# TC's Top 50 Composers with Bias Removed



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

This is a hypothetical list, so take it as you may. I wanted to create a list where TC's opinions were tabulated but mainstream bias was removed (bias from any listener's mainstream origins and lack of experience), thus yielding a more experienced classical opinion, or at least one more foundational to TC. *Note:* I have no inserted personal bias in this, but have simply done exact math from a neutral stance. I found a major poll with such typical originating mainstream biases that may be similar to anything bleeding into this forum's membership, such as over 20,000 netizens voting Tchaikovsky and Chopin as the 3rd and 4th best composer, Rachmaninoff as 6th best, and thus I placed this list as a lens over TC's Top 50 Poll to act as a bias-removal shield for potential lack of experience (the logic being that, although TC already has a great list, the mistakes will be similar with overall netizens as they are on this forum.) This is called a statistical leverage, where hypothetically we're able to emphasize more experienced TC members out of the bunch. Although my goal with this list was to obtain the more uniquely expert tastes of this forum, in the correct ratio, what it simply does is obtain the forum's differences of perspective compared to the mainstream. Thus the argument formed by this is: expertise _may be _correlated to this forum where a lack of such is correlated to mainstream opinions, and if so, we can calculate the difference and estimate how much mainstream bias slipped into our own forum polls. Choosing a top composer doesn't necessarily have to do with their influence, but how much we like their music.

*Note: *I have inserted no personal bias into this list, but have only done exact math from a neutral stance. For math, the page where the top 35 composers in the forum poll hit max points, was tabulated, and simply added to the earlier difference for the top 35 where an equal exponential growth was carefully measured, as well as an equal range to the following list. (This overall method of tabulating based on the empiricism of forum favoritism is more accurate, where favorites are piled into a list earlier than all the fixes.) Then these TC totals were divided by a <1 root of the total votes each composer received in the _mainstream_ poll, thereby making an equal adjustment everywhere. In plain English, this means I took TC's rating of each composer, and removed some of the mainstream rating of each composer at their given ratio. Remember, this list is hypothetical, so take it as you may. To demonstrate this new method and its change from your typical Top 50 list, once calculating the mainstream origin bias, the overall root (the quotient from list 1 to list 2) was set to 0.3 root. List entries in any new mechanism have to rise and some have to fall inherently, no one can ever agree on any one list or mechanism, so we're left with potentialities which can be argued and never agreed upon. This list attempts to target the more _TC-unique_ sample audience at a given ratio. In this list, we're essentially just looking at the non-mainstream side of TC, in other words, ridding mainstream or inexperienced bias from TC. Here is the result:

TC's Top 50 Composers with Bias Hypothetically Removed

1. Mozart
2. Bach
3. Haydn
4. Beethoven
5. Schubert
6. Wagner
7. Brahms
8. Handel
9. Schumann
10. Mendelssohn
11. Dvořák
12. Ravel
13. Mahler
14. Strauss, Richard
15. Monteverdi
16. Chopin
17. Bartók
18. Debussy
19. Stravinsky
20. Sibelius
21. Verdi
22. Liszt
23. Tchaikovsky
24. Shostakovich
25. Bruckner
26. Berlioz
27. Prokofiev
28. Elgar
29. Bach, J.C.
30. Nielsen
31. Fauré
32. Purcell
33. Puccini
34. Scarlatti, Domenico
35. Vaughan Williams
36. Rachmaninoff
37. Palestrina
38. Schoenberg
39. Vivaldi
40. Messiaen
41. Janáček
42. Josquin
43. Mussorgsky
44. Villa-Lobos
45. Saint-Saëns
46. Berg
47. Grieg
48. Webern
49. Rameau
50. Bach, C.P.E.

Link to the list originally


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I believe I understand your general logic in removing bias from the TC list, but I have several questions.



Ethereality said:


> I found a major poll with such typical originating mainstream biases that is quite similar to anything bleeding into this forum's membership, such as over 20,000 netizens voting Tchaikovsky and Chopin as the 3rd and 4th best composer, Rachmaninoff as 6th best,


Are you basically saying that since the major poll has 3 of the top 6 composers clearly "incorrect", the poll is likely biased toward inexperienced listeners? Why are you assuming the bias from inexperience in the "major poll" is essentially the same as the bias in the TC poll from inexperienced listeners?



Ethereality said:


> For math, the page where the top 35 composers in the forum poll hit max points, was tabulated,


Why did you pick the time when 35 composers had received the maximum value rather than some other time?



Ethereality said:


> and simply added to the earlier difference for the top 35 where an equal exponential growth was carefully measured, as well as an equal range to the following list.


What does "equal exponential growth" and "equal range" mean in this context? Why did you pick this time during voting (maybe answers to the first question could answer this)?



Ethereality said:


> Then these TC totals were divided by a <1 root of the total votes each composer received in the _mainstream_ poll, thereby making a perfect adjustment everywhere.


I assume "<1 root" means square root? This procedure reduces the value of TC's totals by a value that's proportional to the square root of the "major poll" votes. You are assuming the "major poll" and the TC poll have additional votes from inexperienced participants. Fine, but how do you know that dividing by the square root of the major poll votes removes or even significantly lessens the inexperience bias of the TC poll?

Finally, you methodology looks potentially interesting, but I'm not sure that using phrases such as "objective fashion", "perfect adjustment", and "correct difference in removal of mainstream origin bias" helps explain your methodology.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I don’t know whether the ‘math is as sound as it gets’, but I don’t think it matters because the data it’s based on is flawed. Certainly the order of composers on the list is just off, starting with the top 5 and beyond.

And Schoenberg, but no Bellini, composer of Norma and 3 other influential operas? Heck, I’d even put Bruch and Paganini above some listed, keeping in mind that Paganini is a stretch, but so are a number of those listed.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> ...Finally, your methodology looks potentially interesting, but I'm not sure that using phrases such as "objective fashion", "perfect adjustment", and "correct difference in removal of mainstream origin bias" helps explain your methodology.


I believe it helps somewhat if you understand the numerical and mystical significance of the orientation and proportions of the Great Pyramid at Giza.


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2019)

Well it's all Greek to me.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> This is a hypothetical list, so take it as you may.


By saying that it's an "hypothetical list" you're essentially stating that it's "imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true"?

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hypothetical

This is what "statistical leverage" actually looks like from a mathematical perspective -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverage_(statistics)

Can you provide us with examples of the equations that you used in your interpretation and the data that was inserted within those equations so that we may make an independent analysis to ensure that we arrive at the same conclusions that you have?


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Glad to see the immortal Gluck rated so highly!


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

This is the first time when I see Gluck in a top ten composers' list. I like this, as my mother loves him.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

I'm going to report to the class teacher that Antonin and Christoph cut the line. 
And that Joseph elbowed Ludwig in the face. 
And that Georg Philipp is absent again---the slacker!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DaveM said:


> I don't know whether the 'math is as sound as it gets', but I don't think it matters because the data it's based on is flawed. Certainly the order of composers on the list is just off, starting with the top 5 and beyond.
> 
> And Schoenberg, but no Bellini, composer of Norma and 3 other influential operas? Heck, I'd even put Bruch and Paganini above some listed, keeping in mind that Paganini is a stretch, but so are a number of those listed.


I think Ethereality would agree that the data is flawed. The OP indicates that the TC poll along with the "major poll" both have biases that the outlined procedure aims to correct. The question is whether the procedure along with the underlying data produce a "better" list than either the "major poll" or the TC poll. Further is the result a reasonable list that an experienced, knowledgeable group of listeners would produce.

Although my top 20 would differ from the result given, I personally have no real issues with Ethereality's posted top 20 other than Gluck. When you say the "order of composers on the list is just off", I assume you mean that your list differs with Ethereality's. Or do you mean that, in some objective sense, you know the proper list better?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> I think Ethereality would agree that the data is flawed. The OP indicates that the TC poll along with the "major poll" both have biases that the outlined procedure aims to correct. The question is whether the procedure along with the underlying data produce a "better" list than either the "major poll" or the TC poll. Further is the result a reasonable list that an experienced, knowledgeable group of listeners would produce.
> 
> Although my top 20 would differ from the result given, I personally have no real issues with Ethereality's posted top 20 other than Gluck. When you say the "order of composers on the list is just off", I assume you mean that your list differs with Ethereality's. Or do you mean that, in some objective sense, you know the proper list better?


Believe it or not, I always try to be as objective as possible with these top (insert number) composer lists. I don't go by my favorites. I think I could come up with a more objective list than that one. Unfortunately, my experience on TC is that 'best composer' lists are strewn with subjective entries. A number of contributors even say that what they are picking are their favorites regardless of how ridiculous the entries are even when told the list is supposed to be objective. Remember the controversy over the meaning of the word 'objective'? The concept seems to be a mystery around here.

Re: the top 20: I agree Gluck shouldn't be there and neither should Monteverdi, Ravel, Bartok, Debussy and Stravinsky especially considering that composers such as Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff Shostakovich and Prokofiev are farther down the list. Sibelius as #21...really? Things get more bizarre the farther down the list you go. In the end, the list is really a reflection of some of the 'questionable' (regarding accuracy) polls we've had on this forum.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

DaveM said:


> Believe it or not, I always try to be as objective as possible with these top (insert number) composer lists. I don't go by my favorites. I think I could come up with a more objective list than that one. Unfortunately, my experience on TC is that 'best composer' lists are strewn with subjective entries. A number of contributors even say that what they are picking are their favorites regardless of how ridiculous the entries are even when told the list is supposed to be objective. Remember the controversy over the meaning of the word 'objective'? The concept seems to be a mystery around here.
> 
> Re: the top 20: I agree Gluck shouldn't be there and neither should Monteverdi, Ravel, Bartok, Debussy and Stravinsky especially considering that composers such as Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff Shostakovich and Prokofiev are farther down the list. Sibelius as #21...really? Things get more bizarre the farther down the list you go. In the end, the list is really a reflection of some of the 'questionable' (regarding accuracy) polls we've had on this forum.


IMO, the idea that Monteverdi, Ravel, Bartok, Debussy, and Stravinsky shouldn't be in the top 20, and that Bellini is greater than Schoenberg, is as ludicrous to me as the opposite is to you. To me, that's being as highly subjective as those lists you denigrate. Let alone top 20, I think a case could be made for Stravinsky and Debussy being in the top 10.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Lisztian said:


> IMO, the idea that Monteverdi, Ravel, Bartok, Debussy, and Stravinsky shouldn't be in the top 20, and that Bellini is greater than Schoenberg, is as ludicrous to me as the opposite is to you. To me, that's being as highly subjective as those lists you denigrate. Let alone top 20, I think a case could be made for Stravinsky and Debussy being in the top 10.


Great composers are measured by their influence on listeners, experts and fellow great composers over time. Have Bellini's Norma, I Puritani, I Capuleti i e Montecchi, La Sonnambula performed, one each week for 4 weeks, in a major or minor venue and then have whatever Schoenberg work you want played likewise, see what the response is, and then we would have an answer regarding one aspect of who deserves the higher position. Then look at some of the composers that Bellini influenced -and not just a little bit: Verdi, Wagner, Liszt, Chopin, all of which are above Schoenberg on that list. Which composers on that level did Schoenberg influence?

I could go on.

Edit: Just for giggles, take look on Amazon. There are more pages of recordings related to Bellini's Norma alone than recordings of all of Schoenberg's works.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

DaveM said:


> I could go on.


Knock yourself out! Did you notice that Schoenberg was placed higher than _Vivaldi_? What a travesty!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Portamento said:


> Knock yourself out! Did you notice that Schoenberg was placed higher than _Vivaldi_? What a travesty!


So what? The list is a mess.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

I think we should do a poll/ game.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DaveM said:


> So what? The list is a mess.


Perhaps not a mess, but there is a serious problem when Gluck rolls in at no. 10.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

There must have been a lot of noobs who unfairly overlooked Herr Gluck and naively overrated such losers as Tchaikovsky, Bruckner and Mahler, in order to make him shoot from 51 to 10!


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2019)

DaveM said:


> Great composers are measured by their influence on listeners, experts and fellow great composers over time.


You make it sound so simple. But someone has to say what "influenced by" actually means, and how to measure the extent of that influence. And of course, it has to be agreed that 'influence' is the right criteria.



Ethereality said:


> I found a major poll with such typical originating mainstream biases that may be similar to anything bleeding into this forum's membership, such as over 20,000 netizens voting Tchaikovsky and Chopin as the 3rd and 4th best composer, Rachmaninoff as 6th best,


The 'major' poll is nothing of the kind. It isn't a selection by 20,000 'netizens', but 20,000 votes, cast by an unknown number of people, who can vote more than once for any number of composers.



Ethereality said:


> I placed this list as a lens over TC's Top 50 Poll to act as a bias-removal shield


I don't understand this. Please explain this term to a non-mathematician.



Ethereality said:


> This is called *a statistical leverage*,


And this one, please.



Ethereality said:


> hypothetically we're able to emphasize more experienced TC members out of the bunch. Although my goal with this list was to obtain the more uniquely expert tastes of this forum, in the correct ratio, what it simply does is obtain the forum's differences of perspective compared to the mainstream. Thus the argument formed by this is: expertise _may be _correlated to this forum where a lack of such is correlated to mainstream opinions, and if so, *we can calculate the difference* and estimate how much mainstream bias slipped into our own forum polls.


How do you do this? I'm not sure how you calculate what it is you're comparing in the first place, so you might need to explain this too.



Ethereality said:


> Choosing a top composer doesn't necessarily have to do with their influence, but how much we like their music.


Ah, you see, Dave M - apparently, we're talking 'top' not 'great'. Ethereality, I'm assuming 'top' simply means any composer who appears in the top 5/10/50/100 in any poll, regardless of the criteria?



Ethereality said:


> I have [...] only done *exact math from a neutral stance*. For math, the page where the top 35 composers in the forum poll hit max points, was tabulated, and simply added to the earlier difference for the top 35 where *an equal exponential growth* was carefully measured, as well as an equal range to the following list. (This overall method of tabulating based on the empiricism of forum favoritism is more accurate, where favorites are piled into a list *earlier than all the fixes*.) Then these TC totals were divided by a <1 root of the total votes each composer received in the _mainstream_ poll, thereby making an equal adjustment everywhere. In plain English, this means *I took TC's rating of each composer, and removed some of the mainstream rating of each composer at their given ratio.* Remember, this list is hypothetical, so take it as you may. To demonstrate this new method and its change from your typical Top 50 list, once calculating the mainstream origin bias, *the overall root (the quotient from list 1 to list 2) was set to 0.3 root.* List entries in any new mechanism have to rise and some have to fall inherently, no one can ever agree on any one list or mechanism, so we're left with potentialities which can be argued and never agreed upon. This list attempts to target the more _TC-unique_ sample audience at a given ratio. In this list, we're essentially just looking at the non-mainstream side of TC, in other words, ridding mainstream or inexperienced bias from TC. Here is the result:


All of these terms need clarification - that's assuming that make sense that can be explained - including the alleged 'plain English

Can anyone help out here?

Thanks


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

To those above, Gluck is one outlier due to his smaller number of votes, but unfortunately that gets noticed over all the other work I did, and should be removed as an outlier. I will remove him and the other outliers. I need to point out, recurrent TC members in this thread said they enjoyed Gluck being #10, which only shows the_ thread mechanism _ is working fine, TC-centric users (as a statistical dichotomy, people who fit closer to the avg norm of TC) are jumping out to say they love Gluck, which is to be expected. It's just the tabulated forum data that's not complete enough, see here: the forum survey from 2012 says "TC's 50 Greatest Composers," but in reality it is just _those users_ Greatest 50. So it was a slightly misleading sample. The OP mechanism hasn't shown any faults, it is the sample size of this forum being polled that is too small. You have to understand that all lists are subjective to their sample size. I can work around that for now by removing more outliers, ie 'smaller composers.' If you're able to follow the math, you can see which composers are outliers here. Gluck only got 19 votes. That's where that problem came from. Unfortunately if we don't have a large enough _forum _sample, we cannot take composers with only 19 votes.



MacLeod said:


> The 'major' poll is nothing of the kind. It isn't a selection by 20,000 'netizens', but 20,000 votes, cast by an unknown number of people, who can vote more than once for any number of composers.


Well, yes it did lie about that. What we're doing with the OP is showcasing an overall mechanism or idea, and I suppose it's still working according to the same logic, but at a smaller scale, as polls I suppose do. Composer lists are all subjective anyway, so I guess it's not a life-changing issue. Even my thread saying TC's Top 50, is a small lie based on the original small lie. And everyone who votes for said composers as "best," are lying to everyone who disagrees with them. So what can we do but deal with all this scattered subjective data... If you can find a better sample, send it my way and I'll use it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> You make it sound so simple. But someone has to say what "influenced by" actually means, and how to measure the extent of that influence. And of course, it has to be agreed that 'influence' is the right criteria...


Well, it seems to confuse you. On the other hand, if for a performance of, say, Bellini's Norma and in the program it said, 'Bellini was one of the great 19th century opera composers and like other great composers had a strong influence on composers who went on to their own greatness.', do you really believe that the readers would respond quizzically, 'What could that possibly mean? What does strong influence mean? What are they measuring it by? Is that the right criteria? This is so confusing!'


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2019)

DaveM said:


> Well, it seems to confuse you. On the other hand, if for a performance of, say, Bellini's Norma and in the program it said, 'Bellini was one of the great 19th century opera composers and like other great composers had a strong influence on composers who went on to their own greatness.', do you really believe that the readers would respond quizzically, 'What could that possibly mean? What does strong influence mean? What are they measuring it by? Is that the right criteria? This is so confusing!'


It doesn't 'confuse' me. These terms mean different things to different people and unless their meaning is shared and understood, the kind of mathematical precision sought in this particular thread is unachievable. As for your example, I might take it at face value for the purposes of reading the programme at a performance, but I might later want to explore more exactly who he had influenced and how he had influenced them. A common enough example of the difficulty of this idea is Wagner's alleged "influence" on Debussy. At first, Debussy was enthused by him, then later he rejected him.

Then there is the "influence" that comes about when composers who are working at the same time, or in overlapping periods (I'm thinking Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven) are cross-fertilising rather than influencing in some pure sense. Did Mahler influence Sibelius at all, or vice versa? They corresponded, but their symphonies are quite different. And if Sibelius belongs in a top 50 list, who did he influence that justifies his inclusion?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

MatthewWeflen said:


> There must have been a lot of noobs who unfairly overlooked Herr Gluck and naively overrated such losers as Tchaikovsky, Bruckner and Mahler, in order to make him shoot from 51 to 10!


Well actually Bruckner is higher rated in this list than other TC lists, based on the TC-centricism principle discussed. You can think of this list as all composers switching around slightly according to their own ratio of mainstream overratedness. It's definitely a useful topic to look into, as it pins down the unique qualities of TC over other groups.

This is inherently designed to be a list that the mainstream run from, because it's based on closer commonalities of this community :lol: So of course this list will garner lots of outside criticism. I don't recall calling anyone on the top 50 a loser however! It wouldn't be my place to say.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

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


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> Perhaps not a mess, but there is a serious problem when Gluck rolls in at no. 10.


Emphatically not a problem. Gluck does get a mention in the Monty Python song "Decomposing Composers", ergo place earned.

Actually, so does Hummel, where's he got to?


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> Composer lists are all subjective anyway, so I guess it's not a life-changing issue. Even my thread saying TC's Top 50, is a small lie based on the original small lie. And everyone who votes for said composers as "best," are lying to everyone who disagrees with them. So what can we do but deal with all this scattered subjective data...


Thank you.



Ethereality said:


> If you can find a better sample, send it my way and I'll use it.


Well if I come across one, I will. I suspect that since polls have been going on here for some considerable time, if there was one, one of the regular members here might have already found it and posted it by now.

The funny thing is that the BBC's recent poll that attracted so much derision from some quarters did at least set out four criteria, and did at least set out to poll the opinions of those who we might reasonably regard as having informed opinions. I'd take John Williams views over mine any day about who should be judged a 'top' composer, at least where three of the four criteria are concerned.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

TC's Top 50 Composers with Bias Hypothetically Removed


1. Mozart
2. Bach
3. Haydn
4. Beethoven
5. Schubert
6. Wagner
7. Brahms
8. Handel
9. Schumann
10. Mendelssohn
11. Dvořák
12. Ravel
13. Mahler
14. Strauss, Richard
15. Monteverdi
16. Chopin
17. Bartók
18. Debussy
19. Stravinsky
20. Sibelius
21. Verdi
22. Liszt
23. Tchaikovsky
24. Shostakovich
25. Bruckner
26. Berlioz
27. Prokofiev
28. Elgar
29. Bach, J.C.
30. Nielsen
31. Fauré
32. Purcell
33. Puccini
34. Scarlatti, Domenico
35. Vaughan Williams
36. Rachmaninoff
37. Palestrina
38. Schoenberg
39. Vivaldi
40. Messiaen
41. Janáček
42. Josquin
43. Mussorgsky
44. Villa-Lobos
45. Saint-Saëns
46. Berg
47. Grieg
48. Webern
49. Rameau
50. Bach, C.P.E.


Wow, GREAT COMPOSITION only happened from the 15th century on.

No bias in that estimation!


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Lists aside for a moment, my own definition of a “top composer” is one who doesn’t remind me of anyone else while I’m listening, though there’s not one composer who hasn’t somehow been influenced by someone else. But overall the composer’s “voice” and identity must clearly come through and be readily identifiable. Otherwise, they sound like uncertain imitators who become highly irritating. Then there’s no need for lists except in the broadest possible sense because the choices become clear by repeated exposure and listening experience. I’ve never seen any list over 50 exactly the same, no matter how it’s calculated or figured, except for the almost invariable and interchangeable positions of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven at the top. But as soon as position number 4 comes up there’s rarely any consensus. I see the main purpose of lists as reminders about which composers not to miss out on in one's lifetime. But I’ve never seen any truly experienced listeners stick to a top composer’s list because someone, for example, like the sensual and delicious Delius is seldom found on one. Lists are primarily a compendium of other people’s opinions, and even the experts, historians, and musicologists will fail to agree on a composer’s worth, such as on Sibelius and Rachmaninoff, though I consider them top composers because they both have highly identifiable masterful personalities, styles and personal voices and they don’t remind me of anyone but themselves.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DaveM said:


> Believe it or not, I always try to be as objective as possible with these top (insert number) composer lists. I don't go by my favorites. I think I could come up with a more objective list than that one. Unfortunately, my experience on TC is that 'best composer' lists are strewn with subjective entries. A number of contributors even say that what they are picking are their favorites regardless of how ridiculous the entries are even when told the list is supposed to be objective. Remember the controversy over the meaning of the word 'objective'? The concept seems to be a mystery around here.


TC has indeed struggled with the term objective, but that's to be expected given the extraordinary difficulty of actually defining objective methodology for determining musical greatness. I assume that no one on TC has the knowledge, time, or inclination to produce something resembling a truly objective list. One has to identify all relevant factors. That could be doable although there's certainly an element of subjectivity involved. But then, one must determine how to quantify those factors for each composer. Imagine the difficulty of coming close to an objective procedure. And then, one must determine the proper weighting for each factor - another task filled with subjective opinions. So there's nothing that could be considered remotely objective about the process.

I understand that you are primarily differentiating personal preferences (favorites) from a more considered list based on composer value. Fine. Many here may simply give favorites although it may be hard to determine when that happens.



DaveM said:


> Re: the top 20: I agree Gluck shouldn't be there and neither should Monteverdi, Ravel, Bartok, Debussy and Stravinsky especially considering that composers such as Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff Shostakovich and Prokofiev are farther down the list. Sibelius as #21...really? Things get more bizarre the farther down the list you go. In the end, the list is really a reflection of some of the 'questionable' (regarding accuracy) polls we've had on this forum.


My gut feeling is that many classical musicians would disagree about Ravel, Debussy, and Stravinsky. And here's an interesting question. When you write "Sibelius as #21...really?", I'm not sure if you think he should be higher or lower. The point is that the "proper position" on the list is enormously difficult to determine. I think most here would agree that Gluck at 10 is significantly too high. But should Prokofiev be higher than Debussy? Who knows? Both are important composers that listeners should take time to hear.

Finally, I'm not sure that the term accuracy has much meaning in composer polls.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Well it's all Greek to me.


Yes Plato wrote some wonderful concertos

and where is Varese


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

Damn! I'm so busy crunching the numbers for this that I don't really have time to listen to any of it. It's taking so long I've missed dinner, so I'll go measure some food and work out how great it would have tasted...with bias removed of course.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

The description explains what type of bias was removed 'hypothetically'. It doesn't read "all bias is removed." Not sure where people get that from reading the OP, I suppose I can write that in clearer. 

Lists inherently can't be objective; this for instance is taking a preexisting poll of subjective opinions and removing common outside hyped opinions. In a sense it is one of the most useful lists, but also one of the most controversial to many because it filters out mainstream or hyped composers a bit. And the mainstream can be much more dramatic and insulted about this!

Luckily I don't take much of it to heart, and am happy to have posted the thread  Take what you will out of it, make some changes if you will.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> It doesn't 'confuse' me. These terms mean different things to different people and unless their meaning is shared and understood, the kind of mathematical precision sought in this particular thread is unachievable. As for your example, I might take it at face value for the purposes of reading the programme at a performance, but I might later want to explore more exactly who he had influenced and how he had influenced them. A common enough example of the difficulty of this idea is Wagner's alleged "influence" on Debussy. At first, Debussy was enthused by him, then later he rejected him.
> 
> Then there is the "influence" that comes about when composers who are working at the same time, or in overlapping periods (I'm thinking Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven) are cross-fertilising rather than influencing in some pure sense. Did Mahler influence Sibelius at all, or vice versa? They corresponded, but their symphonies are quite different. And if Sibelius belongs in a top 50 list, who did he influence that justifies his inclusion?


This is where one tries to be as objective as possible. When I listed some of the composers that were influenced by Bellini, I did so because those composers either said they were or words to that effect. When Brahms said he would not compose a concerto or symphony until he could rise to the level of Beethoven (or he said something close to that) he was obviously and objectively being influenced by Beethoven.

The second best information would be where you can hear similarities of a composer's music to that of another, especially when those similarities are characteristics that were typical of and originated with the original composer. These are things that experienced listeners and musicologists can fairly reliably pick out.

If one follows a logical path in determining parameters such as what comprises 'influence' as objectively as possible, then that contributes to making a more accurate list.



Ethereality said:


> Choosing a top composer doesn't necessarily have to do with their influence, but how much we like their music.


Regarding the above quote and your (MacLeod) response to me that 'apparently, we're talking 'top' not 'great', that simply supports my point(s). 'Top' is defined as _'highest position (as in rank or achievement)'_. I would bet that a significant of people would interpret 'top 50' or 'the top 50' as the greatest top 50. Semantics comes into play. If you say '_your_ top 50', then some, perhaps many, would interpret that as their favorites.

Point being that if one doesn't make the parameters for a poll or list clear, then the list will be meaningless as the one in the OP is. Ethereality's post above only contributes to the loosey-goosey way many posters are looking at the subject of top or greatest composer lists/polls.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

It does take a lot of research to come up with a web of influences that isn't just, for example, "Brahms is a good composer imo, so he said x was his biggest influence" or as someone said in the last thread, using John Williams opinion of all people O.O First you would have to historically tabulate all composers influenced and all composers doing the influencing, and only then is there basis to point to one as a good source. Brahms and others if they have been factually shown to be the most influential over many other choices. One individual has attempted the feat you speak of http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/music/stats1.htm while another individual has done a lot of research saying that Mozart is the most highly regarded composer by other composers: Composers' Lists of Greatest Composers It would logically follow to then credit Mozart's influences, as they influenced everyone too, just indirectly through Mozart. So it's a load of work and there's knowledge we don't have! In the meantime I think doing something akin to this thread, taking people's personal opinions, is a valid idea for just making a recommendation list. It's not an 'objective list' in any sense.

This thread is "here's TC's personal favorites, but we've gotten rid of some hype that bleeds into from mainstream thinking."


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Ethereality said:


> It does take a lot of research to come up with a web of influences that isn't just "Brahms is a good composer imo, so he said x was his biggest influence" or as someone said in the last thread, using John Williams opinion of all people O.O First you would have to historically tabulate all composers influenced and all composers doing the influencing, and only then is there basis to point to one as a good source. Brahms and others if they have been factually shown to be the most influential over many other choices. One individual has attempted the feat you speak of http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/music/stats1.htm while another individual has done a lot of research saying that Mozart is the most highly regarded composer by other composers: Composers' Lists of Greatest Composers


Using 'influence' as _just one_ of the parameters of composer 'greatness' isn't rocket science and doesn't require getting into the weeds the way you infer above. The history of Beethoven's influence on a number of composers through the 19the century is a significant fact. That a number of composers said or indicated that a given composer influenced them is a significant fact. And so on.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> "Brahms is a good composer imo, so he said x was his biggest influence" or as someone said in the last thread, using John Williams opinion of all people O.O
> This thread is "here"s TC's personal favorites, but we've gotten rid of some hype that bleeds into from mainstream thinking."


Of all people? As in: one of the world's leading composers, who---in contrast to many others, actually had to write, over his long career, in every style you could possibly imagine, and quite a few that you have never heard of? Who has been studying scores by the most illustrious composers from medieval to 21st century music every day for the past 70 years? Of course his opinion is worth more than your arbitrary statistical manipulations.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

DaveM: So if Beethoven is the greatest composer let's say, and (a) everyone also loves Mozart and (b) Beethoven was directly influenced by Mozart, how do you demonstrate that Mozart is actually not greater--or visa versa.

This method of course rules out newer composers from being considered the greatest, as they have had less influence.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Fabulin said:


> Of course his opinion is worth more than your arbitrary statistical manipulations.


That's actually debateable. You're on TC. This list shows TC opinions with a reduction of outside influence. So you're essentially just saying you want to go with your own opinion, which is what I do too.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> My gut feeling is that many classical musicians would disagree about Ravel, Debussy, and Stravinsky. And here's an interesting question. When you write "Sibelius as #21...really?", I'm not sure if you think he should be higher or lower. The point is that the "proper position" on the list is enormously difficult to determine. I think most here would agree that Gluck at 10 is significantly too high. But should Prokofiev be higher than Debussy? Who knows? Both are important composers that listeners should take time to hear.


Sibelius should be lower, quite a bit lower.

Ravel and Debussy are niche composers if you take a close look at the nature of their compositions. I don't know how they can be compared to composers who composed across several formats including concertos, symphonies, solo piano music and operas. (Yes I know that there were some orchestral works and Ravel composed 2 piano concertos and Debussy composed some operas. Big whoop.). Take away Debussy's solo piano works and you're not left with a lot to call him one of the greatest composers, unless Bolero is considered one of the world's great works... That isn't to diminish the influence they have had in their limited formats.



> Finally, I'm not sure that the term accuracy has much meaning in composer polls.


 It doesn't have much meaning on TC. I think it can have meaning insofar that lists are more accurate. Perfect accuracy? Of course, not.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Ethereality said:


> DaveM: So if Beethoven is the greatest composer let's say, and (a) everyone also loves Mozart and (b) Beethoven was directly influenced by Mozart, how do you demonstrate that Beethoven is actually greater--or visa versa.


Did you miss the first sentence of my post? Influence is just one parameter. When it comes to composers that tend to be at the top of most 'greatest composers' lists, such as Mozart and Beethoven, determining which is more influential is more difficult. But your bringing up Beethoven vs Mozart is irrelevant to my issues which are that 1) the nonsensical placement of a number of composers (eg. at least 7 composers have no business being in the top 20 on the basis of more than one factor, influence being one of them) and 2) there is no clarity as to what 'top' means to those who contributed to these lists.



> This method of course rules out newer composers from being considered the greatest, as they have had less influence.


Well, too bad, so sad. How can new composers or any new artist for that matter be said to be among the greatest by any measure? Btw, just for interest sake, do you know of any new classical music composer on his or her way to greatness?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DaveM said:


> Sibelius should be lower, quite a bit lower.
> 
> Ravel and Debussy are niche composers if you take a close look at the nature of their compositions. I don't know how they can be compared to composers who composed across several formats including concertos, symphonies, solo piano music and operas. (Yes I know that there were some orchestral works and Ravel composed 2 piano concertos and Debussy composed some operas. Big whoop.). Take away Debussy's solo piano works and you're not left with a lot to call him one of the greatest composers, unless Bolero is considered one of the world's great works... That isn't to diminish the influence they have had in their limited formats.


OK, ranking is subjective. I think I understand some of your rationale for viewing Ravel and Debussy as perhaps lesser composers, but many professional musicians I know would disagree. I'm not sure what a niche composer is, but I suppose Chopin would be the quintessential niche composer who has been considered great. I personally think they are all great composers.

The only person I know who has worked hard to collect the views of a large number of professional musicians and musicologists is Phil Goulding in his book, Classical Music. I assume there are others, but given that he attempted to assess the collective opinion of the "expert classical music community", I take his rankings fairly seriously. I view rankings from individuals, no matter how highly I admire their knowledge, vastly less so.

He ranked Chopin 14, Stravinsky 15, Debussy 22, Sibelius 28, and Ravel 29. I believe all of them are among the very most important, productive, and consequential composers. I would strongly suggest anyone interested in classical music listen to many of their compositions.



DaveM said:


> It doesn't have much meaning on TC. I think it can have meaning insofar that lists are more accurate. Perfect accuracy? Of course, not.


I still have no idea how to assess accuracy of composer ranking. How does one know what the true ranking is? One can try to reduce subjectivity by making a collective assessment as Goulding did, but one is always left with significant uncertainty.

Incidentally, I would be interested in seeing your top 30 (or whatever list you might have).


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

mmsbls said:


> I think I understand some of your rationale for viewing Ravel and Debussy as perhaps lesser composers, but many professional musicians I know would disagree.


In a comparison between say, Debussy and Tchaikovsky, the latter might have more composers he influenced, those who say "I'm influenced by Tchaikovsky Wagner Brahms Chopin Mozart, standard list etc," while the former probably has composers he influenced more _strongly_, those who say "my main influence is definitely Debussy." So whether one wants to apply the term niche, it's more of a measureable dichotomy, not a category.

I'm not even 100% sure that calculating influence gets to the point of greatest composers, as many people would rather view the term simply as "the composers which I like, the composers who have good taste, are the best" and for lists we simply get a census of tastes and recommendations, which is what this thread list is. Greatest to a lot of people is a subjective term, and _lists _are just better ways to understand the average taste.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Ethereality said:


> I understand you. But why not just make influence throughout time the only parameter? Is there another parameter as objective?


Aren't there many other parameters (factors) that are far more objective?

The number of recordings of a composer's works ever made
The number of words in their Wikipedia entry
The number of world-wide performances of the composer's works in the 21st century

The issue is how to value each factor. You seem to value influence as the only factor. The BBC Music poll asked the contemporary composers to include 4 factors - originality, impact, craftsmanship and enjoyability. Assuming impact is essentially influence, the other 3 seem to be important as well. It's true that enjoyability is subjective, but without that factor, most classical music listeners would simply not listen.

Of those 4 factors, I would guess that influence may very well be the most objective. The ones I listed are more objective but likely far less important. So one must decide on which factors should be considered and how to evaluate each factor. I would argue that no one can properly make a case for a single methodology that is superior to all others.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Ethereality said:


> I'm not even 100% sure that calculating influence gets to the point of greatest composers, as many people would rather view the term simply as "the composers which I like, the composers who have good taste, are the best" and for lists we simply get a census of tastes and recommendations, which is what this thread list is. Greatest to a lot of people is a subjective term, and _lists _are just better ways to understand the average taste.


I agree with this view.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2019)

Just stopping into TC to see what has changed... and nothing has changed. I'm pretty sure gibberish like this is why I lost interest in this forum and haven't posted in almost a year.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Are you talking about the completely hypothetical, questionable OP, or the completely hypothetical, questionable discussion?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

There are times when other resources may be far better than lists to realize who's worth hearing and getting a feeling for top composers. It helps to read. I got off on the right foot with _The Lives of the Great Composers_ by Harold C. Schonberg and branched out from there. There are many others written by experienced reviewers that give a good overview and a starting point. I believe that one's instinctive attraction to certain composers prevails over logic and reason... and sometimes choices can be counter-intuitive in a way that cannot be anticipated or rationally understood... It can seem as if an invisible hand is involved.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Jerome said:


> Just stopping into TC to see what has changed... and nothing has changed. I'm pretty sure gibberish like this is why I lost interest in this forum and haven't posted in almost a year.


Given those warm fuzzies, too bad you didn't delay longer.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> Well actually Bruckner is higher rated in this list than other TC lists, based on the TC-centricism principle discussed. You can think of this list as all composers switching around slightly according to their own ratio of mainstream overratedness. It's definitely a useful topic to look into, as it pins down the unique qualities of TC over other groups.
> 
> This is inherently designed to be a list that the mainstream run from, because it's based on closer commonalities of this community :lol: So of course this list will garner lots of outside criticism. I don't recall calling anyone on the top 50 a loser however! It wouldn't be my place to say.


I think the whole enterprise is flawed. This is what my pithy remark earlier was driving at. If you had framed it as "what experienced listeners prefer vs. what new listeners prefer," that might have avoided all of the blowback you've received. I'd be interested in understanding what initially draws people to CM vs. what keeps them there. But "Bias?" Come on, now. Is preference the same as bias? As you've framed it, you're just selectively screening some preferences and not others. Hence Gluck at No. 10.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I don't think it's so flawed, it's a good list. More people will actually _agree_ with this list than other lists, even where one or two things are out of the norm like Haydn. This is something each person may eventually come to accept. We don't know how long that can take for each individual at their stage of growth, but the overall list isn't effected by one composer. Although _Gluck_ was a mathematical _outlier_, hence I had to remove that: his vote count was only 19 out of the 20,000 and I forgot to delete outliers.



MatthewWeflen said:


> Is preference the same as bias?


Yes it essentially is. Though the OP explained what type of bias is hypothetically removed. You can also phrase it as you did above, an "experienced list." Both are technically correct since we're talking about bias of experience. Using the word 'bias' for this thread might've had the wrong connotation, I didn't really care that much. All musical opinions are musical biases though.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> In a comparison between say, Debussy and Tchaikovsky, the latter might have more composers he influenced, those who say "I'm influenced by Tchaikovsky Wagner Brahms Chopin Mozart, standard list etc," while the former probably has composers he influenced more _strongly_, those who say "my main influence is definitely Debussy."


I've heard an argument, that anyone who ever followed Tchaikovsky's footsteps, both in his time, immediately after, or later, was just "a second rate Tchaikovsky". I've never heard anything like this about people influenced by Debussy. There is (or was for a very long time) a certain stigma around it.

Tchaikovsky's music is easier to imitate (minor composers of the end of the 19th century, stock music in the early days of cinema), but harder to equal. Nowadays, the factor that makes it harder to apply is that it is very stormy and romantic---something people for cultural-philosophical reasons just not do as much these days. What is en vogue, as far as sensitive music goes, is polite tameness, or minimalism. Cue Debussy. People who are loud nowadays are not lyrical loud, but rather... percussive loud.

A composer who would come on stage to conduct his (or her) big, romantic symphony nowadays, would be very closely examined, questioned, and looked at as pompous. I can't say it encourages anyone. Most people would sooner face criticism of being vulgar than pompous.

And if his stylistic influences do not have a clear market outside of direct pastiches of lighter music (Harry Potter, Disney, or whatever), then such music is hardly coming.

For it to be personally relevant to someone, it would take a 19th century-influenced, proud, gallant gentleman like Tchaikovsky himself, with clear and strong ideas, and ready to face criticism of being stuck-up, melodramatic, or snobbish. While such people are not impossible to come across nowadays, the sample is just too small to overlap with that of gifted composers. [edit: the only one that comes to my mind was Bernard Herrmann, but sadly he is too long dead to take part in any poll]

In contrast, Debussy doesn't provoke so many controversial associations anymore. It used to be the case during his lifetime, but after Glazunov's generation passed away, it just stopped.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Fabulin said:


> I've heard an argument, that anyone who ever followed Tchaikovsky's footsteps, both in his time, immediately after, or later, was just "a second rate Tchaikovsky". I've never heard anything like this about people influenced by Debussy. There is (or was for a very long time) a certain stigma around it.


Fair points about Tchaikovsky. Debussy is always higher on TC polls for one reason or another. I can't imagine every individual's specific reasoning why since some of them may be esoteric, I can mostly only go by the reasoning of what I understand through my musical taste. Perhaps what you're also implying is they lack the proper knowledge to understand why (you'd say) Tchaikovsky is a better composer, that Debussy has become more overrated or overpopular now than he should. I guess that's why this topic is a debate.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2019)

DaveM said:


> Did you miss the first sentence of my post? Influence is just one parameter.


What you first said on the issue was this:



DaveM said:


> Great composers are measured by their influence on listeners, experts and fellow great composers over time.


No mention of other parameters.

I'm happy that you agree influence is just one, but that calls into question your assertions about how your list would be different than the OP's, which seemed to be only on the basis of influence.



DaveM said:


> When I listed some of the composers that were influenced by Bellini, I did so because those composers either said they were or words to that effect. When Brahms said he would not compose a concerto or symphony until he could rise to the level of Beethoven (or he said something close to that) he was obviously and objectively being influenced by Beethoven.
> 
> The second best information would be where you can hear similarities of a composer's music to that of another, especially when those similarities are characteristics that were typical of and originated with the original composer. These are things that experienced listeners and musicologists can fairly reliably pick out.
> 
> If one follows a logical path in determining parameters such as what comprises 'influence' as objectively as possible, then that contributes to making a more accurate list.


We agree on this then. We have both indicated ways in which influence might be measured, and we also agree that this is not an exact science. If we take just this one factor into account, it's difficult to assert that any given position in a top 50 list is 'accurate'. To say, therefore, that Moart should be no 3, and not no 4 (for example) aims at a degree of accuracy that doesn't bear scrutiny.



DaveM said:


> Point being that if one doesn't make the parameters for a poll or list clear, then the list will be meaningless as the one in the OP is.


I'm pleased to see this, though puzzled by your earlier scathing dismissal of my 'confusion' when I made precisely the same point.



Ethereality said:


> That's actually debateable. You're on TC. This list shows TC opinions with a reduction of outside influence. So you're essentially just saying you want to go with your own opinion, which is what I do too.


In what way is it debateable? As an amateur enthusiast, I would find John Williams' opinions on the technical merits of this composer over that of more value than the opinions of random 'netizens'. I wouldn't rely on my opinion, though I wouldn't discount it either, which is why I said that I would listen to what JW had to say on three of the four criteria in the BBC poll.

But never mind JW. I would say the same of Anna Meredith, or Colin Matthews, or Mark Turnage or...



Ethereality said:


> This method of course rules out newer composers from being considered the greatest, as they have had less influence.





DaveM said:


> *Well, too bad, so sad.* How can new composers or any new artist for that matter be said to be among the greatest by any measure? Btw, just for interest sake, do you know of any new classical music composer on his or her way to greatness?


He said 'newer', and he is absolutely right. No need for your scornful response. His point is that the extent of Beethoven's influence is limited by the fact that there has been only 300 years of composers who followed, whereas Palestrina influenced 500 years of classical music.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

MacLeod said:


> In what way is it debateable? As an amateur enthusiast, I would find John Williams' opinions on the technical merits of this composer over that of more value than the opinions of random 'netizens'.


The reason it's debateable is because I don't believe lists are trying for objectivity. They're subjective collections to represent a sample. So it's debateable that Williams would know the tastes of this forum better than just surveying and averaging them and hoping they'll agree more with the result. That is why the list I posted is actually more agreeable to this forum, there's an inherent mathematical reason why in the statistical leverage. People however have a tendency to overfocus on the top 3 and miss the rest.

The real issue is why you're subjectively drawing the line at Williams. There are 174 composers represented for this list, so you should be accepting this list, unless, you're using your personal taste to single out Williams, then you are back to relying on your own tastes. If you rely on just the expert you enjoy, Williams, that is subjective so you may as well stick with your personal list of favorite composers and avoid necessarily implying someone is more expert than others.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> Yes but the issue is why you're subjectively drawing the line at Williams. There are 174 composers represented for this list then."]this list,[/URL] so your reasoning should apply to them as well, unless, you're using your personal taste to single out Williams as better. So in other words, if you rely on arbitrarily chosen expert opinions, you would favor that list over this forum's list. Where as if you rely on just the expert you enjoy, that is subjective so you may as well simply stick with your personal list of favorite composers.


I was using Williams as a single example of a composer with a better informed opinion than mine. That was why in my last post, I picked out three others, and then my 'or...' deliberately implied that the list could go on and cover all 174.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

mmsbls said:


> Aren't there many other parameters (factors) that are far more objective?
> 
> The number of recordings of a composer's works ever made
> The number of words in their Wikipedia entry
> The number of world-wide performances of the composer's works in the 21st century


I don't think these parameters are more objective, simply as they're based on mainstream popularity over time, rather than arguably more useful measures like actual creative history-changing and impact: in order words, what a composer _actually did _to music. For instance, if x composer could hypothetically be forgotten for his contributions to music history (say like a Josquin), then it makes sense that more prominent composers will have endless aspects of great creativity and influence to their music that are already forgotten and unknown to scholars, album buyers, and music enthusiasts alike. This would skew the whole list the further down you go. So the parameters listed above are based on more half objectivity, half ignorance, while the original one talked about is based on study.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Ethereality said:


> I don't think these parameters are more objective, simply as they're based on mainstream popularity over time, rather than arguably more useful measures like actual creative history-changing and impact: in order words, what a composer _actually did _to music. For instance, if x composer could hypothetically be forgotten for his contributions to music history (say like a Josquin), then it makes sense that more prominent composers will have endless aspects of great creativity and influence to their music that are already forgotten and unknown to scholars, album buyers, and music enthusiasts alike. This would skew the whole list the further down you go. So the parameters listed above are based on more half objectivity, half ignorance, while the original one talked about is based on study.


I was trying to say that just because a factor is more objective does not make it useful. The factors I listed are completely objective - just count the Wikipedia entry words or the recordings. Everyone should get the same answer. Influence is less objective since it depends on how one measures it, and there are many potential ways. As I said, the factors I listed "are more objective but likely far less important."

I would agree that influence may be the most objective of the important factors.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

When I’m listening to a composer, am I listening to those they influenced? Am I thinking about it in the middle of everything?—No! It might have some bearing on the composer’s reputation and historical significance, but it’s secondary to appreciating their genius firsthand. It has little to do with actually enjoying them. I believe too much is made of it when it’s what they actually composed that’s primary.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Jerome said:


> Just stopping into TC to see what has changed... and nothing has changed. I'm pretty sure gibberish like this is why I lost interest in this forum and haven't posted in almost a year.


Some things people do on this forum are just weird in my eyes. Like these constant attempts to rank everything, they seem like queer obsession to me. Which is why I did not submit a ranking to ArtRock. Although I don't deny I'm also a freak and a weirdo myself, as someone pointed out. :lol:



Woodduck said:


> It has just occurred to me that your avatar, with its dark, sullen, sour expression, might be an actual self-portrait.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> I'm pleased to see this, though puzzled by your earlier *scathing* dismissal of my 'confusion' when I made precisely the same point.
> 
> He said 'newer', and he is absolutely right. No need for your *scornful* response. His point is that the extent of Beethoven's influence is limited by the fact that there has been only 300 years of composers who followed, whereas Palestrina influenced 500 years of classical music.


No need for hyperbole of overly-sensitive outrage.

'New' or 'newer' doesn't matter. Greatness will out. The fact that composers such as Beethoven have a longer history of influence only further reinforces what we know already. Influence is not the first or most important parameter of greatness; it is the parameter that, over time, proves the point. If new or newer composers are great, we should already have good evidence to support the fact. Influence on other composers etc. will follow or should have occurred already if they are 'newer'.

Do you know of any 'newer' composers wherein the lack of evident influence because they are newer is affecting the label of 'greatness'?


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2019)

DaveM said:


> No need for hyperbole of overly-sensitive outrage.
> 
> 'New' or 'newer' doesn't matter. Greatness will out. The fact that composers such as Beethoven have a longer history of influence only further reinforces what we know already. Influence is not the first or most important parameter of greatness; it is the parameter that, over time, proves the point. If new or newer composers are great, we should already have good evidence to support the fact. Influence on other composers etc. will follow or should have occurred already if they are 'newer'.
> 
> Do you know of any 'newer' composers wherein the lack of evident influence because they are newer is affecting the label of 'greatness'?


I'm not outraged. Neither am I sensitive. I just read your posts whose style tends to scorn.

Of course there's a difference between 'new' and 'newer', as evidenced by your "do you know of any new classical music composer on his or her way to greatness?" and my example of the reductio ad absurdam. Wagner is only great (at least on the ground of 'influence') because he stood on the shoulders of the giants who influenced him...and those giants are as pygmies compared with those that went before...etc.

No new composer can be deemed great on grounds of influence, as their influences will not yet be evident.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> I'm not outraged. Neither am I sensitive. I just read your posts whose style tends to scorn.
> 
> Of course there's a difference between 'new' and 'newer', as evidenced by your "do you know of any new classical music composer on his or her way to greatness?" and my example of the reductio ad absurdam. Wagner is only great (at least on the ground of 'influence') because he stood on the shoulders of the giants who influenced him...and those giants are as pygmies compared with those that went before...etc.
> 
> No new composer can be deemed great on grounds of influence, as their influences will not yet be evident.


I could point out your annoying posting style also, but will refrain except to say that your final sentence indicates that you didn't bother to read my post carefully before replying.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2019)

DaveM said:


> I could point out your annoying posting style also, but will refrain except to say that your final sentence indicates that you didn't bother to read my post carefully before replying.


Fair enough.

I was going to ask what that last question meant as I wasn't sure I understood it. Instead, I thought I'd try to answer it. I obviously didn't understand it.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Ethereality said:


> This is a hypothetical list, so take it as you may. I wanted to create a list where TC's opinions were tabulated but mainstream bias was removed (bias from any listener's mainstream origins and lack of experience), thus yielding a more experienced classical opinion, or at least one more foundational to TC. *Note:* I have no inserted personal bias in this, but have simply done exact math from a neutral stance. I found a major poll with such typical originating mainstream biases that may be similar to anything bleeding into this forum's membership, such as over 20,000 netizens voting Tchaikovsky and Chopin as the 3rd and 4th best composer, Rachmaninoff as 6th best, and thus I placed this list as a lens over TC's Top 50 Poll to act as a bias-removal shield for potential lack of experience (the logic being that, although TC already has a great list, the mistakes will be similar with overall netizens as they are on this forum.) This is called a statistical leverage, where hypothetically we're able to emphasize more experienced TC members out of the bunch. Although my goal with this list was to obtain the more uniquely expert tastes of this forum, in the correct ratio, what it simply does is obtain the forum's differences of perspective compared to the mainstream. Thus the argument formed by this is: expertise _may be _correlated to this forum where a lack of such is correlated to mainstream opinions, and if so, we can calculate the difference and estimate how much mainstream bias slipped into our own forum polls. Choosing a top composer doesn't necessarily have to do with their influence, but how much we like their music.
> 
> *Note: *I have inserted no personal bias into this list, but have only done exact math from a neutral stance. For math, the page where the top 35 composers in the forum poll hit max points, was tabulated, and simply added to the earlier difference for the top 35 where an equal exponential growth was carefully measured, as well as an equal range to the following list. (This overall method of tabulating based on the empiricism of forum favoritism is more accurate, where favorites are piled into a list earlier than all the fixes.) Then these TC totals were divided by a <1 root of the total votes each composer received in the _mainstream_ poll, thereby making an equal adjustment everywhere. In plain English, this means I took TC's rating of each composer, and removed some of the mainstream rating of each composer at their given ratio. Remember, this list is hypothetical, so take it as you may. To demonstrate this new method and its change from your typical Top 50 list, once calculating the mainstream origin bias, the overall root (the quotient from list 1 to list 2) was set to 0.3 root. List entries in any new mechanism have to rise and some have to fall inherently, no one can ever agree on any one list or mechanism, so we're left with potentialities which can be argued and never agreed upon. This list attempts to target the more _TC-unique_ sample audience at a given ratio. In this list, we're essentially just looking at the non-mainstream side of TC, in other words, ridding mainstream or inexperienced bias from TC. Here is the result:
> 
> ...


That's a very nice list, but why do you assume mainstream listeners are biased? Couldn't it be the case that it is "expert" listeners who are biased, and that this is the bias that should be removed? Or perhaps it is the case, and I probably subscribe to this view in many contexts, that both expert and mainstream opinions should be considered, suitably weighted?

I might be willing to be guided in my listening choices at least mostly by expert opinion, at least in the first instance until I could listen for myself, but only if I could chose the particular expert(s) after becoming familiar with their tastes and opinions. My second choice would be combining expert and mainstream opinion, and expert opinions where I couldn't chose the expert(s) and solely mainstream opinions would be in a dead heat for last place.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

This whole enterprise is ridiculous from top to bottom. One subjective and biased set of rankings has been twiddled by adding biases you prefer; An air castle built on a foundation of mush. JC Bach more important than CPE? That's just silly by any criteria. More important, you haven't controlled for the two biggest mainstream, neophyte biases: those for big symphony specialists and musical theater specialists. Bruckner? Puccini? And by what criterion does Scarlatti make the list? Liszt above Shostakovich and Prokofiev? Give me a break.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> This whole enterprise is ridiculoous from top to bottom. One subjective and biased set of rankings has been twiddled by adding biases you prefer;


Yes, that's true, though I tried to say it a bit more gently. But when I or others have tried to introduce relatively objective (though admittedly imperfect) data such as number of record sales or performances to this greatest composer ranking exercise, it has been met with overwhelming unenthusiasm.

What many people here yearn for is a consensus on artistic merit that, though unavoidably purely subjective, yet somehow also will be valid (they believe), because it will be based on the subjective opinions of those who are knowledgeable or "expert" and have impeccably good taste upon which they can rely without troublesome questions or doubts. All that need be done is to filter out the distorting influence of the ignorant opinions of the great unwashed neophyte masses, as Ethereality seeks to do here [not Enthusiast -- note my apology for this error below].

Unfortunately there is no such thing as someone, or ones, who have such absolutely and impeccably good taste in art that one can rely on it without question or doubt. To the contrary, it is fundamental to the nature of art, at least successful art, to raise questions and doubts in its audience. All great art, however conservative and nonthreatening it may seem on its surface, includes elements, however subtle, to jar the audience from its comfortable expectations. Exactly how one reacts to that, and therefore the value of the artistic experience, is a purely personal thing. One can get some potentially useful guidance and education from experts, but the ultimate value judgment is solely for each of us as individuals. I think people here at TC endlessly return to these rankings because they are seeking comfort in a certainty that simply is not to be found.


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2019)

fluteman said:


> All great art, however conservative and nonthreatening it may seem on its surface, includes elements, however subtle, to jar the audience from its comfortable expectations.


You have a point, but some 'great' music is rejected by some audiences precisely because it _doesn't_ jar.

[add]That of course might then preclude it from being classified as great, of course. But note this comment in another thread that I only read after posting my first sentence.

Are J.S. Bach, Beethoven and Mozart the top three composers for you?


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

fluteman said:


> All that need be done is to filter out the distorting influence of the ignorant opinions of the great unwashed neophyte masses, as *Enthusiast* seeks to do here.


It needs to be pointed out here that forum member and my good friend "*Enthusiast*" had literally nothing to do with this thread as he has not written a single post in regards to this subject and has been mistakenly misidentified for "*Ethereality*".


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Mollie John said:


> It needs to be pointed out here that forum member and my good friend "*Enthusiast*" had literally nothing to do with this thread as he has not written a single post in regards to this subject and has been mistakenly misidentified for "*Ethereality*".


Oh, dear. I knew that would happen eventually as I catch up here and review multiple threads. My sincerest apologies to both members. And also, my thanks to both for raising interesting issues here on many occasions. Also, I notice the tone of my post could be interpreted as condescending. That wasn't intended.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

The fact that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are in the top three is, at least, right.
What? Haydn outranks Beethoven, who is fourth!?
I better sign out before my bias gets the better of me.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Another slant on the subject of bias in these lists: someone like myself who has been around classical music most of my life remembers going through the classical music LP bins where some composers occupied sizable space. On the other hand some composers occupied little or practically no space. Then comes the CD era and same story: the same composers’ CDs occupy more prominent spaces compared to others. 

Through the years you go to a bookstore to find books on classical music and find the same emphasis on the same composers. Also, every once in awhile you see movies from the past (before my lifetime) about certain composers, the same ones that that filled the bins, or you hear the music of those composers front and center in some movies e.g. ‘Rhapsody’ with significant portions of the Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto #2 and the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto played and so on.

With all the above in mind: then you see these lists and polls with composers that have had much less interest, attention or popularity for decades in the past suddenly vaulted into lists as being in the top 20 or 30, far above where they deserve to be.

One example of this disparity is Rachmaninoff. His music has been everywhere for many decades: recordings, movies, the Rach 3 is one of the most played in advanced piano competitions, the Rach 2 is a ‘household work’ for classical music recording listeners or concerts. Popular music songs have used themes from his music. His compositions are in all the major categories as opposed to niche composers (which includes a number of composers). But, in the OP list Rachmaninoff is #36 below Ravel, Debussy, Stravinsky, Faure, Scarlatti etc. IMO, there hasn’t been some sea change in who experienced classical music listeners consider to be the truly great composers. What we have here is a parallel universe existing in this and possibly other forums, reflecting highly subjective opinions of some members, with some having very narrow niche-related interests.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DaveM said:


> Another slant on the subject of bias in these lists: someone like myself who has been around classical music most of my life remembers going through the classical music LP bins [ .... ] With all the above in mind: then you see these lists and polls with composers that have had much less interest, attention or popularity for decades in the past suddenly vaulted into lists as being in the top 20 or 30, far above where they deserve to be [ .... ] One example of this disparity is Rachmaninoff [....] [T]here hasn't been some sea change in who experienced classical music listeners consider to be the truly great composers.


I can't help but be struck by juxtaposition of these sections of your post. From the time when stores everywhere had bins full of vinyl LPs until today, there has indeed been a sea change in the music, classical and otherwise, that listeners, experienced or otherwise, consider important and worth listening to. And that change has been anything but sudden. It has now been 30 years or more since you hunted in those LP bins. Rachmaninoff lived until 1943 and his 2nd and 3rd piano concertos were completed in 1901 and 1909, respectively. Yes, they had an immense impact on popular western culture for a very long time. Full Moon and Empty Arms, based on the 2nd concerto, was a hit in 1945, when many who had heard Rachmaninoff perform on the radio or even in person were still around. But that is now 74 years ago, and unlike the 1980s when LPs still filled the shelves, many of which were his, few are left who can remember its original release, or the charismatic presence of Rachmaninoff himself.

That Rachmaninoff has begun to fade a bit in our collective consciousness is really no knock on him but rather a natural and inevitable part of cultural evolution. So don't beat yourself up, DaveW. Rachmaninoff is still remembered and honored. But as they say in Latin, tempus fugit.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

fluteman said:


> I can't help but be struck by juxtaposition of these sections of your post. From the time when stores everywhere had bins full of vinyl LPs until today, there has indeed been a sea change in the music, classical and otherwise, that listeners, experienced or otherwise, consider important and worth listening to. And that change has been anything but sudden. It has now been 30 years or more since you hunted in those LP bins. Rachmaninoff lived until 1943 and his 2nd and 3rd piano concertos were completed in 1901 and 1909, respectively. Yes, they had an immense impact on popular western culture for a very long time. Full Moon and Empty Arms, based on the 2nd concerto, was a hit in 1945, when many who had heard Rachmaninoff perform on the radio or even in person were still around. But that is now 74 years ago, and unlike the 1980s when LPs still filled the shelves, many of which were his, few are left who can remember its original release, or the charismatic presence of Rachmaninoff himself.
> 
> That Rachmaninoff has begun to fade a bit in our collective consciousness is really no knock on him but rather a natural and inevitable part of cultural evolution. So don't beat yourself up, DaveW. Rachmaninoff is still remembered and honored. But as they say in Latin, tempus fugit.


I'll never understand why people respond to one segment of a post and respond as if that is the point of the entire post. Almost your entire post infers that I'm basing my point on only the LP era which would be rather silly. I went on to include the CD era which only started to decline in the last 15 years and still exists to some extent. And Rachmaninoff was an example, not the subject of the post.

But, speaking of Rachmaninoff, what does 'Rachmaninoff has begun to fade a bit in our collective consciousness' even mean? Have Ravel, Debussy, Stravinsky, Faure and Scarlatti risen in our consciousness? And whose consciousness are you referring to? Some on this forum? Quite possibly which is the point of my post and the reason for these crazy lists/polls.

Btw, Rachmaninoff's music is very much alive and well: LA Phil as only one recent example:


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DaveM said:


> I'll never understand why people respond to one segment of a post and respond as if that is the point of the entire post. Almost your entire post infers that I'm basing my point on only the LP era which would be rather silly. I went on to include the CD era which only started to decline in the last 15 years and still exists to some extent. And Rachmaninoff was an example, not the subject of the post.
> 
> But, speaking of Rachmaninoff, what does 'Rachmaninoff has begun to fade a bit in our collective consciousness' even mean? Have Ravel, Debussy, Stravinsky, Faure and Scarlatti risen in our consciousness? And whose consciousness are you referring to? Some on this forum? Quite possibly which is the point of my post and the reason for these crazy lists/polls.
> 
> ...


All very true, DaveW. No need to jump to the defense of Rachmaninoff, I am a big fan. But it has been a while since ol' blue eyes Frank Sinatra had a smash hit with Full Moon and Empty Arms. And many young people today have no idea who Sinatra was, much less Rachmaninoff. Go ahead and ask a bunch of them and you'll soon see what I mean. Many have no idea who the Beatles were, believe it or not.

I think my response to your post as a whole was quite fair. It's entirely understandable, and no big deal, that Rachmaninoff has sunk a bit in some "greatest" rankings, even down to no 36. The far more significant point to me is, he's still on those lists.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

fluteman said:


> So don't beat yourself up, DaveW





fluteman said:


> All very true, DaveW


It's DaveM my friend. One day, my TC posts will be written into books and quoted worldwide so I need to make sure the name is correct.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DaveM said:


> It's DaveM my friend. One day, my TC posts will be written into books and quoted worldwide so I need to make sure the name is correct.


There I go again!! DaveM. DaveM. I doubt there even is a DaveW here. If you do begin to sink in the "greatest" rankings some day, I don't want it said it's because I couldn't spell your name.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DaveM said:


> One example of this disparity is Rachmaninoff. His music has been everywhere for many decades: recordings, movies, the Rach 3 is one of the most played in advanced piano competitions, the Rach 2 is a 'household work' for classical music recording listeners or concerts. Popular music songs have used themes from his music. His compositions are in all the major categories as opposed to niche composers (which includes a number of composers). But, in the OP list Rachmaninoff is #36 below Ravel, Debussy, Stravinsky, Faure, Scarlatti etc. IMO, there hasn't been some sea change in who experienced classical music listeners consider to be the truly great composers. What we have here is a parallel universe existing in this and possibly other forums, reflecting highly subjective opinions of some members, with some having very narrow niche-related interests.


You seem so confident that Rachmaninoff is "greater" than Ravel, Debussy, Stravinsky, Faure, or Scarlatti that you label such believes as existing in parallel universe where highly subjective opinions reign. I know you feel that all rankings are subjective but that there should be some element of objectivity such that experienced listeners could generally agree on rankings within some uncertainty.

I think your view is reasonable, but I'm a bit surprised that you think it's blatantly clear that Rachmaninoff is superior to all those you list. I'm happy to drop Scarlatti, but personally I think it's quite reasonable to place Ravel, Debussy, Faure, and Stravinsky above Rachmaninoff. I wouldn't quibble with someone placing Rachmaninoff above those, but I know many who value those 4 higher. It's relatively easy to point out the deficiencies of any list and especially to critique any methodology, but suggesting that placing Stravinsky or Debussy above Rachmaninoff could only exist in a parallel universe seems way too strong to me.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> It's relatively easy to point out the deficiencies of any list and especially to critique any methodology, but suggesting that placing Stravinsky or Debussy above Rachmaninoff could only exist in a parallel universe seems way too strong to me.


You've raised this before, but not really supported it other than to say, in so many words, that you don't agree with my point of view, whereas I have gone into some detail supporting mine. (I noticed you left out some composers above. Are we down to just Stravinsky and Debussy now?). How many iconic works are there that we associate with Stravinsky and Debussy compared to Rachmaninoff?

Dudamel and the LA Phil have scheduled the Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto #2 and the Stravinsky Rite of Spring. Notice which one is emphasized in the ads. Do think you the Rite of Spring is what's going to fill the seats? Do you think the Debussy's Prelude to Afternoon of a Faun or Ravel's Bolero are going to be the primary draw if programmed with the Rachmaninoff PC #3 or 2nd Symphony? Of course, there are the Debussy and Ravel piano works, some of which are innovative and highly valued for good reason, but as I've said before, they are a niche.

(Again, I'm not diminishing their influence or them as composers in their own right.)


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DaveM said:


> You've raised this before, but not really supported it other than to say, in so many words, that you don't agree with my point of view, whereas I have gone into some detail supporting mine. (I noticed you left out some composers above. Are we down to just Stravinsky and Debussy now?). How many iconic works are there that we associate with Stravinsky and Debussy compared to Rachmaninoff?


I'm not trying to support the ranking of any composer. My point is that I feel it's relatively easy to argue for many of the top composers to be in the say top 25 depending on what one values. The view that Debussy, Stravinsky, nor Ravel could possibly be considered ranked higher than Rachmaninoff (i.e. that could only occur in a parallel universe) seems to assume that the factors that you value along with the weightings for those factors are absolute.

You mention iconic works. I'm vastly less interested in iconic works than you are. For example, I view Mozart's 6 string quintets as some of his most wonderful music, but they are hardly iconic. I do love the 3 Rachmaninoff works you mention, but I think both Stravinsky (e.g. The Rite) and Debussy (e.g. Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune) have more important works from a classical music history view. I think both of them have influenced classical music more than Rachmaninoff. You mention Debussy and Ravel have innovative and highly valued piano music, but those works are a niche. Do you think Chopin's piano music was a niche? I do, but I think his music, along with Debussy's and Ravel's, occupies a very important niche.

You could continue to debate, but my point is not that someone can find arguments to support a particular composer but rather that, depending on what one values, different composers can be viewed as more important/superior/greater/etc.. To me it's far from obvious that Rachmaninoff should be viewed in some sense "higher" than the others you mentioned. Lists with Rachmaninoff higher or lists with Debussy, Stravinsky, and Ravel higher are both reasonable and certainly not necessarily from a parallel universe.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Thank you all, I haven't had this good a laugh in a long time. Might I suggest that the OP be submitted to the _Journal of Irreproducible Results_?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> You seem so confident that Rachmaninoff is "greater" than Ravel, Debussy, Stravinsky, Faure, or Scarlatti that you label such believes as existing in parallel universe where highly subjective opinions reign. I know you feel that all rankings are subjective but that there should be some element of objectivity such that experienced listeners could generally agree on rankings within some uncertainty.


Yes, experienced listeners with similar experience and backgrounds might well generally agree on rankings within some "uncertainty", as you put it, but that doesn't mean those opinions are objective or inherently right or valid, even slightly.

The only approach to aesthetics that has any element of objectivity is to tabulate the subjective tastes and opinions of others, expert or otherwise, as accurately as possible, and within a particular cultural and temporal context. Ideally, you can then determine, at least roughly, the common aesthetic principles, the cultural identity if you will, of a particular time and place. I think that is a worthy task, and that of cultural historians and anthropologists.

But anyone who pursues this idea of inherent objectivity of aesthetic values is little more than a dog chasing his tail, and these ranking threads will continue to spin around in circles, arriving nowhere.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

fluteman said:


> Yes, experienced listeners with similar experience and backgrounds might well generally agree on rankings within some "uncertainty", as you put it, but that doesn't mean those opinions are objective or inherently right or valid, even slightly.
> 
> The only approach to aesthetics that has any element of objectivity is to tabulate the subjective tastes and opinions of others, expert or otherwise, as accurately as possible, and within a particular cultural and temporal context. Ideally, you can then determine, at least roughly, the common aesthetic principles, the cultural identity if you will, of a particular time and place. I think that is a worthy task, and that of cultural historians and anthropologists.
> 
> But anyone who pursues this idea of inherent objectivity of aesthetic values is little more than a dog chasing his tail, and these ranking threads will continue to spin around in circles, arriving nowhere.


I agree pretty much completely with this view.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> You mention iconic works. I'm vastly less interested in iconic works than you are. For example, I view Mozart's 6 string quintets as some of his most wonderful music, but they are hardly iconic.


But this isn't about what you like. It's about what has impacted the classical listening public in general. That's what iconic works signify.



> You mention Debussy and Ravel have innovative and highly valued piano music, but those works are a niche. Do you think Chopin's piano music was a niche? I do, but I think his music, along with Debussy's and Ravel's, occupies a very important niche.


It can be said that Chopin's piano music was a niche, but no one is going to convince me that Debussy and Ravel's piano music has impacted the classical music world more than Chopin. On the contrary.



> You could continue to debate, but my point is not that someone can find arguments to support a particular composer but rather that, depending on what one values, different composers can be viewed as more important/superior/greater/etc.. To me it's far from obvious that Rachmaninoff should be viewed in some sense "higher" than the others you mentioned. Lists with Rachmaninoff higher or lists with Debussy, Stravinsky, and Ravel higher are both reasonable and certainly not necessarily from a parallel universe.


Well, you are making it clear that you're not going to commit either way. Very diplomatic, but I will repeat that the music interests of many on this forum do not represent the music that is still keeping classical music on life support in the west and giving it new life in Asian countries. I have given examples. I don't hear any from the other side either in your post or fluteman's response to your post.

And you actually agree with this? It is one of those broad statements that gets some people clapping and heads nodding, but when you look at the various definitions of 'aesthetic', it isn't a very profound statement at all.


fluteman said:


> But anyone who pursues this idea of inherent objectivity of aesthetic values is little more than a dog chasing his tail, and these ranking threads will continue to spin around in circles, arriving nowhere.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Ranking composers is not a waste of time if one has nothing better to do.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DaveM said:


> And you actually agree with this? It is one of those broad statements that gets some people clapping and heads nodding, but when you look at the various definitions of 'aesthetic', it isn't a very profound statement at all.


Before you dismiss my comment quite that lightly, I suggest you look into the work of some well known writers on the philosophy of aesthetics, beginning with David Hume. And I don't mean that in a condescending or high-falutin' way. Hume is, in fact, an awkward and even somewhat disorganized writer, especially compared to the meticulously precise and organized Immanuel Kant. But Hume understood music better than Kant, who dismissed it as the least of the arts, and understood the concept of empiricism at least as well. So while Hume embraced the concept of expertise in matters of aesthetic taste as something that can be, in fact must be, developed through education, study and experience, he also acknowledged that aesthetic tastes, in music in particular, will inevitably vary from one country, or culture, to another.

This observation, which might seem obvious and insignificant today, is actually hugely important, and was probably far from obvious before the enlightenment and the rise of empiricism. He saw that our surroundings, our customs, our community, our larger society, that become ingrained in us starting almost from birth, and our unique individual experiences too, all play an important role in the formation of our aesthetic tastes.

Thus, aesthetic taste unavoidably involves the random and uncertain, in short, the subjective, though those who come from mostly similar backgrounds, education and experience may well have similar tastes. Hume and the other empiricists finally freed us from Aristotle's idea of beauty as an invariably a product of the quantifiable, certain scientific principles of order and symmetry.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DaveM said:


> But this isn't about what you like. It's about what has impacted the classical listening public in general. That's what iconic works signify.


Yes, it's not just about what one likes. For you it's about what has impacted the classical listening public, but for me it would not be about that at all. I would care much more about what has impacted classical music (i.e. other composers) rather than the public. People's metrics can be different leading to different results. Even significantly different results.



DaveM said:


> It can be said that Chopin's piano music was a niche, but no one is going to convince me that Debussy and Ravel's piano music has impacted the classical music world more than Chopin. On the contrary.


I didn't say Debussy's and Ravel's piano music has impacted classical music more but rather the fact that it might be a niche doesn't detract from the value of their piano music.



DaveM said:


> Well, you are making it clear that you're not going to commit either way. Very diplomatic, but I will repeat that the music interests of many on this forum do not represent the music that is still keeping classical music on life support in the west and giving it new life in Asian countries. I have given examples. I don't hear any from the other side either in your post or fluteman's response to your post.


Again you are arguing using a metric that I don't think is particularly important. You value the interests of the average classical music listener. Fine, that listener is critically important for classical music. But when I think of what makes a very good composer, I don't generally think of what the average listener will like. We are using different metrics. That's my point. Your metric will exclude almost all modern and contemporary composers. That seems wrong to me, but I assume it makes perfect sense to you.

I'm not trying to argue that placing Rachmaninoff over Stravinsky is wrong. Yes, I would place Stravinsky higher than Rachmaninoff, but more importantly, I think different metrics would rank the composers differently, and it's not at all obvious that one ranking is better than another.



DaveM said:


> And you actually agree with this? It is one of those broad statements that gets some people clapping and heads nodding, but when you look at the various definitions of 'aesthetic', it isn't a very profound statement at all.


I don't think it's profound at all. I just agreed with most of fluteman's post. The first two paragraphs I agree with completely. I would have written the last paragraph somewhat differently, but I agree with the general view.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

fluteman said:


> Before you dismiss my comment quite that lightly, I suggest you look into the work of some well known writers on the philosophy of aesthetics, beginning with David Hume. And I don't mean that in a condescending or high-falutin' way. Hume is, in fact, an awkward and even somewhat disorganized writer, especially compared to the meticulously precise and organized Immanuel Kant. But Hume understood music better than Kant, who dismissed it as the least of the arts, and understood the concept of empiricism at least as well. So while Hume embraced the concept of expertise in matters of aesthetic taste as something that can be, in fact must be, developed through education, study and experience, he also acknowledged that aesthetic tastes, in music in particular, will inevitably vary from one country, or culture, to another.
> 
> This observation, which might seem obvious and insignificant today, is actually hugely important, and was probably far from obvious before the enlightenment and the rise of empiricism. He saw that our surroundings, our customs, our community, our larger society, that become ingrained in us starting almost from birth, and our unique individual experiences too, all play an important role in the formation of our aesthetic tastes.
> 
> Thus, aesthetic taste unavoidably involves the random and uncertain, in short, the subjective, though those who come from mostly similar backgrounds, education and experience may well have similar tastes. Hume and the other empiricists finally freed us from Aristotle's idea of beauty as an invariably a product of the quantifiable, certain scientific principles of order and symmetry.


We've recently had 2 different threads that went into variations on this subject, elephant art and all. I'm not about to litigate it and all the mayhem that inevitably follows again. Suffice it to say that the raising of the philosophy of aesthetics that appeals to you and apparently some others here is nothing more than an attempt to return to the premise that the designation of the great composers is purely subjective to which I say phooey.

The lists and polls on this forum have been more subjective than not because too many here don't know the meaning of the word 'objective' or how to apply it.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2019)

DaveM said:


> But this isn't about what you like. It's about what has impacted the classical listening public in general. That's what iconic works signify.


It's what you want it to be about. It isn't what it is about definitively. As mmsbls has said, you want it to be about 'iconic works', and I agree with him that it doesn't have to be.

I suspect too that we have a slightly different interpretations of the word 'iconic'; one emphasises the 'image/representation' component (my emphasis) and the other emphasises the 'worship/praise' component (yours). To you, 'iconic' seems to mean works that are widely worshipped by the public. Nothing wrong with that of course. To me, 'iconic' also means 'representative of the composer's works'. Your first can be supported quite readily by objective evidence of the extent to which something is worshipped by the public: sales of recordings, concert tickets etc. But it says nothing about the work itself - how good it is, what its qualities are. My second is less easy to provide objective evidence for, but it does attempt to say something about the work itself. So, if _The Rite of Spring _is representative of the work of Stravinsky, it's not just because it's his most popular work (I'm making an assumption here) but because its style and content are typical of his works and representative of what it is about his works that made them so influential.

Consequently, I think 'iconic' is an unhelpful terms to use as a signifier of 'top' if 'top' is taken to mean 'greatest.



DaveM said:


> The lists and polls on this forum have been more subjective than not because too many here don't know the meaning of the word 'objective' or how to apply it.


Well yes, that's true. It seems there are several subjective ideas of what the word means, and I guess we're not ever going to settle that one. Unless you're going to advance your definition and we'll try again?



fluteman said:


> The only approach to aesthetics that has any element of objectivity is to *tabulate the subjective tastes and opinions* of others, expert or otherwise, as accurately as possible, and within a particular cultural and temporal context. Ideally, you can then determine, at least roughly, the common aesthetic principles, the cultural identity if you will, of a particular time and place. I think that is a worthy task, and that of cultural historians and anthropologists.


Can you explain a little further what you mean by the bolded part?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> It's what you want it to be about. It isn't what it is about definitively. As mmsbls has said, you want it to be about 'iconic works', and I agree with him that it doesn't have to be.
> 
> I suspect too that we have a slightly different interpretations of the word 'iconic'; one emphasises the 'image/representation' component (my emphasis) and the other emphasises the 'worship/praise' component (yours). To you, 'iconic' seems to mean works that are widely worshipped by the public. Nothing wrong with that of course. To me, 'iconic' also means 'representative of the composer's works'. Your first can be supported quite readily by objective evidence of the extent to which something is worshipped by the public: sales of recordings, concert tickets etc. But it says nothing about the work itself - how good it is, what its qualities are.


'Iconic' has variations in its translation, but '_relating to or characteristic of a famous person or thing that represents something of importance'_ works for me. My use of the word here signifies another way (along with 'influence') of objectively evaluating the impact of composers on the world of classical music. Beethoven's 9th Symphony has become an iconic work insofar as it raises peoples hearts in times of sadness and joy hence its performances after 9/11. His 5th Symphony was an iconic work of the WW2. The Rach 3 has become iconic of advanced piano competitions because it is particularly difficult while being also a wonderful concerto, thus testing both technical skill and interpretation.



> My second is less easy to provide objective evidence for, but it does attempt to say something about the work itself. So, if _The Rite of Spring _is representative of the work of Stravinsky, it's not just because it's his most popular work (I'm making an assumption here) but because its style and content are typical of his works and representative of what it is about his works that made them so influential.


I see Stravinsky's Rite of Spring as an iconic work (perhaps his only) of a style that influenced 20th century music that was to follow. I'm not drawn to it, but I recognize and accept it as a great work. Objectivity requires that I remove my preferences as much as possible.



> Consequently, I think 'iconic' is an unhelpful term to use as a signifier of 'top' if 'top' is taken to mean 'greatest.


On the contrary, I see it, along with 'influence', as another sign of the 'greatness' of a composer.. Partly repeating myself, iconic classical works become so because they collectively raise feelings of sadness or joy or even do that while reminding of or being associated with a certain time e.g. Handel's Messiah and its Hallelujah Chorus. Composing works like that are signs of great skill, innovation and originality.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> Again you are arguing using a metric that I don't think is particularly important. You value the interests of the average classical music listener. Fine, that listener is critically important for classical music. But when I think of what makes a very good composer, I don't generally think of what the average listener will like. We are using different metrics. That's my point. Your metric will exclude almost all modern and contemporary composers. That seems wrong to me, but I assume it makes perfect sense to you.


Well, we are on different paths aren't we . But I have to ask, where are the great classical composers and works composed in about the 70 years since 1950? I can name a number in the 70 years before 1950. Is what I see as a disparity here due to my using different metrics? I doubt it.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

DaveM said:


> Well, we are on different paths aren't we . But I have to ask, where are the great classical composers and works composed in about the 70 years since 1950? I can name a number in the 70 years before 1950. Is what I see as a disparity here due to my using different metrics? I doubt it.


By your metric of creating "iconic" works, we have only Williams.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

DaveM said:


> . But I have to ask, where are the great classical composers and works composed in about the 70 years since 1950? I can name a number in the 70 years before 1950.


Going through my catalog alphabetically to name composers active in your 70 year period. (You can fill in the works.)

Thomas Ades
William Alwyn
Malcolm Arnold
George Benjamin
Luciano Berio
Leonard Bernstein
Benjamin Britten
Aaron Copland
Peter Maxwell Davies
Henri Dutilleux
Jennifer Higdon
Paul Hindemith
Gyorgy Ligeti
Witold Lutoslawski
James MacMillan
Francis Poulenc
William Schuman
Rodion Shchedrin
Dmitri Shostakovich
Igor Stravinsky
Michael Tippett
Ralph Vaughan-Williams
William Walton

I am sure that I could add at least a dozen more, perhaps somewhat less well known, however this represents a broad selection of mostly well-known composers who were (and still are) quite active.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DaveM said:


> But I have to ask, where are the great classical composers and works composed in about the 70 years since 1950? I can name a number in the 70 years before 1950. Is what I see as a disparity here due to my using different metrics? I doubt it.


I think it's likely that there are many TC members who greatly love/appreciate music of the last 70 years and could easily name composers and works they consider great.

Concerning rankings in general, I feel their basic appeal is that they can be interesting, fun and somewhat educational. As for objectivity, forget it.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DaveM said:


> Well, we are on different paths aren't we . But I have to ask, where are the great classical composers and works composed in about the 70 years since 1950? I can name a number in the 70 years before 1950. Is what I see as a disparity here due to my using different metrics? I doubt it.


OK, you don't like most contemporary/modern music. I believe the vast majority of classical music listeners feel the same way. Personally, I think it would be much more useful to ask the 174 contemporary composers from the BBC poll which works they think are great than to ask you or most classical music listeners. Similarly, no one should ask me to name great country or heavy metal music because I don't enjoy that music.

So I would say, yes, you probably are using a different metric than those of us who would find great music in the past 70 years.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> OK, you don't like most contemporary/modern music. I believe the vast majority of classical music listeners feel the same way. Personally, I think it would be much more useful to ask the 174 contemporary composers from the BBC poll which works they think are great than to ask you or most classical music listeners. Similarly, no one should ask me to name great country or heavy metal music because I don't enjoy that music.
> 
> So I would say, yes, you probably are using a different metric than those of us who would find great music in the past 70 years.


Since the subject has been 'greatest composers' and, in my mind, having composed iconic works can be one of the characteristics of great composers, I have been trying to not to make this about one's classical music preference -you may have noticed my comment on Rite of Spring, an early modern work, as being an iconic great work even though I don't particularly like it.

IMO, the fact that there are practically no great composers or iconic works in the last 70 years -well, maybe Gorecki's Symphony of Sorrowful Songs made a mark- that have appealed to a broad audience continues to reinforce my feeling that classical music as a refreshingly ever new and popular art form constantly bringing in new listeners is in the dumper.

Btw, (not related to anything above) I was inspired to look through the Wiki list of 20th century composers. The list is numbingly long! 99% of them we will never hear of. Hope they didn't quit their day jobs.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DaveM said:


> We've recently had 2 different threads that went into variations on this subject, elephant art and all. I'm not about to litigate it and all the mayhem that inevitably follows again. Suffice it to say that the raising of the philosophy of aesthetics that appeals to you and apparently some others here is nothing more than an attempt to return to the premise that the designation of the great composers is purely subjective to which I say phooey.
> 
> The lists and polls on this forum have been more subjective than not because too many here don't know the meaning of the word 'objective' or how to apply it.


You say "phooey"? After you criticize my original comment as not being profound? Hmm, it's back to the 5th grade school yard, if I can remember that far back. Let's see:
"I'm rubber, you're glue, that bounces off me and sticks to you."
Nyeh-nyeh.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

fluteman said:


> You say "phooey"? After you criticize my original comment as not being profound? Hmm, it's back to the 5th grade school yard, if I can remember that far back. Let's see:
> "I'm rubber, you're glue, that bounces off me and sticks to you."
> Nyeh-nyeh.





fluteman said:


> But anyone who pursues this idea of inherent objectivity of aesthetic values is little more than a dog chasing his tail, and these ranking threads will continue to spin around in circles, arriving nowhere.


You make a comment like the above and get insulted by it not being called profound? And on top of that you get your knickers in a knot over the rather benign 'Phooey'? Okay, fiddlesticks.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DaveM said:


> fiddle-stic


Good one. I didn't get it at first.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

mmsbls said:


> I was trying to say that just because a factor is more objective does not make it useful. The factors I listed are completely objective - just count the Wikipedia entry words or the recordings. Everyone should get the same answer. Influence is less objective since it depends on how one measures it, and there are many potential ways. As I said, the factors I listed "are more objective but likely far less important."
> 
> I would agree that influence may be the most objective of the important factors.


Ah yes I agree. Thank you for the clarification.



fluteman said:


> That's a very nice list, but why do you assume mainstream listeners are biased? Couldn't it be the case that it is "expert" listeners who are biased, and that this is the bias that should be removed?


Indeed. See my post here TC's Top 50 Composers with Bias Removed
I basically went on to say that this OP is to demonstrate one bias, but I could post the other list I have where the opposite bias is removed, which I'm perfectly happy to do as I have no relationship with this list, and you would see composers like Tchaikovsky and Chopin in the Top 5, Holst and John Williams in the Top 50. Hell, you might as well have Hans Zimmer in the Top 5. So, yours is a good idea. I posted the above list however because it fits with TC. On another forum I might post the second list. I have no relationship with any of this stuff, I prefer to see all perspectives.

You might ask the question: why not just use the simple forum list, where no math is done? The answer is, because we already have that list. You can use it if you want.

You might ask the question: why make a list? The answer is, because the point of lists is to find listening recommendations. That is all. Part of the appeal of this list is to see how our over-experience with hyped perspectives might give us bias for rating composers, like putting Tchaikovsky above Sibelius and R. Strauss, or visa versa for the opposite: putting Mozart and Haydn above Chopin and Tchaikovsky, based on expectations for how music should be praised, ie. "because the experts promote Mozart and Haydn" and what group of learning we belong to. We may all have biases in all variety of "comparisons."

I have some deep-seated mechanisms for making a "World's Top 50 List" from scratch, reasons why Classical is so high rated in the first place: taking the ratio of favoritism towards a musician, and dividing that by the musician's search popularity on radio. This yields a lot of Classical composers in the Top. But, it also yields other musicians in the top too. This is a project I hope to get around to finishing soon.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

OK, fair enough, Ethereality. I'm interested in both popular and classical cultural trends generally, and music in particular, so the idea of examining search popularity on radio (I assume you mean internet radio?) interests me as well. There seem to be a handful of others here at TC also interested in this sort of thing, but you and I are in the minority in that respect.

I suspect many here at TC are interested in rankings as a source of listening recommendations, another reason you gave for making these lists. But for that purpose, I'd be much more interested in your own personal recommendations, and why you chose them, than any survey data.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

With the 'mainstream opposite list' I added the comment "Hell, you might as well have Hans Zimmer in the Top 5," because that's the way the data would work out. It's not really a reliable list in my personal opinion, ie. not one I find much use in.



fluteman said:


> I'd be much more interested in your own personal recommendations, and why you chose them, than any survey data.


I'm the same way. With this list however you kill 2 birds with 1 stone: this OP survey is just forum members' opinions, right? So if I'm listening to top composers, they are recommended by much more people. One can simply read about everyone's reasons alongside it, the debate threads, etc.

What is added is the important functional negative: the opinions I'm not so interested in at the moment, the mainstream. So it cancels cleanly. I do personally believe mainstream opinions are less educated on average about composers and their contributions, and that something like Haydn in 3rd place, Beethoven in 4th and Tchaikovsky out of the top 20, is not so wrong at all, because people on this forum have agreed with this. Many are definitely less impressed with composers like Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff as they used to be, and my overall learning has always worked this direction. It's less about caring about all opinions, only because I've followed mainstream lists for a long time. It's about those who by evidence are less impressed with the mainstream and have more experience. This group of people are like a modal average, a recurring phenomenon.

But it's hard for people to see this effective purpose in this list and why the math works cleanly. They don't realize their subjective critiques are just as cringe-worthy, and that most lists have been much worse. But that's ok. See, you can take 100 music experts, average them, and you'll get great recommendations like this list. What we forget to realize is, all those individual experts are going to hate the final list, even though there's technically/literally nothing you can objectively pinpoint wrong with it.

If you want my personal Top 10, it's going to be much different than this list, in fact, I've never had any reason to make a personal Top 10. That's where the forum critics need to understand the difference between the two lists: one is for promoting your favorites, the other is for learning and understanding others.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> I don't think it's profound at all. I just agreed with most of fluteman's post. The first two paragraphs I agree with completely. I would have written the last paragraph somewhat differently, but I agree with the general view.


Yes, the "dog chasing his tail" comment was a little too snide and condescending.  I apologize for my bad manners, but not my basic point. To me, too often these greatest composer ranking posts produce long threads where some claim some special validity for their methodology, while others attack those claims while advancing some alternate and supposedly more valid methodology. In this thread, Ethereality was quick to see my point and acknowledge the limitations of his, or any, methodology.

I try to avoid making such claims of validity. I did argue that Stravinsky's music has had a more significant and important influence on music of the modern era, certainly than that of Rachmaninoff, but even than that of Schoenberg, though that might depend on how one defines "influence". But I didn't try to support that argument with survey data of any kind, but rather with specific examples of his direct influence on so much of what we hear today.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Becca said:


> Going through my catalog alphabetically to name composers active in your 70 year period. (You can fill in the works.)
> 
> Thomas Ades
> William Alwyn
> ...


A number of those composers, some certainly important, were in the latter part of their lives. I was talking about composers who were being recognized as great starting in the last 70 years.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

DaveM said:


> A number of those composers, some certainly important, were in the latter part of their lives. I was talking about composers who were being recognized as great starting in the last 70 years.


I suspect there's no list of composers of the last 70 years to which you won't have some fundamental objection, but how about some or all of these:

Adams
Berio
Boulez
Crumb
Feldman
Glass
Gorecki
Gubaidulina
Henze
Kurtag
Ligeti
Norgard
Part
Penderecki
Rautavaara
Reich
Riley
Saariaho
Schnittke
Stockhausen
Takemitsu
Xenakis


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

DaveM said:


> A number of those composers, some certainly important, were in the latter part of their lives. I was talking about composers who were being recognized as great starting in the last 70 years.


"I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Going through my catalog alphabetically to name composers active in your 70 year period. (You can fill in the works.)

Thomas Ades
William Alwyn
Malcolm Arnold
George Benjamin
Luciano Berio
Leonard Bernstein
Benjamin Britten
Peter Maxwell Davies
Henri Dutilleux
Jennifer Higdon
Gyorgy Ligeti
Witold Lutoslawski
James MacMillan
William Schuman
Rodion Shchedrin
Dmitri Shostakovich
Michael Tippett
William Walton

I am sure that I could add at least a dozen more, perhaps somewhat less well known, however this represents a broad selection of mostly well-known composers who were (and still are) quite active.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> I suspect there's no list of composers of the last 70 years to which you won't have some fundamental objection, but how about some or all of these:
> 
> Adams
> Berio
> ...


There are a few there that I think are important and have been influential. Great? Not so sure on that; maybe time will tell. There are at least 6 that are in the avant-garde category that I have removed from my concept of even being classical music.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DaveM said:


> There are a few there that I think are important and have been influential. Great? Not so sure on that; maybe time will tell. There are at least 6 that are in the avant-garde category that I have removed from my concept of even being classical music.


I'm with you there, DaveM, if we are using the generally accepted definition of these words. Classical: regarded as representing an exemplary standard; traditional and long-established in form or style (setting aside the more traditional reference of this term to ancient Greece and Rome). Avant-garde: new and unusual or experimental ideas. Both terms are most commonly used in reference to the arts, but both have spread to more general use.

However, looking at Nereffid's list, though it includes a few still-living composers, I don't see anyone who wasn't active by the 1950s. Perhaps there needs to be a third category of art that is too old to be considered avant-garde yet still too new to be classical. I think the word "modern" is often used in this sense.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

fluteman said:


> I'm with you there, DaveM, if we are using the generally accepted definition of these words. Classical: regarded as representing an exemplary standard; traditional and long-established in form or style (setting aside the more traditional reference of this term to ancient Greece and Rome). Avant-garde: new and unusual or experimental ideas. Both terms are most commonly used in reference to the arts, but both have spread to more general use.


That was unexpected. 

Anyway, as an example, one of possible many, this will never make my list under the definition of classical music. It may be wonderful Avant-garde or whatever name fits. I understand that some people love this stuff and to them I say, all the more power to you -get together and forge a new category of music once and for all.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

DaveM said:


> I understand that some people love this stuff and to them I say, all the more power to you -get together and forge a new category of music once and for all.


Why? While my opinion of it maybe similar to yours, the story of classical music over the centuries has been one of evolution (*) not fragmentation. There are any number of examples, even just in the last 200 years, of similar attitudes towards the new, however looking back on it, they weren't something totally new.

* Perhaps a good analogy is that of evolutionary punctuated equilibrium.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Becca said:


> Why? While my opinion of it maybe similar to yours, the story of classical music over the centuries has been one of evolution (*) not fragmentation. There are any number of examples, even just in the last 200 years, of similar attitudes towards the new, however looking back on it, they weren't something totally new.
> 
> * Perhaps a good analogy is that of evolutionary punctuated equilibrium.


I've wondered about that, but I think there is something fundamentally or drastically different in aesthetics with Cage and some contemporary from older aesthetics and ideals. Beethoven and Prokofiev were hard to understand in their times, but it is more an extension of older existing music than being at odds with. A lot of recognized masterpieces by Shostakovich were composed after Cage's and Boulez's groundbreaking works, which haven't really been widely accepted or canonized. They will always be regarded a lower tier or a consolation category it seems to me.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Becca said:


> Why?


Why do I still have to answer this? What is your definition of classical music if something like that Feldman work is included? Take away melody, harmony, structure (as we have known it for over 3 centuries) and any sense of appeal to human emotions of joy, love, sadness etc. and what are you left with, two things: the use of classical music instruments and an experimentation in dissonance and sounds.

I always have to add that I know that there are fans of Avant-garde. What I don't understand is why they are insulted by the premise that it isn't classical music. No one is saying you can't love it and hear more of it.



> While my opinion of it maybe similar to yours, the story of classical music over the centuries has been one of evolution (*) not fragmentation. There are any number of examples, even just in the last 200 years, of similar attitudes towards the new, *however looking back on it, they weren't something totally new.*


That's an understatement. These changes are nothing remotely comparable to the changes in the past. Lock me in a room with Schoenberg's works and I won't love it, but I'll be fine. Do the same with the stuff under discussion and I would not survive.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DaveM said:


> Why do I still have to answer this? What is your definition of classical music if something like that Feldman work is included? Take away melody, harmony, structure (as we have known it for over 3 centuries) and any sense of appeal to human emotions of joy, love, sadness etc. and what are you left with, two things: the use of classical music instruments and an experimentation in dissonance and sounds.


To you, avant-garde music and perhaps some other modern/contemporary music is so removed from what you have viewed as classical music that it ought to be considered another form of music. There are many who would agree. But I think we should look to the experts, to those involved in composing that music, performing the music, and writing about it. Composers, musicologists, and music schools all view the composers listed by Nereffid as classical composers. Classical performers perform the music and consider themselves as performing classical music and not some other type. Yes, it's different. In some cases it's remarkably different, but those who have studied classical music composition, performance, and history seem to still view the music as classical.



DaveM said:


> I always have to add that I know that there are fans of Avant-garde. What I don't understand is why they are insulted by the premise that it isn't classical music. No one is saying you can't love it and hear more of it.


I suppose some could be insulted, but I think the vast majority are not. They just think you are wrong. No one is saying you have to like or even listen to it.



DaveM said:


> That's an understatement. These changes are nothing remotely comparable to the changes in the past. Lock me in a room with Schoenberg's works and I won't love it, but I'll be fine. Do the same with the stuff under discussion and I would not survive.


I agree that classical music changed vastly more in the modern era than ever before. I have stated that there is music written in the same decade that varies more than music did from Renaissance through early modern music. There are tonal works, minimalism works, and avant-garde works all written at similar times. Some people love the variety while others do not.

I guess the bottom line is that the classical music community of composers, performers, musicologists, and professors (i.e. those who know the music best) view these type of works as classical. You don't happen to like them. Others don't like opera, Renaissance, Classical, etc.. You may say that it isn't a matter of not liking but rather of hating the works intensely or even not viewing them as music. I know. I used to feel the same way before listening and learning.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> To you, avant-garde music and perhaps some other modern/contemporary music is so removed from what you have viewed as classical music that it ought to be considered another form of music. There are many who would agree. But I think we should look to the experts, to those involved in composing that music, performing the music, and writing about it. Composers, musicologists, and music schools all view the composers listed by Nereffid as classical composers. Classical performers perform the music and consider themselves as performing classical music and not some other type. Yes, it's different. In some cases it's remarkably different, but those who have studied classical music composition, performance, and history seem to still view the music as classical.


You are trying to lump in contemporary music beyond what I am referring to by adding to avant-garde and referring to Nereffid's list in general which is [disingenuous] retracted . I am specifically talking about works such as Feldman's and this:






Your list of supporters left out common listeners. The number of listeners for these works are so small that many of the performances are free or in very small venues or because of their nature unlikely to be performed live. Btw, I'm willing to bet that there are some composers and musicologists who agree with me. Whether they feel free to voice their opinion is another matter. I don't know about music schools. There have been serious questions about their agenda since the early 20th century..


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DaveM said:


> That was unexpected.
> 
> Anyway, as an example, one of possible many, this will never make my list under the definition of classical music. It may be wonderful Avant-garde or whatever name fits. I understand that some people love this stuff and to them I say, all the more power to you -get together and forge a new category of music once and for all.


Oh, darn. Just when we were finding some common ground. Where you lose me is in saying modern or avant-garde music will *never* become classical, when it inevitably will, so long as it is worthy, i.e., deemed in the fullness of time and historical context to have set an exemplary standard in its era. I'm guessing it's this last hurdle that much modern music will not clear, in your opinion, but that's a different issue.

Good examples of this evolution, as Becca aptly describes it, are the artists Cezanne, Renoir, Monet and Degas. No doubt considered avant-garde in their time, though other descriptive terms may have been used (outrageous? incompetent? Contemporary criticism could be harsh). They were certainly called "modern" artists by the early 20th century. But wouldn't they all be considered classical artists by now? I think so.

The same is true of Debussy, Ravel and Stravinsky. These were once considered "modern" composers, and still can be if one considers "modern" as consisting roughly of the era from 1900 to 1980. But they are all classical composers at this point as well.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DaveM said:


> You are trying to lump in contemporary music beyond what I am referring to by adding to avant-garde and referring to Nereffid's list in general which is disingenuous.


I think you should be careful in using the term disingenuous. When I see it used on TC, the poster is usually flat out wrong. For some reason people want to infer devious motives to other posters when more often there is simply a misunderstanding.

I thought the discussion was focused on whether the past 70 years has produced great composers and excellent works. Becca and Nereffid posted lists of composers that they suggested were notable composers. You responded to Nereffid's list that you view some as avant-garde and have removed them from your concept of even being classical music. I thought you were still discussing Nereffid's list since you responded to his list. My comments were meant to refer to the avant-garde or more extreme music from that list of composers.

I assumed in this discussion of the past 70 years of classical composition you didn't mean to refer to a very small percentage of works since no one else was. Still, to my knowledge, all of those composers are considered classical - even Stockhausen's work, Gesang der Junglinge.



DaveM said:


> Your list of supporters left out common listeners. The number of listeners for these works are so small that many of the performances are free or in very small venues or because of their nature unlikely to be performed live. Btw, I'm willing to bet that there are some composers and musicologists who agree with me. Whether they feel free to voice their opinion is another matter. I don't know about music schools. There have been serious questions about their agenda since the early 20th century..


Yes, the vast majority of classical music listeners do not like those works. They are not the ones who have or who will define what classical music is. There may be some composers and musicologists who agree with you. I'm not sure what you are suggesting about the agenda of music schools. When I ask my daughter and her friends about their experiences in music school, there does not appear to be any special agenda other than teaching about the history, composition, and performance of classical music.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> Cage's and Boulez's groundbreaking works, which haven't really been widely accepted or canonized. They will always be regarded a lower tier or a consolation category it seems to me.


While I don't agree with this, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. What bothers me is how Cage, Boulez and a very few others (such as Stockhausen and Feldman) are endlessly made the whipping boys for an entire century or more of music. It is as if all art is Dada or Abstract Impressionism, or all literature or drama is Theater of the Absurd or Stream of Consciousness. John Cage in particular was the classic enfant terrible or provocateur, and intentionally so, but even he produced a lot of work that doesn't neatly fall into that category.

To me, all of that has its place in the canon of classical western culture, but if you don't care for various aspects of it, there are a lot of other places to look.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

fluteman said:


> Oh, darn. Just when we were finding some common ground. Where you lose me is in saying modern or avant-garde music will *never* become classical, when it inevitably will, so long as it is worthy, i.e., deemed in the fullness of time and historical context to have set an exemplary standard in its era.


I have specifically, and I mean specifically, been referring to avant-garde. Why are you inferring or saying that I am including other modern/contemporary music?

The rest of your post becomes irrelevant because it may well apply to some segue of classical music to an acceptance of modern/contemporary classical music similar to what happened with modern painting artists, but I don't include avant-garde. I don't believe the latter will ever be widely accepted at all or considered to be classical music as we know it.

That said, fwiw, I don't believe the audio and visual arts can be compared when it comes to their development over the centuries. Looking at a Pollock does not disturb the senses. Listening to what often is constant dissonance, violins stuck on one note for minutes, random sounds, dinks, donks, bonks, off-tune voices and whatnot can.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> mmsbls: "I guess the bottom line is that the classical music community of *composers, performers, musicologists, and professors* (i.e. those who know the music best) view these type of works as classical. You don't happen to like them...."


This is undeniably true, but also of little relevance in the real world. While the composers, professors, etc. will define what classical music is, the listening public decides and will continue to decide as a practical matter what is _de facto_ classical music. Old Abe Lincoln question: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Lincoln observed that calling a tail a leg did not make it one. I'm not suggesting the composers and professors are engaged in as serious a deviation from common usage but some compositions are at the very frayed edge of sounds, or beyond, that a paying audience, or even a non-paying one tuning or surfing about looking for a new sound, will accept long enough to be concerned whether it is accurately called "classical music". Other arts also reach similar frayed edges where the insiders soldier on into the gathering darkness while their past audiences drop away, bored, irritated, unfulfilled. A Pyrrhic victory.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> I think you should be careful in using the term disingenuous. When I see it used on TC, the poster is usually flat out wrong. For some reason people want to infer devious motives to other posters when more often there is simply a misunderstanding.
> 
> I thought the discussion was focused on whether the past 70 years has produced great composers and excellent works. Becca and Nereffid posted lists of composers that they suggested were notable composers. You responded to Nereffid's list that you view some as avant-garde and have removed them from your concept of even being classical music. I thought you were still discussing Nereffid's list since you responded to his list. My comments were meant to refer to the avant-garde or more extreme music from that list of composers.
> 
> ...


My apologies for the use of the word 'disingenuous'. I have been through this discussion or ones like it and so often people put words in my mouth in response to my posts even when I have taken strides to be very clear. Also, I'm pretty much alone in taking this on. I don't think it's because there aren't those who agree with me, but rather they don't want to deal with the blowback. Still, you have been particularly fair and reasonable on this subject so I should respect that.

My reference to music schools goes back to the well-documented decreased support of tonal music in the earlier 20th century. Composition was discouraged in favor of atonal and the like.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> This is undeniably true, but also of little relevance in the real world. While the composers, professors, etc. will define what classical music is, the listening public decides and will continue to decide as a practical matter what is _de facto_ classical music. Old Abe Lincoln question: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Lincoln observed that calling a tail a leg did not make it one. I'm not suggesting the composers and professors are engaged in as serious a deviation from common usage but some compositions are at the very frayed edge of sounds, or beyond, that a paying audience, or even a non-paying one tuning or surfing about looking for a new sound, will accept long enough to be concerned whether it is accurately called "classical music". Other arts also reach similar frayed edges where the insiders soldier on into the gathering darkness while their past audiences drop away, bored, irritated, unfulfilled. A Pyrrhic victory.


What a surprise! I didn't think you agreed with me on very much on this subject and maybe you still don't, but...well said!


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2019)

DaveM said:


> Anyway, as an example, one of possible many, this will never make my list under the definition of classical music. It may be wonderful Avant-garde or whatever name fits. I understand that some people love this stuff and to them I say, all the more power to you -get together and forge a new category of music once and for all.


Sounds _like _classical to me (it ain't pop, rock, folk, jazz...), just not of the "Top 50" kind where the usual suspects appear. But neither my liking of it, nor my deciding it is classical will make any difference to "what it is", and "what it is" is irrelevant anyway to my listening to it - or anyone else's listening to it either.

The only times where it "matters" are for the poor shop assistant who has to put it somewhere in some box or other; and for the poor "top 50 greatest" who gets clobbered for including Stravinsky, never mind Feldman.

I actually only have sympathy for the shop assistant.

[add] Just for you, DaveM, a snippet of a review of the Feldman



> I know this isn't meant to be easy. Feldman intentionally pushes performers and listeners to the limit. Even so, SQ2 borders on dehydration and kidney failure.


Grant Chu Covell, _La Folia_ online review, January 2005 at http://www.moderecords.com/catalog/112feldman.html


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> Sounds _like _classical to me..


Just for interest sake, what part of it?


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2019)

DaveM said:


> Just for interest sake, what part of it?


Well, I don't have time to listen to the full 5-6 hours, but pretty much all of what I listened to...sounded _like _classical music. Why does it matter?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DaveM said:


> What a surprise! I didn't think you agreed with me on very much on this subject and maybe you still don't, but...well said!


No surprises, really. There is comfortable compatibility (dogs and cats living together!) between my notion of the complete primacy of one's personal esthetic, and the objective facts of how many people and of what sorts like--or say they like--various kinds of music. Add to that the fact that we live in a time of almost immediate access to every sort of music/art, however defined, and we have today's unique situation in the arts. How will it all turn out?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> This is undeniably true, but also of little relevance in the real world. While the composers, professors, etc. will define what classical music is, the listening public decides and will continue to decide as a practical matter what is _de facto_ classical music. Old Abe Lincoln question: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Lincoln observed that calling a tail a leg did not make it one. I'm not suggesting the composers and professors are engaged in as serious a deviation from common usage but some compositions are at the very frayed edge of sounds, or beyond, that a paying audience, or even a non-paying one tuning or surfing about looking for a new sound, will accept long enough to be concerned whether it is accurately called "classical music". Other arts also reach similar frayed edges where the insiders soldier on into the gathering darkness while their past audiences drop away, bored, irritated, unfulfilled. A Pyrrhic victory.


I generally agree your comments. The relevance is in music schools where professors have to decide what classical music to discuss, or on classical music forums where we have to decide what counts as classical music (on TC jazz does not but much avant-garde does). There are works that TC members have posted or linked to that do stretch the boundaries. There is clearly no absolute dividing line.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DaveM said:


> My apologies for the use of the word 'disingenuous'. I have been through this discussion or ones like it and so often people put words in my mouth in response to my posts even when I have taken strides to be very clear. Also, I'm pretty much alone in taking this on. I don't think it's because there aren't those who agree with me, but rather they don't want to deal with the blowback. Still, you have been particularly fair and reasonable on this subject so I should respect that.


No need to apologize. I know and understand your views and know you are reasonable in your arguments even though I might disagree at times. If none of us ever disagreed, the forum would be less interesting and informative.

I think there are likely many (most?) TC members who generally agree with you on this matter. I actually started a thread on the Boundaries to Music trying to understand where TC members draw the line. I was talking about music in general, not specifically classical music, but the issue is roughly the same. The thread was unfortunately less useful than I had hoped.

Incidentally, there is a form of music that has been discussed a bit on TC called noise music. I asked someone who is fairly knowledgeable about it whether those who create the music consider themselves composers, and he replied that he thought they view themselves more as noise artists.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> they view themselves more as *noise artists*.


Now there's an oxymoron!


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DaveM said:


> I have specifically, and I mean specifically, been referring to avant-garde. Why are you inferring or saying that I am including other modern/contemporary music?
> 
> The rest of your post becomes irrelevant because it may well apply to some segue of classical music to an acceptance of modern/contemporary classical music similar to what happened with modern painting artists, but I don't include avant-garde. I don't believe the latter will ever be widely accepted at all or considered to be classical music as we know it.
> 
> That said, fwiw, I don't believe the audio and visual arts can be compared when it comes to their development over the centuries. Looking at a Pollock does not disturb the senses. Listening to what often is constant dissonance, violins stuck on one note for minutes, random sounds, dinks, donks, bonks, off-tune voices and whatnot can.


Well, if we stick to the definition of avant-garde we started with, i.e., new, unusual or experimental, there is no reason to conclude that none of it can ever become a well-established exemplar of its era. It certainly will all become old in time. That you don't happen to like some or any of it doesn't establish anything one way or another, even though you are as entitled to your opinion as anyone else.

As to your comment that a Pollock painting does not disturb the senses, I happen to have personal experience to the contrary. The Museum of Modern Art in New York has a famous Pollock drip painting in its permanent collection, one of his largest, known as One, Number 31, 1950. As a child, looking at it for any length of time bothered me, to the point that I would avert my eyes as I walked past it when I visited the museum. I think the reason for that is that it has no focal point to draw the eyes to, but instead makes the eyes wander randomly over the very large canvas with no destination or resting place. The net effect is one of restlessness and permanent disequilibrium. Could a four-year old have painted it? It would have to be a very careful, patient and methodical four-year old, as one large splotch or smudge anywhere on the canvas would spoil the effect.

View attachment 127329


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

fluteman said:


> Well, if we stick to the definition of avant-garde we started with, i.e., new, unusual or experimental, there is no reason to conclude that none of it can ever become a well-established exemplar of its era.


That may be true and the more power to it, but not as part of classical music.



> That you don't happen to like some or any of it doesn't establish anything one way or another, even though you are as entitled to your opinion as anyone else.


That is the oft used dismissive response on this subject and it simply doesn't apply. I don't like atonal music and a lot of other modern music, but I'm not suggesting it isn't classical music. My point, made ad nauseum, is if you remove, melody, harmony, structure and are assaulting (for probably most people) the senses, instead of raising emotions and if the product is a lot of random dissonance, stringed instruments stuck on a note or randomly screeching, various unexpected sounds or even voices arriving and disappearing for no conceivable reason etc., does that meet any conceivable definition of classical music? Or have these composers who have chosen to create some kind of new experimental 'music' simply found it convenient to attach the label of classsical music to it to perhaps give it gravitas and unbelievably, it has become accepted as CM like the Emporer's New Clothes?



> As to your comment that a Pollock painting does not disturb the senses, I happen to have personal experience to the contrary. The Museum of Modern Art in New York has a famous Pollock drip painting in its permanent collection, one of his largest, known as One, Number 31, 1950. As a child, looking at it for any length of time bothered me, to the point that I would avert my eyes as I walked past it when I visited the museum. I think the reason for that is that it has no focal point to draw the eyes to, but instead makes the eyes wander randomly over the very large canvas with no destination or resting place. The net effect is one of restlessness and permanent disequilibrium. Could a four-year old have painted it? It would have to be a very careful, patient and methodical four-year old, as one large splotch or smudge anywhere on the canvas would spoil the effect.


That's an interesting anecdote, but I think you know that people who don't understand or like modern art are not particularly troubled by looking at it. However, in my experience, some of these avant-garde works actually and predictably make people recoil.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

DaveM said:


> My point, made ad nauseum, is if you remove, melody, harmony, structure and are assaulting (for probably most people) the senses, instead of raising emotions and if the product is a lot of random dissonance, stringed instruments stuck on a note or randomly screeching, various unexpected sounds or even voices arriving and disappearing for no conceivable reason etc., does that meet any conceivable definition of classical music? Or have these composers who have chosen to create some kind of new experimental 'music' simply found it convenient to attach the label of classsical music to it to perhaps give it gravitas and unbelievably, it has become accepted as CM like the Emporer's New Clothes?


Every proper gentleman knows that it is classical music, unlike, for example---and especially---all these pastiches slavishly written for films. Would you possibly imagine that there are some ruffians who actually contemplate the reverse? /s


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DaveM said:


> That may be true and the more power to it, but not as part of classical music.


Well, yes as part of classical music, if you use a conventional definition of classical I mentioned earlier: "regarded as representing an exemplary standard; traditional and long-established in form or style." Everything we regard as avant-garde produced over the last 50 or 60 years won't make it, but some of it certainly will.



DaveM said:


> That's an interesting anecdote, but I think you know that people who don't understand or like modern art are not particularly troubled by looking at it.


I don't know that at all. In an earlier post, I suggested that all successful art is unsettling and challenges the audience's comfortable preconceptions in some way, however slightly or subtly. Just how uncomfortable one feels, or is willing to be made to feel, is a very personal thing.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

fluteman said:


> Well, yes as part of classical music, if you use a conventional definition of classical I mentioned earlier: "regarded as representing an exemplary standard; traditional and long-established in form or style."


I accept that definition of classical music, particularly the 'exemplary standard' part, which eliminates avant-garde. (Which doesn't mean that the latter isn't exemplary avant-garde.)


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

In another forum, I just came across this doubletalk. The last sentence conflicts with what was just said prior:
_
'A listener who dislikes a piece has many ways to express that dislike, noisy, dissonant, formless, and surely the current favorite, atonal. None of these describe the music itself. All of them identify that a listener has failed to establish an understanding or sympathetic relationship with the music in question. Of course there may indeed be reasons for that failure in the music itself, but none of those adjectives do any more than suggest what some of those reasons might be.'_


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

DaveM said:


> I accept that definition of classical music, particularly the 'exemplary standard' part, which eliminates avant-garde. (Which doesn't mean that the latter isn't exemplary avant-garde.)


So Joachim Raff isn't classical music? His works aren't typically thought to be of an "exemplary standard."


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2019)

DaveM said:


> My point, made ad nauseum, is if you remove, melody, harmony, structure and are assaulting (for probably most people) the senses, instead of raising emotions and if the product is a lot of random dissonance, stringed instruments stuck on a note or randomly screeching, various unexpected sounds or even voices arriving and disappearing for no conceivable reason etc., does that meet any conceivable definition of classical music?


Almost all these characteristics are dependent on the perspective of the listener and their relationship to the music. Where _you_ hear no melody, harmony etc; and where _your _emotions are assaulted; and where _you _hear stringed instruments stuck on one note: others hear differently.

The Feldman you offered as an example has form, structure, melody, harmony - though not in the same familiar style as CP classical. It was not dissonant to my ears, nor were my emotions assaulted (quite the opposite, actually, as it had some effect similar to some 'ambient' music)

Surely the true meaning of 'avant-garde' entails recognising that it is pushing the boundaries, leading the way - not merely 'experimental'. It may not lead in a long-lasting or profitable way; it may push past the boundary to unacceptable places - which is obviously what you think.



DaveM said:


> In another forum, I just came across this doubletalk. The last sentence conflicts with what was just said prior:
> _
> 'A listener who dislikes a piece has many ways to express that dislike, noisy, dissonant, formless, and surely the current favorite, atonal. None of these describe the music itself. All of them identify that a listener has failed to establish an understanding or sympathetic relationship with the music in question. Of course there may indeed be reasons for that failure in the music itself, but none of those adjectives do any more than suggest what some of those reasons might be.'_


I don't see 'doubletalk'. I agree with it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Portamento said:


> So Joachim Raff isn't classical music? His works aren't typically thought to be of an "exemplary standard."


As classical music, it is, compared to avant-garde works which is the point. You'll have to do better than that.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

The Ferneyhough is very nice. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DaveM said:


> I accept that definition of classical music, particularly the 'exemplary standard' part, which eliminates avant-garde. (Which doesn't mean that the latter isn't exemplary avant-garde.)


Sigh. I have had the privilege of hearing the following three pieces, all widely acknowledged as "avant-garde" at the time they were written, live and in person, performed by top notch musicians: Beethoven, String Quartet no. 14 (1826); Stravinsky, Le sacre du printemps (1913); Crumb, Music for a Summer Evening (Makrokosmos III) (1974). All three were dismissed as incomprehensible by many classical music critics and enthusiasts when first performed, though immediately embraced by some.

All three now have a permanent place in the canon of western music, including the third. Otherwise, I wouldn't so easily have been able to hear it performed live in mid-sized, full auditoriums. Twice. Both concerts included much more recent contemporary music, while Makrokosmos III served as the standard, "classic" anchoring the program.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

DaveM said:


> In another forum, I just came across this doubletalk. The last sentence conflicts with what was just said prior:
> _
> 'A listener who dislikes a piece has many ways to express that dislike, noisy, dissonant, formless, and surely the current favorite, atonal. None of these describe the music itself. All of them identify that a listener has failed to establish an understanding or sympathetic relationship with the music in question. Of course there may indeed be reasons for that failure in the music itself, but none of those adjectives do any more than suggest what some of those reasons might be.'_





MacLeod said:


> I don't see 'doubletalk'.


Then I will explain it:

He says that 'None of these [noisy, dissonant, formless, atonal] describe the music itself. All of them identify that a listener has failed to establish an understanding or sympathetic relationship with the music in question.' But then he says, 'there may be reasons for failure in the music itself, but none of those adjectives [noisy, dissonant, formless, atonal] do any more than suggest what some of those reasons might be.'

So, on the one hand 'noisy, dissonant, formless, atonal' don't describe the music itself and they somehow 'identify' a failure of the listener, but then these same things, 'noisy, dissonant, formless, atonal' apparently can suggest some of the reasons for failure in the music itself.

Bottom line: Anything that has the capacity to suggest reasons for failure in the music itself can also be reasons a listener doesn't like it in the first place. Not to mention that saying that [noisy, dissonant, formless, atonal] do not or, presumably, cannot describe the music is a major stretch.


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2019)

^ Let's just take the first adjective, 'noisy'. It seems to me that...

Wait a minute. Why are we debating something someone else said in another forum? We've got enough to be going on with in our own. So, I didn't mean that I didn't understand what you meant by 'doubletalk', I just meant I didn't see that there was any. I understood what the writer meant, and I agree.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

From le Carré, _Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy_:

Smiley: "They value most what costs most, and Merlin costs a fortune. Ever buy a fake picture?"
"I sold a couple once," said Toby with a flashy, nervous smile, but no one laughed.
Smiley: "The more you pay for it, the less inclined you are to doubt it. Silly, but there we are."

I'm wondering to what extent the context within which we hear sounds--"music"--determines/controls our attitudes toward those sounds. If we find ourselves seated in a concert hall, or at home with a CD in our hands, or a piece of electronics about and before us there are audio speakers or perhaps our ears are adorned with headphones, do we then have every reason to believe that the sounds we hear are music? If the sounds are clearly those produced by familiar musical instruments, or very like, is this presumption strengthened? Surely there exists an area of transition--the "frayed outer edges of music"--where it drifts into whatever is distinguished from it as noise. There may still be the possibility of agency: birdcall, the songs of the humpback whale, rhythmic cacophony of the machine shop. Or sounds more seemingly random, unidentifiable, arcane. Somewhere, sometime each finds him/herself at the juncture between music and noise--once the powerful tug of context is removed--with Edmund Burke:

"They are a matter incapable of exact definition. But, though no man can draw a stroke between the confines of day and night, yet light and darkness are upon the whole tolerably distinguishable."

This clearly varies from person to person.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> From le Carré, _Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy_:
> 
> Smiley: "They value most what costs most, and Merlin costs a fortune. Ever buy a fake picture?"
> "I sold a couple once," said Toby with a flashy, nervous smile, but no one laughed.
> ...


One thing's for sure (at least in my opinion). When people pay real money to go to a traditional concert hall like Carnegie Hall in New York, and musicians dressed in back formal wear are on the stage holding the traditional acoustic instruments of the 19th century symphony orchestra (and I'll include the piano in that acoustic tradition), and a conductor suddenly enters with an authoritative stride and mounts the podium, that whole atmosphere creates certain expectations that can be dangerous to disappoint. But once you take that disappointing music out of the hall and give it to musicians with non-traditional instruments on a subway platform or in a movie soundtrack, the audience can have very different expectations and reactions.

Playing in chamber music groups myself, sometimes for a fee, it struck me how the audiences didn't much want to hear popular songs, show tunes or jazz, but rather serious classical music. And contemporary avant-garde stuff, though not necessarily everyone's favorite, nearly always got the respectful attention of the audience, and sometimes individuals would come up to me afterwards and asks questions about such pieces. I think that like the Carnegie Hall audience, those people have expectations once they see classical musicians and make a decision, in many cases -- "Classical music? Well, I don't know much about that, let's give it a try!" rather than "This will be boring, I'l close my eyes and take a nap".


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> fluteman: "Playing in chamber music groups myself, sometimes for a fee, it struck me how the audiences didn't much want to hear popular songs, show tunes or jazz, but rather serious classical music. And contemporary avant-garde stuff, though not necessarily everyone's favorite, nearly always got the respectful attention of the audience, and sometimes individuals would come up to me afterwards and asks questions about such pieces. I think that like the Carnegie Hall audience, those people have expectations once they see classical musicians and make a decision, in many cases -- "Classical music? Well, I don't know much about that, let's give it a try!" rather than "This will be boring, I'l close my eyes and take a nap"."


We see here more example of context within which sounds are heard. An audience intimately gathered to hear a chamber group understands there are expectations of behavior on their part as auditors--to be subdued, respectful of the dedication and skills of the instrumentalists, properly focused, etc. It would not do to audibly groan, roll one's eyes, make a great show of getting up and storming out. An air of attentive reasonableness. But will the eye-rolling come later? Will a purchase be made of the "challenging" material, assuming it has been recorded? Would the same sounds be attended to at length if heard at home on the radio?

Just asking.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> We see here more example of context within which sounds are heard. An audience intimately gathered to hear a chamber group understands there are expectations of behavior on their part as auditors--to be subdued, respectful of the dedication and skills of the instrumentalists, properly focused, etc. It would not do to audibly groan, roll one's eyes, make a great show of getting up and storming out. An air of attentive reasonableness. But will the eye-rolling come later? Will a purchase be made of the "challenging" material, assuming it has been recorded? Would the same sounds be attended to at length if heard at home on the radio?
> 
> Just asking.


Maybe in a few cases, who knows? But playing popular music wasn't the answer if the context was wrong. For example, at a charity ball or banquet, or a traditional formal style wedding (though I tried to avoid playing at weddings) where white tablecloths and real dishes, glasses and tableware are the norm rather than paper plates and cups and plastic forks, people often want some classical music in the background, feeling it adds to the classy setting. There isn't much eye-rolling. Though some guests are more interested than others, everyone understands it's part of the setting. After all, even people who would rather have beer and cheetos understand there are occasions when champagne and chilled crab claw and seared scallop hors d'oeuvres are more appropriate to the setting. Maybe afterwards some tear off their suits and ties and heave a sigh of relief. But even they were willing enough to show up and play along, right?

My point being, context, circumstances and environment can play a major role in how people react to music. A lot of contemporary music isn't written for the traditional symphony orchestra, and even if it is, (or at least is written for some combination of traditional acoustic instruments), Carnegie Hall and musicians in black formal wear may not be the best context for it. The place reeks of history and tradition. No doubt many come solely to listen to the music and ignore the surroundings. But for many more, the environment matters.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^i think we are in full agreement within the borders wherein the outer trappings of decorum are observed: a social setting, people being polite, reasonable, affable. But my query was more about where people draw the line (or mark out the fuzzy twilight zone) between music and noise when they are either alone, privately, or among only a few close friends. There, where that public social context is no longer present to color either our perception of the sounds heard or of our reaction to them, will what was accepted, tolerated, attended to previously as avant garde music, be dismissed as noise?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Well, I don't mean to imply it's the only factor or overwhelms all others, but to me context is always important. 

The difference between music and noise is separate issue, and one endlessly debated here. For me, music is sound with some system of organization, and some purposeful or intended non-verbal communication (so not Morse code, for example). Some recent composers (not all that recent by now) have used what has been termed "indeterminacy", but that music is never entirely random. To me, this is the point the notorious John Cage makes in a cheeky way with 4'33". His idea there (and he has made clear in published interviews this was the point of 4'33") was that the audience does not sit in total silence, but rather listening to sounds, such as the sounds audience members may make (including by leaving in a huff once they begin to realize what is happening), or sounds from outside like rustling leaves. Those sounds are entirely random, except for one non-random element: the duration of precisely 4'33".

In sum, Cage argued music can consist entirely of random sounds, though 4'33" is not random with respect to duration, one of the fundamental methods used to organize sounds into music. And as Cage pointed out, there are sounds to be heard, including the sounds of angry audience members leaving when they realize there will be none of what they think of as music. So that is Cage's message when it comes to 4'33", his joke, really, the first of thousands of 4'33" jokes, some of which are mine.

With 4'33", Cage is simply tweaking the noses of those who would dismiss avant-garde music as noise. That is the message of the music. Not much, but remarkably effective.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I live in two different communities. One has a smaller population, probably half a million or so. There are several small venues that periodically have smaller classical performances: soloists, quartets and the occasional orchestral. The other is in a megapolis of several million people with small, medium and large venues. If you want to hear Ferneyhough, Feldman, Stockhausen and the like in either of those areas, you will be sorely disappointed.

It's not that it might not be found somewhere, sometime, in the megapolis, but you would have to be a sleuth to find it because that sort of thing is not advertised in newspapers or anywhere else easily accessible other than perhaps an internet search. This situation has been true for decades. There is no apparent growth in interest in this music and no groundswell of demand for performances of it in the areas in which I live. On the contrary.



fluteman said:


> Cage argued music can consist entirely of random sounds,
> 
> With 4'33", Cage is simply tweaking the noses of those who would dismiss avant-garde music as noise. That is the message of the music. Not much, but remarkably effective.


No it isn't. There is nothing profound about it. That random sounds are or can be classical music is a gross exaggeration. If Cage is talking about some other music such as avant-garde then fine with me since I exclude it from CM. Still, whatever sounds might occur in a concert hall during [groan] a 'performance' of 4'33", such as someone blowing their nose or sneezing, the sound of the A/C coming on, the ring of a cellphone or the sound of (smart) people leaving in disgust are not music.

Classical music has always been highly organized. The fact is that there is a an inverse relationship between the amount of randomness in classical music and the number of listeners that want to hear it.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Classical music has always been highly organized. The fact is that there is a an inverse relationship between the amount of randomness in a classical music and the number of listeners that want to hear it.


But your example of extreme avant-garde was the Ferneyhough piece, whose YT video _displays the score_. It's clearly a highly organized, not-at-all random piece of music.

What you're calling "randomness" would be much more fairly called "_apparent_ randomness". Just because listener A thinks a piece sounds random, doesn't mean that it _is_ random, or that listener B will think it's random. I grant you there probably is, in general, an inverse relationship between _apparent_ randomness and audience enthusiasm. But people are always going to differ as regards what they think sounds random, and whether they're willing to enter the composer's soundworld.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DaveM said:


> The fact is that there is a an inverse relationship between the amount of randomness in classical music and the number of listeners that want to hear it.


I guess that's why so many listeners want to hear something as non-random as this:


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> But your example of extreme avant-garde was the Ferneyhough piece, whose YT video _displays the score_. It's clearly a highly organized, not-at-all random piece of music.
> 
> What you're calling "randomness" would be much more fairly called "_apparent_ randomness". Just because listener A thinks a piece sounds random, doesn't mean that it _is_ random, or that listener B will think it's random. I grant you there probably is, in general, an inverse relationship between _apparent_ randomness and audience enthusiasm. But people are always going to differ as regards what they think sounds random, and whether they're willing to enter the composer's soundworld.


I never associated the Ferneyhough work with randomness. Your point about 'apparent randomness' is interesting, but if you look closely at my post above, my comments on randomness are in response to fluteman's Cage quote about random sounds. Fwiw, I agree that the Ferneyhough work is not random sounds. Some avant-garde works are.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

fluteman said:


> I guess that's why so many listeners want to hear something as non-random as this:


Just as Nereffid did, you are making broad associations from my response specifically to Cage's comments on random sound. Fwiw, I have not called *all* avant-garde works as consisting of random sound. Nowhere have I said that.

Btw, that performance was at the Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago and was supported by grants from 4 separate sources. That supports what I said previously about where you have to go to hear these works if you can find them performed at all.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DaveM said:


> Just as Nereffid did, you are making broad associations from my response specifically to Cage's comments on random sound. Fwiw, I have not called *all* avant-garde works as consisting of random sound. Nowhere have I said that.
> 
> Btw, that performance was at the Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago and was supported by grants from 4 separate sources. That supports what I said previously about where you have to go to hear these works if you can find them performed at all.


In fact, it's rather difficult to name ANY avant-garde music that consists of truly random sound, isn't it? Some have tried to create the effect or impression of randomness, but there is always a system behind it, often quite sophisticated. Schoenberg and Boulez, two of the most famous avant-garde composers of the 20th century, wrote music with amazingly complex and and often quite strict organizational systems, especially Boulez. George Crumb, who I mentioned earlier, was a highly sophisticated composer with a profound knowledge of other composers' music, contemporary and otherwise.

These composers had and used intellects comparable to chess world champions. John Cage, 4'33" aside, also created works of great organizational complexity (late in life he even had an assistant to help him put things together). He had a prodigious memory, and actually won a large cash prize on a game show due to his encyclopedic knowledge of mushrooms, one of his chief hobbies.

None of them simply shook up the notes in a can and dumped them on a page of staff paper. Actually, Dadaist poet Tristan Tzara wrote a famous poem suggesting poets do just that ("To make a Dadaist poem"). But that poem wasn't written that way, and even Tzara's own "collage" poetry reportedly was done carefully to give the look and sound of randomness without actually being random. So you may not like their work, I may not either sometimes, it may be eccentric and even weird in some cases, but random it is not.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

fluteman said:


> In fact, it's rather difficult to name ANY avant-garde music that consists of truly random sound, isn't it? Some have tried to create the effect or impression of randomness, but there is always a system behind it, often quite sophisticated. Schoenberg and Boulez, two of the most famous avant-garde composers of the 20th century, wrote music with amazingly complex and and often quite strict organizational systems, especially Boulez. George Crumb, who I mentioned earlier, was a highly sophisticated composer with a profound knowledge of other composers' music, contemporary and otherwise.
> 
> These composers had and used intellects comparable to chess world champions. John Cage, 4'33" aside, also created works of great organizational complexity (late in life he even had an assistant to help him put things together). He had a prodigious memory, and actually won a large cash prize on a game show due to his encyclopedic knowledge of mushrooms, one of his chief hobbies.
> 
> None of them simply shook up the notes in a can and dumped them on a page of staff paper. Actually, Dadaist poet Tristan Tzara wrote a famous poem suggesting poets do just that ("To make a Dadaist poem"). But that poem wasn't written that way, and even Tzara's own "collage" poetry reportedly was done carefully to give the look and sound of randomness without actually being random. So you may not like their work, I may not either sometimes, it may be eccentric and even weird in some cases, but random it is not.


I'm not sure why you're making such a big deal out of randomness in avant-garde music when I didn't. Still, if you want to argue the point, the fact that 'some have tried to create the effect or impression of randomness' results in something that can't be differentiated from randomness by the listener.

As to the premise that some of these composers are mental giants: their great intellect has apparently created a form of music that relatively few care to hear.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DaveM said:


> I'm not sure why you're making such a big deal out of randomness in avant-garde music when I didn't. Still, if you want to argue the point, the fact that 'some have tried to create the effect or impression of randomness' results in something that can't be differentiated from randomness by the listener.
> 
> As to the premise that some of these composers are mental giants: their great intellect has apparently created a form of music that relatively few care to hear.


I think I've lost track of where the thread is going. We've jumped from a discussion of a top 50 composer list to a discussion of whether the last 70 years has produced top composers to asking whether some avant garde music should be considered classical. Asking whether the last 70 years produced top composers could certainly make some sense in this thread although it changes the focus. Does the avant garde question matter when considering the top composers?

I'm not saying it's wrong to discuss that issue, but it seems to be a significant deviation from the OP. I'm just wondering if I'm missing the point of the discussion.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> I think I've lost track of where the thread is going. We've jumped from a discussion of a top 50 composer list to a discussion of whether the last 70 years has produced top composers to asking whether some avant garde music should be considered classical. Asking whether the last 70 years produced top composers could certainly make some sense in this thread although it changes the focus. Does the avant garde question matter when considering the top composers?
> 
> I'm not saying it's wrong to discuss that issue, but it seems to be a significant deviation from the OP. I'm just wondering if I'm missing the point of the discussion.


The idea here, I think, is whether even the greatest of the modern avant-garde composers deserve, or can ever deserve, to be included in any list of the greatest classical composers at all, or whether they must always inhabit a "lower tier", as DaveM put it. Aside from the in my view intractable problems in finding any consistently rational and coherent, much less objective, criteria for measuring greatness, my point here was that there is no reason to conclude modern avant-garde composers are any less deserving to be on such lists than avant-garde composers of any other era, or indeed, than conservative, non-experimental composers of any era. Assuming all those categories could be defined in a rational and coherent way.

Then DaveM introduced the proposition that the more music contains random sounds, the less people like it. I actually have no idea what that means (what "people?) or why he posted that, but I responded that modern avant-garde music never, or almost never, consists simply of random sounds. I also gave one example of a piece of modern avant-garde music, and two much older examples that were considered avant-garde in their day, that I consider to be classical music. I guess that's as far as I can go with this.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> I think I've lost track of where the thread is going. We've jumped from a discussion of a top 50 composer list to a discussion of whether the last 70 years has produced top composers to asking whether some avant garde music should be considered classical. Asking whether the last 70 years produced top composers could certainly make some sense in this thread although it changes the focus. Does the avant garde question matter when considering the top composers?
> 
> I'm not saying it's wrong to discuss that issue, but it seems to be a significant deviation from the OP. I'm just wondering if I'm missing the point of the discussion.


Well, I may well have contributed to the thread meandering away from the OP, but mr. fluteman posted the Cage quote's on the subject of random sounds which I felt compelled to respond to -because those quotes are likely evidence of the thinking of avant-garde composers other than Cage and thus supports my views on how far avant-garde music has moved away from classical- and away we went in yet another direction. 



fluteman said:


> Cage argued music can consist entirely of random sounds,
> 
> With 4'33", Cage is simply tweaking the noses of those who would dismiss avant-garde music as noise. That is the message of the music. Not much, but remarkably effective.


As far as important/great composers of the last 70 years go, I reject the inclusion of avante-garde composers, again qualifying that they may well be great avant-garde composers, but IMO their works have little relationship to my definition of classical music. I know you don't agree, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I'll leave it at that and unless someone wants to have at me again, I'll stifle myself and let the thread go back on topic.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> Yes, experienced listeners with similar experience and backgrounds might well generally agree on rankings within some "uncertainty", as you put it, but that doesn't mean those opinions are objective or inherently right or valid, even slightly.
> 
> *The only approach to aesthetics that has any element of objectivity is to tabulate the subjective tastes and opinions of others, expert or otherwise, as accurately as possible, and within a particular cultural and temporal context.* Ideally, you can then determine, at least roughly, the common aesthetic principles, the cultural identity if you will, of a particular time and place. I think that is a worthy task, and that of cultural historians and anthropologists.
> 
> But anyone who pursues this idea of inherent objectivity of aesthetic values is little more than a dog chasing his tail, and these ranking threads will continue to spin around in circles, arriving nowhere.


What? Who arre these chosen people and who cares what they think? The only way to be reliably objective is with education and years of experience. The subject is too huge for just a listener or a fan with opinions which change every decade.


----------

