# The 15 Most Influential Classical Musicians in History



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Here is another interesting list published by Listverse years ago.This thread is correlated to the board about the 15 Greatest Classical Composers.

The author of the list explicitly said that some of classical music lovers would disagree with the list.

Here is it:

The List ( in chronological order)

*15. Saint Hildegard Von Bingen (1098-1179)

14. Guillame Dufay (1397-1474)

13. Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina (1525-1594)

12. Antonio Vivaldi (1678-1741)

11. George Frederic Handel (1685-1759)

10. Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach (1714-1788)

9. Franz Joseph Haydn (1732-1809)

8. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791)

7. Giussepi Verdi (1813-1901)

6. Richard Wagner (1813-1883)

5. Gustav Mahler (1860-1911)

4. Igor Stravinsky (1882-1971)

3. Edgard Varese (1883-1965)

2. Nadia Boulanger (1887-1973)

1. John Cage (1912-1992)

Honorable mention: Henry Purcell
*

Read his explanations here:



> http://listverse.com/2007/12/13/top-15-most-influential-classical-composers/


My take:

1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 15. Who the heck are these people? Perhaps some of our Modernists and Baroque/Renaissance music lovers should explain who are these people?

I am quite surprised/appalled/puzzled by the ommission of *Johann Sebastian Bach. The son did take the cut, the father didn't*. Granted, that my knowledge on classical music is limited, no one can argue, that *J.S. Bach* is one of the giants of classical music, and influenced later composers. The inclusion of Handel is puzzling too.

His explanation:



> *By now, you have realized that I did not include JS Bach. There is a good reason for this. In his own lifetime, he had great fame as an organist, while mastery of the baroque form style, enabled him to bring the period to its ultimate maturity, in his own time, he was not considered such a great composer. In fact, he was considered old-fashioned in his style.
> 
> He is certainly one of the greatest composers in history, but he did not exert a great deal of influence on the generations that follow him. *


My biggest beef is regarding *L.v.B.* Beethoven ushered the era of Romanticism, *why the author excluded him is beyond me?*

Beethoven is really influential in the development of symphonic form. And he influenced, Schubert, Brahms and later composers.

I would omit Verdi and replaced him with *Franz Schubert*. Schubert is influential on the development of Lieder as an art form. He also expanded the classical sonata form and introduced ''thematic transformation'' on his Wanderer Fantasy, latered modeled by Liszt.

You can't argue with *Wagner.* His operas, the large scale, dramas he wrote is particularly influential. Hollywood film scores would be bland without him.

*Mahler.* I am neutral with him. If he would cut the angst on his symphonies, halved the time it would be performed, perhaps I would like him.

*Notable ommission: Schoenberg*

What's your opinion regarding the list?


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Funny that this thread mentions Nadia Boulanger.. my music history professor just shared with us in class how he came to meet her about 40 years ago. Her inclusion on the list seems reasonable, as she really seemed to get around everywhere..

As far as the rest of the list... The exclusion of Beethoven is absolutely ridiculous, as he was the original model of romanticism: the independent musician free to compose in the manner he wished. And all succeeding musicians followed his example. 

John Cage? His contribution was far more philosophical than musical.. and to place him at No. 1 and completely exclude Schoenberg, the granddaddy of all horrible 20th century 12-tone music? And I have no idea why Varese is even listed.. 

The inclusion of several early composers is a nice plus.. however, I would place Josquin des Prez over all other Renaissance composers, as he provided the model for "word painting" (describing the specific text with appropriate musical gestures) followed by all succeeding Italian madrigalists.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Added the quote about Bach's ommission on the list. Interesting. Disagree with it!

@ravellian

*The list is in chronological order. From Renaissance to Modern.*


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

whoops.  
And I agree with the exclusion of J.S. Bach. As he clearly stated, he did not have much influence at all on succeeding generations, except to spark a somewhat half-hearted interest in counterpoint by several romantic composers.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> ...And I have no idea why Varese is even listed..


Well, he influenced virtually the whole of the next generation of significant composers - eg. Stockhausen, Xenakis, Birtwistle. He was very innovative in terms of rhythm, colour and structure...


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Ravellian is so happy because JS Bach didn't make on the list. Oh..well.

\snicker


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Yes, I am. Couldn't you tell?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Where's Stockhausen, Xenakis and Ligeti? Again, another utterly corrupt list. I spit on it.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Where's Stockhausen, Xenakis and Ligeti? Again, another utterly corrupt list. I spit on it.


Please tell me, your Highness, why do you think this is a corrupt list.

Why do you spit on it? Does the ordinary man who doesn't amass the hundreds of cd's in your collection, should know those composers you mentioned?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

peeyaj said:


> Please tell me, your Highness, why do you think this is a corrupt list.
> 
> Why do you spit on it? Does the ordinary man who doesn't amass the hundreds of cd's in your collection, should know those composers you mentioned?


My apologies, peeyaj. I was just joking. I think you are a relatively new member. I generally dislike the music written by Stockhausen, Xenakis, Ligeti etc. So I was being very sarcastic why these composers were never mentioned.

My "comfort zones" are in fact works from the Baroque, Classical and most of Romantic. The list you posted have listed all my favourites in them.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> My apologies, peeyaj. I was just joking. I think you are a relatively new member. I generally dislike the music written by Stockhausen, Xenakis, Ligeti etc. So I was being very sarcastic why these composers were never mentioned.
> 
> My "comfort zones" are in fact works from the Baroque, Classical and most of Romantic. The list you posted have listed all my favourites in them.


No, you don't need an apology. It's perfectly fine. 

The thing is, I'm really new in classical music. I have just started listening a year and a half ago. So, my comfort zones are the more familiar and popular composers like Beethoven, Schubert, Mozart etc.

I really wanted to appreciate every aspects of classical music. I'm hoping that upon joining the forums, it would broaden my horizon.

:-D


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

peeyaj said:


> *The 15 Most Influential Classical Musicians in History*


Are the 15 most influential classical musicians in history ALL _composers_? devil


peeyaj said:


> You can't argue with *Wagner.*


Yes you can. You can say he's *too low* on the list.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

peeyaj said:


> The thing is, I'm really new in classical music. I have just started listening a year and a half ago. So, my comfort zones are the more familiar and popular composers like Beethoven, Schubert, Mozart etc.
> 
> :-D


You should have come here much sooner. It is by far the best classical music site on the planet.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

This list is pretty meaningless without four of the most important and influential giants of music on it:

Bach
Beethoven
Machaut
Monteverdi

Haydn shouldn't be there (as much I love him), nor should Verdi. The other two to remove to make room for my four giants are more difficult, but I'd go for John Cage (a bit too far left field) and Handel.

Nice to see CPE Bach getting his dues, though. When are people going to recognise his importance in the development of the Classical style?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

This thread is relevant to this topic:

http://www.talkclassical.com/10258-composer-has-had-greatest.html



Andre said:


> Well, he influenced virtually the whole of the next generation of significant composers - eg. Stockhausen, Xenakis, Birtwistle. He was very innovative in terms of rhythm, colour and structure...


I can understand the inclusion of Varese, but why also omit Stockhausen. Both were important to the development of electronic composition and Varese may have been first but Stockhausen better disseminated his and the other pioneers concepts around the music world. He influenced guys like The Beatles, Miles Davis, Frank Zappa, Charles Mingus, Pink Floyd, most of the Krautrock and psychedelic bands, and a hell of a lot of studio engineers, producers, technicians etc of the 60's and 70's. Thinking about it Pierre Schaeffer had a similar impact.

And I'm not even the Stockhausen fanboy, just wait until JMJ gets here.



Ravellian said:


> John Cage? His contribution was far more philosophical than musical.. and to place him at No. 1 and completely exclude Schoenberg, the granddaddy of all horrible 20th century 12-tone music? And I have no idea why Varese is even listed..


There's music before Cage and there's music after Cage, and if you can't hear a difference, you aren't listening hard enough. I agree about Schoenberg; he was a definite game changer.



CTP said:


> Are the 15 most influential classical musicians in history ALL composers? devil


In the classical world, the composer is God and the musicians are his/her minions.:devil: Saying that composers are just a subsection of people that come under the umbrella of musicians. Plus it seems all the great classical improvisers were also good composers.

About the list. Debussy or Satie could get on there somewhere. Mahler and Verdi can **** right off. Mozart kind of covers Haydn's area, so he can **** off too. Boulanger is an interesting choice, as she's more like the influence on the influencers. Beethoven deserves to be on there just for making so many young people interested in classical music in the first place.

For esoteric picks, I'd opt for the Greek god Hermes who supposedly invented the lyre, and the legendary Chinese musician Ling Lun who created bamboo flutes and realised one of the earliest pentatonic scales.:tiphat:


----------



## JSK (Dec 31, 2008)

The fact that Beethoven, perhaps the most influential composer of all time, is not on the list means I cannot respect this list at all.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

JSK said:


> The fact that Beethoven, perhaps the most influential composer of all time, is not on the list means I cannot respect this list at all.


I would agree with that. Perhaps the list should be added to the list of "Biggest Waste of Time Lists" ever.

Wouldn't it be fun if the author of that list could be tempted here to defend his opinions. How might we lure him in?


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

'Most influential' usually indicates those who show new ways, and yes, less often those who are acknowledged masters in existing styles. JS Bach perhaps gets on the list on the latter category, although most of his influence seems to have come after his death. Beethoven gets in under both categories. But many make the list for the first achievement. Thus, Paganini and Liszt both get guernseys, for inventing the groupie and the piano recital respectively, not to mention about doubling the breadth of their respective instruments' known technical capabilities. Wagner, obviously. Schoenberg too. Casals. Stravinsky has to be there for the Rite of Spring, if nothing else. And you might even make a case for Toscanini...
cheers,
G


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

*nomenclature*

It's a joke, folks; has to be. The key word is 'musician', as opposed to 'composer'. Consider the question: how does a _musician_ become 'influential' beyond his time? There's Liszt and Chopin for the piano, Paganini for the violin . . ., who else?


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Glenn Gould and Joseph Joachim were each pretty influential in rekindling popular interest in Bach's music. As for the wider Baroque, there are a number of period-instrument performers who could be described as influential: Harnoncourt, Leonhardt, Pinnock, etc.

Schubert's piano works too have only achieved their recent popularity owing to the efforts of a few famous pianists, among them Schnabel and Maria Yudina. To a lesser extent, the same goes for the Scarlatti and Haydn sonatas.


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> John Cage? His contribution was far more philosophical than musical.


I know a few composers who would chuckle at this or throw their hands in the air in dismay, depending on their mood or how philosophical they are about judgments of this sort.



Ravellian said:


> And I have no idea why Varese is even listed.


Too bad for you. Well, at least you're in for a real treat, eh?


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2010)

JSK said:


> The fact that Beethoven, perhaps the most influential composer of all time, is not on the list means I cannot respect this list at all.


Hah! And I, for my part, have yet to meet a list of any kind from anyone that I can respect at all. List making is fun. Must be. And talking about it seems to be fun, too, especially on these cold Autumn nights when heat is preferred over light.


----------



## MJTTOMB (Dec 16, 2007)

The glaring omissions of JSB and LvB pretty much make this list a complete joke. I'm not a tremendous fan of Beethoven, but to deny the influence he had on musical history is ludicrous.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

_I know a few composers who would chuckle at this or throw their hands in the air in dismay, depending on their mood or how philosophical they are about judgments of this sort._

And I know that most competent musicians would agree with me about how awful most of Cage's music is, and that his most well-known piece, 4'33", is not a piece of music at all but a philosophical statement. But then again, I think we all know that you, some guy, have a taste in music for what most sane people could not bear without tearing out their ears. In any case, your opinions are of no relevance to me. Please carry on.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

This list is about the most influential classical musicians not about the most influential composers.

The fact that the majority of people in the list is composers themselves is telling, but some of the people here, like Ms. Boulanger is a well-known teacher (of Copland).

I would add either Furtwangler and Karajan in the list. Ms. Boulanger is the only well-known conductor in the list.


----------



## teccomin (Mar 21, 2008)

The list is too short. Maybe make a top 20 and include the giants like Beethoven.
However I have to agree that the list is quite good. This list deals with the most influential in terms of the development of music, rather than influential in terms of public acclaim. People like Beethoven and Chopin are too unique in such a way that nobody could reproduce their style of works, which is perhaps why they are omitted.
I would also add Satie in there, but his influence is mostly towards modern pop music.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

teccomin said:


> The list is too short. Maybe make a top 20 and include the giants like Beethoven.
> However I have to agree that the list is quite good. This list deals with the most influential in terms of the development of music, rather than influential in terms of public acclaim. People like Beethoven and Chopin are too unique in such a way that nobody could reproduce their style of works, which is perhaps why they are omitted.
> I would also add Satie in there, but his influence is mostly towards modern pop music.


I certainly agree. Beethoven is influential because his music paved toward the Romantic era. He is also influential in the development of symphonic form ( i.e. replacing the Minuet by Scherzo).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I agree with what some guy was implying - John Cage was a highly influential composer, not just a philosopher as Ravellian says. I was listening to Cage's _Credo In Us_, a work for piano, percussion and turntables last week. This, and some of his other works, were probably the first examples of turntable music (done in the 1940's). If you look around and see the amount of turntable music made now, in not only classical but also non-classical musics, then you should get the drift. Cage was an enourmously innovative and influential composer of the C20th, one of the giants. Maybe people criticising him should just listen to some of the actual music that he composed (rather than 4'33", the debate around which I find rather tiring and silly)...


----------



## snailmailtrail (Jul 20, 2010)

Where is debussy????


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> And I know that most competent musicians would agree with me about how awful most of Cage's music is....


I suppose that you get to define that "competent" means "those who think Cage's music is awful, too, eh? Well, whatever helps you sleep at night. Your assertion could only carry any weight if you knew all competent musicians. Do you know all the competent musicians? Do you know even a fraction?

I spend my time (and my money) with musicians. They all seem pretty competent to me, too, the ones I know. And most of them would find your assertion laughable.

Whatever you or the competent musicians you do know think about Cage's music, his influence is indisputable.


----------



## JMJ (Jul 9, 2010)

First off, the opening list is obvious cack ...



Ravellian said:


> _I know a few composers who would chuckle at this or throw their hands in the air in dismay, depending on their mood or how philosophical they are about judgments of this sort._
> 
> And I know that most competent musicians would agree with me about how awful most of Cage's music is, and that his most well-known piece, 4'33", is not a piece of music at all but a philosophical statement. But then again, I think we all know that you, some guy, have a taste in music for what most sane people could not bear without tearing out their ears. In any case, your opinions are of no relevance to me. Please carry on.


I couldn't agree more, and I scoured Cage's output with a vengeance, he wasn't 'a heavy' as far as music is concerned; perhaps mildly fun, entertaining and amusing for a short-while but on a deep level nothing serious or substantial in comparison to the real stuff ... and all you have to do is merely listen & explore to his output to come to this conclusion, rather quickly.


----------



## JMJ (Jul 9, 2010)

Andre said:


> .. were probably the first examples of turntable music (done in the 1940's). If you look around and see the amount of turntable music made now, in not only classical but also non-classical musics, then you should get the drift.


_Pfffffff turntables_ ...


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

The entire list is subjective and a nonsens...

Bartok, Schönberg, Ligeti are not there!

Bach (even if I am not a fan, I agree, he should be there)...Schönberg or the rupture of the melodic music...Well, a list is a list....and they decide to include who they want...I'd say Glinka is capital for Russia but let's understand that Russia is not important for USA. USA tries to rule as always.
USA...shouldn't have such an influence.

Martin Pitchon, France-England-Argentina-Canada.


----------



## LindenLea (Feb 4, 2007)

I reckon my milkman had more influence on the history of music than Nadia and Edgard whoooo??? Love him or hate him, the fact that J S Bach isn't even on the list just suggests that it's actually some sort of practical joke. So on that basis, thanks for posting!... it's pretty hilarious!


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

I agree, Mozart is incredible.

Figaro...LOL


----------



## toucan (Sep 27, 2010)

"Not Well Versed" might be a more suitable name for the folk at "listverse," so-called.
If at least those people had explained their choices: We could discuss them!

Most influential (not necessarily the same as greatest!)?

1/ Pope Gregory I (540-604). It is probably not Gregory who effected the simplification of Music known as Plein-Chant, or Gregorian Chant. But he has been credited with it so let's name him.

2/ The earliest known definitation of modal system of composition was in Aurelian of Réôme (circa 850). It was still taught in the XIXth century at the Niedermeyer school in Paris, which specialized in the training of church musicians. Gabriel Faure, who was trained there, made use of medieval modes. That's influence.

3/ Perotin is usually credited for the advent of Western Polyphony

4/ Philippe de Vitry (1291-1361) is credited with the invention of _Ars Nova_ and for the development of modern musical notation.

5/ Monteverdi invented modern Opera while trying to imagine haow greek music sounded like

6/ Carissimi is essential to the development of Oratorios and Cantatas and may even have invented the form.

7/ Bach perfected the Counterpoint and the Fugue and there is hardly a composer since (even romantics like Brahms) that hasn't been influenced by him

8/ Carl-Philip Emanuel Bach, Ditters Dittersdorf and the Manheim school are not considered great composers but they are the ones who developed the forms that define the classical school, sonata, symphony etc. More influencial than Haydn and Mozart, then, even though Haydn and Mozart have made better use of the forms they invented.

9/ Beethoven that overwhelming presence over the XIXth century, still a classicist but also a precursor of musical modernity, with the Third Symphony: as this was the first time in modern times that music is ahead of its time, and requiring some adjustment by musicians and the public. Indeed, Beethoven's late quartets have not yet been fully absorbed by everyone

10/ Schubert's music can be understated but his influence over the romantic school may be greater than Berlioz's. This is especially strong with his Lieder, Schumann, Brahms and Hugo Wolf often seem to be redoing Schubert. Perhaps it is wisest to say Schubert is the stronger inflence on one half of the romantic school, while Berlioz (whose unabashed sentimentalism can still seem so vulgar) is most influential on the Liszt/Wagner clan.

11/ Wagner: arguably the most consequential composer since Perotin and Leonin. With the *Tristan* prelude tonality disolves itself into melodies that do not find resolution.

12/ Debussy's "play-it-by-the ear," improvisational response to the problem created by Richard Wagner has been stupendously influencial on a broad range of composers, including Stravinsky, Scriabin, Varese, Bartok, Messiaen, Dutilleux, Lutoslawski, post-webernian Boulez.

13/ Schoenberg, whose more systematic response to the Wagner challenge may have been more ideologically influential than practically, even if you agree he, Berg, Webern, Boulez, Stockhausen, Berio et alii did compose masterpieces using his method.

14/ There has been some bickering over John Cage. Perhaps it is to early to tell how significant is his influence. But if posterity does save the memory of Witold Lutoslawski and Pierre Boulez, (whose use of the element of Chance, even if more limited than Cages's, was inspired by the American), then perhaps Cage will be given a place comparable to that of Philip Emanuel Bach and of Dittersdorf, a mediocre composer whose ideas and innovations were useful to great composers


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

^Interesting list Toucan, with the only notable ommission (from things Ive read) being Josquin Desprez.

--

'Josquin is widely considered by music scholars to be the first master of the high Renaissance style of polyphonic vocal music that was emerging during his lifetime.

During the 16th century, Josquin gradually acquired the reputation as the greatest composer of the age, his mastery of technique and expression universally imitated and admired.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josquin_des_Prez


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I find myself in total agreement with Toucan.

However there are also extra-musical characters that had at least equal influence on musical history.

Pythagoras for the explanation and description of the scientific/fundamental/physical basis of consonant harmonies and Other stuff....

Schopenhauer whose philosophy was likely the driving force (will?) behind much of Wagners work and most importantly Tristan und Isolde.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

I approve of Toucan's list.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Schumann, Brahms, Mahler, Janacek, Schoenberg, Verdi, Puccini, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Casals.


----------



## scytheavatar (Aug 27, 2009)

I can never understand how anyone can exclude Johann Sebastian Bach. Just read his Wiki page:

"During this time, his most widely known works were those for keyboard. Mozart, Beethoven, and Chopin were among his most prominent admirers. On a visit to the Thomasschule, for example, Mozart heard a performance of one of the motets (BWV 225) and exclaimed "Now, here is something one can learn from!";[47] on being given the motets' parts, "Mozart sat down, the parts all around him, held in both hands, on his knees, on the nearest chairs. Forgetting everything else, he did not stand up again until he had looked through all the music of Sebastian Bach".[citation needed] Beethoven was a devotee, learning the Well-Tempered Clavier as a child and later calling Bach the "Urvater der Harmonie" ("Original father of harmony") and, in a pun on the literal meaning of Bach's name, "nicht Bach, sondern Meer" ("not a brook, but a sea"). [48] Before performing a concert, Chopin used to lock himself away and play Bach's music. Several notable composers, including Mozart, Beethoven, Robert Schumann, and Felix Mendelssohn began writing in a more contrapuntal style after being introduced to Bach's music."

Can anyone claim that this doesn't sound like someone who didn't influence generations?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

peeyaj said:


> Ravellian is so happy because JS Bach didn't make on the list. Oh..well.
> 
> \snicker


There is nothing to be happy or unhappy about -- let alone a smug snicker -- the assessment and reason given why J.S. Bach is not on the list is just a matter of fact. near 0 _INFLUENCE_ in directly changing the direction of music _at that time he was writing._

The list is meant to name those who INNOVATED, i.e. did something drastically different from what preceded, and that innovation changed the direction of music, the approach taken to harmony and style in which it was composed. This is why Toucan's listing of Perotin is quite on the money, later renaissance polyphonists may have taken the style to more and greater heights, left us "greater" music, but their take off point, or the major influence which innovated that which they developed, was Perotin, not the later renaissance masters. And that is what such a list is about.

Bach's son did write in the early classical style, and his symphonies pre-date both Mozart and Beethoven: they are innovative both harmonically and in musical gestures as well as form, enough to be known as a hugely strong influence on music in general, i.e. Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven would not have followed, in the style they wrote in, without the innovations of Carl Philippe, music after would have taken some other direction, which is not at all the case when considering Bach père.

Romanticism -- Beethoven was hugely influenced by, obsessed with, and in awe of Mozart. *Mozart's D minor piano concerto, K466, is considered the milestone turning point of "where romanticism began."* (its middle movement, with a seriously impressive mid-section which is high _Sturm und Drang_, extended, not just a little passage as one might find in some Haydn Symphonies, is titled "Romanza") Beethoven played this concerto, wrote cadenzas for it. More current assessments are more and more pointing out all in much of Mozart already strongly containing both seed and the first bloom of romanticism -- Ergo, Mozart, not Beethoven, though Beethoven was the next classical composer who dramatically pushed that romantic trend further -- _while remaining a classical composer to the bitter end._ Omission of Beethoven: not ridiculous.

I seriously wonder about the listing of Hildegard von Bingen, though. I think a bit of trendy tipping of the hat to feminism (she was a remarkable composer, but i_nfluence?_) had more than a little to do with being on that list.

One glaring omission is Claudio Monteverdi, late renaissance, who was a tremendous polyphonist, but chose to compose in a much more homophonic vein, which so influenced music that it went in that direction shortly thereafter, across the continent.

P.s. Toucan is for me on the money for his items 1 - 5, and Debussy, Schoenberg and Cage do very much belong on the list of most influential.

P.p.s. .... and it is yet another list, limited, it seems arbitrarily to fifteen, rather than fully delving into those innovators, using one criterion as to how innovative.... or there may have been more. Lists are restrictive, will almost always exclude something vital. If a list was an attempt to go more into a depth making them that much more worthwhile, vs. sometime near fripperies, this one would be longer by a good handful of further entries.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Delicious Manager said:


> This list is pretty meaningless without four of the most important and influential giants of music on it:
> 
> Bach
> Beethoven
> ...


I think Haydn should be there; he influenced Beethoven greatly, who's for some reason not on this list and Beethoven started Romanticism.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> There is nothing to be happy or unhappy about -- let alone a smug snicker -- the assessment and reason given why J.S. Bach is not on the list is just a matter of fact. near 0 _INFLUENCE_ in directly changing the direction of music _at that time he was writing._
> 
> The list is meant to name those who INNOVATED, i.e. did something drastically different from what preceded, and that innovation changed the direction of music, the approach taken to harmony and style in which it was composed. This is why Toucan's listing of Perotin is quite on the money, later renaissance polyphonists may have taken the style to more and greater heights, left us "greater" music, but their take off point, or the major influence which innovated that which they developed, was Perotin, not the later renaissance masters. And that is what such a list is about.
> 
> ...


I'd not generalize like this with Haydn - just listen to the Adagio of the 'La Passione' symphony, an awesome movement.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

this is too hard.....


----------

