# "Greatest" Composers - What Do You Think?



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Placing the phrase 'greatest composers' into a search engine I came up with a lot of mixed results for a top ten, here are some:

http://listverse.com/2009/12/17/top-15-greatest-composers-of-all-time/

1) J.S. Bach
2) Mozart
3) Beethoven
4) Wagner
5) Schubert
6) Schumann
7) Chopin
8) Liszt
9) Brahms 
10) Verdi

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/arts/music/23composers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

1) J.S. Bach
2) Beethoven
3) Mozart
4) Schubert
5) Debussy
6) Stravinsky
7) Brahms
8) Verdi
9) Wagner
10) Bartok

http://www.discogs.com/lists/The-50-Greatest-Composers/1571

1) J.S. Bach
2) Mozart
3) Beethoven
4) Wagner
5) Haydn
6) Brahms
7) Schubert
8) Schumann
9) Handel
10) Tchaikovsky

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

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

http://www.thetoptens.com/greatest-classical-composers/

1) Beethoven
2) Mozart
3) J.S. Bach
4) Chopin
5) Tchaikovsky
6) Haydn
7) Vivaldi
8) Schubert
9) Brahms
10) Ravel

http://solutionfocusedchange.blogspot.ca/2012/12/top-10-greatest-classical-composers-ever.html

1) Mozart
2) J.S. Bach
3) Beethoven
4) Chopin
5) Vivaldi
6) Tchaikovsky
7) Handel
8) Schubert
9) Verdi
10) Mahler

Do you agree with any of these lists? One thing they all have in common is the same 3 composers occupying the top 3 positions, is this a given? Do you think there is any way to meaningfully rank composers?


----------



## chrisco97 (May 22, 2013)

Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are usually always occupying the top 3 of these lists. I have no objection, but my personal top 3 would be different.

Out of all of the lists, I think my personal top 10 is more like TheTopTens' list.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I must say that I certainly understand member _some guy_ after reading those lists. 
We know that Bach, Beethoven, et al are some of the greatest of all time. But it is really necessary to repeat it ad nauseam?. The same lists over and over and over again, in different media and in different times of the year. I got the message!.
"The first poet who said that woman is like the petal of a rose was a genius; the second, an id.iot"


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2013)

aleazk said:


> I must say that I certainly understand member _some guy_ after reading those lists.




Here's some counter questions to consider:

Do any of the notes in any piece change depending on whether the composer gets on a top ten list or not?

Do you enjoy Bruckner any less even though he didn't make it onto any of these lists?

Do you enjoy Lidholm any less even though he will not likely make it onto any list, no matter how long?

Is Berlioz' historical significance to music affected by his not making it onto any of these lists?

Is Monteverdi's historical significance to music affected by his not making it onto any of these lists?

Is our perception of music and our ability to appreciate and enjoy and understand what we are hearing in any way affected by a composer's ranking? And if so, what does that say, not about the music but about us? (See the first question if you're struggling with this last one.)

To answer your question, tdc, there is no way to meaningfully rank composers, no.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The list from voting on another forum. Not a lot different!

1 - Beethoven
2 - Bach
3 - Mozart
4 - Haydn
5 - Mahler
6 - Schubert
7 - Brahms
8 - Stravinsky
9 - Handel
10 - Tchaikovsky

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/ama/best-composers


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are always the top 3, in some order or another. Even if I slid Wagner in there with guile, it would stick out like a sore thumb, and there would be riots in the town square tomorrow.

Why is this? Because Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart have been asserted as the greatest, for generations, until nobody dare question that assertion. There, my friends, is the importance of _ad nauseam._

One day it will dawn on some of you that symphonic halls are not where music is played. It is where battles for survival are fought. Composers are at war to be heard on the few and ever-declining number of stages where they may be heard.

I live so that Wagner may one day not stick out like a sore thumb in the top 3. Bring it.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Chopin???  

Oh well, I'll reserve my scorn.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

I really don't think Tchaikovsky deserves to be on any of the lists in the top ten as "greatest". If it was a list of most "popular" I would have no objection. I think "greatest" often gets used when "popular" was the idea behind the list. I think Shostakovich should be on those lists instead of Tchaikovsky. I might also take exception to Haydn and Vivaldi too. Obviously my "greatest" list would look much different so I don't even know why I bother posting anything in this thread. 

Kevin


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

A list without Liszt. 
Is something amiss?
If I rated Liszt 
I think I'd be p*ssed.

(In the American sense obviously)


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

People have different views of what "greatest" means. I generally assume it means most enjoyable, which is what matters to me. I generally don't care which composer writes structurally best or innovated the most. Obviously people will differ in whom they feel is most enjoyable, but if there are enough voters, a consensus forms. From my experience online, talking to musical professionals, and talking to friends who enjoy classical music, Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart stand clearly above all others in writing beautiful music. The lists seem reasonable to me. The one surprise would be Vivaldi being in 2 lists.

I think the biggest issue with lists such as these is the inability of people to judge recent music. Generally these lists have few or no composers born after 1900. We (the collective group of classical music listeners) simply haven't had the time and experience to assimilate a modern composer into our group of "great" composers. I would argue that a similar problem exists for fields that are probably more objective, such as science. Lists of great physicists would likely include few, if any, physicists born after 1900.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I really don't think Tchaikovsky deserves to be on any of the lists in the top ten as "greatest".

Why? Because you don't like him?

If it was a list of most "popular" I would have no objection. I think "greatest" often gets used when "popular" was the idea behind the list.

Why do you think Tchaikovsky... and Mozart... and Beethoven, for that matter... are so "popular"?

I think Shostakovich should be on those lists instead of Tchaikovsky.

And I don't think he even comes close. Top Twenty? Maybe.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Here's some counter questions to consider:

Do any of the notes in any piece change depending on whether the composer gets on a top ten list or not?

Do you enjoy Bruckner any less even though he didn't make it onto any of these lists?

Do you enjoy Lidholm any less even though he will not likely make it onto any list, no matter how long?

Is Berlioz' historical significance to music affected by his not making it onto any of these lists?

Is Monteverdi's historical significance to music affected by his not making it onto any of these lists?

Is our perception of music and our ability to appreciate and enjoy and understand what we are hearing in any way affected by a composer's ranking? And if so, what does that say, not about the music but about us? (See the first question if you're struggling with this last one.)

To answer your question, tdc, there is no way to meaningfully rank composers, no.

And undoubtedly we all appreciate someguy's superior input on the matter.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Oh well, I'll reserve my scorn.

Please do... although I'll agree that he probably shouldn't make it into the Top Ten.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> People have different views of what "greatest" means. I generally assume it means most enjoyable, which is what matters to me. I generally don't care which composer writes structurally best or innovated the most. Obviously people will differ in whom they feel is most enjoyable, but if there are enough voters, a consensus forms. From my experience online, talking to musical professionals, and talking to friends who enjoy classical music, Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart stand clearly above all others in writing beautiful music. The lists seem reasonable to me. The one surprise would be Vivaldi being in 2 lists.
> 
> I think the biggest issue with lists such as these is the inability of people to judge recent music. Generally these lists have few or no composers born after 1900. We (the collective group of classical music listeners) simply haven't had the time and experience to assimilate a modern composer into our group of "great" composers. I would argue that a similar problem exists for fields that are probably more objective, such as science. Lists of great physicists would likely include few, if any, physicists born after 1900.


No, we have had long enough. The reasons why Boulez, Babbitt, Cage and a host of other 20C composers don't appear on the lists, are not to do with time. But that is another topic altogether!

The parallel with science does not work because science is not a field which holds such a position in the emotional life of the population. And anyway, the one name that nearly everyone would put in their top 3 is Einstein who's most significant work was in the 20C though he was born in the 19th.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> Lists of great physicists would likely include few, if any, physicists born after 1900.


Surely you're joking, Mr. Mmsbls!


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Blancrocher said:


> Surely you're joking, Mr. Mmsbls!


lol, good one. I wonder if Feynman liked classical music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Blancrocher said:


> Surely you're joking, Mr. Mmsbls!


Pauli, Fermi, Heisenberg, Dirac...and that's just 1900 through 1902!!!


----------



## TrevBus (Jun 6, 2013)

Jobis said:


> Chopin???
> 
> Oh well, I'll reserve my scorn.


Well, you are the nice one. Me? Not so much. SCORN!!! SCORN!!!! and SCORN!!!!!


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

'Greatest Composers', what do I think?

Makes me think: If people needs to be approached much more to baroque and contemporary music.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Well, I'll say it for the hundredth time - there are probably some people in the world who are qualified to judge who is the "Greatest". I'm not one of them. And, it would surprise me if everyone involved in these lists was qualified either.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I may throw up if yet another list of great / greatest / best / most perfect piece / most beautiful melody, etc. shows up within the next ten minutes.

And to whomever said it, "The most popular" is just that -- the most popular with the general music listening populace.
The most popular piece by Bartok (Concerto for orchestra) is I think far from his "Best" or "Greatest" work, and there is quite a difference.

From the casual user's perspective, the most enjoyable includes some of the greatest composers, and once in a while their greatest works fall within that Venn diagram circle as well, but not always.

If I took any of those lists in earnest, I would be appalled if they did not include Guillaume de Machaut, Monteverdi or Rameau, for example, all equally worthwhile and more than genuinely qualified by the general criteria to be in a "Top Ten" list.

This is why the lists are fundamentally useless.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> If I took any of those lists in earnest, I would be appalled if they did not include Guillaume de Machaut, Monteverdi or Rameau, for example, all equally worthwhile and more than genuinely qualified by the general criteria to be in a "Top Ten" list.
> 
> This is why the lists are fundamentally useless.


This comment is interesting, because (like Vesteralen's post) it is in between. You suggest the lists are useless, however your comment on Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, and Monteverdi, Rameau etc. suggests that perhaps there are some ways to actually measure the "greatness" of a work, or composer, to some extent. While I too disagree with the rankings of the lists I posted, I am in between on whether or not "greatness" is 100% subjective.

I don't really have an answer here, but enjoying the responses so far.


----------



## eighthundredfortynine (Apr 5, 2012)

The classical canon and it´s ongoing discussion and repeated performance on stage to me is the most boring aspect of classical music. I despise any Top 100, Top 500, Top 10 composers of all time, a vs b vs c and so on stuff. Any list of greatest composers. The 1245th performance of Beethovens 9th. The discussions about which of the 23456 performances of Beethovens 9th is the best, the worst, the second best, the most authentic. Classical Canon is an idea that only came up during the classical/romantical period. Before, most of the music was written to be performed and then to be forgotten.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> And undoubtedly we all appreciate someguy's superior input on the matter.




What is much less appreciated are transparent posts more about who thinks of themselves as TC's top dog in dispensing informed intelligent opinions, in other words status [email protected]@ing contests.

Is that the only reason you dropped into this thread, or did you actually have anything to contribute here?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

tdc said:


> This comment is interesting, because (like Vesteralen's post) it is in between. You suggest the lists are useless, however your comment on Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, and Monteverdi, Rameau etc. suggests that perhaps there are some ways to actually measure the "greatness" of a work, or composer, to some extent. While I too disagree with the rankings of the lists I posted, I am in between on whether or not "greatness" is 100% subjective.
> 
> I don't really have an answer here, but enjoying the responses so far.


There are ways, subjective no matter how "objectively" the criteria are which are set, and there will always be many a difference of opinion between the general listener and trained experts, a given, and no surprise.

Lists, however, are less prone to come from the experts, because they recognize that one equally 'great' compared to another is still in the realm of such varied qualities of style, period, there is no real objective way to eliminate one of the two -- you would have to set up different sets of criteria, at which point, that top 10, or 100, game cannot be played by those rules, or at least it should not be in an overall tournament


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Kevin Pearson said:


> I really don't think Tchaikovsky deserves to be on any of the lists in the top ten as "greatest". If it was a list of most "popular" I would have no objection. I think "greatest" often gets used when "popular" was the idea behind the list. I think Shostakovich should be on those lists instead of Tchaikovsky. I might also take exception to Haydn and Vivaldi too. Obviously my "greatest" list would look much different so I don't even know why I bother posting anything in this thread.
> 
> Kevin


Well there's the problem because I'm quite sure that Tchaikovsky is the greater.
I think that people on this forum are afraid to vote for him for fear of a put-down by the resident snobs.I ,of course,am not.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

eighthundredfortynine said:


> The classical canon and it´s ongoing discussion and repeated performance on stage to me is the most boring aspect of classical music. I despise any Top 100, Top 500, Top 10 composers of all time, a vs b vs c and so on stuff. Any list of greatest composers. The 1245th performance of Beethovens 9th. The discussions about which of the 23456 performances of Beethovens 9th is the best, the worst, the second best, the most authentic. Classical Canon is an idea that only came up during the classical/romantical period. Before, most of the music was written to be performed and then to be forgotten.


And it mostly should be in general.


----------



## Muddy (Feb 5, 2012)

It is an abomination that Brahms did not make one of the lists!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

moody said:


> Well there's the problem because I'm quite sure that Tchaikovsky is the greater.
> I think that people on this forum are afraid to vote for him for fear of a put-down by the resident snobs.I ,of course,am not.


if it helps, I think Shostakovich has been near mythologized to a much higher elevation on Mt. Olympus than I, at any rate, would place him.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Muddy said:


> It is an abomination that Brahms did not make one of the lists!


Proof those lists are without any real sense of anything, and that they are, great music or not, lists of the most generally "accessible" music.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I really don't think Tchaikovsky deserves to be on any of the lists in the top ten as "greatest".
> 
> Why? Because you don't like him?


Actually no. I do like him very much, and enjoy many of his compositions. Especially his last three symphonies, his string quartets, and most of all his violin concerto. And I think he had moments of brilliance but his music taken as a whole, compared to Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorak and many others I could name, is not consistently brilliant and that is why I feel he does not qualify for a top ten greatest. I mention Shostakovich because I think he was far more brilliant and creative than Tchaikovsky. I could have said Stravinsky as well. In any case I wanted to set the record straight for you as I am not one of those who hate Tchaikovsky. I own many works by him and listen to him with some frequency.

Kevin


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

PetrB said:


> There are ways, subjective no matter how "objectively" the criteria are which are set, and there will always be many a difference of opinion between the general listener and trained experts, a given, and no surprise.
> 
> Lists, however, are less prone to come from the experts, because they recognize that one equally 'great' compared to another is still in the realm of such varied qualities of style, period, there is no real objective way to eliminate one of the two -- you would have to set up different sets of criteria, at which point, that top 10, or 100, game cannot be played by those rules, or at least it should not be in an overall tournament


There can be no such thing as somebody who is a trained expert in who is the greatest.
Also I've put up with snide comments on experts knowing better once already in the last 48 hours,could you give that one a rest.
Also,St.Lukes' opinions are normally well informed if a little caustic--but so what ?


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

1. me
2. me
3. me
4. me
5. me
6. me
7. me
8. me
9. me
10. me

But you already knew that, didn't you?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Celloman said:


> 1. me
> 2. me
> 3. me
> 4. me
> ...


as you may hear soon I'm sure it must be COAG.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

I would also add one other thought and it is this...I personally feel that qualification for a "greatest" composers list must take into account a composers whole body of work not just a few pieces that have become "popular" during the composers lifetime or after, and I cannot support Tchaikovsky in a top ten list as a contender based on a few "hits". I would however list him in a top 100.

Kevin


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

moody said:


> There can be no such thing as somebody who is a trained expert in who is the greatest.


I did not mean that at all, mean expert as in Professional Musician / Musicologist, and those opinions are often different enough from the average, even if devoted and well-informed, classical music listener.

I even said those professionals are less prone to think making an objective list even possible, since so many greats are ranked on some general criteria, but that gets less than universal era from era, style to style -- a game with moveable rules, though that is precisely what would be necessary to achieve such a list, is hardly one the outcome of which one could believe in, after all.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

moody said:


> as you may hear soon I'm sure it must be COAG.


No, No, it is... Crudblud,
No, wait, it is... Violadude
Or, no no, it is... Aleazk
No, wait, it is....

O hell, here we are rating totally different good composers. Give it up?


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

I think classical music is one of the only musical styles where listeners attempt to place 'objective' value on composers, based on the complexity of the content or the amount of creativity which went into the works. For example, Mozart and Beethoven are considered 'objectively' better than Haydn, but I prefer listening to Haydn. Or Bach is considered objectively better than Telemann, but I prefer Telemann (in general). I can see why there may be a wish to 'reduce the lists', because as was said on these forums many times before, 'one can't hear everything' and so we tend to choose composers almost as 'quality stamps' and tend to trust that what they produce will be of the highest quality.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

This is easy. 
Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Brahms, Wagner.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

PetrB said:


> I did not mean that at all, mean expert as in Professional Musician / Musicologist, and those opinions are often different enough from the average, even if devoted and well-informed, classical music listener.
> 
> I even said those professionals are less prone to think making an objective list even possible, since so many greats are ranked on some general criteria, but that gets less than universal era from era, style to style -- a game with moveable rules, though that is precisely what would be necessary to achieve such a list, is hardly one the outcome of which one could believe in, after all.


Professional musicians and musicologists have their biases and subjectivity too.
The main problem is defining 'great'.
To me 'greatness' is a measure of stature. In other words, someone is great if they are held to be so by the greatest number. That includes 'experts' and the general listening public.

It's all a bit circular. Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are the three greatest because for a very long time they have made the top 3 on lists.

And by the way, Tchaikovsky is greater than Shostakovich and so is Prokofiev.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

As always, "greater/greatest" is thrown around in the subject and many posts without definition of that shady term, making any discussion useless.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> And by the way, Tchaikovsky is greater than Shostakovich and so is Prokofiev.


To quote Dilbert, "That's wrong on so many levels."


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

KenOC said:


> To quote Dilbert, "That's wrong on so many levels."


Starting to wonder if you have any original thoughts left in there, all you seem to post these days are quotes.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> Starting to wonder if you have any original thoughts left in there, all you seem to post these days are quotes.


My original thoughts were used up some years ago. All that's left for me is to try to match the stellar quality of your posts, but as you can well imagine that's a very difficult thing!


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2013)

Couchie said:


> Why is this? Because Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart have been asserted as the greatest, for generations, until nobody dare question that assertion. There, my friends, is the importance of _ad nauseam._


Just because it's been repeated ad nauseam, doesn't mean it's not true.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> And undoubtedly we all appreciate someguy's superior input on the matter.


Do we? _I _appreciate someguy's input (though I wouldn't use the term 'superior') but I wouldn't assume I speak for 'us'.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

aleazk said:


> lol, good one. I wonder if Feynman liked classical music.


He played the bongos. I don't think classical was on his list.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

This thing of the greatest composers is always somewhat of a futile matter.
Certainly Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are right up there with the greatest all round.
But we also have to look at specific genres
Eg The greatest choral composer was probably Bach
The greatest operatic composer was Mozart
Mozart also wrote the greatest set a piano concertos
The greatest symphonist was Beethoven
Beethoven also wrote the greatest set of piano sonatas
The greatest writer of songs was Schubert
The most innovative romantic composer was Liszt
Of course this is just my opinion and is subjective. Others will think differently. But it does illustrate one cannot just go by a blanket term.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> To me 'greatness' is a measure of stature. In other words, someone is great if they are held to be so by the greatest number. That includes 'experts' and the general listening public.
> 
> It's all a bit circular. Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are the three greatest because for a very long time they have made the top 3 on lists.


Populist definition and rules then, all the way -- which most polls are anyway 

*In this thread, TC member Sequentia says it well clearly:*
http://www.talkclassical.com/16382-schumann-most-underrated-composer-16.html
post No.229
*Sequentia
Re: polls and popular and the Beethoven Piano Sonatas.
"Why do you suppose the public likes No. 14 the most, pianists love Nos. 23 and 32 the most, and musicologists generally enjoy No. 29 the most? A clear hierarchy of an understanding of music can be seen there."*

If it is the populist general vote list, that is the great music for the populist crowd, then. The performers are another crowd, and composers / musicologists yet another.

Lump them all together, and guess which group is the vast numbers majority? (Hint, about one per cent or less of the population make or perform the music you consume.)

So even on TC, with a slightly higher, perhaps, 'learned' population participating in those polls, the results will be the most common denominator _vox populi_ results.

"Moonlight Sonata" it is, then....


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

KenOC said:


> My original thoughts were used up some years ago. All that's left for me is to try to match the stellar quality of your posts, but as you can well imagine that's a very difficult thing!


Indeed, my degree in Englishery serves me well.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Populist definition and rules then, all the way -- which most polls are anyway
> 
> *In this thread, TC member Sequentia says it well clearly:*
> http://www.talkclassical.com/16382-schumann-most-underrated-composer-16.html
> ...


I don't believe there is that degree of consensus at all.
I'd like to see the data on all the performers and musicologists who were asked. I bet not many.
The post you quote mentions those sonatas that are 'enjoyed' or 'loved', nothing about 'greatness'.

And make no mistake, the 'Moonlight' is a very great work indeed.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are always the top 3, in some order or another. Even if I slid Wagner in there with guile, it would stick out like a sore thumb, and there would be riots in the town square tomorrow.
> 
> Why is this? Because Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart have been asserted as the greatest, for generations, until nobody dare question that assertion. There, my friends, is the importance of _ad nauseam._


Wagner himself believed Bach, Beethoven and Mozart to be the greatest.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Greatest is an insult to artists and their work. To place them in competition devalues them while telling you little. Greatest as a synonym for most popular is the only definition that really makes any sense, as a vague stand-in for "highest degree of artistic merit" it is a trivialisation of aesthetics. Critical appraisals might be worth something if that thought terminating superlative "greatest" were stricken from the vocabulary.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Edgard Varese and I'm not biased in any way shape or form


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

quack said:


> Greatest is an insult to artists and their work. To place them in competition devalues them while telling you little. Greatest as a synonym for most popular is the only definition that really makes any sense, as a vague stand-in for "highest degree of artistic merit" it is a trivialisation of aesthetics. Critical appraisals might be worth something if that thought terminating superlative "greatest" were stricken from the vocabulary.


Haha, you're kidding.
Artist are in competition with each other, trivialise and insult each other and love to be thought of as the greatest!
Doh! They're just people you know!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

My first instinct is that "greatest" must mean "most influential," but I can understand someone who has a certain set of criteria that they value and that they could measure composers or compositions according to those criteria (this would be inevitably subjective of course, but not necessarily completely solipsistic). In either case it makes sense to me.

Not that I think it should be taken more seriously than a "desert island recordings" discussion or anything like that. It's just a way to have conversations. All our fears of naive listeners out there taking such lists hyper-seriously so that they never manage to enjoy Bruckner or Raff or whatever are nonsense - nonsense that is precisely analogous to the idea that kids who see a character on television do something stupid are going to run right out and mindlessly do the same thing themselves. Humanity in general isn't so stupid, unfortunately for the would-be culture police, and fortunately for culture. I've taught _Romeo and Juliet_ to teenagers for almost a decade now without having a single secret marriage, let alone double suicide tragedy. And I've seen "greatest" lists for a long time without finding a single person who treated them as gospel and threw out a favorite recording because of them.

We'll all be ok. So we can relax and enjoy the conversations. That being said, Brahms is fourth on the list, or the list is delegitimized. It's an objective fact, which you basically have to accept as part of becoming a mature member of the culturally elite, regardless of education level.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Kevin Pearson said:


> I would also add one other thought and it is this...I personally feel that qualification for a "greatest" composers list must take into account a composers whole body of work not just a few pieces that have become "popular" during the composers lifetime or after, and I cannot support Tchaikovsky in a top ten list as a contender based on a few "hits". I would however list him in a top 100.
> 
> Kevin


This is very strange---a few?
How many "hits" has Shostakovich had if that's your criterion?


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> Haha, you're kidding.
> Artist are in competition with each other, trivialise and insult each other and love to be thought of as the greatest!
> Doh! They're just people you know!


Yes composers and artists are prey to the same foolish impulses as the rest of us, perhaps even more than the rest of us. That still doesn't stop "greatest composer" from being comforting nonsense.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> I don't believe there is that degree of consensus at all.
> I'd like to see the data on all the performers and musicologists who were asked. I bet not many.
> The post you quote mentions those sonatas that are 'enjoyed' or 'loved', nothing about 'greatness'.
> 
> And make no mistake, the 'Moonlight' is a very great work indeed.


If you think I'm bashing _that_ op. 27 no.2 sonata quasi una fantasia in C# minor, you're dead wrong. The consensus reached is because the pros, etc, are in a teeny minority, the massive overwhelming majority is the general listeners... the minority is absorbed, their vote almost counting nothing.

I'd argue that Bartok: Music for string instruments percussion and celesta / Piano concerto No. 2 / Cantata Profana / Bluebeard's Castle / The Miraculous Mandarin, for example, are each candidates as the composer's finest works (and that is omitting a few chamber works to boot).... but in polls, if asked to name a composer and a representative work, we get suggested -- Bartok ~ Concerto for Orchestra. That's polls, get the most high-profile composers and the most popular of those pieces, sometimes one of their actual 'best,' and too often enough not 

Want to discuss which of those Bartok is his "greatest"? Hang out with a bunch of composers and musicologists, and enjoy the ride. That sort of discussion is known to be completely about the journey, supposedly keeping to a set of criteria and objectivity while everyone knows it is not / can not be wholly objective, and _there is also expected no possible settled conclusion_, i.e. no end point, at all, to the journey itself. Maybe you come away with slightly revised thoughts, without having changed your basic opinion at all.

_Polls expect settled results, a lot of the pros do not,_ and therein, I believe, is the greatest differences in type as to how polls and their results are regarded


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

Of the lists that were posted at the beginning of this post, the 3rd one is probably the closest to my own personal list...except the order would be different and I would swap out Handel for Mahler.

http://www.discogs.com/lists/The-50-...Composers/1571

1) J.S. Bach
2) Mozart
3) Beethoven
4) Wagner
5) Haydn
6) Brahms
7) Schubert
8) Schumann
9) Handel
10) Tchaikovsky

Or, if I could extended it to 14 you would have the bulk of my listening (again not in any particular order)
11) Mahler
12) Bruckner
13) Dvorak
14) Chopin


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

PetrB said:


> If you think I'm bashing _that_ op. 27 no.2 sonata quasi una fantasia in C# minor, you're dead wrong. The consensus reached is because the pros, etc, are in a teeny minority, the massive overwhelming majority is the general listeners... the minority is absorbed, their vote almost counting nothing.
> 
> I'd argue that Bartok: Music for string instruments percussion and celesta / Piano concerto No. 2 / Cantata Profana / Bluebeard's Castle / The Miraculous Mandarin, for example, are each candidates as the composer's finest works (and that is omitting a few chamber works to boot).... but in polls, if asked to name a composer and a representative work, we get suggested -- Bartok ~ Concerto for Orchestra. That's polls, get the most high-profile composers and the most popular of those pieces, sometimes one of their actual 'best,' and too often enough not
> 
> ...


I consider myself a pro and frequently hang out with myself. 
I think most people who consider themselves to be untrained music lovers would be happy to state which composers and pieces they like the most without claiming to be able to definitively say which are the greatest. Some do, and sometimes they're right.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> If you think I'm bashing _that_ op. 27 no.2 sonata quasi una fantasia in C# minor, you're dead wrong. The consensus reached is because the pros, etc, are in a teeny minority, the massive overwhelming majority is the general listeners... the minority is absorbed, their vote almost counting nothing.
> 
> I'd argue that Bartok: Music for string instruments percussion and celesta / Piano concerto No. 2 / Cantata Profana / Bluebeard's Castle / The Miraculous Mandarin, for example, are each candidates as the composer's finest works (and that is omitting a few chamber works to boot).... but in polls, if asked to name a composer and a representative work, we get suggested -- Bartok ~ Concerto for Orchestra. That's polls, get the most high-profile composers and the most popular of those pieces, sometimes one of their actual 'best,' and too often enough not
> 
> ...


Please note that most of the great music written was not composed for pros but for ordinary music lovers within the general public.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

science said:


> We'll all be ok. So we can relax and enjoy the conversations. That being said, Brahms is fourth on the list, or the list is delegitimized. It's an objective fact, which you basically have to accept as part of becoming a mature member of the culturally elite, regardless of education level.


Amen! I shed a tear every time my daughter tries to convince me that silly Wagner guy should be No. 4. What does she know? She's only a professional musician, taken several music history courses, a full year course on The Ring, and performed operas.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I'd argue that Bartok: Music for string instruments percussion and celesta / Piano concerto No. 2 / Cantata Profana / Bluebeard's Castle / The Miraculous Mandarin, for example, are each candidates as the composer's finest works (and that is omitting a few chamber works to boot).... but in polls, if asked to name a composer and a representative work, we get suggested -- Bartok ~ Concerto for Orchestra. That's polls, get the most high-profile composers and the most popular of those pieces, sometimes one of their actual 'best,' and too often enough not


??? Three recent polls on another forum:

Best of the 1920s:
#2 Bartok String Quartet #4
#6 Bartok Piano Concerto #1

Best of the 1930s:
#1 Bartok Music for SP&C
#7 Bartok Piano Concerto #2
#9 Bartok Violin Concerto #2

Best of the 20th century:
#3 Bartok String Quartet #4
#9 Bartok Music for SP&C


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> ??? Three recent polls on another forum:
> 
> Best of the 1920s:
> #2 Bartok String Quartet #4
> ...


Aha, but did they mention any compositions of the great Ottorino Respighi aside from his damned symphonic poems?

p.s. Be careful how you answer, because if so I might have to join!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> Amen! I shed a tear every time my daughter tries to convince me that silly Wagner guy should be No. 4. What does she know? She's only a professional musician, taken several music history courses, a full year course on The Ring, and performed operas.


Yeah, it's sad! All that experience, and insight, and knowledge, and training... and still not to know what I knew even before I'd heard an entire Wagner opera all the way through.

Let's face it. Until someone composes an opera or even an opera cycle by Brahms, he's the default #4.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Blancrocher said:


> Aha, but did they mention any compositions of the great Ottorino Respighi aside from his damned symphonic poems?


Perhaps they have not heard of this person named -- how did you write it -- Respiggi? Interesting name! Maybe he's on YouTube, I'll check... :devil:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Please note that most of the great music written was not composed for pros but for ordinary music lovers within the general public.


No one in their right mind is going to compose a work, hope to have it performed, and make a living off of it by writing it only to and for a tiny community of academics and professional musicians, most of whom are notoriously lower income peasants  
I thought that was such a B.F.O. (Blazing Flash of the Obvious) it did not need saying.

[There is that near one-off, Charles Ives, who didn't care much what anyone thought of his music, composed most of his life, and "kept his day job."]

*Edit add:* There is this factor, which may niggle the average listener: If the musicians in place and in power don't find the music to their interest -- apart from "popular it will sell and we will make money" -- it does not get performed, ergo, heard.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> No one in their right mind is going to compose a work, hope to have it performed, and make a living off of it by writing it only to and for a tiny community of academics and professional musicians, most of whom are notoriously lower income peasants
> I thought that was such a B.F.O. (Blazing Flash of the Obvious) it did not need saying.
> 
> [There is that near one-off, Charles Ives, who didn't care much what anyone thought of his music, composed most of his life, and "kept his day job."]


Well, musicians generally choose to be peasants - in income at least!


----------



## GiulioCesare (Apr 9, 2013)

Jobis said:


> Chopin???
> 
> Oh well, I'll reserve my scorn.


I also think Chopin should have made all list.

If only because of his wonderfully crafted symphonies or his beautiful operas, not to mention his violin concertos.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

giuliocesare said:


> i also think chopin should have made all list.
> 
> If only because of his wonderfully crafted symphonies or his beautiful operas, not to mention his violin concertos.


lol.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

GiulioCesare said:


> I also think Chopin should have made all list.
> 
> If only because of his wonderfully crafted symphonies or his beautiful operas, not to mention his violin concertos.


Hmm this is the first time I've heard of someone disliking a composer based on what they didn't write.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> Hmm this is the first time I've heard of someone disliking a composer based on what they didn't write.


... a conceptual enterprise.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

violadude said:


> Hmm this is the first time I've heard of someone disliking a composer based on what they didn't write.


If you like a composer for what he did write, then the opposite should be true as well. Seems only fair.


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2013)

Folks - it's not rocket science to properly construct a top 10 list.

I have access to a private research firm which compiles and analyzes detailed questionnaires given to literally thousands of classical music composers, conductors, performers and critics around the world. 

This research was conducted using the most sophisticated Bayesian statistical methods on behalf of a prominent (anonymous) record label for marketing purposes. Top 10 composers is just one of many questions answered in the final report. The study was beautifully executed and is absolutely definitive.

I can give you this information, but it's not free for obvious reasons. For the top 10 composers, I'll charge just $10 (normally $50). The price for other data will depend on the query. PM me for info on how you can make payment.

The truth is out there. And I'm offering it to you for an unbeatable price. But the report has to be returned soon, so this offer expires in three days. So act now!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BPS said:


> The truth is out there. And I'm offering it to you for an unbeatable price.


I'll beat that price! My report on the top ten was compiled using an integrative organic supercomputer of enormous complexity, adept at pattern recognition and associating disparate data sets. Far in advance of primitive inorganic computers! And if you order in the next hour you will also get, absolutely free, a list of the top ten compositions of Hans Rott. All this for five dollars! So hurry, operators are standing by for your call! Shipping and handling charges will apply.


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2013)

KenOC will sell you yesterday's newspaper. Don't be fooled by imitators!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> ??? Three recent polls on another forum:
> 
> Best of the 1920s:
> #2 Bartok String Quartet #4
> ...


:lol:

Thanks, I can always use a good laugh!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

BPS said:


> KenOC will sell you yesterday's newspaper. Don't be fooled by imitators!


Hey, now! The guy has to make a living some how.


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2013)

KenOC is a con artist on the run from authorities. That's why he has to change his avatar so frequently!

We stand behind our products and offer you 100% satisfaction monkey-back guaranteed.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BPS should talk! The last time somebody wanted their money back, it turned out he had invested it in a failed throat-singing academy in Tannu Tuva. Trust me! Look how well-dressed I am! Would you trust a guy who looks like a chimpanzee and may well be one?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

tdc said:


> ...
> Do you agree with any of these lists?


My main quibble is that Haydn only made it to one of them. In terms of innovation and influence, he was one of the most important composers in the history of Western classical music. Not literally "father of the symphony" and "father of the string quartet," but what would either of those genres have been since without him? Haydn influenced Mozart (who influenced him back!) and of course Beethoven, and many beyond.



> ....
> One thing they all have in common is the same 3 composers occupying the top 3 positions, is this a given?...


It probably is. Its only the order that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart come in that is disputed. Nine times out of ten, ask a classical listener who is his favourite, and their names come up. Bach is virtually God, and to a certain extent I accept that. Even though he's not the composer to whose music I listen to with the most regularity, there are a good number of works by him that I would never go without and are pivotal to the classical canon (or canons?) as a whole.



> ...Do you think there is any way to meaningfully rank composers?


On the internet, not really. Its hard enough within a country. I could imagine if a vote was done like this within the confines of one country, you'd get their own composers up a position or two, simply because of that kind of home advantage. For example, Sibelius didn't make it to those lists, but maybe he'd have a chance if it was restricted to Finland.

But look, the internet is like a microcosm of the whole world. LIke a global marketplace. So who knows the reasons behind the results of these lists? There are many. My personal take on greatness often hinges on innovation, or at least a kind of uniqueness. Many composers people claim didn't innovate actually did. Take Dvorak for example, he innovated. Not so much as Haydn in his own time, but he did. So even that's hard to quantify, do you look at the amount of innovation, the amount of works, the significance of the innovations and of what kind or where they impacted most (eg. his impact on American music was pretty huge), and things like this.

Other criteria might be popularity, but then you ask is it popularity just today or in the last 50 or 100 years or for longer. How longer?

Then you get the issue with Wagner and Chopin, those who focussed on one area, but made huge impacts on that area (and in Wagner's case, beyond).

Then even if you got the criteria for the creation and building of these lists, you expect people to stick to them, but they might not.

I think its an area fraught with these questions, and therefore can understand its controversy here. I have been critical of list building before but now see that it does serve some purpose for many people, especially those getting into classical music now in the internet age. When I started, there wasn't any internet, so I got my info from books. There was no interactive thing like an online forum to build lists or to do the other things we do here. So I realise that even thought its not important for me, for others (esp. for the younger generation?) it is. I got no issue with that. People do things in different ways. That's life.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

BPS said:


> Folks - it's not rocket science to properly construct a top 10 list.
> 
> I have access to a private research firm which compiles and analyzes detailed questionnaires given to literally thousands of classical music composers, conductors, performers and critics around the world.
> 
> ...


Don't tell me! Let me guess, the top dog is Andrew Lloyd Weber's "Phantom of the Opera."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sid James said:


> My main quibble is that Haydn only made it to one of them.


Haydn was #4 (after the usual big-three) on the list I supplied. As he should have been.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Anyway, back sort of on topic - 

One thing I often do is make comparisons between literature (where I have much more insight) and music. Of course I don't mean that a particular novel is like a particular symphony or anything like that. But meta-things. 

So, for example, we can imagine fans of post-Medieval literature constructing a hierarchy of "greatest" writers. But I think comparing sample lists, we'd find more diversity on the literary side. I might make a list like: 

1. Shakespeare
2. Joyce 
3. Kafka 
4. Dante
5. Cervantes
6. Twain
7. Charlotte Bronte 
8. Goethe
9. Chekhov 
10. Woolf 

I'll bet that a lot of those jomomos will be on other top ten lists, and it'll be a rare list where Shakespeare isn't in the top spot or near it. But there's bound to be greater diversity than we have on the classical music composer lists. For instance, Tolstoy, Austen, Nabokov, Milton, and Flaubert don't make my list (I'm generally not that impressed), nor do Proust or Faulkner, (whom I haven't read), nor Hemingway, Mann, or Dostoyevsky (I'd have them there if I could find room) - and most of them would be on a lot of people's top ten lists. 

In other words, I suspect that we classical music folks express a lot more consensus in our rankings than literary folks would. But literature might be at the extreme end. With painting, architecture, or sculpture I think we'd find a diversity somewhere in between. 

Maybe a better comparison would be with jazz musicians. I'd put Miles Davis in the top spot, but I can easily imagine lists where he's below at least Armstrong, Ellington, and Parker. But that's missing the point. The point is, I don't think many jazz fans will enjoy making a list that is anything other than somehow contrarian, whereas there is a kind of conformity, a conservatism inherent in classical music as we know it. We can rail against it, but it's there whether we like it or not, and although that conservatism exists in other cultural fields, it seem that classical music is at the extreme end of them.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

science said:


> Maybe a better comparison would be with jazz musicians. I'd put Miles Davis in the top spot, but I can easily imagine lists where he's below at least Armstrong, Ellington, and Parker. But that's missing the point. The point is, I don't think many jazz fans will enjoy making a list that is anything other than somehow contrarian, whereas there is a kind of conformity, a conservatism inherent in classical music as we know it. We can rail against it, but it's there whether we like it or not, and although that conservatism exists in other cultural fields, it seem that classical music is at the extreme end of them.


You missed Tatum and Coltrane LOL!
I'd say that the conformity is probably similar in Jazz. The names you mentioned plus the two I added would all be near the top of every list, I believe.
People just enjoy categorising and ranking, whether it's sports stars or musicians. I don't know why it is, perhaps it helps solidify one's own opinions.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

PetrB said:


> No one in their right mind is going to compose a work, hope to have it performed, and make a living off of it by writing it only to and for a tiny community of academics and professional musicians, most of whom are notoriously lower income peasants
> I thought that was such a B.F.O. (Blazing Flash of the Obvious) it did not need saying.


Sometimes the obvious might have to be said just to keep conversation grounded in some kind of reality. So I think the point you were replying to was worthwhile. Most composers, certainly prior to the modern age, did write music that could be enjoyed by ordinary people. That viewpoint has a significant effect on how we might view some works.


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2013)

Petwhac said:


> I don't know why it is, perhaps it helps solidify one's own opinions.


There, you _do _know why it is...or, at least, one reason why it is. By debating, I begin to work out what I think - sometimes in agreement with, sometimes in opposition to what others think. Making lists - and, more importantly, the criteria by which one compiles them - can be a fun and useful assist. What lists are not are definitive classifications with which all must agree. It's treating such 'lists' (especially when they are reduced to a list of one) in this way that is, IMO, objectionable.


----------

