Tchaikovsky 9
Mussorgsky 6
Dvorak 8
Verdi 1
Brahms 8
Bruckner 5
Debussy 8
Mahler 10
Sibelius 7
R. Strauss 5


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

tdc said:


> I rate both Wagner and Mahler highly, I might do the whole list later.
> 
> From what I've read Mahler was influenced by Wagner and became a renowned conductor of his works. On one occasion composer Vaughan Williams witnessed a Tristan performance conducted by Mahler and stumbled home after in a daze and could not sleep for two nights.


Being a conductor of Wagner has nothing to do with Mahler's own composing style. Their music is very different. Bruckner's music was influenced by Wagner So were Furtwängler's symphonies. Mahler, not to my ears.

I'm very familiar with all the Mahler symphonies and the Wagner Ring, Parsifal and Meistersinger.
Bruckner, yes. Furtwängler, yes. Mahler, no. That's the way I hear 'em.


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

On a 1-10 scale of _*purely personal preference*_, my list looks something like this:

Bach - 10
Beethoven - 10
Berlioz - 10
Brahms - 10
Ives - 10

Chopin - 9
Debussy - 9
Haydn - 9
Liszt - 9
Mahler - 9
Schumann - 9
Shostakovich - 9
Sibelius - 9

Bartók - 8
Berg - 8
Dvořák - 8
Fauré - 8
Mozart - 8
Mussorgsky - 8
Prokofiev - 8
Rachmaninov - 8
Ravel - 8
Rimsky-Korsakov - 8
Schoenberg - 8
Schubert - 8
Scriabin - 8
R. Strauss - 8
Stravinsky - 8
Tchaikovsky - 8
Vaughan Williams - 8

Bax - 7
Bruckner - 7
Copland - 7
Franck - 7
Mendelssohn - 7


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Ah! Jace reminds me that I left out Copland! How could I?

Copland 9.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

Jerome said:


> I wonder what made you revive a thread that was almost 10 years old. The OP member is probably long gone. Anyway:


Just a bit of curious fun.:tiphat:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Some of the best threads happen to be old threads revived by good samaritans saving us from yet again, a 100th:
Haydn vs. Mozart poll.

Just because an OP is no longer with us here on TC doesn't mean his thread wasn't an interesting one and I applaud the poster who revived this thread and brought it to the attention of recent posters! Good job!


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

Jerome said:


> I wonder what made you revive a thread that was almost 10 years old. The OP member is probably long gone.


Who cares? It's more grist for the mill of conversation. 

That's a good thing.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

hpowders said:


> Some of the best threads happen to be old threads...Just because an OP is no longer with us here on TC doesn't mean his thread wasn't an interesting one...and I applaud the poster who revived this thread and brought it to the attention of recent posters! Good job!


Yes...Yes...and kind thanks.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

JACE said:


> Who cares? It's more grist for the mill of conversation.
> 
> That's a good thing.


On the money! :tiphat:


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

Right, I'll give this a go, not sticking to the original composers though - and this is just based on how much I enjoy them at the moment:
From the original list:
10: J. S. Bach, Beethoven
9: Debussy, Mozart, Schubert, Chopin
8: Schumann, Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, Handel, Dvorak
7: Vivaldi, Haydn, Brahms, Liszt
Others: cannot rate for some reason or other

A few other particularly good ones:
10: Schnittke
9: Tallis, Ligeti, Bartók
8.5: Schoenberg, Prokofiev, Penderecki
8: Britten, Vaughan Williams, Grieg,


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

David OByrne said:


> I'm not qualified for this :lol:


In being so down to earth, you demonstrate that you may be over-qualified to be here! :tiphat:


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

_Doh!_ . . . I just realized that I forgot to include Nielsen on my post -- and it appears that I can no longer edit it. So you'll need to imagine the following entry falling between *Mussorgsky* and *Prokofiev*:

*Nielsen - 8*


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

10- Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Ravel
9- Mendelssohn, Beethoven, Schumann
8- Stravinsky, Brahms, Schubert
7- Shostakovitch, Mozart, Sibelius


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

10: Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Schumann, Brahms, Handel
9: Haydn, Mozart, Chopin, Bruckner, Sibelius, Ravel
8: Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Debussy, R. Strauss
7: Schubert, Berlioz, Vivaldi, Dvorak, Verdi
6: Rossini, Mendelssohn, Liszt
5: Mussorgsky


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

I'll Play!

Vivaldi 2
Handel 3
J. S. Bach 6
Haydn 3
Mozart 10
Schubert 10
Beethoven 10
Schumann 4
Rossini 8
Mendelssohn 3
Chopin 2
Berlioz 3
Liszt 1
Wagner 10
Tchaikovsky 10
Mussorgsky 10
Dvorak 8
Verdi 10
Brahms 2
Bruckner 0
Debussy 0
Mahler 1
Sibelius 3
R. Strauss 2
Bellini 6
Donizetti 7


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

gellio said:


> I'll Play!
> 
> Vivaldi 2
> Handel 3
> ...


Liszt not so much on your playlist I see .


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Here's my ranking of the composers listed by the OP. This is based solely on my personal preferences, not on the greatness of these composers. I apologize for my low ranking of certain highly esteemed composers (such as Mahler)! I'm sure that some of these numbers will change in the future, as my musical tastes continue to develop and evolve.

Vivaldi 3
Handel 7
J. S. Bach 9
Haydn 9
Mozart 10
Schubert 8
Beethoven 10
Schumann 9
Rossini 2
Mendelssohn 7
Chopin 10
Berlioz 7
Liszt 10
Wagner 7
Tchaikovsky 5
Mussorgsky 7
Dvorak 9
Verdi 5
Brahms 10
Bruckner 3
Debussy 10
Mahler 2
Sibelius 4
R. Strauss 3


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

linz said:


> I curious as to how people would rank the well-known composers on a '1' through '10' scale, not in terms of importance, but their own personal taste?
> Vivaldi 8
> Handel 9
> J. S. Bach 10
> ...


If you are using 6 to 10, what is 1-5 for?


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Just for the fun of it, I decided to add a few more that aren't on the original list:

Telemann: 4
CPE Bach: 6
Saint-Saëns: 8
Faure: 7
Ravel: 10
Bartók: 9
Stravinsky: 6
Rachmaninoff (subject of much debate on TC ): 7


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

Forgot. I had already posted late last year.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Haydn67 said:


> Forgot. I had already posted late last year.


Don't worry, happens to all of us from time to time.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Vivaldi 6
Handel 2
J. S. Bach 10
Haydn 7
Mozart 8
Schubert 9
Beethoven 8
Schumann 6
Rossini 5
Mendelssohn 8
Chopin 7
Berlioz 7
Liszt 7
Wagner 8
Tchaikovsky 7
Mussorgsky 7
Dvorak 8
Verdi 4
Brahms 9
Bruckner 8
Debussy 8
Mahler 9
Sibelius 8
R. Strauss 8

Other big names:
Bartok 5
Stravinsky 7
Rachmaninoff 6
Britten 7
Vaughan Williams 8
Elgar 7
Puccini 7
Prokofiev 7

Personal favourites not in the list:
Barber 8
Respighi 8
Gubaidulina 8
Takemitsu 8
Moeran 8
Bax 8


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

J.S. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms and Haydn are all "10''. Shostakovich, Handel and Mahler, "9". These composers make up 90% (or more) of my time spent listening to music.

So I wouldn't waste my time attempting to rank the rest of composers I basically don't care much about.


----------



## EarthBoundRules (Sep 25, 2011)

What a great thread idea! I love ranking music, so I'll come back to this in half a year's time when I'm done listening to more music and add my rankings with notes to read. I'll probably take the approach that some others here have in only going into detail about their favourite composers, because it's hard to go into depth for music that I find boring in the first place.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

EarthBoundRules said:


> What a great thread idea! I love ranking music, so I'll come back to this in half a year's time when I'm done listening to more music and add my rankings with notes to read. I'll probably take the approach that some others here have in only going into detail about their favourite composers, because it's hard to go into depth for music that I find boring in the first place.


Great idea, must remember this.:tiphat:


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

EarthBoundRules said:


> What a great thread idea! I love ranking music, so I'll come back to this in half a year's time when I'm done listening to more music and add my rankings with notes to read. I'll probably take the approach that some others here have in only going into detail about their favourite composers, because it's hard to go into depth for music that I find boring in the first place.


That's very wise!

I have a friend and unfortunately he doesn't apply this approach in his life. If music is not found interesting/entertaining from the very first try, will hardly ever get back to it..... in the end with such an attitude classical music repertoire is very limited.


----------

