# Your Top 20 Favorite Classical Composers Of All-Time



## Mirror Image

Who are your top 20 favorite classical composers and NOT your top 20 classical composers opinion of who are the most influential. This list is purely subjective and shouldn't be looked at objectively. If you don't have any favorites, then please refrain from posting in this thread.

Now my top 20 favorite composers of all-time and please note this could change in due time:

1. Ravel
2. Berlioz
3. Bruckner
4. Mahler
5. Vaughan Williams
6. Barber
7. Debussy
8. Bartok
9. Stravinsky
10. Brahms
11. Mendelssohn
12. Delius
13. Bax
14. Prokofiev
15. Langgaard
16. Nielsen
17. Dvorak
18. Sibelius
19. Shostakovich
20. Elgar


----------



## BuddhaBandit

1. Bach
2. Stravinsky
3. Ives
4. Bartòk
5. Haydn
6. Palestrina
7. Brahms
8. Crumb
9. Prokofiev
10. Mahler
11. Beethoven
12. R. Strauss
13. Albéniz
14. Wagner
15. Rzewski
16. Ligeti
17. Gershwin
18. Barber
19. Debussy
20. Britten


----------



## LvB

In no particular order, subject to change, and restricted to composers whose work I know in enough detail to justify adding them _tout court_ to such a list:

1. Anton Rubinstein
2. Anton Bruckner
3. Richard Strauss
4. Gustav Mahler
5. Leos Janacek
6. Bohuslav Martinu
7. Richard Wagner
8. Dmitri Shostakovich
9. Paul Creston
10. Abbie Betinis
11. Ludwig Van Beethoven
12. Franz Joseph Haydn
13. Luigi Boccherini
14. Bernard Herrmann
15. Lou Harrison
16. Kalevi Aho
17. Johannes Brahms
18. Alban Berg
19. Ferruccio Busoni
20. John Adams


----------



## Mirror Image

LvB said:


> 9. Paul Creston


I have recently acquired some Paul Creston. I heard he's quite good. It's good to see you like his music.


----------



## Air

1. Sergei Prokofiev

Whoooh! That was a surpise, now that's over...

2. Johann Sebastian Bach
3. Ludwig Van Beethoven
4. Maurice Ravel
5. Gustav Mahler
6. Heitor Villa-Lobos
7. Igor Stravinsky
8. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
9. Sergei Taneyev
10. William Byrd
11. Michael Tippett
12. Robert Schumann
13. Dmitri Shostakovich
14. Anton Bruckner
15. Jean Sibelius
16. Bela Bartok
17. Jean-Phillipe Rameau
18. Lowell Liebermann
19. Alexander Scriabin
20. Sofia Gubaidulina

I am still happily exploring.

Mirror Image, I've never seen you talk about Mendelssohn. I jumped up about three inches out of my seat when his name appeared.


----------



## Mirror Image

airad2 said:


> Mirror Image, I've never seen you talk about Mendelssohn. I jumped up about three inches out of my seat when his name appeared.


Oh, I absolutely adore Mendelssohn since the first time I heard him. Beautiful, sunny, uplifting music that I just enjoy immensely. I never talk about him that much, because I guess his name just never had been brought up. Well now you know that I love Mendelssohn. Pieces that made me a Mendelssohn fan: "Symphony No. 3 - Scottish," "Symphony No. 2 - Hymn of Praise," "A Midsummer's Night Dream," all concerti, and overtures.


----------



## andruini

Not in any particular order after then top 10..

1. Stravinsky
2. Brahms
3. Beethoven
4. Fauré
5. Debussy
6. Chopin
7. Dvorák
8. Glass (sorry!)
9. Janácek
10. Barber
11. Prokofiev
12. Bach
13. Tallis
14. Ibert
15. Mozart
16. Nielsen
17. Bartók
18. Smetana
19. Rachmaninoff
20. Schubert


----------



## Weston

These are the classical composers I enjoy listening to the most - not exactly in order.

1. Beethoven
2. J. S. Bach
3. Vaughan-Williams
4. Handel
5. Shostakovich

really begins to loose any order from here on

6. John Dowland
7. Brahms
8. Bruckner
9. Bernard Hermann
10. Holst
11. Herbert Howells
12. Liszt
13. Monteverdi
14. Rachmaninov
15. Ravel
16. Respighi
17. Joaquín Rodrigo
18. D. Scarlatti
19. Schumann
20. Telemann (often overlooked

I suppose I should have worked Mozart in somewhere as I am warming to his music, but still maybe not one of my favorites. I am also upset to leave out Sibelius, but I just don't listen that often. Same with Debussy, Stravinsky, Haydn, and many others.


----------



## periodinstrumentfan

if early music may be included then my top 20 are :

1. Heinrich Ingaz Franz Biber von Bibern
2. Jean-Féry Rebel
3. Johann Heinrich Schmelzer von Ehrenruef
4. Nicola Matteis
5. Dietrich Buxtehude
6. Arcangelo Corelli
7. Marin Marais
8. Henry Purcell
9. de Sainte-Colombe
10. Walther
11. Schaffrath
12. Venturini
13. Tartini
14. Galuppi
15. Corrette
16. Locatelli
17. Veracini
18. Pergolesi
19. Telemann
20. Vivaldi


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Mirror Image said:


> You Top 20 Favorite Classical Composers Of All-Time


NO. I do _not_ Top 20 Favorite Classical Composers Of All-Time!

(But seriously, folks) I can work with this number more easily than 30, so I thought I'd give it a try!

1. Wagner
2. Beethoven
3. Tchaikovsky
4. Mahler
5. Bruckner
6. R. Strauss
7. Dvořák
8. Shostakovich
9. Puccini
10. Rachmaninoff
11. Ravel
12. Mozart
13. Berlioz
14. Gershwin
15. Debussy
16. Prokofiev
17. Verdi
18. Schubert
19. Bizet
20. Rimsky-Korsakov

I'll forward a by-now common disclaimer and state that everything past the opening Bakers Dozen is subject to change depending upon mood. (In alphabetical order) Borodin, Grieg, Haydn, Sibelius, J. Strauss & Stravinsky were near-misses.


----------



## Weston

periodinstrumentfan said:


> if early music may be included then my top 20 are :


Interesting, but no J. H. Schein, no Heinrich Schutz?

No Monteverdi?


----------



## Weston

Chi_town/Philly said:


> (In alphabetical order) Borodin, Grieg, Haydn, Sibelius, J. Strauss & Stravinsky were near-misses.


The J. Strauss is a surprise. The Blue Danube I loved so much in _2001: a space odyssey_ notwithstanding, I always considered the waltz craze similar to the disco phase of popular music about 100 years later. A bit cringe worthy. Ragtime has a similar effect on me. I cannot deny the Strauss's were highly skilled composers though.


----------



## Mirror Image

For me, near misses were Liszt, Rachmaninov, Saint-Saens, Bliss, Copland, Hindemith, Poulenc, R. Strauss, Tchaikovsky, Britten, Scriabin, Rimsky-Korsakov, and Borodin.


----------



## bassClef

I'll give this a shot, In approximate order, based on how much of their output I have and how much it's been played over the years, I can't include composers I only have a couple of pieces from no matter how much I may love them :

1) Stravinsky
2) Prokofiev
3) Sibelius
4) Bartok
5) Orff (NEW ENTRY! Now I know much more than the ubiquitous CB)
6) Beethoven
7) Rachmaninov
8) Bruckner
9) Dvorak
10) Mussorgsky
11) Balakirev
12) Rimsky-Korsakov
13) Berlioz
14) Rossini
15) Borodin
16) Holst
17) Mendelssohn
18) Respighi
19) Ravel
20) Adams

No place for Mahler since I can't seem to get into ALL his symphonies. No places for composers I've only started getting into in the last few months either (Kilar, Ifukube, Britten, Bantock, Bax, Suk, Vaughan-Williams, Kodaly etc) - though I like them alot they will have to stand the test of time.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Weston said:


> The J. Strauss is a surprise.


Don't be too surprised!


Weston said:


> Ragtime has a similar effect on me.


 Oh, and by the way, I like Scott Joplin, too!

I have an insuppressable appreciation for great melodists. It explains much of why I rank Tchaikovsky so high- and also figures in the inclusion of Gershwin on my list, as well!


----------



## Air

I used an incredibly unfair system to compile the leaders of the lists so far: assigning 30 to each 1st place finish, 28 to 2nd, 27 to 3rd.... all the way down to 10 for 20th. Life is unfair: so the near-misses were excluded.

Most members favor:

1. Beethoven - 174

This is certainly no surprise.

2. Bruckner - 141

This certainly was though.

3. Stravinsky - 132
4. Prokofiev - 128

I still am amazed how well Prokofiev did. 4th... I had an impression I was the only one who liked him.

5. Mahler - 123
6. Bach - 104

The lone baroque member of this list.

7. Ravel - 101
7. Bartok - 101
9. Brahms - 97
9. Shostakovich - 97
11. Dvorak - 80
12. Debussy - 74
13. Rachmaninov- 71
14. R.Strauss - 69
14. Wagner - 69
16. Berlioz - 62
17. Barber - 56
18. Sibelius - 54
19. Vaughan Williams - 52

For those who are curious, Mozart is currently at 34 points, somewhere in the 20s.

Near-misses for me: Poulenc, Schubert, Barber, Busoni, Hindemith, Webern, Roussel, Khachaturian, Palestrina, Saint-Saens, R.Strauss, Alkan, Ligeti, Faure, Franck, Borodin, Rach, Dvorak, Medtner...

And Chi, I admire your radical stance, but I just cannot agree.


----------



## Efraim

1. Haydn (about 70 to 80 of his works)
2. Brahms (25-30)
3. Beethoven (20-22)
4. Schubert (14-15)
5. Schumann (13-14)
6. Bach (15-20)
7. Bartok (7-8)
8. Mahler (1)
9, Smetana (1)
10. Stravinsky (2-3)
11. Anton Webern (3-4)
12. Schoenberg (3)
13. Ravel (1)
14. Alban Berg (1)
15. Lutoslavski (1)
16. Pergolesi (1)

That's all. No 17, 18, 19 and 20.


----------



## Air

Efraim said:


> 1. Haydn (about 70 to 80 of his works)
> 2. Brahms (25-30)
> 3. Beethoven (20-22)
> 4. Schubert (14-15)
> 5. Schumann (13-14)
> 6. Bach (15-20)
> 7. Bartok (7-8)
> 8. Mahler (1)
> 9, Smetana (1)
> 10. Stravinsky (2-3)
> 11. Anton Webern (3-4)
> 12. Schoenberg (3)
> 13. Ravel (1)
> 14. Alban Berg (1)
> 15. Lutoslavski (1)
> 16. Pergolesi (1)
> 
> That's all. No 17, 18, 19 and 20.


I don't get this. What are these numbers for? You like only one of Ravel, Berg, Lutoslawski, and Pergolesi's works and yet their in your top 20?

Great top 10 by the way.


----------



## Efraim

Even so I couldn't fill up the required quota. This is not merely a question of quantity. For example, I am fond of that only work of Mahler - Das Lied von der Erde (Song of the Earth) -, am not fond of the Klagendes Lied and Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen but they are not bad, and can properly not stand everything else I heard from him (meanly symphonies). Schoenberg is only boring (I have almost everything he wrote) except for Pierrot Lunaire - which is a fantastic masterpiece, a work of genius -, Verklärte Nacht and Six Pieces for Orchestra Op. 16. Smetana: the String quartet in E Minor; I know only a few other works of Smetana. And so on. As to Pergolesi, this (Stabat Mater) is his only work I ever heard.


----------



## Guest

bassClef said:


> (Kilar, Ifukube, Britten, Bantock, Bax, Suk, Vaughan-Williams, Kodaly etc) - though I like them alot they will have to stand the test of time.


They will, will they? Hmmm. (I think it's only fair that Mr. Clef stand some sort of test, too, then.)

Ahem.

Bartok
Berlioz
Bokanowski
Bruemmer
Cage
Dockstader
Dumitrescu
eRikm
Ferrari (Luc)
Gerhard
Gobeil
Goebbels
Groult
Lachenmann
Marclay
Nielsen
Prokofiev
Tudor
Varese
Yoshihide

Cunningly arranged alphabetically.


----------



## Tapkaara

Yoshihide...a Japanese composer I have not heard of. I don't want to derail the thread, but SomeGuy, what can you tell me about this composer?


----------



## LvB

The term 'classical music' is a very broad one, but Otomo Yoshihide is arguably very much at the fringes thereof: 
http://www.japanimprov.com/yotomo/


----------



## bdelykleon

Hmm, a list comprising the composers I most enjoy, sorted by year of birth:

1. Byrd
2. Monteverdi
3. Handel
4. Bach
5. Scarlatti
6. Haydn
7. Mozart
8. Beethoven
9. Rossini
10. Schubert
11. Berlioz
12. Mendelssohn
13. Chopin
14. Verdi
15. Mussorgsky
16. Brahms
17. Janacek
18. Stravinsky
19. Bartók
20. Messiaen


----------



## Guest

LvB said:


> The term 'classical music' is a very broad one, but Otomo Yoshihide is arguably very much at the fringes thereof.


And just as arguably very much at the center, the center what's being done today. (If there is a center, that is!! Lachenmann would be another center, Bruemmer another, Ferrari another (though he's recently deceased, so eRikm it is!).

Yoshihide does a lot of different things, too. Improv is certainly one. He's done a lot of turntable music (both with and without LPs--his "Turntable Solo" is without). He does electronics, he plays guitar (usually prepared in some way), he has come up with a thing called sampling virus, which works like a computer virus, only on music, so you get new pieces out of the same material.

Like John Zorn, he gets put into different categories, too. On his own website, he's usually referred to as a jazz musician. Just listening to his music, though, I don't think you'd think of jazz any more than LvB thinks of classical. And that's true of many new music composer/performers nowadays. I went to a concert once which included a set by Ornette Coleman, who definitely is considered a jazz musician. He came on stage with a saxophone, supported by piano and double bass. Pretty standard jazz ensemble, right?

Wrong! The music was straight up straight ahead avant garde classical.


----------



## TresPicos

Tough task, this, even though it's just about one's personal taste.

What makes a favorite composer? That you tend to like almost every piece they composed? That they wrote a certain number of your favorite pieces? But what about a composer who wrote one or two pieces that you absolutely love, but then you don't like most of their other stuff.

I have problems with Shostakovich, for example. I absolutely love his second piano trio and his piano quintet, but I can't stand his symphonies, and other pieces of his that I've heard doesn't do anything for me. Then, I guess, he shouldn't be on the list.

Is it a percentage thing? If I like 50% of what Bartok wrote, and 70% of what Debussy wrote, should I then put Debussy before Bartok? But maybe Bartok wrote 10 of my Top-100 favorite music pieces, and Debussy wrote only 5, should I then put Bartok before Debussy?

And what about sample size? What if I've only heard 5 pieces by Copland, but I liked them all - is that enough to put him on the list. Maybe the next 25 Copland pieces I hear will be crap?

Well, I'll be back...



Chi_town/Philly said:


> NO. I do _not_ Top 20 Favorite Classical Composers Of All-Time!




Come on, you're too modest.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Damn, this is hard:

1. Dvorak
2. Liszt
3. Mussorgsky
4. Wagner
5. Miaskovsky
6. Grieg
7. Mahler
8. Kodaly
9. Beethoven
10. Holst
11. Rimsky-Korsakov
12. Vaughan Wiliams
13. Penderecki
14. Mozart
15. SHostakovich
16. Vivaldi
17. Saeverud
18. Lalo
19. Cimarosa
20. Lyapunov


----------



## emiellucifuge

Just go with your heart TresPicos!


----------



## TresPicos

Well, a first draft, then. 

1. Bartok
2. Alwyn
3. Debussy
4. de Falla
5. Mozart

6. Ravel
7. Bridge
8. Dvorak
9. Grieg
10. Chopin

11. Copland
12. Ireland
13. Honegger
14. Barber
15. Poulenc

16. Schubert
17. Larsson
18. Ibert
19. Delius
20. Haydn

I replaced the traditional B-B-B with a 20th century one.


----------



## emiellucifuge

No surprise about de Falla then!


----------



## Mirror Image

TresPicos said:


> Well, a first draft, then.
> 
> 1. Bartok
> 2. Alwyn
> 3. Debussy
> 4. de Falla
> 5. Mozart
> 
> 6. Ravel
> 7. Bridge
> 8. Dvorak
> 9. Grieg
> 10. Chopin
> 
> 11. Copland
> 12. Ireland
> 13. Honegger
> 14. Barber
> 15. Poulenc
> 
> 16. Schubert
> 17. Larsson
> 18. Ibert
> 19. Delius
> 20. Haydn
> 
> I replaced the traditional B-B-B with a 20th century one.


Some interesting choices you have there. I have not heard Frank Bridge yet. I want to get into his music. Any recommendations?


----------



## TresPicos

Mirror Image said:


> Some interesting choices you have there. I have not heard Frank Bridge yet. I want to get into his music. Any recommendations?


I would start with the piano music. Two harmless-looking Naxos CDs on Amazon (this one and that one) got me hooked. 

Here's a Youtube sample: The Dew Fairy.

Then you have the piano trios and the string quartets. Really good stuff there as well.

Bridge's most famous work is the romantic orchestral suite The Sea (1911), but I prefer the low-key modernist Bridge over the romantic Bridge.


----------



## Mirror Image

TresPicos said:


> I would start with the piano music. Two harmless-looking Naxos CDs on Amazon (this one and that one) got me hooked.
> 
> Here's a Youtube sample: The Dew Fairy.
> 
> Then you have the piano trios and the string quartets. Really good stuff there as well.
> 
> Bridge's most famous work is the romantic orchestral suite The Sea (1911), but I prefer the low-key modernist Bridge over the romantic Bridge.


Thanks for the recommendations. I'm not particularly fond of solo piano, so I'll pass on those recordings. I'll checkout some his orchestral recordings.


----------



## Sid James

In no particular order, although the composers at the top came to mind immediately:

1. Varese
2. Bartok
3. Janacek
4. Prokofiev
5. Berg
6. Berlioz
7. Haydn
8. Hovhaness
9. Piazzolla *
10. Henze *
11. Sculthorpe *
12. Myaskovsky *
13. Conyngham *
14. Rubbra *
15. Walton
16. Britten
17. Ifukube*
18. Villa-Lobos
19. Gounod *
20. Bizet

Asterisk (*) indicates that I haven't heard say more than a cd's worth for these composers, but their music is such that I would be interested in hearing more from them. I think that I would be comfortable collecting some more cd's of these composers, whereas I may know others better (Beethoven, Sibelius, Rachmaninov, etc) I don't like them as much, even though I may know them better...

Some who just didn't quite make it to the list (I don't find most of their output as highly engaging as those above, even though I like them) were Cowell, Messiaen, Gubaidulina, Honegger, Martinu, Takemitsu, Schoenberg, Carter, Vaughan Williams, Brahms, Shostakovich, Poulenc, Kodaly, Debussy, Ravel, Sibelius, Rachmaninov, Tchaikovsky...)


----------



## Mirror Image

andruini said:


> 18. Smetana


Nice choice!  I love Smetana. I really wanted to put him on my list, but I ran out of numbers. It doesn't take anytime to get to 20 and before you know it you have no numbers left.


----------



## periodinstrumentfan

_


Weston said:



Interesting, but no J. H. Schein, no Heinrich Schutz?

No Monteverdi? 

Click to expand...

@Weston,

interestingly, and unfortunately no.... they are good no doubt... they're just not in my top 20 list... not even Bach nor Haendel i'm sad to say  ...i am very much addicted to the ones mentioned...a special case is Vivaldi whose modern popularity i try to avoid, i just can't resist some of his music especially when played by Miss Wallfisch or Miss Banchini._


----------



## Efraim

Now I would ask everybody a different question: Could you name five - or ten, doesn't matter - composers of world fame whom you very strongly _dislike_?


----------



## bdelykleon

Efraim said:


> Now I would ask everybody a different question: Could you name five - or ten, doesn't matter - composers of world fame whom you very strongly _dislike_?


Yeah: Sibelius, Bruckner, R. Strauss, Zemlinsky, Donizetti, Vaughan Williams, Borodin, Rimsky Korsakov, Shostakovich, Pärt, and I could keep updating this list. I wouldn't say dislike, and I wouldn't say I dislike everything they composed, but I got very frustrated when trying to enjoy the works of the mentioned composers, not that it iscarved on stone, I can change my taste and have already experienced it. As it can be obvious from this list, late-romanticism is definately not my most liked epoch.


----------



## jhar26

- 1 Mozart
- 2 Strauss
- 3 Beethoven
- 4 Puccini
- 5 Handel
- 6 Haydn
- 7 Bach
- 8 Verdi
- 9 Wagner
10 Tchaikovsky
11 Bellini
12 Chopin
13 Prokofiev
14 Rameau
15 Dvorak
16 Mendelssohn
17 Lully
18 Bartok
19 Stravinsky
20 Schubert


----------



## Sid James

jhar26 said:


> Haydn
> Tchaikovsky
> Prokofiev
> Dvorak
> Bartok
> Stravinsky
> Schubert


Those are some of my favourites too, but some did not make it to the top 20. You have a very eclectic mix - that's interesting...


----------



## David Mayer

Hi everyone. Please be kind; it's my first post. 

1. Prokofiev
2. Dvořák
3. Martinů
4. Bruckner
5. Holst
6. Chopin
7. Ravel
8. Mozart
9. Wagner
10. Grieg
11. Beethoven
12. Walton
13. Gershwin
14. Debussy
15. Bach
16. Schubert
17. Saint-Saëns
18. Casella
19. Rachmaninoff
20. Sibelius

Honorable mentions: Aho, Magnard, Novák, Roussel, Smetana


----------



## Toccata

In addition to my top 20, I will try to answer other issues that have been raised in various posts along the way such as near misses, and the most disliked composers etc.

TOP 20

First of all my Top 20. I have taken "all-time" top 20 to mean long term average, and not necessarily one's current list of favourites. For the most part it's a fairly traditional list. I tend to prefer composers who wrote across the entire range of classical music, although I do have a slight current preference for smaller scale works (solo piano, chamber, lieder). With regard to the top 6 on this list, my collection is virtually complete. Beyond the top 6, my collection is not missing any work of significance:

1	Mozart
2	Beethoven
3	Schubert
4	Haydn
5	Schumann
6	Brahms
7	Handel
8	Bach
9	Mendelssohn
10	Chopin
11	Liszt
12	Purcell
13	Vivaldi
13	Elgar
14	Dvorak
15	Monteverdi
16	Sibelius
17	Vaughan Williams
18	Delius
19	Berlioz
20	Janacek

..........

NEAR MISSES

These are the main ones:

21	Debussy
22	Smetana
23	Saint-Saens
24	Weber
25	Telemann

..........

Still liked but am not so keen these days

The following were among my first loves in classical music, but the novelty wore off after a few years, when I developed a greater preference, and longer-lasting interest in, the music of Baroque/Classical/Early-Mid Romatic music.

Ravel
Prokofiev
Rachmaninoff
Tchaikovsky

........

Used to like but now gone off them

Wagner
Puccini
Verdi
Rossini

It's quite amazing because I used to love much of their output. I acquired all or most of their works, but opera these days is well down my list of preferences. The only exception remains some of Mozart operas and a new-found interest in some of Handel's opera/oratorios, wherein lies a treasure trove of sheer delights.

......

I hate to admit it but I really don't care much for this bunch

I confine myself only to the big names in classical music. I am not saying I strongly dislike them.

Mahler
Bruckner
Bartok
Shostakovich

I find Mahler long-winded and tedious. Some of his music contains very high quality melody and orchestration, but overall his works tend to get swamped by too great a length. His concentration on orchestral music is a big negative factor too. With only minor exception, I find that Bruckner's music is mainly a rumbustious noise with little subtlety or sense of proportion on when to stop composing. I have tried and tried to come terms with those SQs by Bartok but I find them quite crude and generally awful, no matter which version I listen to. Yes, I know that The Concerto for Orchestra (Reiner/CSO) is a classic, and it's not a bad work, but it doesn't really grab me all that much. Shostakovich wrote some quite nice stuff (his PCs and some SQs, for example) but I struggle to appreciate much else, and again I have tons of it. A lot of it I find dull and uninteresting e.g. most of his symphonies, and much of his violin output.


----------



## Efraim

This (Mr or Mrs Toccata's) is a pretty exhaustive and interesting account. I feel exactly like this chat-friend with respect to Mahler and Bruckner but not concerning Bartók: I like very much his 4th and 5th SQ, Sonata for 2 pianos and percussion, Music for string, perc. and celesta, Bluebeard's castle (even though I strongly dislike operas), Cantata Profana and, though to a lesser extent, his Concerto. As to Shostakovitch, I never listened to a whole work of his, I only "overheard" sometimes a few broadcasted minutes of something. Surprisingly it was always less bad than I expected with my notoriously biased taste; the same thing happened with a few works of Tchaïkovski, Dvořák, Mendelssohn, even with a piano trio of Chopin, whose works are possibly somewhat more than merely catchy with their mawkish sentimentality and their flashy brilliance but not for me: I strongly dislike them. But unlike Mr or Mrs Toccata, I am a bad guy: I don't even try and struggle to appreciate composers I am biased against.

On the other hand, I am sympathetic to some kind of composers and so I am not unable to listen even to those of their works that smell of the lamp, for instance to Schumann's dull symphonies and chamber music. César Franck is also for me such an honest and mildly boring composer, without anything great to boot, like that handful of sparklingly inventive piano compositions that make Schumann a very great composer. Janáček: same kind as Franck but better.

Frankly unbearable are for me: Honegger (on the top of the list), Hindemith, Richard Strauss. Once a fanatic of Honegger managed to expel me from my own living room with an execrable rumble which was supposed to celebrate a locomotive; some other music-friends followed me into the kitchen. Two other works of H., which pursued us through the wall, were not less of a torture even without any reference to mechanical devices. Fauré, Sibelius: sheer boredom. Not so Mozart: he makes me only nervous except for two violin sonatas, in e and G (K 379), which I find excellent, intimate and both carefully and inventively elaborated, and the Flute Quartet in C, a little ambitious cute entertainment piece. Otherwise he usually starts up bumptiously (far less, of course, than Berlioz, Liszt or Bruckner) with good melodies but after he rarely lives up to his promises. I admit being more antipathetic to him than he really deserves. (By the way, Berlioz' Fantastic symphony is bumptious but even so I like it with Stokowski, as well as his Harold in Italy with Josef Suk on the viola and Dietrich Fischer Dieskau - yes, no mistake! - conducting.) I don't like Vivaldi either: I am certainly wrong but I can't help finding his music only pleasing but superficial.


----------



## trazom

Mozart
JS Bach 
Wagner
Brahms
Mendelssohn
Schubert 
Rachmaninoff
Haydn
Chopin
Borodin
Ravel
Scriabin
Stravinsky
JC Bach
Handel
Liszt(I suppose)
Grieg
Gershwin
Prokofiev
Beethoven


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

1. J.S. Bach
2. W.A. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Schubert
5. Wagner
6. Richard Strauss/Gustav Mahler (tie)
7. Handel
8. Brahms
9. Bruckner
10. Haydn
11. Chopin
12. Puccini
13. Verdi
14. Debussy
15. Tchaikovsky
16. Rachmaninoff
17. Faure
18. Ravel
19. Szymanowski
20. Scarlatti

Ask me tomorrow and list will be entirely different... with the exception of the first 5. Near misses that might make it on another day: Rossini, Monteverdi, Schumann, Liszt, Prokofiev, Gluck, Donizetti, Vaughan-Williams, Elgar, Delius, Zemlinski, perhaps even Messiaen.


----------



## Mirror Image

New top 20:

1. Ravel
2. Berlioz
3. Bruckner
4. Mahler
5. Vaughan Williams
6. Barber
7. Debussy
8. Bartok
9. Stravinsky
10. Brahms
11. Delius
12. Poulenc
13. Prokofiev
14. Saint-Saens
15. Bax
16. Langgaard
17. Mendelssohn
18. Rimsky-Korsakov
19. R. Strauss
20. Faure


----------



## Jash

1. Chopin
2. W. A. Mozart
3. Rachmaninoff
4. Brahms
5. Mendelssohn
6. Bach
7. Bellini
8. Hummel
9. Faure
10. J. Haydn
11. Sibelius
12. Stravinsky
13. Victoria
14. Moscheles
15. Beethoven
16. Shostakovich
17. Debussy
18. Vaughan-Williams
19. Handel
20. Puccini

That was painfully difficult...and those would be liable to change extremeeeeely quickly.


----------



## Mirror Image

Jash said:


> 1. Chopin
> 2. W. A. Mozart
> 3. Rachmaninoff
> 4. Brahms
> 5. Mendelssohn
> 6. Bach
> 7. Bellini
> 8. Hummel
> 9. Faure
> 10. J. Haydn
> 11. Sibelius
> 12. Stravinsky
> 13. Victoria
> 14. Moscheles
> 15. Beethoven
> 16. Shostakovich
> 17. Debussy
> 18. Vaughan-Williams
> 19. Handel
> 20. Puccini
> 
> That was painfully difficult...and those would be liable to change extremeeeeely quickly.


Mine changes almost every week, but my top 10 will always remain the one true constant. The rest are like revolving doors.


----------



## Bach

Mirror Image said:


> New top 20:
> 
> 1. Ravel
> 2. Berlioz
> 3. Bruckner
> 4. Mahler
> 5. Vaughan Williams
> 6. Barber
> 7. Debussy
> 8. Bartok
> 9. Stravinsky
> 10. Brahms
> 11. Delius
> 12. Poulenc
> 13. Prokofiev
> 14. Saint-Saens
> 15. Bax
> 16. Langgaard
> 17. Mendelssohn
> 18. Rimsky-Korsakov
> 19. R. Strauss
> 20. Faure


I don't get how Strauss can be so far down your list when you're such an orchestral obsessor - really, nobody writes orchestral music like Strauss. The power of Wagner and beauty and refinement of Ravel all in one composer..


----------



## Jash

Mirror Image said:


> Mine changes almost every week, but my top 10 will always remain the one true constant. The rest are like revolving doors.


I find that Chopin and Mozart always stay somewhere near the top. However, any of the others are quite changeable. It generally depends on what I'm attempting to research at the time.


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> I don't get how Strauss can be so far down your list when you're such an orchestral obsessor - really, nobody writes orchestral music like Strauss. The power of Wagner and beauty and refinement of Ravel all in one composer..


Well, I love R. Strauss, as you know, but after my top 10, which will never change, my list is like a revolving door. These will always change.

Hell, my original list didn't even have R. Strauss on it.


----------



## The Arctopus

I'm new here, and I'd like to say that this forum is one of the best I've ever seen, congratulations guys. I'm a modern/contemporary classical fan, here is my list:

1.Stravinsky
2.Bartok
3.Messiaen
4.Webern
5.Ligeti
6.Xenakis
7.Boulez
8.Schoenberg
9.Scelsi
10.Stockhausen
11.Feldman
12.Riley
13.Varèse
14.Penderecki
15.Takemitsu
16.Nancarrow
17.Cage
18.Carter
19.Ives
20.Reich

I still have some lots of composers to listen, 20th Century Classical is like a maze without end


----------



## Lisztfreak

Beethoven
Liszt
Shostakovich 
Brahms
Elgar
Schumann
Sibelius
Schubert
Debussy
Janáček
Vaughan Williams
Tippett
Nielsen
Enescu - his symphs and later works have been a true revelation for me over the past month
Prokofiev
Ravel
Fauré
Holst
Britten
Bruckner

... subject to perpetual change...


----------



## Mirror Image

Lisztfreak said:


> Enescu - his symphs and later works have been a true revelation for me over the past month


Enescu is a great composer. Very underrated I think. He was also a gifted violinist, teacher, and conductor.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Mirror Image said:


> Enescu is a great composer. Very underrated I think. He was also a gifted violinist, teacher, and conductor.


Indeed so! Therefore I felt an urge to contribute to his guestbook here, which has long been left unposted on.


----------



## Mirror Image

Lisztfreak said:


> Indeed so! Therefore I felt an urge to contribute to his guestbook here, which has long been left unposted on.


You're also a fan of Delius, which makes you A-OK in my book!


----------



## Lisztfreak

Mirror Image said:


> You're also a fan of Delius, which makes you A-OK in my book!


 Haha, oh yes I am! We do share a number of favourites on our lists, as I see, and we can both be proud of our fine tastes (khm, khm). As for old Fred, I got the famous 'Florida Suite' just recently (I don't know how I managed to miss it earlier), and was again hit by the tremendous beauty of his music... In my next list I'll be sure not to leave him out by accident like now. Ah, I think I'm going to put on some 'Paris' tonight.


----------



## Mirror Image

Lisztfreak said:


> Haha, oh yes I am! We do share a number of favourites on our lists, as I see, and we can both be proud of our fine tastes (khm, khm). As for old Fred, I got the famous 'Florida Suite' just recently (I don't know how I managed to miss it earlier), and was again hit by the tremendous beauty of his music... In my next list I'll be sure not to leave him out by accident like now. Ah, I think I'm going to put on some 'Paris' tonight.


Yes, we both share a lot in common. "Florida Suite" is an excellent piece of music. You're going to listen to "Paris: Song of the the Great City" tonight? That would be an excellent choice. Have you heard "North Country Sketches" yet? His concertos ("Double," violin, cello, and piano) are also excellent and not discussed much especially around here.

It's hard for me to even do a top 20, I always manage to leave somebody out, but 11-20 are interchangeable and it depends on the week, but my 1-10 are always constant.

By the way, I love Liszt! He's such a sadly neglected composer. People always talk about his solo piano pieces, which are nice, but his orchestral work is awesome! "Orpheus," "Prometheus," "Maphisto Waltz," his piano concertos, "Faust Symphony," "Les Preludes," etc. Fantastic music indeed.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Mirror Image said:


> Yes, we both share a lot in common. "Florida Suite" is an excellent piece of music. You're going to listen to "Paris: Song of the the Great City" tonight? That would be an excellent choice. Have you heard "North Country Sketches" yet? His concertos ("Double," violin, cello, and piano) are also excellent and not discussed much especially around here.


Yep, Song of the Great City it is. A warm summer night outside, scents - although my town is a small one so there's no humming traffic of a 'great city'.

I haven't yet heard the Sketches, but I'll make sure to do so soon. I have recordings of the violin, cello and piano concerto. I think the Violin is my favourite. The last pages are pure magic. And the Piano one is like film music... good old Hollywood epics. Of course, buoyant colours all over, just like always with Delius.


----------



## Sid James

I'd probably ditch Ifukube & insert *Frank Martin *on my list. Such a brilliant & engaging composer, he should be better known & performed, IMO...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> I'd probably ditch Ifukube & insert *Frank Martin *on my list. Such a brilliant & engaging composer, he should be better known & performed, IMO...


I wish I could share your sentiments, but I strongly disagree about Martin being a brilliant and engaging composer, but of course, this is just my opinion.


----------



## Sid James

Mirror Image said:


> Isn't Martin's music serialism?


Martin cannot be shoeboxed, he was a very eclectic composer, combining many modern approaches to musical style - atonality, impressionism, Neo-Classicism. All of his works are quite different, so it's difficult to categorise him, really. But that's what I like so much about him. He didn't rest on his laurels & just stick to one style. He explored many directions, but also had his unique style. He had a comparatively small output, but all of the works I have heard are top-notch. For me, he ranks alongside Bartok, Shostakovich & Britten as one of the top composers of the C20th, though his style is probably much less immediately appealing. It has to be given time & repeated listenings to really sink in & make an impact...


----------



## Rachmaninov

1) Johann Sebastian Bach
2) Pytor Ilych Tchaikovsky
3) Ludwig van Beethoven
4) Astor Piazzolla
5) Dmitri Shostakovich
6) Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
7) Johannes Brahms
8) Felix Mendelssohn
9) Jean Sibelius
10) Evard Grieg
11) Frederik Chopin
12) Paul Dukas
13) Franz Joseph Haydn
14) Nicolo Pagnini
15) Sergei Rachmaninov
16) George Frederich Handel
17) Franz Schubert
18) Antonio Vivaldi
19) Antonin Dvorak
20) Cesar Frank

These are all my favourites!!


----------



## Mirror Image

Rachmaninov said:


> 1) Johann Sebastian Bach
> 2) Pytor Ilych Tchaikovsky
> 3) Ludwig van Beethoven
> 4) Astor Piazzolla
> 5) Dmitri Shostakovich
> 6) Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
> 7) Johannes Brahms
> 8) Felix Mendelssohn
> 9) Jean Sibelius
> 10) Evard Grieg
> 11) Frederik Chopin
> 12) Paul Dukas
> 13) Franz Joseph Haydn
> 14) Nicolo Pagnini
> 15) Sergei Rachmaninov
> 16) George Frederich Handel
> 17) Franz Schubert
> 18) Antonio Vivaldi
> 19) Antonin Dvorak
> 20) Cesar Frank
> 
> These are all my favourites!!


Considering your screen name, I'm surprised to see Rachmaninov at #15. By the way, it's Cesar Fran*c*k not Frank.


----------



## Tapkaara

This Astor Piazzolla character seems popular around here.


----------



## Sid James

Tapkaara said:


> This Astor Piazzolla character seems popular around here.


I've only listened to his chamber works & songs, but the way Piazzolla writes for the instruments, you'd think a whole orchestra was playing! It's so rich, lush & dense. He really had a great knowledge of how to use limited resources to the max, and you can clearly hear this in such works as _Libertango,_ the _Maria des Buenos Aires Suite_, etc.


----------



## Noak

20. Arvo Pärt
19. Iannis Xenakis
18. Ludvig Van Beethoven
17. Karlheinz Stockhausen
16. Claude Debussy
15. Frank Zappa (the Classical stuff he did)
14. John Cage
13. Modest Mussorgsky
12. Steve Reich
11. Philip Glass
10. Richard Strauss
9. Frédéric Chopin
8. Gustav Holst
7. Erik Satie
6. Béla Bartók
5. J.S Bach
4. Edgard Varèse
3. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
2. Dmitri Shostakovich
1. Igor Stravinsky


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I haven't yet heard the Sketches, but I'll make sure to do so soon. I have recordings of the violin, cello and piano concerto. I think the Violin is my favourite. The last pages are pure magic. And the Piano one is like film music... good old Hollywood epics. Of course, buoyant colours all over, just like always with Delius.

I've just recently really begun to explore Delius... along with a good many other English composers thanks especially to EMI's great recordings with Boult, Barbirolli, Beecham, Richard Hickox, etc... He has such a unique voice; Impressionistic... but completely his own. Have you tried any of his vocal pieces? I took a chance upon his opera, _A Village Romeo and Juliet_ and was more than pleased.


----------



## Conor71

Not strictly in order but its taken long enough to get this list together as it is! 

1. Jean Sibelius
2. Ralph Vaughan Williams
3. Gustav Mahler
4. Richard Strauss
5. Ludwig van Beethoven
6. Johann Sebastian Bach
7. Sergei Rachmaninov
8. Frederic Chopin
9. Pyotr Il'yich Tchaikovsky
10. Edward Elgar
11. Maurice Ravel
12. Arvo Part
13. Anton Bruckner
14. Richard Wagner
15. Georg Frideric Handel
16. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
17. Franz Schubert
18. Edvard Grieg
19. Antonio Vivaldi
20. Felix Mendelssohn


----------



## Mirror Image

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I haven't yet heard the Sketches, but I'll make sure to do so soon. I have recordings of the violin, cello and piano concerto. I think the Violin is my favourite. The last pages are pure magic. And the Piano one is like film music... good old Hollywood epics. Of course, buoyant colours all over, just like always with Delius.
> 
> I've just recently really begun to explore Delius... along with a good many other English composers thanks especially to EMI's great recordings with Boult, Barbirolli, Beecham, Richard Hickox, etc... He has such a unique voice; Impressionistic... but completely his own. Have you tried any of his vocal pieces? I took a chance upon his opera, _A Village Romeo and Juliet_ and was more than pleased.


Don't forget to checkout Mackerras' recordings with Delius. He was a master Delius conductor.

I haven't heard any of his operas. I'm not really a big opera fan, so I'll pass, but I do love his choral works like "Sea Drift," "Songs of Farewell," "Songs of Sunset," and "Songs of the High Hills." All are excellent and worth investigating.


----------



## Zeniyama

Well, this is gonna be tricky, so I may edit this several times...
This list isn't so literal. Many of these composers I like just as much as any of the others on the list. Only the top three are probably really accurate.

1. Modest Mussorgsky
2. Arthur Honegger
3. Erik Satie
4. Frederick Delius
5. Charles Ives
6. George Antheil
7. Frederico Mompou
6. Frederic Chopin
7. Franz Liszt
8. Anton Webern
9. Igor Stravinsky
10. Aram Khachaturian
11. Dmitri Shostakovich
12. Arnold Schoenberg
13. John Ireland
14. Sergei Prokofiev
15. Wolfgang Mozart
16. Ludwig van Beethoven
17. Jules Massenet
18. Sergei Rachmaninoff
19. Arthur Lourié
20. Kaikhosru Sorabji

Twenty's probably not nearly enough for me, because I have too varied taste in music.


----------



## Tapkaara

Zeniyama said:


> Well, this is gonna be tricky, so I may edit this several times...
> This list isn't so literal. Many of these composers I like just as much as any of the others on the list. Only the top three are probably really accurate.
> 
> 1. Modest Mussorgsky
> 2. Arthur Honegger
> 3. Erik Satie
> 4. Frederick Delius
> 5. Charles Ives
> 6. George Antheil
> 7. Frederico Mompou
> 6. Frederic Chopin
> 7. Franz Liszt
> 8. Anton Webern
> 9. Igor Stravinsky
> 10. Aram Khachaturian
> 11. Dmitri Shostakovich
> 12. Arnold Schoenberg
> 13. John Ireland
> 14. Sergei Prokofiev
> 15. Wolfgang Mozart
> 16. Ludwig van Beethoven
> 17. Jules Massenet
> 18. Sergei Rachmaninoff
> 19. Arthur Lourié
> 20. Kaikhosru Sorabji
> 
> Twenty's probably not nearly enough for me, because I have too varied taste in music.


At last, Khachaturian makes it onto someone's list! Cool!


----------



## JAKE WYB

The bold ones are in order but then it gets hazy

*1. Jean Sibelius
2. Vaughan Williams
3. Arnold Bax
4. Bela Bartok
5. Leos Janacek
6. Antonin Dvorak
7. Dmitri Shostakovich
8. Gustav Mahler
9. Franz Liszt
10. Sergei Rachmaninov*
11. Maurice Ravel
12. Edvard Greig
13. Sergei Prokofiev
14. Igor Stravinsky
15. Modest Mussorgsky
16. Edward Elgar
17. Richard Strauss
18. Franz Schubert
19. Pyotr Tchaikovsky
20. Gustav Holst

no particular surprises there


----------



## Mirror Image

Zeniyama said:


> Well, this is gonna be tricky, so I may edit this several times...
> This list isn't so literal. Many of these composers I like just as much as any of the others on the list. Only the top three are probably really accurate.
> 
> 1. Modest Mussorgsky
> 2. Arthur Honegger
> 3. Erik Satie
> 4. Frederick Delius
> 5. Charles Ives
> 6. George Antheil
> 7. Frederico Mompou
> 6. Frederic Chopin
> 7. Franz Liszt
> 8. Anton Webern
> 9. Igor Stravinsky
> 10. Aram Khachaturian
> 11. Dmitri Shostakovich
> 12. Arnold Schoenberg
> 13. John Ireland
> 14. Sergei Prokofiev
> 15. Wolfgang Mozart
> 16. Ludwig van Beethoven
> 17. Jules Massenet
> 18. Sergei Rachmaninoff
> 19. Arthur Lourié
> 20. Kaikhosru Sorabji
> 
> Twenty's probably not nearly enough for me, because I have too varied taste in music.


Wow, John Ireland and Delius. Excellent choices.  By the way, welcome aboard, you're going to do fine around here.


----------



## Lisztfreak

JAKE WYB said:


> *1. Jean Sibelius
> 2. Vaughan Williams
> 3. Arnold Bax
> 4. Bela Bartok
> 5. Leos Janacek
> 6. Antonin Dvorak
> 7. Dmitri Shostakovich
> 8. Gustav Mahler
> 9. Franz Liszt
> 10. Sergei Rachmaninov*
> 11. Maurice Ravel
> 12. Edvard Greig
> 13. Sergei Prokofiev
> 14. Igor Stravinsky
> 15. Modest Mussorgsky
> 16. Edward Elgar
> 17. Richard Strauss
> 18. Franz Schubert
> 19. Pyotr Tchaikovsky
> 20. Gustav Holst


A brilliant top 10, and beyond, too!


----------



## Habib

(not in order)

1. Cage
2. Berio
3. Xenakis
4. Stockhausen
5. Glass
6. Part
7. Penderecki
8. Lutoslawski
9. Henze
10. Carter
11. Schoenberg
12. Berg
13. Webern
14. Adams
15. Gorecki
16. Varese
17. Martin
18. Gubaidulina
19. Kurtag
20. Ligeti


----------



## Mirror Image

Habib said:


> (not in order)
> 
> 1. Cage
> 2. Berio
> 3. Xenakis
> 4. Stockhausen
> 5. Glass
> 6. Part
> 7. Penderecki
> 8. Lutoslawski
> 9. Henze
> 10. Carter
> 11. Schoenberg
> 12. Berg
> 13. Webern
> 14. Adams
> 15. Gorecki
> 16. Varese
> 17. Martin
> 18. Gubaidulina
> 19. Kurtag
> 20. Ligeti


No wonder you got bored with Parry's music. Look at your list. Not one good composer in sight.


----------



## Sid James

Noak & Habib - good on you for picking Varese - he's on of my favourites too!


----------



## Habib

Mirror Image said:


> No wonder you got bored with Parry's music. Look at your list. Not one good composer in sight.


If we're going to get personal, I've seen your list at the beginning of this post. Music to beat insomnia. Nothing even slightly challenging in sight. So if you're going to put me down, two can play that game.


----------



## jurianbai

even though there are many strong names like Stravinsky but I rarely ever listen (seriously) the works. 

1. Haydn, J > safest choice, no headache to select any particular tune and all will sounds good.
2. Mozart > his music is the most logical
3. Schubert
4. Vivaldi
5. Chopin
6. Boccherini
7. Bach, JS
8. Spohr,L
9. Beethoven
10. Grieg
11. Brahms
12. Tchaikovsky
13. Paganini
14. Dvorak
15. Debussy
16. Handel
17. Sibelius
18. Strauss, J
19. Mendelssohn
20. Janacek,L


----------



## BuddhaBandit

@ Habib- there's a few good choices there, especially Penderecki. The Threnody is one of my favorite compositions of all time- it's a very arresting piece.


----------



## Mirror Image

Habib said:


> If we're going to get personal, I've seen your list at the beginning of this post. Music to beat insomnia. Nothing even slightly challenging in sight. So if you're going to put me down, two can play that game.


Yeah, the composers you listen to are challenging alright, they're so challenging they challenge themselves, they can't even compose a single memorable melody.

So you find composers like Bartok, Debussy, Ravel, Nielsen, Brahms, Prokofiev, Mahler, Stravinsky, Poulenc, Sibelius, Elgar boring?  That's one of the funniest statements I've ever read.


----------



## bdelykleon

yeah, he is righ: Poulenc, Sibelius and Elgar are boring.


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> yeah, he is righ: Poulenc, Sibelius and Elgar are boring.


 Yeah, Poulenc, Sibelius, and Elgar are boring. You obviously haven't heard enough from any of these composers to come to that conclusion.

Why don't you go tell Tapkaara how boring you think Sibelius is? I'm sure he'll laugh at that assertion.


----------



## bdelykleon

Mirror Image said:


> Yeah, Poulenc, Sibelius, and Elgar are boring.


Glad you agree with me.


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> Glad you agree with me.


No, I don't agree with you. I was being sarcastic.


----------



## bdelykleon

Mirror Image said:


> No, I don't agree with you. I was being sarcastic.


so was I.


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> so was I.


Do you really find Sibelius or Elgar boring?


----------



## Mirror Image

Habib said:


> If we're going to get personal, I've seen your list at the beginning of this post. Music to beat insomnia. Nothing even slightly challenging in sight. So if you're going to put me down, two can play that game.


I'm not getting personal. I'm just telling you none of those composers you listed are good. It's just an opinion, so you shouldn't take it personally.


----------



## bdelykleon

Mirror Image said:


> Do you really find Sibelius or Elgar boring?


Elgar no, he is ok. But Sibelius, oh boy, yes. but I must say I never quite understood him.


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> Elgar no, he is ok. But Sibelius, oh boy, yes. but I must say I never quite understood him.


Well, I'm not a huge fan of either composers, but have you heard "Kullervo" or "Pohjola's Daughter" by Sibelius? These are great works I think, but it may not be to your liking. You never know until you try.


----------



## bdelykleon

Mirror Image said:


> Well, I'm not a huge fan of either composers, but have you heard "Kullervo" or "Pohjola's Daughter" by Sibelius? These are great works I think, but it may not be to your liking. You never know until you try.


No, I listened more than once to Finlandia (booooooooooring, but most would agree with me), Valse triste, all the 7 symphonies and the violin concerto. I got a grip with the sixth symphony and like it a little, but I've tried the rest and didn't like at all, to a point I just didn't understand what I was doing listening to a music which sounded pointless to me. But I will try those two tone poems you mentioned.


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> No, I listened more than once to Finlandia (booooooooooring, but most would agree with me), Valse triste, all the 7 symphonies and the violin concerto. I got a grip with the sixth symphony and like it a little, but I've tried the rest and didn't like at all, to a point I just didn't understand what I was doing listening to a music which sounded pointless to me. But I will try those two tone poems you mentioned.


Well, Sibelius definitely had his own style. Very open sound, but I agree with you about his symphonies and "Finlandia." I'm not a big fan of these works either.


----------



## Somnifer

I'm too lazy to think of twenty composers so I'm just going to go with my top five:

1. Brahms
2. Beethoven
3. Debussy
4. Schumann
5. Tchaikovsky


----------



## Efraim

Mirror Image said:


> Yeah, the composers you listen to are challenging alright, they're so challenging they challenge themselves, they can't even compose a single memorable melody.


Memorable melodies are no criteria of good music. According to a French saying, Ce n'est pas la mélodie qui fait la chanson, meaning: The melody doesn't make (or make up) the song. A friend of mine, a professional composer, liked to say, The theme [in musical compositions] matters as much as nothing. Now this is an exaggeration, he possibly intended only to discard the overly big importance some people ascribe to the themes in musical compositions. Nevertheless you can really see that sometimes composers don't bother inventing original melodies but take them from somewhere, like Dvořák in his New World symphony or everyone writing variations on borrowed themes. It is also obvious that Paganini is not the author of the variations on a theme of his written by various composers, and that those works, eg Brahms', have otherwise almost nothing to do with Paganini as to their style or spirit.

I have been for years an incurable addict to Haydn (since great interpretations of his works became gradually available) but was for long simply unable to remember more than a couple of melodies from works I listened to all the time, while I always was and still am able to sing themes from works I heard a few times forty or fifty years ago and never since, you can guess why. For some composers prominent melodies are usually important - eg for Mozart, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Mussorgsky, even more for Schumann, sometimes for Brahms, think of the long main theme of the last movement of his Concerto for Piano in d or for Violin and 'Cello. Schumann's themes are so overwhelming, so sweepingly original and characteristic, that it is difficult, indeed superfluous, to develop them, to extract from them something better. This is not always a good thing in his works, but often a hindrance. In contrast to this, Haydn very often build the movement not on a "theme" with a conspicuous melodic line but on a few notes only, a trifling motive, or even merely on some unimportant but repeatedly used decorative device, like an accacciatura, a little fleeting note preceding an important - higher - note and only leading to it. In the Piano Sonata No 31 in A Flat (Hob. 46) the main organizing principle of the first movement seems to be the mere contrast between quickly changing fast running and slow pace. Many of the greatest movements of Haydn start up with an outspoken musical banality, to raise to incredible heights and inventiveness after a few bars. Beethoven is very often not unlike Haydn.

In old classical music there are monothematic movements; using one single theme in a long movement is obviously lessening the importance of melody. A-thematism also appeared before the so called modern music.

There can be easily seen a big difference even between the most beautiful violin sonatas or concertos of the greatest melodists and, say, a folk tune: in the latter the melody is of the greatest importance since there is usually almost nothing else in it, which is not the case of the least sophisticated classical composition.

Melodies are not mere successions of whatever notes but are based, apart of rhythmical features, on functional differences between the notes: tonic, dominant etc, and on their harmony or disharmony. Modern music, in rejecting tonality, must necessarily go further away from melodic principle. Now it must be remembered that dismembering tonality didn't start in the 20th century...

To sum up, saying that a piece of music has no memorable melody is saying nothing about its quality.


----------



## bdelykleon

Efraim said:


> Memorable melodies are no criteria of good music.


.Agreed...


----------



## xuantu

1.Beethoven
2.Bartok
3.Schubert
4.Duparc
5.Bach
6.Mozart
7.Wagner
8.Debussy
9.Britten
10.Stravinsky
11.Ligeti
12.Brahms
13.Faure
14.Wolf
15.Prokofiev
16.Ravel
17.Vivaldi
18.Haydn
19.Chopin
20.Schumann

Well, easily done. It is like a matter of matching flavors with personal taste.


----------



## Mirror Image

Efraim said:


> Memorable melodies are no criteria of good music. According to a French saying, Ce n'est pas la mélodie qui fait la chanson, meaning: The melody doesn't make (or make up) the song. A friend of mine, a professional composer, liked to say, The theme [in musical compositions] matters as much as nothing. Now this is an exaggeration, he possibly intended only to discard the overly big importance some people ascribe to the themes in musical compositions. Nevertheless you can really see that sometimes composers don't bother inventing original melodies but take them from somewhere, like Dvořák in his New World symphony or everyone writing variations on borrowed themes. It is also obvious that Paganini is not the author of the variations on a theme of his written by various composers, and that those works, eg Brahms', have otherwise almost nothing to do with Paganini as to their style or spirit.
> 
> I have been for years an incurable addict to Haydn (since great interpretations of his works became gradually available) but was for long simply unable to remember more than a couple of melodies from works I listened to all the time, while I always was and still am able to sing themes from works I heard a few times forty or fifty years ago and never since, you can guess why. For some composers prominent melodies are usually important - eg for Mozart, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Mussorgsky, even more for Schumann, sometimes for Brahms, think of the long main theme of the last movement of his Concerto for Piano in d or for Violin and 'Cello. Schumann's themes are so overwhelming, so sweepingly original and characteristic, that it is difficult, indeed superfluous, to develop them, to extract from them something better. This is not always a good thing in his works, but often a hindrance. In contrast to this, Haydn very often build the movement not on a "theme" with a conspicuous melodic line but on a few notes only, a trifling motive, or even merely on some unimportant but repeatedly used decorative device, like an accacciatura, a little fleeting note preceding an important - higher - note and only leading to it. In the Piano Sonata No 31 in A Flat (Hob. 46) the main organizing principle of the first movement seems to be the mere contrast between quickly changing fast running and slow pace. Many of the greatest movements of Haydn start up with an outspoken musical banality, to raise to incredible heights and inventiveness after a few bars. Beethoven is very often not unlike Haydn.
> 
> In old classical music there are monothematic movements; using one single theme in a long movement is obviously lessening the importance of melody. A-thematism also appeared before the so called modern music.
> 
> There can be easily seen a big difference even between the most beautiful violin sonatas or concertos of the greatest melodists and, say, a folk tune: in the latter the melody is of the greatest importance since there is usually almost nothing else in it, which is not the case of the least sophisticated classical composition.
> 
> Melodies are not mere successions of whatever notes but are based, apart of rhythmical features, on functional differences between the notes: tonic, dominant etc, and on their harmony or disharmony. Modern music, in rejecting tonality, must necessarily go further away from melodic principle. Now it must be remembered that dismembering tonality didn't start in the 20th century...
> 
> To sum up, saying that a piece of music has no memorable melody is saying nothing about its quality.


I just used melody as an example of something those composers couldn't write. Of course, melody isn't everything, but it certainly doesn't hurt the music does it? A good melody only enhances the overall musical experience.


----------



## Mirror Image

New top 20:

1. Ravel
2. Berlioz
3. Bruckner
4. Mahler
5. Vaughan Williams
6. Barber
7. Debussy
8. Bartok
9. Stravinsky
10. Brahms
11. Delius
12. Walton
13. Bax
14. Poulenc
15. Tchaikovsky
16. Mendelssohn
17. Britten
18. Rachmaninov
19. Scriabin
20. Saint-Saens


----------



## Guest

Here's a wee question for our intrepid colleague, how much of these people's music are you familiar with?

1. Cage
2. Berio
3. Xenakis
4. Stockhausen
5. Glass
6. Part
7. Penderecki
8. Lutoslawski
9. Henze
10. Carter
11. Schoenberg
12. Berg
13. Webern
14. Adams
15. Gorecki
16. Varese
17. Martin
18. Gubaidulina
19. Kurtag
20. Ligeti

Melody? These people's works are shot through and through with melody, many of them even the kinds of melody that you would be familiar with.

Wow, no melody!


----------



## Yoshi

1-Beethoven
2-Bach
3-Mozart
4-Chopin
5-Tchaikovsky

Aww, I suppose I don't have enough knowledge to go on. Someday, when I get to know the other composers I listen to better, I'll update this list.


----------



## andruini

Jan said:


> 1-Beethoven
> 2-Bach
> 3-Mozart
> 4-Chopin
> 5-Tchaikovsky
> 
> Aww, I suppose I don't have enough knowledge to go on. Someday, when I get to know the other composers I listen to better, I'll update this list.


Don't worry, we were all there once!! You won't find many composers that are better than those you already listed though, so good job!


----------



## Yoshi

andruini said:


> Don't worry, we were all there once!! You won't find many composers that are better than those you already listed though, so good job!


I suppose some people here will hate me for that very 'popular' list 
But I'll have a look on the other people's lists and search, it might be useful.


----------



## Ispin

Why don't we dig a little bit dipper: d'Arcadelt. de Rore, da Venosa, de Lassus, Ockeghem, Obert, Dunstable, etc. etc... Yeah, preparing such a 'favi-list' makes some sense, unless it is treated very seriously. Provided the whole undertaking, the listing is considered just a game, a fun it isn't pointless for one thing it tells a story about us rather than about the history of music, not to mention all those prominent musicians.

Just to stick to the rules of the game set up by the thread-starter (at least to some degree): my favorite composer is Galina Ustvolskaja (+2006. St Perersburg, Russia), although I must emphasize that my appreciation is restricted to her late upshots (Dies Ire, Benedictus, for instance).


----------



## Toccata

According to my calculations there have been a total of 33 responses so far. Some members have expressed their favourites in rank order, whilst others have provided lists in purely alphabetical or no particular order. Hence, it's not possible to weight the results meaningfully. All that can be done is to count the number of votes for each composer, and bearing in mind this limitation we have:

1. Beethoven (25 votes)
2. Bach (19 votes)
3. Mozart (17 votes)
4. Schubert, Brahms, Chopin (16 votes)
7. Bartok, Stravinsky, (15 votes)
9. Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, Ravel, Haydn (14 votes)
13. Debussy (13 votes)
14. Tchaikovsky (12 votes)
15. Dvorak, Shostakovich (11 votes)
17. Handel, Mendelssohn, Mahler, Sibelius, Bruckner, Wagner (10 votes)
23. Strauss R. (9 votes)
24. RVW, Liszt (8 votes)
26. Grieg, Holst, Verdi, Berlioz, Vivaldi, Schumann (7 votes)

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

The sample is still very small and is subject to major change as more results roll in. 

The top 3 positions are of course the standard results one would expect to find in any such poll. It's interesting, nevertheless, that Mozart comes out well, after some of the rather negative material I have seen on some recent threads. The other results are broadly as I would have expected except perhaps for Schumann not being rather higher up.

I have noticed that some "senior members" have not yet voted. One reason may be because they don't have as many as 20 favourite composers. If so, don't be shy about it, just list as many as you have.


----------



## Mirror Image

Jan said:


> I suppose some people here will hate me for that very 'popular' list
> But I'll have a look on the other people's lists and search, it might be useful.


Nobody "hates" you Jan. Don't worry about it. We all start with a few composers that we like and then we start exploring more.

As I have mentioned many times on this forum, I started off with a pretty good general knowledge of classical music thanks to my Grandfather, but it didn't take long before I dove into this music face first.


----------



## Sid James

This is getting off the topic, but I agree what some of the others above have said regarding melody. Good classical music isn't always about melodies, it's also about things like rhythm, colour and texture. There's also the issue about the 'architectural shape' of the music - a piece by Mozart takes up different space than one by, say, Shoenberg. That's why we shouldn't berate people who like post WW2 music in particular. It's just as rich & satisfying to listen to as the earlier composers with melodies.

I suppose my taste sums up this broader view of music. My favourite composer is Varese, who composed some of the most stimulating music out there & knew virtually everything about composing, even though his works are not dominated by melody but by the other things I mentioned (listen to the lush orchestration of _Offrandes_, it's as good (or better?) than Debussy). My least favourite composer is Saint Saens, who could write a melody, but so what? Most of what he did were what the Germans call earworms, things that get in your head & won't let go. There's little subtlety there. I wish I hadn't known his _Organ Symphony_, I haven't listened to it for 10 years, but the damned thing is still fixated in my head. Just horrible! So I'll get off my soapbox now...

Here are some composers I have discovered lately, whom I like quite a bit:

*Byrd
Szymanowski*
*Josef Tal* - C20th Israeli composer, I've got a cd of his 4 very atonal and colourful symphonies. They definitely stand up to repeated listening. An excellent composer, especially if (like me) your knowledge of Israeli music is almost zero (I know Bloch, but he was Swiss, although he was Jewish & wrote in that style...)


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> This is getting off the topic, but I agree what some of the others above have said regarding melody. Good classical music isn't always about melodies, it's also about things like rhythm, colour and texture. There's also the issue about the 'architectural shape' of the music - a piece by Mozart takes up different space than one by, say, Shoenberg. That's why we shouldn't berate people who like post WW2 music in particular. It's just as rich & satisfying to listen to as the earlier composers with melodies.
> 
> I suppose my taste sums up this broader view of music. My favourite composer is Varese, who composed some of the most stimulating music out there & knew virtually everything about composing, even though his works are not dominated by melody but by the other things I mentioned (listen to the lush orchestration of _Offrandes_, it's as good (or better?) than Debussy). My least favourite composer is Saint Saens, who could write a melody, but so what? Most of what he did were what the Germans call earworms, things that get in your head & won't let go. There's little subtlety there. I wish I hadn't known his _Organ Symphony_, I haven't listened to it for 10 years, but the damned thing is still fixated in my head. Just horrible! So I'll get off my soapbox now...


Tell *how* a good melody could hurt a composition and you might have a case, other than that, I strongly disagree with your sentiments regarding Saint-Saens. He was a great composer. Besides "Symphony No. 3" what other pieces have heard?


----------



## Sid James

I think that bdelykleon, Efraim, Some Guy & myself have stated the case for post WW2 music quite well. The bottom line is, classical (or any other) music can have melody, that's fine, but it's not integral to the existence of a piece of music because music is made up of many other components as well - eg. rhythm, colour, texture, sonic structure, to name a few.

I strongly agree with what Efraim seemed to suggest, that around 1900 there was a crisis of tonality, which made so many things like melody almost redundant. After WWI in particular, many composers explored new avenues in music, that were sometimes not based on melody, or revived older approaches to melody (eg. Renaissance) that were simpler than the overblown approach of the later Romantics. Some composers who took these directions were, as most people probably know, Bartok, Varese, Schoenberg, Durufle, Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel and there was much room for more idiosyncratic approaches like Janacek, whose music is more based on the sounds of the human voice during conversation (in Czech, obviously). No matter how conventional or wierd they were, composers from 1900 on had to face up to the crisis of tonality or become irrelevant...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> I think that bdelykleon, Efraim, Some Guy & myself have stated the case for post WW2 music quite well. The bottom line is, classical (or any other) music can have melody, that's fine, but it's not integral to the existence of a piece of music because music is made up of many other components as well - eg. rhythm, colour, texture, sonic structure, to name a few.
> 
> I strongly agree with what Efraim seemed to suggest, that around 1900 there was a crisis of tonality, which made so many things like melody almost redundant. After WWI in particular, many composers explored new avenues in music, that were sometimes not based on melody, or revived older approaches to melody (eg. Renaissance) that were simpler than the overblown approach of the later Romantics. Some composers who took these directions were, as most people probably know, Bartok, Varese, Schoenberg, Durufle, Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel and there was much room for more idiosyncratic approaches like Janacek, whose music is more based on the sounds of the human voice during conversation (in Czech, obviously). No matter how conventional or wierd they were, composers from 1900 on had to face up to the crisis of tonality or become irrelevant...


I still have yet to read your explanation of _*how*_ a good melody could hurt a piece of music?

Oh and I'm still waiting on knowing what Saint-Saens compositions you've heard besides "Symphony No. 3."


----------



## Sid James

Do you always have to make things into a confrontation? Just like last week? A bunch of the more progressive people have made our points here regarding melody quite well, read them again if necessary. Anyway, this is outside of the scope of this thread.

By the way, have you heard any of Israeli C20th composer Josef Tal?


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> Do you always have to make things into a confrontation? Just like last week? A bunch of the more progressive people have made our points here regarding melody quite well, read them again if necessary. Anyway, this is outside of the scope of this thread.
> 
> By the way, have you heard any of Israeli C20th composer Josef Tal?


I'm not making anything into a controntation, Andre. All I did was ask you a simple question. I don't care what the other people have said about melody. I asked you this question, by the way, I posted this question earlier and I didn't receive any responses, so I figured I would ask you the question since you brought it back up. Nothing controntational about that.

About the Saint-Saens, I was just curious as to know what pieces you've heard that way I could direct you to something that's more up your alley maybe.

As for Josef Tal, I think you know how I feel about atonality, so I don't need to bring that up again do I?


----------



## Sid James

I restate what I said earlier, there's no problem with a piece having melody, but music can have things other than melody - colour, rhythm, texture, structure - to be engaging. Just listen attentively to almost anything by a more reputable post WW2 composer & you'll understand what we are saying.

About Saint Saens, I've heard quite a bit of him on the radio. Eg. chamber music, concertos, Carnival of the Animals, symphonies. I'm afraid he doesn't engage me at all. I find more depth in other composers from around that period like Bizet, Gounod, Franck. For me, substance is mostly more important than style. If I want something virtuostic, I'd rather listen to Liszt's concertos than Saint Saens'. That's just how my taste seem to have developed...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> I restate what I said earlier, there's no problem with a piece having melody, but music can have things other than melody - colour, rhythm, texture, structure - to be engaging. Just listen attentively to almost anything by a more reputable post WW2 composer & you'll understand what we are saying.
> 
> About Saint Saens, I've heard quite a bit of him on the radio. Eg. chamber music, concertos, Carnival of the Animals, symphonies. I'm afraid he doesn't engage me at all. I find more depth in other composers from around that period like Bizet, Gounod, Franck. For me, substance is mostly more important than style. If I want something virtuostic, I'd rather listen to Liszt's concertos than Saint Saens'. That's just how my taste seem to have developed...


Well I like Saint-Saens, Bizet, Gounod, Liszt, and Franck. Their music has definitely enriched my life. I still enjoy Saint-Saens though. His piano concertos are unbelievably good. His ballet "Javotta" is also quite good. The full ballet has only been recorded once and it's on the Marco Polo label. I think it's out-of-print now.

I hate to do this, but you never answered my question. I asked you *how* a good melody could hurt a piece of music? I didn't ask you anything else. I don't care about post WWII composers. I didn't ask you about color, rhythm, structure, or anything else. That has nothing to do with my question, Andre.


----------



## Sid James

Well, I don't like your reductionist, black & white argument, but I suppose melody can impede a composer from saying what he/she wants to say if they have other concerns. I can only point you to something like Varese's _Offrandes_ where melody would be out of place, big time. Varese here is not concerned with melody, that would be superficial & ruin the piece. He's more concerned with painting a nightmare world, what the text sung by the soprano is about. The orchestra is treated as a timbral pool, not a source of melody, from which the composer takes elements like colour, rhythm, texture, at will. So not all music has to rely on melody, and in some cases like this, it has nothing to do with melody at all...

If you heard the Varese or even something more radical, like Cage's _Sonatas for Prepared Piano_, you would get exactly what we're on about...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> Well, I don't like your reductionist, black & white argument, but I suppose melody can impede a composer from saying what he/she wants to say if they have other concerns.


I rest my case. There's nothing wrong with a good melody. It only enhances the musical experience.

As far as post-WWII composers, I could careless about them. I have no interest in them. I'm still digging my way through my two favorite periods of classical music: the Romantic and early 20th Century periods and I have a suspicion that I haven't tipped the iceberg yet of these mammoth periods of time.


----------



## Sid James

I don't think you read my post properly. What I was trying to say, that in some cases, the use of melody can actually be a hindrance & quite superficial. Like the Varese piece Offrandes I mentioned, which doesn't use melody, because there it is not needed. In any case, you only seem to interested in black & white arguments, so were oblivious to the nuances of what me & others were saying...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> I don't think you read my post properly. What I was trying to say, that in some cases, the use of melody can actually be a hindrance & quite superficial. Like the Varese piece Offrandes I mentioned, which doesn't use melody, because there it is not needed. In any case, you only seem to interested in black & white arguments, so were oblivious to the nuances of what me & others were saying...


Andre, I wasn't asking for a short essay, about composers who don't use melody, I was just asking you a simple, direct question, which you were so argumentatively against answering.

Like I said, I don't care about post-WWII composers unless they wrote tonal music and composed with something thoughtful in their mind other than how to rub two seashells together to get an experimental sound. That's not music to me. Never will be.


----------



## Sid James

Well maybe that's because you have only started to seriously listen to classical quite recently. Some of us around here have done it for decades, and we're still discovering new things regularly. We don't dismiss anything. I know that the classical music I listen to today is different from 10-20 years ago, and what I listen to in the next decades will also change. So that's why many contributors here have developed a more open view of what is music, I guess...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> Well maybe that's because you have only started to seriously listen to classical quite recently. Some of us around here have done it for decades, and we're still discovering new things regularly. We don't dismiss anything. I know that the classical music I listen to today is different from 10-20 years ago, and what I listen to in the next decades will also change. So that's why many contributors here have developed a more open view of what is music, I guess...


How long you've listened to classical music isn't really the point I was making. I have been a musician for 20 years, so I'm not sure who has the best perspective of music: me or you? What are your credentials for evaluating music?


----------



## Sid James

I'm not competing with you or anyone else here. Again a confrontation, which is not necessary. Obviously you being a musician brings a different perspective to music, but so has my listening to a variety of classical for the past 20 years. It's not about competition or so called credentials, but the perception everyone brings to a piece, whether it's Byrd, Mozart or Varese. This is why I'm an eclectic, a jack of all trades (in the listening & appreciation department anyway), and that's probably not so unusual around here. I think it's healthy to want variety, but if you don't, that's fine. I just think that there are many eclectics like me around here & that's good (actually, I'll start a thread about this)...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> I'm not competing with you or anyone else here. Again a confrontation, which is not necessary. Obviously you being a musician brings a different perspective to music, but so has my listening to a variety of classical for the past 20 years. It's not about competition or so called credentials, but the perception everyone brings to a piece, whether it's Byrd, Mozart or Varese. This is why I'm an eclectic, a jack of all trades (in the listening & appreciation department anyway), and that's probably not so unusual around here. I think it's healthy to want variety, but if you don't, that's fine. I just think that there are many eclectics like me around here & that's good (actually, I'll start a thread about this)...


Being eclectic doesn't make you right about music.


----------



## Gangsta Tweety Bird

define good melody


----------



## Sid James

There is no right & wrong here! Just nuances...


----------



## Mirror Image

Gangsta Tweety-Bird said:


> define good melody


That rests completely on whoever is listening, but, for me, a good melody lingers in your head for awhile and you're not sure why it's even there to begin with!


----------



## bdelykleon

To me, this is a great tune.


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> To me, this is a great tune.


Here are many great tunes:


----------



## Ispin

*on great/god and bad melodies...*

... a couple of words from a philosophical point of view.

Our likes and dislikes are conclusive, positive facts - _de gustibus non est disputandum_. It means that we cannot justify those subjective facts. If we determine the good melody this way: a melody which seems to somebody good or great, we block the entire discussion. I am not contradicting that subjective factors are playing an important role in the assessment of the melody. However objective factors are equally important and it is just possible to talk about them. Taking objective factors into consideration allows for argumentation which isn't mere repeating that I like this and/or I dislike that. If the melody is written in the major-minor system it must meet different conditions than the pentatonic tune, for instance. Only provided we remember about the objective although not absolute factors it is possible to understand why Stravinsky's opinion on Beethoven isn't only an expression of personal likings of the Russian composer. And Stravinsky claimed that the whole artistic work of Beethoven was a ceaseless fight against the lack of melodic talent. For sure, accepting Stravinsky's view doesn't lead to diminishing Beethoven's genius.


----------



## bdelykleon

Mirror Image said:


> Here are many great tunes:


I don't think Ravel has a great gift for melodies, he is more brilliant in orchestral and melodic color.

Here a great tune:


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> I don't think Ravel has a great gift for melodies, he is more brilliant in orchestral and melodic color.
> 
> Here a great tune:


Well that's your opinion. Not many composers are gifted with melody writing. Poulenc, Faure, Saint-Saens, Tchaikovsky were all gifted melody writers.

By the way, that YouTube video you provided was terrible.


----------



## bdelykleon

Mirror Image said:


> By the way, that YouTube video you provided was terrible.


Why is it terrible?


----------



## Efraim

Andre said:


> Well, I don't like your reductionist, black & white argument, but I suppose melody can impede a composer from saying what he/she wants to say if they have other concerns. I can only point you to something like Varese's _Offrandes_ where melody would be out of place, big time. Varese here is not concerned with melody, that would be superficial & ruin the piece. He's more concerned with painting a nightmare world, what the text sung by the soprano is about. The orchestra is treated as a timbral pool, not a source of melody, from which the composer takes elements like colour, rhythm, texture, at will. So not all music has to rely on melody, and in some cases like this, it has nothing to do with melody at all...
> 
> If you heard the Varese or even something more radical, like Cage's _Sonatas for Prepared Piano_, you would get exactly what we're on about...


Andre, this is a very good explanation!  - Do you agree with me that even in many of the most classical works the main concern is not the melody? As to whether it can hurt, I think it can happen that it does. I actually wrote something like that with respect to Schumann.


----------



## Mirror Image

Efraim said:


> Andre, this is a very good explanation!  - Do you agree with me that even in many of the most classical works the main concern is not the melody? As to whether it can hurt, I think it can happen that it does. I actually wrote something like that with respect to Schumann.


Let me say that there's nothing wrong with a piece of music that lacks melody. Go listen to Bartok's "Divertimento." Not a melody to be found in sight.

All I said was there's nothing wrong with composers who used melody to get their point across. Not many composers are gifted melodist, but there's certainly nothing wrong with some big tunes found in a piece.

Andre simply has the wrong impression of what I'm trying to say.


----------



## tahnak

*Top 20 Composers*

Tchaikovsky
Rachmaninov
Rimsky Korsakov
Mussorgsky
Borodin
Chopin
Berlioz
Beethoven
Brahms
Wagner
Bruckner
Bach
Haydn
Mozart
Schubert
Menelssohn
Dvorak
Sibelius
Richard Strauss
Mahler


----------



## Mirror Image

My list changes yet again...

1. Ravel
2. Berlioz
3. Bruckner
4. Mahler
5. Vaughan Williams
6. Barber
7. Debussy
8. Bartok
9. Stravinsky
10. Brahms
11. Delius
12. Sibelius
13. Nielsen
14. Langgaard
15. Poulenc
16. Bax
17. Grieg
18. Arnold
19. Liszt
20. De Falla


----------



## Sid James

Just for the record, I think that the works of many C20th composers are quite melodic, even though that might not be the sole or even major thing they're concerned with. Some composers I can think of here are my favourite Varese, as well as others like Martin, Henze, Berg. But I disagree with MI that Bartok's _Divertimento_ lacks melody. Just listen to how he locks you in with that big opening theme! That's very melodic, as are the other movements. He simply uses different rhythms to accompany his melodies. In any case, it's not as radical as those composers above. So I think that our perception of what is melody differs greatly, I think I'm more similar to bdelykleon here...


----------



## Aramis

20 is quite much for me, of course I like much more than 20 composers but I don't think I can call them my favourites. 

So the current list goes like this:

Brahms
Mendelssohn
Beethoven
Mozart
Chopin
Grieg
Tchaikovsky
Berlioz
Paganini
Schumann 
Liszt
Vivaldi
Bach


----------



## Cortision

Many of my list of twenty are subject to change at any moment (Beethoven and Mozart excepted).

Handel
Mozart
Brahms
Mendelssohn
Beethoven
Dvorak
Sibelius
Rachmaninoff
Shubert
Schumann
Franck
Debussy
Saint-Saens
Tchaikovsky
Bruckner
Elgar
Grieg
Gershwin
Vivaldi
Bach


----------



## Mirror Image

Aramis said:


> 20 is quite much for me, of course I like much more than 20 composers but I don't think I can call them my favourites.
> 
> So the current list goes like this:
> 
> Brahms
> Mendelssohn
> Beethoven
> Mozart
> Chopin
> Grieg
> Tchaikovsky
> Berlioz
> Paganini
> Schumann
> Liszt
> Vivaldi
> Bach


Pretty conservative list with the exceptions of Berlioz and Grieg.


----------



## Aramis

I'm not sure what do you mean by "conservative".


----------



## Donboy

Am I the only one that thinks Beethoven is extremely overrated? His early works seem to imitate Mozart (but spoil it). Just how many arpeggios can you fit into a piano composition? But to his credit, he does improve the deafer he gets.


----------



## Aramis

Donboy said:


> Am I the only one that thinks Beethoven is extremely overrated?


Yes.



> His early works seem to imitate Mozart


Yes, and Mozart's works seem to imitate Haydn. It's the nature of classical style, every composer from that period can be accused for imitating another one.


----------



## Mirror Image

Aramis said:


> I'm not sure what do you mean by "conservative".


con⋅serv⋅a⋅tive  [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] 
-adjective
1.* disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.*
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7. Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
-noun
8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9. a supporter of conservative political policies.
10. (initial capital letter) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.
11. a preservative.


----------



## Aramis

Why with exception of Grieg then? He wasn't part of new wave, his music is strightly romantic, just like Chopin's, Tchaikovsky's, or Schumann's.


----------



## Dim7

Liszt definitely wasn't musically conservative though.


----------



## Mirror Image

Aramis said:


> Why with exception of Grieg then? He wasn't part of new wave, his music is strightly romantic, just like Chopin's, Tchaikovsky's, or Schumann's.


Some of your choices were conservative. I don't think you've really explored much classical outside of those composers, because none of them are uniquely individual choices. It just seems like you're following popularity trends with your choices. You didn't even pick a late-Romantic or early 20th Century composer. You don't enjoy music from these time periods?


----------



## Mirror Image

Dim7 said:


> Liszt definately wasn't musically conservative though.


No he wasn't. I'm more or less talking about his Aramis' choices being conservative.


----------



## Aramis

Mirror Image said:


> Some of your choices were conservative. I don't think you've really explored much classical outside of those composers, because none of them are uniquely individual choices. It just seems like you're following popularity trends with your choices. You didn't even pick a late-Romantic or early 20th Century composer. You don't enjoy music from these time periods?


Well, if I would follow the popular trends according to this board (the only one place where I discuss and share classical experiences) I would pick Mahler, Sibelius, Bartok and others, since this is the most popular classical music here. No, I don't really enjoy XXth century, as you may know - if you are reading my posts around other threads. I like only few of them: Prokofiev and Rachmaninoff, recently Faure too. That's for for example. And I absolutely can't stand Bruckners, Holsts, Brittens, Stravinskys INC. Yes, I know their major works very well. I attempted to listen to them, but I disliked their music. I'm just like Brahms - kind of extreme traditionalists when it comes to arts, so I guess this is the reason of my choices.

Did I explore much music outside of them? Well, I would say I did explore enough to say that these composers are my *choice*. Knowingly choice. I won't deny that I have still a lot to explore - but the composers which I'm about to know and fall in love with, will be composers similiar to those which I have listed here.


----------



## Mirror Image

Aramis said:


> Well, if I would follow the popular trends according to this board (the only one place where I discuss and share classical experiences) I would pick Mahler, Sibelius, Bartok and others, since this is the most popular classical music here. No, I don't really enjoy XXth century, as you may know - if you are reading my posts around other threads. I like only few of them: Prokofiev and Rachmaninoff, recently Faure too. That's for for example. And I absolutely can't stand Bruckners, Holsts, Brittens, Stravinskys INC. Yes, I know their major works very well. I attempted to listen to them, but I disliked their music. I'm just like Brahms - kind of extreme traditionalists when it comes to arts, so I guess this is the reason of my choices.
> 
> Did I explore much music outside of them? Well, I would say I did explore enough to say that these composers are my *choice*. Knowingly choice. I won't deny that I have still a lot to explore - but the composers which I'm about to know and fall in love with, will be composers similiar to those which I have listed here.


Well, like I said, I think you're choices are rather conservative and I also think they don't really reveal any kind of individuality on your part.

I would hardly call Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Bruckner, Bartok, or Holst popluar around here. It seems that you're still very much into "mainstream" classical, which I guess is okay, but it does show that you have much to explore.


----------



## Aramis

Mirror Image said:


> I would hardly call Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Bruckner, Bartok, or Holst popluar around here.


I'm basing on the fact that you can easily find recently active discussions about them and, at the other hand, there is not too much talking about, as you call it, "mainstream classical". Composers which I have listed are more famous in general, but in classical listener's environment modern composers, such as those, are much more regarded and popular.


----------



## Mirror Image

Aramis said:


> I'm basing on the fact that you can easily find recently active discussions about them and, at the other hand, there is not too much talking about, as you call it, "mainstream classical". Composers which I have listed are more famous in general, but in classical listener's environment modern composers, such as those, are much more regarded and popular.


First of all, this is a classical music forum. The only people that come here are the ones that are serious about this music. Even these people who listen to Bartok or Stravinsky, don't step outside of these composers that often. Just like people who listen to Beethoven, Schubert, and Mozart don't step outside of those composers very much.

Me, on the other hand, I listen to a wider compositional variety and I'm more into the less-recorded composers that don't get as much attention like Delius, Langgaard, John Ireland, Bliss, Bax, Arnold, de Falla, Vitezslav Novak, etc.


----------



## Aramis

Mirror Image said:


> Me, on the other hand, I listen to a wider compositional variety and I'm more into the less-recorded composers that don't get as much attention like Delius, Langgaard, John Ireland, Bliss, Bax, Arnold, de Falla, Vitezslav Novak, etc.


Okay, so what are you trying to say right now? That your taste is somehow better and more selective? Of course, it's good to know some less-known composers, but this is thread about favourites. And I belive that famous composers are famous and often recorded because they are one of the bests. So the top of my favourite composers list includes such composers - maybe an usual set, but I'm not a metalhead to be afraid of popular stuff. And it would be absurd to be ashamed of listening to classical composers with "big names".


----------



## Mirror Image

Aramis said:


> Okay, so what are you trying to say right now? That your taste is somehow better and more selective? Of course, it's good to know some less-known composers, but this is thread about favourites. And I belive that famous composers are famous and often recorded because they are one of the bests. So the top of my favourite composers list includes such composers - maybe an usual set, but I'm not a metalhead to be afraid of popular stuff. And it would be absurd to be ashamed of listening to classical composers with "big names".


All I'm saying is that your list doesn't really reflect an experienced listener and it seems to be you haven't even tipped the iceberg yet of who really enjoy, but you're still young, so like I was telling Bach, your tastes will change whether you realize it or not.


----------



## TresPicos

Mirror Image said:


> Well, like I said, I think you're choices are rather conservative and I also think they don't really reveal any kind of individuality on your part.
> 
> I would hardly call Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Bruckner, Bartok, or Holst popluar around here. It seems that you're still very much into "mainstream" classical, which I guess is okay, but it does show that you have much to explore.


I don't get it. He just said that he HAS explored the more modern stuff and found that he doesn't like it. What's left to do?

It reminds me of someone in the Henri Dutilleux thread who had explored the more modern stuff and had found that he didn't like it, and settled for a, by comparison, more mainstream taste:



> I don't doubt that there are a few composers after WWII that are good, but I have yet to hear any and quite frankly I'm just turned off right now by what I have heard from Dutilleux.
> 
> I'm more into the Romantic and early 20th Century periods and with good reason, because it is these periods that I feel contained the best music.


Should this thread really be a pissing contest regarding who has the most sophisticated and unusual taste?

I can only agree with what someone said in the Henri Dutilleux thread:



> I think the problem, Andre is that perhaps you're expecting other people to go about music like you do? Not everybody has an interest in all time periods of classical music. What if somebody is just happy listening to Tchaikovsky for the rest of their life? What's wrong with that?


Yeah, what's wrong with that?


----------



## Mirror Image

TresPicos said:


> I don't get it. He just said that he HAS explored the more modern stuff and found that he doesn't like it. What's left to do?
> 
> It reminds me of someone in the Henri Dutilleux thread who had explored the more modern stuff and had found that he didn't like it, and settled for a, by comparison, more mainstream taste:
> 
> Should this thread really be a pissing contest regarding who has the most sophisticated and unusual taste?
> 
> I can only agree with what someone said in the Henri Dutilleux thread:
> 
> Yeah, what's wrong with that?


All I said was he had conservative choices. I don't call Bliss, Bax, or George Frederick McKay mainstream choices.


----------



## mueske

Mirror Image said:


> All I said was he had conservative choices. I don't call Bliss, Bax, or George Frederick McKay mainstream choices.


I think the problem with that is that it sounds somewhat negative. It's not an insult, but it's not a compliment either.


----------



## Niebolaz

1. Leos Janacek
2. Bela Bartok
3. Sergei Prokofiev
4. Aram Khachaturian
5. Gustav Mahler
6. Alberto Ginastera
7. Claude Debussy
8. Alexander Borodin
9. Zoltan Kodaly
10. Hector Berlioz
11. JS Bach
12. Benjamin Britten
13. Nikolai Rimsky Korsakov
14. Alexander Scriabin
15.-


----------



## Ravellian

My personal top 20 goes something like this.. I'm not a fan of listening to random no-names, I tend to stick with just a few prolific composers, for better or for worse, so every name on here is very well-known.
1. Beethoven
2. Tchaikovsky
3. Wagner
4. Chopin
5. Rachmaninoff
6. Ravel
7. Bach
8. Schubert
9. Mozart
10. Mahler
11. Haydn
12. Liszt
13. Brahms
14. Copland
15. Debussy
16. Prokofiev
17. Shostakovich
18. Stravinsky
19. Mendelssohn
20. Sibelius


----------



## Sid James

I'm such a fan of C20th composers, that I think if you compile a list of virtually any major (& some minor) composers of the last 100 years, I'd probably be ok with that. But there's so many that I haven't discovered yet, like Ligeti, Boulez, Kurtag, Berio, Nono, etc. & even many Australian composers (that's were I live) are unfamiliar to me, apart from what I've heard on radio.



Ravellian said:


> My personal top 20 goes something like this.. I'm not a fan of listening to random no-names, I tend to stick with just a few prolific composers...


No need to be ashamed of that. Often, the most popular composer's works are the best, even though I like to explore lesser known ones sometimes, just for interesting comparison's sake, at least...


----------



## Mirror Image

Ravellian said:


> My personal top 20 goes something like this.. I'm not a fan of listening to random no-names, I tend to stick with just a few prolific composers, for better or for worse, so every name on here is very well-known.


Random no-names? Sometimes the less-known composers are the better ones. Just because you never heard of them doesn't mean their music is bad or is somehow not up to the standards of the more popular composers.

One thing I don't like about many classical listeners is their unwillingness to get beyond the everyday composers that they listen to.

Exploring is a beautiful thing I think. To get beyond your comfort zone and start diving into the music is one of the greatest things one can do.

By the way, I like your screen name. I'm a Ravel fanatic.


----------



## PartisanRanger

I'm relatively new to classical music so I'll start with just 10:

1. Mozart
2. Stravinsky
3. Mahler
4. Ligeti
5. Mussorgsky
6. Beethoven
7. Vivaldi
8. Holst
9. Glass
10. Gershwin


----------



## Ravellian

Actually, I wasn't implying anything negative when I said 'no-names,' I was referring to people that are simply lesser-known or very little-known in the classical world. I prefer to explore classical one person at a time, get to know all their works, and move on, which can take time, and since I've only been a serious classical fan for about 3 years, I've only really explored the best-known composers. I'll get around to the others eventually  
I heard you have a huge Ravel collection Mirror, who are your favorite Ravel performers? Do you have any favorite recordings?


----------



## Mirror Image

Ravellian said:


> Actually, I wasn't implying anything negative when I said 'no-names,' I was referring to people that are simply lesser-known or very little-known in the classical world. I prefer to explore classical one person at a time, get to know all their works, and move on, which can take time, and since I've only been a serious classical fan for about 3 years, I've only really explored the best-known composers. I'll get around to the others eventually
> I heard you have a huge Ravel collection Mirror, who are your favorite Ravel performers? Do you have any favorite recordings?


Oh, okay I understand. Thanks for clarifying that.

My favorite Ravel conductors are Jean Martinon, Pierre Boulez, Yan Pascal Tortelier, and Charles Dutoit. My favorite Ravel performers are Martha Argerich, Pascal Roge, and Krystian Zimerman. My favorite Ravel recordings? I'll have to get back to you on that one.


----------



## Fergus

It is hard to come up with a list of my top 20 composers. I think the current list is reflective of my current listening and purchasing patterns, if nothing else. To help myself rank them, I have grouped them into tiers first. It is easier to rank composers within the same tier, though it still feels arbitrary many times.

Tier 1 - The composers I have listened to most thoroughly, and with continued appreciation 

1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Haydn
4. Mozart

Tier 2 - Composers with many works I enjoy very much

5. Debussy
6. Bax
7. Vivaldi
8. Copland
9. Ravel
10. John Williams (Star Wars composer)
11. Aho

Tier 3 - Composers of some of my favorite pieces

12. Holst for The Planets
13. Stravinsky for The Firebird & The Rite of Spring
14. Mussorgsky for Pictures at an Exhibition and Night on Bald Mountain
15. Rodrigo for Concierto de Aranjuez and a few other pieces I've heard
16. Respighi for his Roman Trilogy
17. Michael Nyman for The Piano soundtrack

Tier 4 - Composers I'm beginning to get into but haven't heard enough from yet

18. Sibelius
19. Rachmaninoff
20. Mahler


----------



## Mirror Image

Mine has completely changed yet again:

1. Ravel
2. Bruckner
3. Vaughan Williams
4. Delius
5. Berlioz
6. Debussy
7. Barber
8. R. Strauss
9. Stravinsky
10. Bartok
11. Bax
12. Shostakovich
13. Brahms
14. Langgaard
15. Britten
16. Poulenc
17. Sibelius
18. Liszt
19. de Falla
20. Walton


----------



## Efraim

Dear Friends, I am just reading in a famous book something that fits in with our thread, provided it (the thread) allows of some joking. This is Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies, "open society" meaning a society securing individual freedom. He says, "_It is our duty to help those who need our help; but it cannot be our duty to make others happy (…) since it would only too often mean intruding on the privacy of those whom we have such amiable intentions_", but he allows for an exception: _"… the right to care for the happiness of others must be considered a privilege confined to the close circle of [our] friends. In their case, we may perhaps have a certain right to try to impose our scale of values -_ " and here he gives an example which prompts me to quote and comment all that: "_our preferences regarding *music*, for example. (And we may even feel it our duty to open to them a world of values which, we trust, can so much contribute to their happiness.)_"

Since we are a close circle of friends  (although we don't even know the true name, age, gender of each other ), I imagine a highly edifying scene: Mirror Image binding Andre to a chair and introducing into his ears Saint Saëns' earworms, and Andre doing the same thing to Mirror Image with Varèse's non-melodies, until they make happy each other with their respective world of values. After they have successfully convinced each other, they start arguing again: Andre against Varèse, Mirror Image against Saint Saëns… 

(I hope none of our both friends will be angry with me for this teasing. Actually I like both of you, even though Saint Saëns attracts me as little as does Varèse.)


----------



## Dim7

Mirror Image said:


> Mine has completely changed yet again:
> 
> 1. Ravel
> 2. Bruckner
> 3. Vaughan Williams
> 4. Delius
> 5. Berlioz
> 6. Debussy
> 7. Barber
> 8. R. Strauss
> 9. Stravinsky
> 10. Bartok
> 11. Bax
> 12. Shostakovich
> 13. Brahms
> 14. Langgaard
> 15. Britten
> 16. Poulenc
> 17. Sibelius
> 18. Liszt
> 19. de Falla
> 20. Walton


No Mahler? You have fallen to the dark side.


----------



## andruini

Changing my list up a bit:

1. Stravinsky
2. Tallis
3. Beethoven
4. Golijov
5. Dvorák
6. Fauré
7. Debussy
8. Prokofiev
9. Brahms
10. Chopin
11. Janácek
12. Bach
13. Adams
14. Ibert
15. Mozart
16. Glass
17. Bartók
18. Barber
19. Poulenc
20. Smetana


----------



## Mirror Image

Dim7 said:


> No Mahler? You have fallen to the dark side.


Yes, that's right no Mahler. I have been re-evaluating my musical choices lately and who I really listen to the most and Mahler doesn't even come close. I enjoy Mahler, but he isn't in my top 20 anymore.


----------



## Mirror Image

New top 20 (in no particular order):

1. Ravel
2. Bruckner
3. Vaughan Williams
4. Delius
5. Berlioz
6. Debussy
7. Barber
8. R. Strauss
9. Stravinsky
10. Bartok
11. Bax
12. Alwyn
13. Langgaard
14. Sibelius
15. Poulenc
16. Copland
17. Brahms
18. de Falla
19. Saint-Saens
20. Liszt


----------



## Mirror Image

New top 20 (in no particular order):

1. Ravel
2. Bruckner
3. Vaughan Williams
4. Delius
5. Berlioz
6. Debussy
7. Barber
8. R. Strauss
9. Mahler
10. Bartok
11. Bax
12. Alwyn
13. Langgaard
14. Sibelius
15. Poulenc
16. Copland
17. Stravinsky
18. de Falla
19. Saint-Saens
20. Liszt


----------



## Zeniyama

A new top twenty:

1. Modest Mussorgsky
2. Arthur Honegger
3. Erik Satie
4. Franz Schubert
5. Frederick Delius
6. Alexander Borodin
7. Hugo Wolf
8. Sergei Prokofiev
9. Maurice Ravel
10. Aram Khachaturian
11. Alexander Scriabin
12. Mikhail Glinka
13. Dmitri Shostakovich
14. John Ireland
15. Arnold Schoenberg
16. Anton Webern
17. Richard Wagner
18. Franz Liszt
19. Frédéric Chopin
20. Ralph Vaugan Williams

In no particular order, except for the first four - I wrote them out as they occured to me.

I forgot Stravinsky, Bartok, and R. Strauss, and I can't see anyone I'm willing to get rid of to make room for them, so I'll just say that they're number 10a, 10b, and 10c.


----------



## Artemis

1. Schubert
2. Mozart
3. Handel
4. Beethoven
5. Brahms
6. Schumann
7. Haydn
8. Mendelssohn
9. Chopin
10. Vivaldi
11. Bach
12. Dvorak
13. Purcell
14. Rimsky-Korsakov
15. Elgar
16. Sibelius
17. Weber
18. Telemann
19. Smetana
20. Debussy


----------



## Il Seraglio

1.) Mozart
2.) Wagner
3.) Stravinsky
4.) Lizst
5.) Beethoven
6.) Bach
7.) Haydn
8.) Shostakovich
9.) Brahms
10.) Bizet
11.) Rameau
12.) Schoenberg
13.) Sakamoto
15.) Adams
16.) Dvorak
17.) Glass
18.) Gorecki
19.) C.P.E. Bach
20.) Branca


----------



## alan sheffield

*Top twenty composers*

In no particular order:

Vaughan Williams
Shostakovich
Prokofiev
Nielsen
Sibelius
Mahler
Bruckner
Tippett
Bliss
Arnold
Bax
Simpson
Walton
Britten
Barber
Rubbra
Rawsthorne
Rachmaninov
Bartok
Ravel


----------



## composira

1) Schubert
2) Sibelius
3) Mahler
4) Bach
5) Beethoven
6) Mozart
7) Mussorgsky
8) Brahms
9) Vivaldi
10) Elgar
11) Dvorak
12) Shostakovich
13) Chopin
14) Palestrina
15) Rimsky-Korsakov
16) Purcell
17) Saint-Saens
18) Tchaikovsky
19) Debussy
20) Smetana


----------



## hpowders

1-5 Mahler
6-10 Haydn
7-15 Mozart
16-20 Ives
21-24 Copland
25. Sibelius


----------



## tgtr0660

1. JS Bach
2. WA Mozart
3. Lv Beethoven
4. GF Handel
5. A Bruckner
6. D Shostakovich
7. J Brahms
8. R Schumann
9. A. Dvorak
10. M Mussorgsky
11. R Wagner
12. G Verdi
13. J Sibelius
14. GP Telemann
15. F Chopin
16. FJ Haydn
17. NA Rimsky-Korsakov
18. C Saint-Saens
19. G Mahler
20. A Borodin 

After the first 5 or 6 the order is a little chaotic really, the only clear thing is actually who are number 1 and 2.


----------



## Bulldog

1. Bach
2. Schumann
3. Scriabin
4. Mozart
5. Haydn
6. Shostakovich
7. Beethoven
8. Dvorak
9. Weinberg
10. Ravel
11. Froberger
12. Handel
13. Scheidemann
14. Schubert
15. Cabezon
16. Buxtehude
17. Chopin
18. Mahler
19. Bruckner
20. Berlioz


----------



## senza sordino

hpowders said:


> 1-5 Mahler
> 6-10 Haydn
> 7-15 Mozart
> 16-20 Ives
> 21-24 Copland
> 25. Sibelius


I don't know whether you're being serious or lazy. Either way this list is good, and funny and I approve. :lol:


----------



## hpowders

senza sordino said:


> I don't know whether you're being serious or lazy. Either way this list is good, and funny and I approve. :lol:


Serious. The point of listing 25 favorite composers is? About as significant as listing one's 25 favorite foods. After a bit, it all gets a little fuzzy, no?


----------



## senza sordino

hpowders said:


> Serious. The point of listing 25 favorite composers is? About as significant as listing one's 25 favorite foods. After a bit, it all gets a little fuzzy, no?


Yes a ranking of composers and foods is fuzzy. Though I don't really have trouble coming up with 20 composers, it's putting them in order I have trouble with.


----------



## JACE

I'll play. Here's where I seem to be right now:

Bach, J.S.
Beethoven
Berlioz
Brahms
Chopin
Debussy
Haydn
Ives
Liszt
Mahler
Mozart
Nielsen
Prokofiev
Rachmaninov
Rimsky-Korsakov
Schumann
Scriabin
Shostakovich
Sibelius
Stravinsky


My favorite non-classical composer is Duke Ellington.


----------



## JACE

senza sordino said:


> Yes a ranking of composers and foods is fuzzy. Though I don't really have trouble coming up with 20 composers, it's putting them in order I have trouble with.


Agreed. I can't rank them in numerical order.

That's why I put them in _alphabetical_ order.


----------



## senza sordino

Bach
Bartok
Beethoven
Brahms
Britten
Debussy
Dvorak
Elgar
Grieg
Mahler 
Mozart
Prokofiev 
Puccini 
Ravel
Shostakovich 
Sibelius 
Stravinsky 
Strauss
Tchaikovsky 
Vaughan Williams

An obvious list I admit. Probably the top 20 composers by sales as well. Not very adventurous. I've never really come across a composer whose work I don't like. Other composers who deserve a mention are Lutosławski, Villa Lobos, Schönberg, Adams, Schumann, Schubert, Holst, Nielsen, Janacek, Copland, Berlioz, Vivaldi, Purcell, Handel, Kabelevsky ..................


----------



## Guest

Bach
Beethoven
Mozart
Brahms
Schubert
Schumann
Schoenberg
Ravel
Stravinsky
Wagner
Haydn
Debussy
Messiaen
Stockhausen
Monteverdi
Chopin
Bartok
Mahler
Poulenc
Verdi

Last two are probably interchangeable with Palestrina, Handel, Rameau, Berg, Webern, Boulez, or Ligeti, at least, tbh. Everything else before those last two is in arbitrary "tiers" as well (Bach/Beethoven/Mozart may switch places but will be 1-3 for a long time. Pretty much same with 4-6, and other little groupings of similar enjoyment levels).


----------



## schigolch

Bach 
Bellini 
Berg 
Britten 
Debussy 
Ferneyhough
Handel
Janacek
Korngold 
Messiaen 
Mozart
Poulenc
Puccini
Rameau
Reich
Rossini
Sciarrino 
Ustvolskaya
Verdi 
Vivaldi


----------



## ClassicalMusicYouTube

I often asked myself who are the TOP 3 classical composers of all time. My answer always is: Mozart, Bach and Beethoven (not in an order). Is it just their name recognition that leads me to that opinion or would they really deserve that position?


----------



## brotagonist

^ Probably a bit of both. They usually appear at the top of just about all greatest lists... and there's good reason for that, but, equally, you need to ask yourself what is meant by top, greatest, etc. There are hundreds of great composers and great works, but only three spots at the top, so what does this really mean? The majority consensus? It is not really as meaningful as people make it out to be.


----------



## D Smith

Here is another obvious list, but this is who I listen to the most:

Bach J.S.
Bartok
Beethoven
Brahms
Chopin
Copland
Debussy
Dvorak 
Handel
Haydn
Mozart
Poulenc
Prokofiev
Ravel
Saint-Saens
Schubert
Sibelius
Tchaikovsky
Vaughan Williams
Vivaldi


----------



## musicrom

I'll just copy-paste my list that I have of most-liked composers on Pandora:

1. Ludwig van Beethoven - 40
2. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky - 36.1
3. Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov - 34
4. Felix Mendelssohn - 29
5. Frederic Chopin - 29
6. Jean Sibelius - 28
7. Antonín Dvořák - 26
8. Sergei Prokofiev - 21
9. Camille Saint-Saëns - 19
10. Bedřich Smetana - 18
11. Johann Sebastian Bach - 17
12. Max Bruch - 15
13. Gioachino Rossini - 15
14. Mikhail Glinka - 15
15. Sergei Rachmaninoff - 14.1
16. Edward Elgar - 14
17. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - 11.1
18. Niccolo Paganini - 11
19. Dmitri Shostakovich - 11
20. Henri Vieuxtemps - 10
21. Robert Schumann - 10

I won't bother to re-rank because I'm lazy, but there are definitely a few differences between this list and my actual favorite composers, although this list approximates it.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Hmm. In no real order:

Beethoven
Mozart
Schubert
Bach
Haydn (there, that's the clichés over with)
Vaughan Williams
Schubert
Elgar
Britten
Shostakovich
Tallis
Verdi
Schnittke
Saint-Saens
Williams
Adès
Maxwell Davies
Bartòk
Liszt
Tchaikovsky


----------



## Art Rock

1. Johann Sebastian Bach
2. Gustav Mahler
3. Johannes Brahms
4. Franz Schubert

Tied for 5-13:
Claude Debussy, Antonin Dvorak, Felix Mendelssohn, Ernest John Moeran, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Maurice Ravel, Dmitri Shostakovitch, Jean Sibelius, Richard Wagner

Tied for 14-20:
Arnold Bax, Anton Bruckner, Gabriel Faure, Edvard Grieg, Sofia Gubaidulina, Richard Strauss, Toru Takemitsu


----------



## DeepR

Let's be honest. Sadly, I don't know the music of a total of 20 composers well enough... and even if I did, I feel I should first know the music of at least a 100 composers really well, before picking 20 favorites out of them.


----------



## AClockworkOrange

JACE said:


> Agreed. I can't rank them in numerical order.
> 
> That's why I put them in _alphabetical_ order.


Alphabetical order is a fantastic idea - one I will shamelessly borrow :lol:

Even with 20 choices, I feel like I am missing out some key Composers. This would be my present list.

Bach (CPE)
Bax
Beethoven
Berlioz
Brahms
Brian (Havergal)
Bruckner
Haydn
Honegger
Korngold
Mahler
Mendelssohn
Mozart 
Puccini
Saint-Saëns 
Schubert
Shostakovich 
Strauss (Richard)
Vaughan Williams
Verdi


----------



## ClassicalMusicYouTube

brotagonist said:


> ^ Probably a bit of both. They usually appear at the top of just about all greatest lists... and there's good reason for that, but, equally, you need to ask yourself what is meant by top, greatest, etc. There are hundreds of great composers and great works, but only three spots at the top, so what does this really mean? The majority consensus? It is not really as meaningful as people make it out to be.


For me the quantity and quality of his work and my personal preference (do I like it?) are relevant. But I think I'm also influenced by the name recognition. I could also name John Williams as a top composer, he would meet the first two criteria, but he still is no Mozart or Beethoven. Maybe it's also the biography that matters (Mozart: very young and extremely gifted, Beethoven: deaf).


----------



## hpowders

senza sordino said:


> Yes a ranking of composers and foods is fuzzy. Though I don't really have trouble coming up with 20 composers, it's putting them in order I have trouble with.


That's what I mean. After a while, what's the point. I could see naming 10, but 20 is a bit much.


----------



## atsizat

I can think of 3 names.

1.) Johann Sebastian Bach
2.) Antonio Vivaldi
3.) Frederic Chopin


----------



## Xaltotun

1) Bruckner
2) Wagner
3) Beethoven
4) Brahms
5) Sibelius
6) Mahler
7) Schubert
8) Liszt
9) Berlioz
10) Franck
11) Dvorak
12) Haydn
13) Cherubini
14) Schoenberg
15) Bach
16) Mendelssohn
17) Schumann
18) Schmidt
19) R. Strauss
20) Mozart


----------



## Guest

nathanb said:


> Bach
> Beethoven
> Mozart
> Brahms
> Schubert
> Schumann
> Schoenberg
> Ravel
> Stravinsky
> Wagner
> Haydn
> Debussy
> Messiaen
> Stockhausen
> Monteverdi
> Chopin
> Bartok
> Mahler
> Poulenc
> Verdi


Hi me. That was a year ago. I think you got neat tastes. Here's some guys I like right meow:

Bach
Beethoven
Mozart
Stockhausen
Schoenberg
Stravinsky
Debussy
Cage
Brahms
Bartok
Messiaen
Monteverdi
Schumann
Xenakis
Schubert
Wagner
Ravel
Boulez
Haydn
Lopez

...or something like that


----------



## Woodduck

Perennial favorites, in roughly chronological order:

Josquin
Byrd
Tallis
Purcell
JS Bach
CPE Bach
Beethoven
Schubert
Mendelssohn
Berlioz
Schumann
Wagner
Brahms
Bruckner
Tchaikovsky
Elgar
Rachmaninoff
Sibelius
Vaughan Williams
Prokofiev

Many favorite _works_ by other composers such as Monteverdi, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Weber, Bellini, Verdi, Puccini, Grieg, R. Strauss, Josef Strauss, Thuille, Kalman, Faure, Ravel, Nielsen, Stenhammar, Schmidt, Stravinsky, Bartok, Copland, Britten, Hanson, Schuman, Mennin...


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

nathanb said:


> meow











meow meow meow


----------



## Chordalrock

I'm more about works than composers. A composer doesn't need to be one of the greats or consistently of high quality or even recognised, in order to have composed something I might love as much as anything else. However there are a few obscure composers in particular I want to promote, so...

First-class flyers... Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner.

Economical and green, but they fly anyway... Dufay, Josquin, Gombert, Schubert, Chopin, Brahms, Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Frank Martin, Arthur Honegger, William Schuman, Roger Sessions, Ligeti, Rautavaara, Sebastian Currier.

OK, that's 20. Martinu, Hindemith, Messiaen, Elliott Carter seem like composers I will enjoy & admire, but I have to listen to them more before I can add them to any list.


----------



## Vesteralen

Current, roughly chronological:

Monteverdi
Vivaldi
Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
Mendelssohn
Schumann
Brahms
Dvorak
Elgar
Beach
Alfven
Debussy
Novak
Vaughan Williams
Nielsen
Prokofiev
Barber
Alwyn
Liefs

A much less sophisticated list than I've done before, but truer to my actual listening experience.


----------



## Nevum

1) Bruckner
2) Wagner
3) Beethoven
4) Schubert
5) Schumann
6) Mozart
7) Mahler
8) Liszt
9) Berlioz
10) Rott
11) Dvorak
12) Vivaldi
13) Mendelssohn
14) Chopin
15) Pettersson
17) Shostakovitch
18) Scriabin
19) R. Strauss
20) Grieg


----------



## Guest

Chordalrock said:


> I'm more about works than composers. A composer doesn't need to be one of the greats or consistently of high quality or even recognised, in order to have composed something I might love as much as anything else. However there are a few obscure composers in particular I want to promote, so...
> 
> First-class flyers... Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner.
> 
> Economical and green, but they fly anyway... Dufay, Josquin, Gombert, Schubert, Chopin, Brahms, Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Frank Martin, Arthur Honegger, William Schuman, Roger Sessions, Ligeti, Rautavaara, *Sebastian Currier*.
> 
> OK, that's 20. Martinu, Hindemith, Messiaen, Elliott Carter seem like composers I will enjoy & admire, but I have to listen to them more before I can add them to any list.


Didn't know he'd had all that much music recorded. A rare pick. Nice.


----------



## Ariasexta

Top 20 of mine:

1-Guillaume Dufay
2-Orlando Di Lasso
3-Johann Sebastian Bach
4-Claudio Monteverdi
5-Johann Jacob Froberger
6-Henry Purcell
7-Girolamo Frescobaldi
8-Heinrich Ignaz Von Biber
9-Marc Antoine Charpentier
10-Jean Baptiste Lully
11-William Byrd
12-Heinrich Schuetz
13-Tomas Luis De Victoria
14-Giovanni Pierliugi da Palestrina
15-Samuel Capricornus
16-Jean Philippe Rameau
17-Dietrich Buxtehude
18-Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck 
19-Georg Philipp Telemann
20-Christoph Graupner


----------



## Ariasexta

Top 20 Act II.

1-Johannes Ockeghem
2-Giacomo Carissimi
3-Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel
4-Cipriano de Rore
5-Josquin Desprez 
6-William Lawes
7-Guillaume de Machaut
8-Cristobal de Morales
9-Johan Dowland
10-Antonio de Cabezon
11-Giovanni Gabrieli
12-Cristobal de Morales
13-Michael Praetorius
14-Nicolas Gombert 
15-Francesco Guerrero
16-Pierre de La Rue
17-Carlo Gesualdo
18-Luca Marenzio
19-Georg Friederich Handel
20-Antonio Vivaldi 

It is too regrettable to ignore so many great masters. I cannot resist listing at least 40. The listed ones are meant to be the most stylistically representative and innovative, which can be considered as among the top of all favorites.


----------



## helenora

Ariasexta said:


> Top 20 Act II.
> 
> 1-Johannes Ockeghem
> 2-Giacomo Carissimi
> 3-Luca Marenzio
> 4-Cipriano de Rore
> 5-Josquin Desprez
> 6-William Lawes
> 7-Guillaume de Machaut
> 8-Cristobal de Morales
> 9-Johan Dowland
> 10-Antonio de Cabezon
> 11-Giovanni Gabrieli
> 12-Cristobal de Morales
> 13-Michael Praetorius
> 14-Nicolas Gombert
> 15-Francesco Guerrero
> 16-Pierre de La Rue
> 17-Carlo Gesualdo
> 18-Georg Philipp Telemann
> 19-Georg Friederich Handel
> 20-Antonio Vivaldi
> 
> It is too regrettable to ignore so many great masters. I cannot resist listing at least 40. The listed ones are meant to be the most stylistically representative and innovative, which can be considered as among the top of all favorites.


wonderful lists, both of them 
Will you add acts III and IV where in Act III should be 19th century's composers and in IV are from 20th century's ?


----------



## Chordalrock

nathanb said:


> Didn't know he'd had all that much music recorded. A rare pick. Nice.


I don't think he does. I picked him for Time Machines. I'm a lover of works, not of ouvres, though I can appreciate ouvres to some extent. A couple of examples of how I picked these composers:

Dufay: the credo from "Missa L'homme arme" is just about the greatest piece of music I've heard, so I might have included him based on that alone, but I also find a few of his isorhythmic motets fascinating, and his late masses in general are pleasant enough to listen to and hard to become tired of (I don't imagine I ever will), but I don't count them among my (relatively few) favorites. Even though I don't enjoy the masses profoundly, I still like them more than tons of other classical music, so this counts for something. So, a combination of a few favorite works and relatively high general level.

Chopin: I used to like more of his stuff. These days I barely listen to his music, but nevertheless there are a few favorites, and if I didn't have better things to listen, I could amuse myself with most of his music well enough. So, again, a combination of a few favorites and a generally relatively high level of achievement.

Frank Martin: some of his works are more interesting than others, but the reason I chose him was that he does actually appeal to me as a whole, as a composer - his style of romantic modernism is generally appealing to me, more so than just about any other style, even if I can't (yet) identify any of his works as obvious masterpieces the way I can something like Beethoven's opus 106 or Dufay's credo.

Some of these composers I haven't explored as thoroughly or as deeply as I should have.

Anyway, I could only think of four composers who composed a lot of music (as opposed to some music) that I can not only enjoy but also recognise as obvious masterpieces aesthetically. I don't mean that as a put-down on the other composers, it may just reveal my own limitations as a listener - I have the handicap of not having grown up amid a musical environment, so I'm not particularly sensitive to music. It's rather a miracle I'm able to appreciate as much as I do just as a result of my own efforts in adulthood. Which, especially in the beginning, involved a lot of listening to music I found boring just to develop my musical perception, as I had figured I could do from reading a psychology textbook.

It's my good fortune that better perception often leads to better enjoyment.


----------



## Ariasexta

helenora said:


> wonderful lists, both of them
> Will you add acts III and IV where in Act III should be 19th century's composers and in IV are from 20th century's ?


The latest composer will be accepted as classical for me is Beethoven. If to complete the list of my favorite, all classical composers will be on the list. I dislike none of all the classical composers. 19 century for me is only a monopolized world musically by Beethoven. Somebody said something like(Sorry I forgot who):" people should not compose symphonies after Beethoven died. " I do have a folder of Beethovens symphonies on my computer among other older masters I like the little piece "The Ruins of Athens". Sometimes I listen to Brahms too, but I will not consider him as classical but a pioneer of modern music. Brahms will be listed as a modern pioneer, among other very few fine modern musicians like Jordi Savall, which does compose some music himself too.

Also Thanks for the "likes" .


----------



## helenora

Ariasexta said:


> The latest composer will be accepted as classical for me is Beethoven. If to complete the list of my favorite, all classical composers will be on the list. I dislike none of all the classical composers. 19 century for me is only monopolized world musically by Beethoven. Somebody said something like(Sorry I forgot who):" people should not compose symphonies after Beethoven died. " I do have a folder of Beethovens symphonies on my computer among other older masters. I like the little piece "The Ruins of Athens". Sometimes I listen to Brahms too, but I will not consider him as classical but a pioneer of modern music. Brahms will be listed as a modern pioneer, among other very few fine modern musicians like Jordi Savall, which does compose some music himself too.
> 
> Also Thanks for the "likes" .


very interesting point of view. If I may ask what other composers except of Brahms would you include in a list of fine modern composers? I assume the list won't be long as you mention that they are few, but still I'm very curious about this question.


----------



## presto lentando

- Albinoni
- Vivaldi
- Zelenka
- Telemann
- JS Bach
- Händel
- Beethoven
- Liszt
- Bruckner
- Brahms
- Dvorak
- Saint-Saens
- Tchaikovsky
- Rachmaninov
- Debussy
- Ravel
- Stravinsky
- Prokofiev
- Hindemith
- Penderecki


----------



## LHB

Bartok
Ginastera
Alkan
Xenakis
Ravel
Beethoven
Bach
Murail
Penderecki
Brahms
Boulez
Dutilleux
Scriabin
Feldman
Dusapin
Rihm
Gehlhaar
Haas
Dumitrescu
Feinberg


----------



## DiesIraeCX

In no particular order, except for Beethoven being my favorite, and Debussy and Mahler being co-number 2's. 

Beethoven
Mahler
Debussy
Schubert
Brahms
Wagner
Bruckner
Bach
Mozart
Schoenberg
Berg
Webern
Stravinsky
Bartok
Ligeti
Ravel
Chopin
Schumann
Berlioz
Boulez
Haydn


----------



## ArtMusic

presto lentando said:


> - Albinoni
> - Vivaldi
> - Zelenka
> - Telemann
> - JS Bach
> - Händel
> - Beethoven
> - Liszt
> - Bruckner
> - Brahms
> - Dvorak
> - Saint-Saens
> - Tchaikovsky
> - Rachmaninov
> - Debussy
> - Ravel
> - Stravinsky
> - Prokofiev
> - Hindemith
> - Penderecki


I like your top seven there, from Albinoni to Beethoven.


----------



## Chordalrock

nathanb said:


> Didn't know he'd had all that much music recorded.


I tried searching for more of his music. I sampled some stuff on youtube that was pretty good, and it led me to an album I didn't know existed. I had trouble finding anything much on Amazon but ultimately managed to dig up a few more albums that didn't always show up in search:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000E8QUXO

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B004OZRPIC

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000LP4OGA

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0081GLCPC

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sebastian-Currier-Vocalissimus/dp/B0000030K6/

That's five full length albums devoted entirely to his music. In addition, there's Time Machines, which Anne-Sophie Mutter recorded in one of her recent albums.

It's exciting to find all these. I have a hunch Currier deserves to be a lot better known.


----------



## isorhythm

Roughly chronological....

Perotin
Ockeghem
Tallis
Schütz
Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Schubert
Chopin
Brahms
Mahler
Berg
Webern
Stravinsky
Messiaen
Ligeti
Dutilleux
Gubaidulina
Reich
Saariaho

Edit - knew I was forgetting a really important one....Mahler replaces Prokofiev.


----------



## brotagonist

I'm going to give this a try 

Bach
Bartók
Beethoven
Berg
Brahms
Bruckner
Haydn
Hindemith
Ligeti
Mahler
Messiaen
Mozart
Prokofiev
Schnittke
Schoenberg
Schubert
Shostakovich
Stravinsky
Webern
Xenakis

I was somewhat reluctant to remove these from my list and might want to put them back in and delete... Mozart? [gasp!] Hindemith? [gasp!] I don't know 

Carter (very appealing, but could I remove one of the above for him?)
Eisler (I am only recently realizing that there was a lot more great stuff!)
Elgar (he probably shouldn't be up there, but I am thinking more and more that maybe he should, if I'd only listen to a few more works!)
Penderecki (an old favourite and some great new works, but might not be as consistent in the recent past)
Strauss-R (definitely am liking him significantly more, especially since having discovered his operas, but who to displace!?)
Tchaikovsky (a great composer, how could I? but someone had to go)
Weill (a longtime favourite, but I just don't know his orchestral works well enough and I don't think I'm into his many 'operas' enough)


----------



## brotagonist

I forgot, but now I already did it 

I tend to think of Schoenberg, Berg and Webern as unit (they are the only composers I have on a single album: the La Salle Quartet and Karajan/Berliner Philharmoniker boxed sets; I have been forced to file them under Schoenberg). If I were allowed that, then I would definitely put Strauss-R into my 20. It would likely be a toss-up between Carter and Tchaikovsky to make up the second empty spot (but I have a feeling that Elgar has more to offer than I am yet aware of).


----------



## KetchupOnIce

1. Mozart
2. JS Bach
3. Beethoven
4. Clementi
5. CPE Bach
6. Haydn
7. Handel
8. Telemann
9. Pleyel
10. Woelfl


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Albeniz
JS Bach !!!
CPE Bach
Bartok
Brahms
Britten
(Maxwell) Davies
Denisov
Dowland
Haydn
Lassus
Lindberg
Monteverdi
Mozart !!!
Nobre
Schnittke
Schubert !!!
Schumann
Shostakovich
Villa-Lobos
...or something like that...Beethoven & Messiaen should be there too...and Fernando Sor


----------



## PlaySalieri

Mozart
Schubert
Bach
Beethoven
Brahms
Schumann
Dvorak
Mendelssohn
Haydn
Handel
Elgar
Tchaikovsky

in that order more or less


----------



## TurnaboutVox

I make no claims of 'best', these are simply my favourites in terms of listening time over the last five years. I had to use an extended version of the 'brotagonist manouevre' (#219 above) to get the list down to 20. 

It's very different to the list I'd have written 5 years ago, and in five years' time the list will be somewhat different again, I should think.

J S Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Schubert
Schumann
Liszt
Bruckner
Faure
Mahler
Wolf
Debussy
Schoenberg--Webern--Berg--Zemlinsky
Busoni
Bridge
Stravinsky
Bartok
Hindemith
Britten
Poulenc
Kurtag


----------



## Op.123

Verdi
Bellini
Puccini
Liszt
Chopin
Wagner
Prokofiev
Tchaikovsky
Bruckner
Mahler
Brahms
Cherubini
Sibelius
Donizetti
Hindemith
Mozart
Schumann
Rachmaninov
Debussy
Beethoven


----------



## AClockworkOrange

I'll revise my list to reflect my updated listening. I'll list in alphabetical order as picking twenty favourites is hard enough without the complication of ranking. Ask me again tomorrow and I would probably rewrite this list again.


Bach (CPE & JS)
Bax
Beethoven
Berlioz
Brahms
Bruckner
Dvorak
Haydn
Liszt
Mendelssohn (Felix & Fanny)
Mozart
Parry
Rubbra
Saint-Saëns
Schubert
Schumann
Shostakovich
Sibelius
Stanford
Strauss (Richard)


----------



## KetchupOnIce

1. Mozart
2. JS Bach
3. CPE Bach
4. Beethoven
5. Haydn
6. JC Bach
7. Clementi
8. Chopin
9. Handel
10. Vivaldi
11. Telemann
12. Cramer
13. Seixas
14. Mendelssohn
15. Schubert
16. Woelfl
17. Pachelbel
18. Corelli
19. Bortnyansky
20. Czerny


----------



## TumultuousHair

My top 20 favorite composers list would look something like this: 
1.) Beethoven 
2.) Chopin
3.) Prokofiev
4.) Berlioz
5.) Rameau 
6.) JS Bach 
7.) Tchaikovsky
8.) Wagner
9.) D. Scarlatti
10.) Carl Stamitz
11.) Haydn
12.) Frescobaldi
13.) Handel
14.) Daquin 
15.) Shostakovich
16.) Schoenberg
17.) Schubert 
18.) CPE Bach
19.) Debussy
20.) Brahms


----------



## Andante Largo

J. Sibelius
J. Brahms
O. Respighi

H. Wieniawski
N. Paganini
M. Bruch
M. Reger
F. Delius
E. Chausson
W. Żeleński
I.F. Dobrzyński
M. Karłowicz
M. Moszkowski
A. Borodin
F. Chopin
H. Howells
P. de Sarasate
T. Albinoni
G. Faure
Z. Noskowski


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

The top 10 are fairly set in stone, but after that it fluctuates a lot:

1. Bach
2. Brahms
3. Beethoven
4. Sibelius
5. Schubert
6. Mahler
7. Chopin
8. Dvorak
9. Mozart
10. Ravel
11. Bruckner
12. Debussy
13. Shostakovich 
15. Prokofiev 
16. Rachmaninoff 
17. Faure
18. Haydn
19. Bartok
20. Handel


----------



## Art Rock

Art Rock said:


> 1. Johann Sebastian Bach
> 2. Gustav Mahler
> 3. Johannes Brahms
> 4. Franz Schubert
> 
> Tied for 5-13:
> Claude Debussy, Antonin Dvorak, Felix Mendelssohn, Ernest John Moeran, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Maurice Ravel, Dmitri Shostakovitch, Jean Sibelius, Richard Wagner
> 
> Tied for 14-20:
> Arnold Bax, Anton Bruckner, Gabriel Faure, Edvard Grieg, Sofia Gubaidulina, Richard Strauss, Toru Takemitsu


Five years later, this was my top20 submitted for the favourite composers exercise:

From 1 to 20

Bach
Mahler
Brahms
Schubert
Shostakovich
Sibelius
Wagner
Dvorak
Bruckner
Ravel
Mozart
Mendelssohn
Strauss, R
Debussy
Bax
Moeran
Grieg
Vaughan Williams
Takemitsu
Gubaidulina


Surprisingly consistent, given that I did not look at the earlier list when I prepared one a few months ago. Bruckner and Moeran switched places.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

1. Brahms
2. Beethoven
3. Mahler
4. Bruckner
5. Bach
6. Mozart
7. Schubert
8. Tchaikovsky
9. Rachmaninoff 
10. Wagner
11. Chopin
12. Schumann
13. Mendelssohn
14. Shostakovich 
15. Prokofiev 
16. Debussy
17. Sibelius
18. Puccini
19. Ravel
20. Dvorak


----------



## StDior

Monteverdi
Vivaldi
Telemann
Handel
Bach JS 
Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
Schubert
Chopin
Schumann
Liszt
Wagner
Verdi
Brahms
Tchaikovsky
Dvořák
Puccini
Mahler
Prokofiev

+1: Bartók


----------



## norman bates

I don't know, today it's something like this

Maurice Ohana
Alec Wilder
Gyorgy Ligeti
Olivier Messiaen
Giacinto Scelsi
Toru Takemitsu
Frederick Delius
Johann Sebastian Bach
Claude Debussy
Maurice Ravel
Jean Sibelius
Karol Szymanowski
Matthijs Vermeulen
Harry Partch
Gerald Finzi
Paul Hindemith
Charles Koechlin
Charles Ives
John Foulds
Ludwig Van Beethoven

(yes, I really like the 20th century)


----------



## Long02

1. Beethoven 
2. Bruckner
3. Mahler
4. Sibelius
5. Schubert
6. Elgar
7. Tchaikovsky 
8. Vaughan Williams 
9. Rachmaninoff 
10. Shostakovich 
11. Wagner
12. Schumann
13. R Strauss
14. Dvorak 
15. Liszt
16. Mozart
17. Debussy
18. Bach
19. Mendelssohn 
20. Prokofiev


----------



## annaw

This fluctuates a lot...

Beethoven
Wagner
Schumann
Bruckner
Mahler
Schubert
Brahms
Shostakovich
J.S. Bach
R. Strauss
Dvorák
Mendelssohn
Sibelius
Tchaikovsky
Rachmaninoff
Verdi
Debussy
Mozart
Haydn
Vaughan Williams


----------



## Caesura

Don't know if I'll be able to put 20 (first 3 are set in stone for now), but here goes:

1: G.F. Handel
2: L.V. Beethoven
3: W.A. Mozart
4: A. Vivaldi
5: J.S. Bach

I really need to broaden my musical knowledge. It's not like I haven't listened to other composers before, but I've only heard little bits and pieces of their works, so I can't call them "favourites" yet.


----------



## Fabulin

Let's see how the status quo changed over the past several months...

Not a ranked list, but rather an ordering based on how fast did they come to my mind, which also tells something:

1. Tchaikovsky
2. Williams
3. Herrmann
4. Beethoven
5. Shostakovich
6. Bruckner
7. Wagner
8. Mendelssohn
9. Chopin
10. Shore
11. Korngold
12. M. Steiner
13. Saint-Saens
14. Ives
15. Mozart
16. Bach
17. Khachaturian
18. Goldsmith
19. Rimsky-Korsakov
20. Respighi

10 from the 19th century, and 10 from the 20th.


----------



## flamencosketches

Funny, I still talk to the OP on another forum and he's still always trying to recreate his "top 20 composers" list every couple of months, always with a few subtle changes. 

OK I tried this, but I refuse to finish. Too difficult.


----------



## Common Listener

Corelli
Purcell
Scarlatti, A
Albinoni
Vivaldi
Telemann
Bach, JS
Handel
Geminiani
Boyce
Bach, CPE
Haydn, J
Bach, JC
Haydn, M
Mozart
Beethoven
Schubert
Mendelssohn
Brahms
Bizet
Dvorak

Today I just sort of ended up with 21 and couldn't think which one to cut.


----------



## flamencosketches

Common Listener said:


> Corelli
> Purcell
> Scarlatti, A
> Albinoni
> Vivaldi
> Telemann
> Bach, JS
> Handel
> Geminiani
> Boyce
> Bach, CPE
> Haydn, J
> Bach, JC
> Haydn, M
> Mozart
> Beethoven
> Schubert
> Mendelssohn
> Brahms
> Bizet
> Dvorak
> 
> Today I just sort of ended up with 21 and couldn't think which one to cut.


Cut Albinoni. You know he didn't even really write that Adagio?


----------



## Common Listener

flamencosketches said:


> Cut Albinoni. You know he didn't even really write that Adagio?


Not why he's on there.


----------



## Ravn

May change on a weekly basis. In alphabetical order. Given names are added where I assume that many may not know the composer or where confusion may arise.

- Beethoven
- Bruckner
- Glière
- Lachenmann, Helmut
- Mahler
- Messiaen
- Nordheim, Arne
- Penderecki
- Rautavaara
- Ravel
- Rihm
- Saariaho, Kaija
- Shaw, Caroline
- Shostakovich
- Sibelius
- Strauss, Richard
- Stravinsky
- Thorvaldsdottir, Anna
- Varese
- Vaughan-Williams


----------



## flamencosketches

Common Listener said:


> Not why he's on there.


I figured as much. I just wanted to get that rib in there.


----------



## DeepR

In no particular order
Beethoven
Mozart
Handel
D. Scarlatti
Bach
Schubert
Schumann
Chopin
Liszt
Wagner
Tchaikovsky
Bruckner
Mahler
Sibelius
Rachmaninoff
Scriabin
Prokofiev
Debussy
Ravel
Vaughan-Williams


----------



## gregorx

Current favorites are a tad heavy on the 20th Century. In no order:

Debussy
Ravel
Beethoven
Saariaho
Gubaidulina
Varese
Berg
Webern
Bartok
Sibelius
Martinu
Lutoslawski
Schnittke
Faure
Mendelssohn
Shostakovich
Stravinsky
Szymanowski
Takemitsu
Scriabin


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

1) Brahms (has never varied from this position)
2) Mozart and Haydn tied
4) Dvorak, Sibelius and Vaughan Williams tied
7) Debussy and Ravel tied
9) Mendelssohn
10) Grieg

Numbers 11 to 20 in no particular order

Mahler
Schubert
Tchaikovsky
Prokofiev
Bruckner
Vivaldi
Moeran
Respighi
Borodin
Bizet


----------



## Xisten267

Favorites today:

1. Beethoven;
2. Wagner;
3. Bach;
4. Brahms;
5. Mozart;
6. Schubert;
7. Tchaikovsky;
8. Berlioz;
9. Mendelssohn;
10. Prokofiev;
11. Vivaldi;
12. Mahler;
13. Schumann;
14. Liszt;
15. Debussy;
16. Shostakovich;
17. Rachmaninoff;
18. Ravel;
19. Josquin;
20. Chopin.


----------



## Highwayman

- Brahms
- Bach
- Beethoven
- Schumann
- Dvořák
- Sibelius
- Schubert
- Fauré
- Mahler
- Mendelssohn
- Prokofiev
- Shostakovich
- Medtner
- Reger
- Scriabin
- Messiaen
- Takemitsu
- Debussy
- Poulenc
- Bartók

Not much have changed in the upper half of my list since Art Rock`s _Ranking the composers_ thing but the last quarter of my Top 20 has entirely changed. Takemitsu and Messiaen are in, RVW and Palestrina are out.


----------



## 20centrfuge

Almost impossible to do a list like this, but I'll play along:

in no particular order

1. Prokofiev
2. Bartok
3. Barber
4. Messiaen
5. Hindemith
6. Sibelius
7. Adams, John
8. Dvorak
9. Stravinsky
10.Bach
11.Beethoven
12.Brahms
13.Mozart
14.Debussy
15.Faure
16.Schubert
17.Elgar
18.Tchaikovsky
19.Haydn
20.Holst

honorable mention: Bruckner, Mendelssohn, Nancarrow, Britten, Chopin, Copland, Rihm, Gershwin, Arnold, Vaughan-Williams, Van der Aa, Gubaidulina


----------



## leonsm

1) Bach
.
.
.
2) Beethoven
3) Dvorak
4) Elgar
5) Prokofiev
6) Brahms
7) Bruckner
9) Mahler
10) Vivaldi
11) Szymanosky
12) Shostakovich
13) Atterberg
14) Respighi
15) Mozart
16) Wagner
17) Strauss, R.
18) Handel
19) Villa-Lobos
20) Rimsky-Korsakov


----------



## Josquin13

1. J.S. Bach
2. Josquin Desprez
3. Guillaume Dufay
4. W.A. Mozart
5. G.F. Handel
6. L.V. Beethoven
7. F.J. Haydn
8. Johannes Ockeghem
9. Claude Debussy
10. Maurice Ravel
11. Jean Sibelius
12. Thomas Tallis
13. William Byrd
14. Antonio Vivaldi
15. Orlando di Lasso, or Lassus
16. Guillaume de Machaut
17. Robert Schumann
18. Richard Wagner
19. Franz Schubert
20. Gustav Mahler

Honorable mention: nos. 21-35--De Vitry, Ciconia, Dunstable (or Dunstaple), Giovanni Gabrieli, Brahms, Prokofiev, Chopin, Biber, Faure, Bruckner, Du Caurroy, Monteverdi, Koechlin, Binchois, and Stravinsky.


----------



## Shosty

1. J.S. Bach
2. Mahler
3. Shostakovich
4. Beethoven
5. Schubert
6. Mozart
from here on in no particular order:
7. Adams, John
8. Messiaen
9. Vivaldi
10. Schnittke
11. Bruckner
12. Dvorak
13. Bartok
14. Debussy
15. Chopin
16. Brahms
17. Sibelius
18. Reich, Steve
19. Ligeti
20. Prokofiev


Ten composers I've recently been exploring and have loved so far: Poulenc, Josquin, Beach, Faure, Farrenc, Zelenka, Lutoslawski, Gubaidulina, Norgard, Wieck.


----------



## Prodromides

1. Charles Koechlin
2. Giacinto Scelsi
3. Andre Jolivet
4. Aarre Merikanto
5. Richard Rodney Bennett
6. Maurice Ohana
7. Arne Nordheim
8. Jon Leifs
9. Meyer Kupferman
10. Toru Takemitsu
11. Heitor Villa-Lobos
12. Roberto Gerhard
13. Jean Prodromides
14. Luigi Dallapiccola
15. Edgard Varese
16. Erik Bergman
17. Fartein Valen
18. Henri Dutilleux
19. Karl-Birger Blomdahl
20. Luis De Pablo


----------



## Ethereality

Edit: I must be on drugs with the list I posted  I'm going to come up with a legitimate top 20.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Highwayman said:


> - Brahms
> - Bach
> - Beethoven
> - Schumann
> - Dvořák
> - Sibelius
> - Schubert
> - Fauré
> - Mahler
> - Mendelssohn
> - Prokofiev
> - Shostakovich
> - Medtner
> - Reger
> - Scriabin
> - Messiaen
> - Takemitsu
> - Debussy
> - Poulenc
> - Bartók
> 
> Not much have changed in the upper half of my list since Art Rock`s _Ranking the composers_ thing but the last quarter of my Top 20 has entirely changed. Takemitsu and Messiaen are in, RVW and Palestrina are out.


This is pretty similar to what my list would look like. My top 3 is the same as yours (in order too) and many of your more uncommon choices (Fauré, Reger, Scriabin, and Messiaen) are among my top 20. Others (Medtner, Takemitsu) are not too far behind.

Here is what mine might look like (in no real order, except for the first 4):

Brahms
Bach
Beethoven
Mozart

Schubert
Chopin
Ravel
Fauré
Debussy
Mahler
Messiaen
Sibelius
Reger
Liszt
Prokofiev
Bruckner
Wagner
Scriabin
Schumann
Bartok

Honorable mentions: Elgar, Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich, Rachmaninoff...


----------



## sstucky

As of today:
Bach
Barber
Bartok
Braga Santos
Copland
Debussy

Gershwin
Handel
Harris
Hindemith
Holmboe
Holst
Piston
Prokofiev 
Ravel
W. Schuman
Shostakovich
Stravinsky 
Vaughan Williams
Walton

Runners up:
Diamond
Finzi
Hanson
Howells
Mennin
Sibelius 
Sowerby


----------



## HenryPenfold

1. Bruckner
2. Shostakovich
3. Sibelius
4. Mahler
5. Messiaen
6. I don't have a 6th favourite composer
7. Britten
8. Varese
9. Birtwistle
10. Tchaikovsky
11. Debussy
12. Simpson
13. Vivaldi
14. Webern
15. Berg
16. Schoenberg
17. Bartok
18. Penderecki
19. Ravel
20. Beethoven


----------



## consuono

1. J. S. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Haydn
4. Mozart
5. Handel
6. Schubert
7. Brahms
8. Chopin
9. Mendelssohn
10. Wagner
11. Sibelius
12. Liszt
13. Mahler
14. R. Strauss
15. Sibelius
16. Stravinsky
17. Shostakovich
18. Prokofiev
19. Schumann
20. Verdi


----------



## tdc

1. J.S. Bach
2. Ravel
3. Mozart
4. Brahms
5. Debussy
6. Rodrigo
7. Bartok
8. Monteverdi
9. Prokofiev
10. Ives
11. Machaut
12. Buxtehude
13. Vivaldi
14. Partch
15. Takemitsu 
16. Albeniz
17. Dufay
18. Poulenc
19. Sibelius
20. Wagner


----------



## flamencosketches

Anton Webern
Franz Schubert
Robert Schumann
Gustav Mahler
Maurice Ravel
Ludwig van Beethoven
Frédéric Chopin
Johannes Brahms
Claude Debussy
Johann Sebastian Bach

Jean Sibelius
Alexander Scriabin
Witold Lutoslawski
Sergei Rachmaninov
Erik Satie
Dmitri Shostakovich
Igor Stravinsky
Sergei Prokofiev
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Pierre Boulez

Well, I gave it the old college try. I don't want to think about how many names I had to omit... But I would say this list is pretty close to my values at the present moment.


----------



## Guest002

1. Benjamin Britten
2. Johann Sebastian Bach
3. Ralph Vaughan Williams
4. George Frideric Handel
5. Jean Sibelius
6. Henry Purcell
7. Dmitri Shostakovich
8. Giuseppe Verdi
9. Jean-Philippe Rameau
10. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
11. Antonio Vivaldi
12. Claudio Monteverdi
13. Hector Berlioz
14. Arthur Sullivan (sorry about that one!)
15. Leoš Janáček
16. Richard Strauss
17. Edward Elgar
18. Igor Stravinsky
19. Richard Wagner
20. Ludwig van Beethoven


----------



## Jacck

Bach
Beethoven
Mozart
Brahms
Dvořák
Janáček
Prokofiev
Shostakovich
Tchaikovsky
Rimsky-Korsakov
Messiaen
Schoenberg
Bartok
Berlioz
Wagner
Strauss
Saint-Saens
Monteverdi
Scriabin
Liszt

a quickly put together list (I am not going to put effort into this excersise). Pretty mainstream I guess.
PS: And I omited Schubert and Brucker


----------



## Euler

Josquin
Wert
Monteverdi
Handel
Daddy Bach
Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
Schubert
Schumann
Wagner
Verdi
Brahms
Mahler
Debussy
Schoenberg
Bartok
Stravinsky
Carter
Birtwistle


----------



## consuono

Oops, in my list I have Sibelius listed twice. :lol: Try again:
1. J. S. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Haydn
4. Mozart
5. Handel
6. Schubert
7. Brahms
8. Chopin
9. Mendelssohn
10. Wagner
11. Sibelius
12. Liszt
13. Mahler
14. R. Strauss
15. Webern
16. Stravinsky
17. Shostakovich
18. Prokofiev
19. Schumann
20. Verdi


----------



## Agamenon

1. BACH
2. WAGNER
3. MONTEVERDI
4. DEBUSSY
5. BRAHMS
6. Mozart
7. Stravinsky
8. Shostakovich
9. Messiaen
10. Haydn

11. Beethoven.
12. Bartok
13.Schubert
14.Chopin
15. Prokofiev
16. Ligeti
17. Schumann
18. Despréz
19. Bruckner
20. Purcell


----------



## Malx

HenryPenfold said:


> 1. Bruckner
> 2. Shostakovich
> 3. Sibelius
> 4. Mahler
> 5. Messiaen
> 6. I don't have a 6th favourite composer
> 7. Britten
> 8. Varese
> 9. Birtwistle
> 10. Tchaikovsky
> 11. Debussy
> 12. Simpson
> 13. Vivaldi
> 14. Webern
> 15. Berg
> 16. Schoenberg
> 17. Bartok
> 18. Penderecki
> 19. Ravel
> 20. Beethoven


Come on Henry put Vagn Holmboe in sixth slot - you know it makes sense  if only for his magnificent String Quartets.


----------



## consuono

It's interesting that there doesn't seem to be as much love for Aaron Copland as there may have been once upon a time. When I was a kid (not *that* long ago) he might've been considered *the* American composer by many.


----------



## Ulfilas

He still is for me. I think his time will come again.


----------



## consuono

By the way, here's a thought experiment: Imagine that Prokofiev and Shostakovich had left the USSR and had settled in Paris or Zurich or some such place. Would their work still be as respected today?


----------



## flamencosketches

consuono said:


> By the way, here's a thought experiment: Imagine that Prokofiev and Shostakovich had left the USSR and had settled in Paris or Zurich or some such place. Would their work still be as respected today?


Well, Prokofiev did exactly that for years (decades?) and gained major notoriety as a Russian expatriate composer in Paris before returning to the USSR later in his career. Does that count for anything?


----------



## consuono

flamencosketches said:


> Well, Prokofiev did exactly that for years (decades?) and gained major notoriety as a Russian expatriate composer in Paris before returning to the USSR later in his career. Does that count for anything?


Well, he did up until the 30s I think. The point is, how much does the fact that these two were in frequent, and actually life-or-death, struggles against Stalin and his henchmen contribute to our perception of the quality of their music?


----------



## flamencosketches

consuono said:


> Well, he did up until the 30s I think. The point is, how much does the fact that these two were in frequent, and actually life-or-death, struggles against Stalin and his henchmen contribute to our perception of the quality of their music?


I would say that given how many of Prokofiev's works were written well before the aforementioned life-or-death struggle are so acclaimed-and one could easily argue that the bulk of his legacy is staked on his pre-Soviet works-probably not all that much. They both wrote great music, and they would have done so-and people would be moved by it all the same-Stalin or not.


----------



## consuono

flamencosketches said:


> I would say that given how many of Prokofiev's works were written well before the aforementioned life-or-death struggle are so acclaimed-and one could easily argue that the bulk of his legacy is staked on his pre-Soviet works-probably not all that much. They both wrote great music, and they would have done so-and people would be moved by it all the same-Stalin or not.


I don't know. I think in most other contexts Shostakovich's music would probably be considered too "conservative". I think knowing both were working within some frustrating state-imposed constraints colors our judgement of what they produced. But hey, I admire the music of both. It was what it was.
.


----------



## flamencosketches

consuono said:


> I don't know. I think in most other contexts Shostakovich's music would probably be considered too "conservative". I think knowing both were working within some frustrating state-imposed constraints colors our judgement of what they produced. But hey, I admire the music of both. It was what it was.
> .


There's also the factor that Shostakovich wouldn't have written such "conservative" music in a different state. And also the factor that perhaps his relative conservatism is the reason why his music is so well loved. As for Prokofiev, I'm not sure that these comments apply. I dont find his music very conservative at all.


----------



## consuono

flamencosketches said:


> There's also the factor that Shostakovich wouldn't have written such "conservative" music in a different state.


Well, we don't know that. And if he had pushed the boundaries a little more in that different state, would anyone have noticed as much?


> And also the factor that perhaps his relative conservatism is the reason why his music is so well loved.


Possibly, but that didn't seem to help Glazunov.


> As for Prokofiev, I'm not sure that these comments apply. I dont find his music very conservative at all.


More so than Bartók, Webern or Stravinsky.


----------



## flamencosketches

consuono said:


> Well, we don't know that. And if he had pushed the boundaries a little more in that different state, would anyone have noticed as much?
> Possibly, but that didn't seem to help Glazunov.
> More so than Bartók, Webern or Stravinsky.


I'll give you Webern & maybe Stravinsky, but I don't see Bartók as any less conservative than Prokofiev. Splitting hairs at this point.

Re: Shostakovich, it's that perfect balance of something new and something familiar that people love so much. He was much more inventive and compelling as a composer than his teacher Glazunov in any case.


----------



## MusicSybarite

In any order:

Beethoven
Brahms
Nielsen
Shostakovich
Dvorak
Sibelius
Tchaikovsky
Martinu
Strauss
Arnold
Prokofiev
Saint-Saens
Janacek
Langgaard
Vaughan Williams
Respighi
Villa-Lobos
Schubert
Hindemith
Alwyn

Honorable mentions: Bax, Holmboe, Tubin, Elgar.


----------



## consuono

flamencosketches said:


> Re: Shostakovich, it's that perfect balance of something new and something familiar that people love so much. He was much more inventive and compelling as a composer than his teacher Glazunov in any case.


To split hairs further I don't know if the balance is always that "perfect", but then I consider the constraints he was working under. The seventh symphony is more bombastic and sometimes more banal than most Western composers could ever have gotten away with, but hey. It was written at the height of WWII so again allowances have to be made. I guess my favorite works of his would be his tenth symphony and the second cello concerto. In those I guess he does definitely approach that perfect balance.


----------



## poconoron

I don't have top 20, but this is as far as I go:

Mozart
Beethoven
Haydn
Schubert
Brahms
JS Bach
Handel
Dvorak
Rossini
Biber
Tchaikovsky


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Allegro Con Brio said:


> The top 10 are fairly set in stone, but after that it fluctuates a lot:
> 
> 1. Bach
> 2. Brahms
> 3. Beethoven
> 4. Sibelius
> 5. Schubert
> 6. Mahler
> 7. Chopin
> 8. Dvorak
> 9. Mozart
> 10. Ravel
> 11. Bruckner
> 12. Debussy
> 13. Shostakovich
> 15. Prokofiev
> 16. Rachmaninoff
> 17. Faure
> 18. Haydn
> 19. Bartok
> 20. Handel


I just now realized I somehow forgot No. 14 on here. In case anyone cares, it's either Wagner or R. Strauss.


----------



## consuono

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I just now realized I somehow forgot No. 14 on here. In case anyone cares, it's either Wagner or R. Strauss.


That's ok, I put Sibelius in at two slots in my first list. :lol:


----------



## Pat Fairlea

consuono said:


> That's ok, I put Sibelius in at two slots in my first list. :lol:


Which is no more than he deserves!


----------



## consuono

Pat Fairlea said:


> Which is no more than he deserves!


I agree. Thinking about it again he does belong in the top ten, maybe right after Brahms.


----------



## ZeR0

In no particular order:
Bach
Beethoven
Mozart
Schubert
Schumann
Chopin
Debussy
Scriabin
Rachmaninoff
Liszt
Bartók
Prokofiev
Berg
Ravel
Fauré
Wagner
Gesualdo
Grieg
Strauss
Shostakovich

This was off the top of my head without much thought put into it. If I actually thought about it I would probably drive myself crazy trying to narrow down all the composers I like into just twenty. Needless to say this list is highly variable for me. If I posted this tomorrow rather than today there would probably be many different composers.


----------



## leonsm

leonsm said:


> 1) Bach
> .
> .
> .
> 2) Beethoven
> 3) Dvorak
> 4) Elgar
> 5) Prokofiev
> 6) Brahms
> 7) Bruckner
> 9) Mahler
> 10) Vivaldi
> 11) Szymanosky
> 12) Shostakovich
> 13) Atterberg
> 14) Respighi
> 15) Mozart
> 16) Wagner
> 17) Strauss, R.
> 18) Handel
> 19) Villa-Lobos
> 20) Rimsky-Korsakov


I forgot of Ravel, I think I can put him in 15th. Just joking hehehe


----------



## Kilgore Trout

1. Charles Ives
2. Brett Dean
3. Karol Szymanowski
4. Claude Debussy
5. Karl Amadeus Hartmann
6. Iannis Xenakis
7. Mauricio Kagel
8. Charles Koechlin
9. Alfred Schnittke
10. Arnold Schönberg
11. Witold Lutoslawski
12. Peter Maxwell Davies
13. Hans Werner Henze 
14. Nikolai Roslavets
15. Mieczlaw Weinberg
16. Alexander Scriabin
17. Béla Bartok
18. Benjamin Britten
19. Awet Terteryan
20. Guillaume Dufay


----------



## Bulldog

Top Position - J.S. Bach

The rest in alphabetical order:

Berlioz
Brahms
Bruckner
Chopin
Couperin, Louis
Handel
Haydn
Mahler
Mozart
Myaskovsky
Prokofiev
Schnittke
Schubert
Schumann
Shostakovich
Scriabin
Strauss, Richard
Weinberg
Zemlinsky


----------



## HenryPenfold

Malx said:


> Come on Henry put Vagn Holmboe in sixth slot - you know it makes sense  if only for his magnificent String Quartets.


:lol:

More likely Tippett, Lutoslawski, Boulez, Stockhausen, Haydn ........


----------



## Ethereality

I tend to agree nowadays with this list that takes *TalkClassical's Member Recommendations* with the *Production Popularity* of each composer. I find it to be pretty accurate. If you have questions on how this list was derived from public data, feel free to ask.

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


----------



## RogerWaters

In no order, aside from first 4:

Bach
Beethoven
Mozart
Brahms
Debussy
Ravel
Shostakovich
Haydn
Purcell
Honegger
Stravinsky
Berg
Wagner
Schumann
Satie
Corelli
Zelenka
Schubert
Bruckner
Chopin

Composers I don't understand the fascination with:

Prokofievil
Tryhardovsky
Love Handels ('a tub of pork and beer' being my favourite description)
Shoenberger and all serial composers
Everyone after Shostakovich


----------



## SanAntone

Pretty solid list - the positions may change but the names remain the same.

1	Bach
2	Brahms
3	Stravinsky
4	Debussy
5	Liszt	
6	Durufle
7	Schumann	
8	Poulenc
9	Bernstein
10	Schoeck
11	Machaut
12	Beethoven
13	Ravel	
14	Webern
15	Feldman
16	Carter
17	Palestrina
18	Golijov
19	Gershwin	
20	Wellesz


----------



## Ethereality

The last list had more objective-like indicators. Here is a more specific statistical list I would get behind even more. The placements are superb, my Top 4 ordering right there. It is *TalkClassical's Member Recommendations* with a slight lean towards *Greatest Classical Melodists*.

1. Mozart
2. Beethoven
3. Bach
4. Schubert
5. Tchaikovsky
6. Dvorak
7. Brahms
8. Chopin
9. Mahler
10. Rachmaninoff
11. Debussy
12. Mendelssohn
13. Haydn
14. Ravel
15. Schumann
16. Saint-Saëns
17. Liszt
18. Stravinsky
19. Sibelius
20. Wagner

The linked poll forgot several composers, 
so I'll have to start a forum game on melodists and see what data we can come up with.


----------



## JonJon

I don’t have 20 favorite classical composers, only eleven.

1. Stravinsky
2. Mahler
3. Bruckner
4. Wagner
5. Tchaikovsky
6. Shostakovich
7. R. Strauss
8. Rachmaninov
9. Bartók
10. Hindemith
11. Milhaud


----------



## larold

These s*cored the highest* in groups in my survey:

1-3 Mozart, Beethoven, Bach

4-8 Brahms, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Handel, Schubert

9-12 Schumann, Wagner, Verdi, R. Strauss

13-16 Dvorak, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Sibelius

17-20 Stravinsky, Mendelssohn, Ravel, Britten

These are the ones* I like most* alphabetically:

Bach, Beethoven, Berg, Bruckner

Elgar, Handel, Haydn, Hummel

Ibert, Khachaturian, Liszt

Mahler, Mendelssohn, Mozart

Offenbach, Respighi, Shostakovich

Sibelius, Stravinsky, Vivaldi


----------



## JonJon

Can’t edit my last post, so here’s my list with my twelve favorite composers.

1. Stravinsky
2. Mahler
3. Bruckner
4. Wagner
5. Tchaikovsky
6. Shostakovich
7. R. Strauss
8. Rachmaninov
9. Bartók
10. Hindemith
11. Milhaud
12. Britten


----------



## Mifek

1. Chopin
2. Bach
3. Beethoven
4. Tchaikovsky
5. Prokofiev
6. Mozart
7. Schubert
8. Brahms
9. Shostakovich
10. Vivaldi
11. Rachmaninov
12. Grieg
13. Sibelius
14. Ravel
15. Debussy
16. Dvořák
17. Mendelssohn
18. Puccini
19. Bartók
20. Schnittke


----------



## haziz

1. Tchaikovsky
2. Beethoven
3. Tchaikovsky
4. Tchaikovsky
5. Dvorak
6. Mendelssohn
7. Rimsky Korsakov
8. Kalinnikov
9. Grieg
10. Elgar
11. Chopin
12. Rachmaninoff
13. Mozart
14. J.S. Bach
15. Debussy
16. Ravel
..........

Did I mention Tchaikovsky?


----------



## Bxnwebster

1.	Reger
2.	Korngold (pretty much tied with Reger for first)
3.	R. Schumann
4.	Zelenka
5.	Haydn
6.	Villa-Lobos
7.	Roussel
8.	Rachmaninov
9.	Szymanowski
10.	R. Strauss
11.	Guarnieri
12.	Scriabin
13.	Mahler
14.	Buxtehude
15.	Vivaldi
16.	Prokofiev
17.	Vaughan Williams
18.	Barber
19.	Mendelssohn (Felix)
20.	Santoro


----------



## Prodromides

1. Charles Koechlin
2. Giacinto Scelsi
3. Andre Jolivet
4. Aarre Merikanto
5. Karol Szymanowski
6. Maurice Ohana
7. Arne Nordheim
8. Jon Leifs
9. Meyer Kupferman
10. Heitor Villa-Lobos
11. Andre Caplet
12. Roberto Gerhard
13. Jean Prodromides
14. Luigi Dallapiccola
15. Edgard Varese
16. Erik Bergman
17. Fartein Valen
18. Henri Dutilleux
19. Karl-Birger Blomdahl
20. Luis De Pablo


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Bxnwebster said:


> 1.	Reger
> 2.	Korngold (pretty much tied with Reger for first)
> 3.	R. Schumann
> 4.	Zelenka
> 5.	Haydn
> 6.	Villa-Lobos
> 7.	Roussel
> 8.	Rachmaninov
> 9.	Szymanowski
> 10.	R. Strauss
> 11.	Guarnieri
> 12.	Scriabin
> 13.	Mahler
> 14.	Buxtehude
> 15.	Vivaldi
> 16.	Prokofiev
> 17.	Vaughan Williams
> 18.	Barber
> 19.	Mendelssohn (Felix)
> 20.	Santoro


This might be the weirdest top 20 list I've ever seen (it's a compliment!)


----------



## Fabulin

Korngold and Reger tied for the first place give me the feeling of being surrounded by fluffy cushions. 

I think I understand the rest too, going top-down. It's basically a friendly contest of guys jamming with neat, smaller sized orchestras (or choral works), and Ultra Deluxe Romantics.


----------



## Andante Largo

1. Sibelius, Jean (1865 - 1957) [Finland]
2. Respighi, Ottorino (1879 - 1936) [Italy]
3. Brahms, Johannes (1833 - 1897) [Germany]
4. Castelnuovo-Tedesco, Mario (1895 - 1968) [Italy]
5. Rheinberger, Josef (1839 - 1901) [Liechtenstein]
6. Perosi, Lorenzo (1872 - 1956) [Italy]
7. Karłowicz, Mieczysław (1876 - 1909) [Poland]
8. Reinecke, Carl (1824 - 1910) [Germany]
9. Melartin, Erkki (1875 - 1937) [Finland]
10. Wieniawski, Henryk (1835 - 1880) [Poland]
11. Saint-Saëns, Camille (1835 - 1921) [France] 
12. Peterson-Berger, Wilhelm (1867 - 1942) [Sweden]
13. Rachmaninoff, Sergei (1873 - 1943) [Russia]
14. Chopin, Fryderyk (1810 - 1849) [Poland]
15. Delius, Frederick (1862 - 1934) [England]
16. Żeleński, Władysław (1837 - 1921) [Poland]
17. Dobrzyński, Ignacy Feliks (1807 - 1867) [Poland]
18. Gernsheim, Friedrich (1839 - 1916) [Germany]
19. Paganini, Niccolò (1782 - 1840) [Italy]
20. Hummel, Johann Nepomuk (1778 - 1837) [Austria]


----------



## Cristian Lee

1. Kurt Atterberg
2. Jean Sibelius
3. Alexander Glazunov
4. Alla Pavlova
5. Vasily Kalinnikov
6. Erkki Melartin
7. Reinhold Glière
8. Thomas Schmidt-Kowalski 
9. Max Bruch
10. Johannes Brahms
11. Anton Bruckner
12. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
13. Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov
14. Mili Balakirev
15. Christian Sinding
16. Felix Weingartner
17. Josef Suk
18. Sergei Bortkiewicz
19. Mieczysław Weinberg
20. Dora Pejačević


----------



## ORigel

1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Brahms
4. Mozart (Didn't like him much at first. I was wrong.)
5. Haydn (He was easier for me to get than Mozart and I still think he is a consistemtly good composer)
6. Mahler 
7. Bruckner (I used to be obsessed with him)
8. Bartok (favorite Modernist)
9. Handel (best composer of oratorios)
10. Monteverdi
11. Stravinsky
12. Dvorak (not the most sublime, but I listen to him all the time)
13. Schoenberg (love Moses und Aron)
14. Mendelssohn
15. Shostakovich
16. Tchaikovsky
17. Sibelius
18. Schnittke
19. Bach, CPE
20. Ravel


----------



## poconoron

Mozart
Beethoven
Schubert
Brahms
Rossini
JS Bach
Handel
Dvorak
Elgar
Ravel
Wagner
Biber
Mendelsson
Mahler
Verdi
Bizet
Haydn
R Strauss
Vivaldi
Tchaikovsky
Grieg


----------



## Simon23

1. Bruckner
2. Beethoven
3. Bach
4. Wagner
5. Mozart
6. Brahms
7. Rachmaninoff
8. Mahler
9. Schubert
10. Schumann
11. Sibelius
12. Scriabin
13. R.Strauss
14. Debussy
15. Chopin
16. Dvorak
17. Mendelssohn
18. Tchaikovsky
19. Liszt
20. Saint-Saens.


----------



## Coach G

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Tchaikovsky
4. Rachmaninoff
5. Shostakovich
6. Sibelius
7. Richard Strauss
8. Stravinsky
9. Brahms
10. Wagner
11. Debussy
12. Ravel
13. Barber
14. Copland
15. Bernstein
16. Ives
17. Hovhaness
18. Haydn
19. Bach
20. Schoenberg

There's nothing very surprising about my list, at least not 1-10. 11-20 leans to our American composers but even those composers are pretty well known and respected. I've been big into classical music since I was a teenager in the 1980s, and I'm surprised to find so many names that I never heard of on people's lists. I wonder to what extent familiarity breeds a kind of contempt and a desire to discover new worlds and composers not well known to the more casual listener. I also wonder to what extent internet technology, streaming, and so forth, has liberated classical music from the few commercial outlets that controlled what people were supposed to listen to; the standard repertoire, or canon.


----------



## Xisten267

Today, without thinking too much:

1. Beethoven;
2. Bach;
3. Wagner;
4. Mozart;
5. Schubert;
6. Brahms;
7. Bruckner;
8. Tchaikovsky;
9. Berlioz;
10. Mendelssohn;
11. Prokofiev;
12. Debussy;
13. Sibelius;
14. Verdi;
15. Mahler;
16. Vivaldi;
17. Dvorak;
18. Rachmaninoff;
19. Chopin;
20. Schumann.


----------



## Axter

I may have participated in this and/or similar threads before and may have had a different ranking each time. Based on today’s preferences:

1. Beethoven.
2. Schumann.
3. Bruckner.
4. Mahler.
5. Tchaikovsky.
6. Vaughan Williams.
7. Prokofiev.
8. Mozart.
9. Schubert.
10. Shostakovic.
11. Hayden.
12. Stravinsky.
13. Delius.
14. Mendelssohn.
15. Wagner.
16. Brahms.
17. Elgar.
18. Walton.
19. Sibelius.
20. Rachmaninoff.


The ranking is very narrow, by that I mean spot 20 is not that much inferior to spot 3 or 4. I could put all of them in top 3 actually with equal share of each spot.
A Mendelssohn or a Vaughan Williams are easily between 2nd to 4th spot for me on some days. Really difficult to rank...


----------



## Prodromides

Coach G said:


> I've been big into classical music since I was a teenager in the 1980s, and I'm surprised to find so many names that I never heard of on people's lists. I wonder to what extent familiarity breeds a kind of contempt and a desire to discover new worlds and composers not well known to the more casual listener.


I won't comment on the casual listener, but I can describe my own unique relationship with record albums.

I was also an adolescent during the 1980s, but I started acquiring discs in earnest during the mid-'90s after age 26.
I had bypassed classical music on vinyl LPs and dove directly into contemporary compositions on CDs. During the late-'80s & early-'90s, the compact disc format allowed record producers to fill albums with premieres of hitherto unrecorded (even unperformed) music by many 20th century composers who had been formerly marginalized by the industry.

When I entered the classical annex of Tower Records, I would encounter many composer names on the placeholders within the shelves - some of which may have had only 1 disc in stock. While there were rows upon rows of recordings on Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc., there were none such rows for most others. Vaughan Williams might have had two dozen albums for sale on any given month. Takemitsu may have had 4 or 5 such offerings. One would be lucky to find 1 CD of music by Aarre Merikanto.

Which did I buy? The Merikanto!

I figured I would concentrate on those composers whose representation on disc is sparce because, if I didn't buy the Merikanto, I might never hear what his works sound like. I would not be hearing Merikanto's "Pan" on any radio broadcast - nor would I hear any of his works in a concert. Purchase that Finlandia CD now ... my mind told me ... whilst Qualiton imports was still supplying such items to retail vendors. This is what is deemed 'collectable' in my assessment. The music of the 3 Bs will always be in stock - always have multiple interpretations - never be absent. The 3 Bs are not collectible, to my thinking. A Tristan Murail CD on the 'Salabert' or 'Accord' label - now this is collectable. Grab it while one can - or forever ponder on what its contents might reveal.

Of course, YouTube has since altered the landscape regarding 'blind buys'; search, listen for free, explore & absorb without spending $20 for it. [Many of the albums I bought 25 years ago have since been uploaded into YT by organizations such as the Wellesz company.]

I have no regrets, though, since I know my 'gateway' into contemporay compositions via the 'back door' has been rather atypical and I can impart some of these aspects of my experiences into my postings here @ TC.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Updated...

1) Brahms
2) Mozart
3) Sibelius
4) Dvorak
5) Vaughan Williams
6) Debussy
7) Ravel
8) Haydn
9) Mendelssohn
10) Grieg
11) Schubert
12) Vivaldi
13) through 20) in no particular order
Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Rimsky-Korsakov, Tchaikovsky, Schumann, Beethoven, Respighi, Moeran


----------



## Samnium

I'm young, but from what I've heard :

1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Schubert
4. Mozart
5. Haydn
6. Schumann
7. Wagner
8. Brahms
9. Tchaikovsky
10. Vivaldi
11. Liszt
12. Mahler 
13. Rossini
14. Shostakovic
15. Chopin
16. Berlioz
17. Dvorak
18. Richard Strauss
19. Debussy
20. Monteverdi

Its rather hard to make a top 20. Rather germanic-oriented there are nearly 10 composers who were either from Austria or Germany...


----------



## MatthewWeflen

My list for today:

1. Beethoven
2. Brahms
3. Sibelius
4. Mozart
5. Haydn

6. Tchaikovsky
7. Schubert
8. Mendelssohn
9. Bruckner
10. R. Strauss

11. Dvorak
12. Rossini
13. Schumann
14. Bach
15. John Williams

16. J. Strauss
17. Wagner
18. Nielsen
19. Copland
20. Shostakovich


----------



## LarsW

Hi! This is my first post on this forum. It's been very interresting to follow the discussions as a guest so I decided to join today.
In no particular order: 

1. Bruckner
2. Bach
3. Haydn
4. Martinu
5. Bartok
6. Berlioz
7. Wagner
8. Brahms
9. Tchaikovsky
10. Berg
11. Debussy
12. Mahler
13. Ravel
14. Shostakovich
15. Sibelius
16. Janacek
17. Dvorak
18. Hindemith
19. Walton
20. Oops, I nearly forgot – Beethoven


----------



## Ned Low

LarsW said:


> Hi! This is my first post on this forum. It's been very interresting to follow the discussions as a guest so I decided to join today.
> In no particular order:
> 
> 1. Bruckner
> 2. Bach
> 3. Haydn
> 4. Martinu
> 5. Bartok
> 6. Berlioz
> 7. Wagner
> 8. Brahms
> 9. Tchaikovsky
> 10. Berg
> 11. Debussy
> 12. Mahler
> 13. Ravel
> 14. Shostakovich
> 15. Sibelius
> 16. Janacek
> 17. Dvorak
> 18. Hindemith
> 19. Walton
> 20. Oops, I nearly forgot - Beethoven


Welcome LarsW to TC. Hope you have a great time.


----------



## Simon Moon

LarsW said:


> Hi! This is my first post on this forum. It's been very interresting to follow the discussions as a guest so I decided to join today.


Welcome aboard!

My (always changing) list, would look like this, at least for today, in no particular order:

Elliott Carter
Stravinsky
Bartok
Krzysztof Penderecki
Charles Wuorinen
Magnus Lindberg
Berg
Webern
Joan Tower
Schoenberg
Joseph Schwantner
Peter Maxwell Davies
Harrison Birtwistle
Gyorgi Ligeti
Sofia Gubaidulina
Roger Sessions
Ernst Krenek
Thomas Ades
Samuel Barber
Tōru Takemitsu


----------



## SanAntone

I've probably put a list here at least once, maybe more - but it changes often. 

I like composers who straddle classical and other genres and my favorite periods are early music and C20/21. So those names will be represented more than many canonical composers.

Not ranked accurately after the first few names.

Bach
Brahms
Stravinsky
Debussy
Durufle
Bernstein
Machaut
Feldman
Carter
Gesualdo
Boulez
Satie
Golijov
Webern
Dufay
Liszt	
Ockeghem
Piazzolla
Weill
Gershwin


----------



## Haydn70

Alphabetically:

1.	Bach CPE
2.	Bach JS
3.	Beethoven
4.	Brahms
5.	Bruckner
6.	Copland
7.	Dvorak
8.	Handel
9.	Haydn
10.	Josquin
11.	Mendelssohn
12.	Monteverdi
13.	Mozart
14.	Ockeghem
15.	Palestrina
16.	Schubert
17.	Telemann
18.	Vaughan Williams
19.	Vivaldi
20.	Wagner


----------



## Ethereality

Brahmsian Colors said:


> Updated...


Nice updated list


----------



## Dulova Harps On

Changes all the time but this week and in no particular order:

Handel
Bach
Mozart
Chopin
Faure
Schubert
Tchaikovsky
Josquin des Prez
Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov
Shostakovich
Dvorak
Borodin
Arensky
Albinoni
Buxtehude 
Domenico Scarlatti
Balakirev
Poulenc
Brumel
Sweelinck


----------



## paragraph7

I'm still relatively early in my classical music adventures, so I mostly compose this list to keep track of who I enjoy the most right now:

1. Mozart
2. Beethoven
3. Handel
4. Bach
5. Mahler
6. Liszt
7. Sibelius
8. Holst
9. Wagner
10. Rimsky-Korsakov
11. Rachmaninov
12. Satie
13. Lully
14. Glass
15. Ligeti
16. JC Bach
17. Verdi
18. Shostakovich
19. Mendelssohn
20. Saint-Saens


----------



## Aries

1. Anton Bruckner
2. Peter Tchaikovsky
3. Richard Wagner
4. Dimitri Shostakovich
5. Ludwig van Beethoven
6. Gustav Mahler
7. Franz Schubert
8. Nikolai Rimski-Korsakoff
9. Shunsuke Kikuchi
10. Jean Sibelius
11. Martin Scherber
12. Georgy Sviridov
13. Johann Sebastian Bach
14. Joseph Haydn
15. Sergei Prokofiev
16. Antonio Vivaldi
17. Wilhelm Furtwängler
18. Giuseppe Verdi
19. Antonin Dvorak
20. Franz Liszt

Germany: 10
Russia: 5
Italy: 2
Japan: 1
Finland: 1
Czechia: 1
France: 0

Romanticism: 13
Socialist Realism: 3
Classicism: 2
Baroque: 2


----------



## diegordo81

1. G. Mahler
2. J.S Bach 
3. W.A Mozart
4. L. Janácek
5. B. Bartók
6. L.V. Beethoven
7. D. Shostakovich
8. F. Schubert
9. J. Sibelius
10. R. Wagner
11. M. Ravel
12. G.F Händel
13. F. Chopin
14. A. Dvorak
15. R. Strauss
16. S. Gubaidulina
17. I. Stravinsky
18. K. Szymanowski
19. G. Verdi
20. A. Bruckner


----------



## leonsm

leonsm said:


> 1) Bach
> .
> .
> .
> 2) Beethoven
> 3) Dvorak
> 4) Elgar
> 5) Prokofiev
> 6) Brahms
> 7) Bruckner
> 9) Mahler
> 10) Vivaldi
> 11) Szymanosky
> 12) Shostakovich
> 13) Atterberg
> 14) Respighi
> 15) Mozart
> 16) Wagner
> 17) Strauss, R.
> 18) Handel
> 19) Villa-Lobos
> 20) Rimsky-Korsakov


Reviewing the list:

1) Bach
.
.
.
2) Dvorak
3) Prokofiev
4) Respighi
5) Beethoven
6) Brahms
7) Atterberg
8) Elgar
9) Vivaldi
10) Szymanowski
11) Villa-Lobos
12) Shostakovich
13) Bloch
14) Mozart
15) Bruckner
16) Mahler
17) Strauss, R.
18) Wagner
19) Bax
20) Finzi or Schnittke or Ravel or Rachmaninoff


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Alphabetical order:

Bach
Bartok
Beethoven
Brahms (my no. 1)
Boulez
Chopin
Debussy
Faure
Haydn
Mahler
Messiaen
Mozart
Partch
Ravel
Reger
Schubert
Schumann
Scriabin
Wagner
Webern


----------



## ArtMusic

I prefer to rank them into tiers rather than numerical order. There is then no further ordering among a given tier.

*Tier 1 - The Elite Gods* 
Handel, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven (5)

*Tier 2 - The Undisputed Masters*
Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Telemann, Scarlatti, Rameau, CPE Bach, JC Bach, Michael Haydn, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, Verdi, Puccini, Rossini (15)

*Tier 3 - The Respectable*
Couperin family, Corelli, Hass, Zelenka, Weiss, Purcell, Dittersdorf, Hummel, Boccherini, Chopin, Debussy, Mahler, Ravel, many other names including Vaugh-Williams, Khachaturian, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Richard Strauss .... (I may have forgotten to list more)

*Modern and or Living Composers*
John Williams, Copland, Gershwin, Alma Deutscher, maybe Stravinsky, maybe Shostakovich, maybe Rachmaninoff ....

Art music has come full circle now over the last five hundred years. Composers have written and nearly exhausted anything that is new in form, even some declaring that "everything is music" and silence is music. So now is the time for us lucky listeners today to have so much to explore in the great past before us. More than ever before there is now newly recorded, studied and performed old music by masters and newly discovered old works readily available. Long live the great past for us to enjoy.


----------



## Ethereality

Handel is a definite name drop of those in the Classical period, their original influence and god of the time, but his reputation never quite lasted as 'Tier 1 Elite God' once newer composers could be compared. While in opposite effect to this, Brahms was never a legend quoted by the greats, because his music was late and untimely, but it sells and lasts better and is a clear favorite of the Classical community.

If quality could be measured using a diverse set of tools and appraisals, I don't think most would put too low whatsoever Mahler and Debussy.


----------



## ArtMusic

^Handel's popularity never really suffered (in near oblivion sense), in fact, his music has been increasingly popular in the last several decades thanks to the HIP with all his major works recorded and studied/researched.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

.....wrong thread.....


----------

