# Composer Tier List



## chu42

I decided to have a little fun and create a composer tier list. Factors that went in included innovation, influence, and timelessness, with a little bit of personal bias going in-overall it's not that serious of a list.
Also, a lot of guys I don't really listen to have taken high spots while some obscure guys I like a lot may have lower spots. All of the composers on this list, high or low, deserve a chance. I hope that everybody can find some jewels among the low-tier obscure guys.

But F tier is literally just spite. I'm aware that Pachelbel has some decent compositions but Canon in D has done its damage...


----------



## PlaySalieri

chu42 said:


> View attachment 122983
> 
> 
> I decided to have a little fun and create a composer tier list for lolz. Factors that went in included innovation, influence, and timelessness, with a little bit of personal bias going in. However, this isn't a "favorite composer" list, a lot of guys I don't really listen to have taken high spots while some obscure guys I like a lot may have lower spots.
> 
> But F tier is literally just spite.


nice list - though I would have just Schubert and Brahms in the 2nd tier.


----------



## Becca

Group D - which Benjamin?


----------



## chu42

Becca said:


> Group D - which Benjamin?


George Benjamin.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Becca said:


> Group D - which Benjamin?


Benjamin Britten


----------



## chu42

Britten is low B tier.


----------



## Fabulin

The thought process seems solid in most cases. Just don't be silly with Czerny and place him in A-tier, where he belongs.

Lalo and Delibes could also move one tier, exchanged for Borodin.


----------



## chu42

Czerny's A-tier on my "greatest repetitive exercise composers" list  

In all seriousness, Czerny is a highly influential composer played by millions of people—but this is due to his innovation in excercise and not music. 

And as for Lalo and Delibes; I can see Delibes going up but not Lalo—he only has one work that is played with any regularity. I play piano accompaniment for Lalo's cello concerto and I was chagrined to find no sheet music videos of it Youtube.


----------



## Bulldog

Once the list gets past Group A, it gets quite personal (which I would expect from most lists of this type).


----------



## paulbest

looks like you just pulled names out of a hat, my friend
:lol:


----------



## Bulldog

paulbest said:


> looks like you just pulled names out of a hat, my friend
> :lol:


That's not at all accurate. The first three groupings are largely spot-on concerning general consensus.


----------



## chu42

Bulldog said:


> Once the list gets past Group A, it gets quite personal (which I would expect from most lists of this type).


Absolutely. If a composer's not as popular I have more free rein to place him/her since there's no standard academic/public opinion about them.

However, personal opinion does also get in the way of some well-known composers I particularly dislike, such as Cèsar Cui and Einaudi.

Sometimes there will be a composer I particularly like but I cannot in good faith place them in a high ranking because of their obscurity; examples include Kapustin, Biber, Kalkbrenner).

This is why I advise everybody to check out all tiers (although personally I would avoid F tier).


----------



## SONNET CLV

chu42 said:


> View attachment 122983
> 
> 
> I decided to have a little fun and create a composer tier list. Factors that went in included innovation, influence, and timelessness, with a little bit of personal bias going in-overall it's not that serious of a list.
> ...
> But F tier is literally just spite. I'm aware that Pachelbel has some decent compositions but Canon in D has done its damage...


Actually, I like the listing. Some intriguing choices, overall thoughtful. Of course, I _could_ quibble here and there, but then someone would likely make up a Quibbler List and put me in the S+ tier, so I'll pass on that.


----------



## chu42

SONNET CLV said:


> Actually, I like the listing. Some intriguing choices, overall thoughtful. Of course, I _could_ quibble here and there, but then someone would likely make up a Quibbler List and put me in the S+ tier, so I'll pass on that.


Oh, but I invite you to quibble. Sometimes disagreements are more fun than agreements. It's not a serious list anyways.


----------



## AeolianStrains

I know you mentioned spite, but Czerny and Pachelbel definitely do not belong in the dung heap.

I would rearrange BCD endlessly, but there's nothing too egregious in there. Some I would spite to F tier, but hey, that's personal preference. There are a handful in B that don't really belong, like Carter (queue paulbest), and I don't think you're giving enough credit to Johann Strauss II or Mussorgsky, but both I'd move up to B, not A. Schoenberg and Ligeti in A though is surprising. I'd want to put them in F, but I can see how they respectably be in B. Definitely not on the same par as Liszt, Verdi, Wagner, Schumann, or, for gods' sake, Chopin, who needs to be in S.

Saint-Saens and Clementi never seem to get the love they deserves. And where is Faure?


----------



## Becca

chu42 said:


> Oh, but I invite you to quibble. Sometimes disagreements are more fun than agreements. It's not a serious list anyways.


OK then...

... Sibelius should be equal to Mahler, so up 1
... Nielsen certainly shouldn't be 2 steps lower than Barber ... geez ... so up 2
... Where is Koechlin, Howells, Bantock, Rubbra, Tubin, Lloyd, Lilburn, Weinberg etc., etc.


----------



## Portamento

AeolianStrains said:


> Schoenberg and Ligeti in A though is surprising. I'd want to put them in F, but I can see how they respectably be in B.


Nope! 
.......


----------



## Portamento

Lyapunov, Bortkiewicz, or Sullivan above S*z*ymanowski, Mussorgsky, or Takemitsu is... no.


----------



## PlaySalieri

On what basis do you place Mahler in cat 2?

He is mainly known for 9 completed symphonies.

Debussy next to Schubert and Brahms?

I could go on.


----------



## Becca

stomanek said:


> On what basis do you place Mahler in cat 2?
> 
> He is mainly known for 9 completed symphonies.


Because that's where his 9+ symphonies, Das Lied, Klagende Lied, Knaben Wunderhorn and all the song cycles belong. It's quality not quantity.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Becca said:


> Because that's where his 9+ symphonies, Das Lied, Klagende Lied, Knaben Wunderhorn and all the song cycles belong. It's quality not quantity.


where is his piano music?

how many great composers have virtually nothing on piano?


----------



## tdc

For me at this time (my opinion may eventually change on this) only J.S. Bach and Mozart are first tier composers. Beethoven is tier 2 with Brahms, Wagner etc. 

Bartok and Monteverdi should be moved up to tier 2 composers in my opinion.

I'll also add that what tier a composer is in doesn't necessarily reflect how much I like their music. I listen to certain pieces by Rodrigo as much as I listen to anything else at the moment. Not sure what tier I would place him in but among my personal favorites he ranks quite highly. Certain composers will just "speak" to certain listeners, regardless of "tier" (which to an extent will always have a degree of subjectivity).


----------



## DeepR

Why is Einaudi so high? Quite a few letters left in the alphabet.... :lol:


----------



## chu42

Becca said:


> OK then...
> 
> ... Sibelius should be equal to Mahler, so up 1
> ... Nielsen certainly shouldn't be 2 steps lower than Barber ... geez ... so up 2
> ... Where is Koechlin, Howells, Bantock, Rubbra, Tubin, Lloyd, Lilburn, Weinberg etc., etc.


I like Sibelius more than Mahler. But the general public does not.

Definitely possible to make an argument for Nielsen, but since he's not a very popular composer I have the leeway to put him far below Barber who is not only more popular but more well-liked by myself-not the best argument but yes, some of this list will be subjective. Nielsen probably does deserve better though on second thought.

And the other subjective part of this list is that I didn't add any composers that I never listened to. The only one I've listened to there is Feinberg, must've been careless there.


----------



## Jacck

you really think that Pachelbel's music has the same quality as Einaudi's? I would respectfully suggest to listen to some more Pachelbel, because he belongs to the B category


----------



## chu42

AeolianStrains said:


> I know you mentioned spite, but Czerny and Pachelbel definitely do not belong in the dung heap.
> 
> I would rearrange BCD endlessly, but there's nothing too egregious in there. Some I would spite to F tier, but hey, that's personal preference. There are a handful in B that don't really belong, like Carter (queue paulbest), and I don't think you're giving enough credit to Johann Strauss II or Mussorgsky, but both I'd move up to B, not A. Schoenberg and Ligeti in A though is surprising. I'd want to put them in F, but I can see how they respectably be in B. Definitely not on the same par as Liszt, Verdi, Wagner, Schumann, or, for gods' sake, Chopin, who needs to be in S.
> 
> Saint-Saens and Clementi never seem to get the love they deserves. And where is Faure?


Some good points, some questionable. Pachelbel deserves at least C tier for his other works but the Canon has taken it's toll. It's an interesting question, would you rather be famous for something mediocre or simply forgotten?

Czerny belongs in D if I'm being serious. Czerny shaped beginner's exercises as we know it, but Czerny also composed dozens of exercises that were so difficult that they had hardly any useful application, not to speak of the lack of musical value.






Note the markings that call for the pianist to repeat the exercise for an arbitrary amount of times. He wrote this in many of his works and they would go up to 20-30 repetitions, kind of disgusting if you ask me. The pianist ought to decide how much practice he needs on an etude anyways. I believe Czerny was pretty much the best they had at the time in terms of exercises but Chopin and Liszt have made his etudes obsolete, except for the beginner ones.

And then there are the tempo markings for Beethoven's sonatas; some so ridiculously fast that they defy reason and taste. For example, he called for the Hammerklavier 1st mvmt to be played at 138 bpm (!) Absolutely inhumane treatment of one of the greatest piano works, treating it almost as if it were a technical exercise. Certainly much easier on the lighter actions of the fortepianos of the time but just because it's possible doesn't mean it should be done.

I don't know. I guess I just don't like Czerny very much. His innovations were pedagogical and not musical.

And now that I'm done with the Czerny rant we can move on to some of your other points:

Carter stays. He has some real stinkers (his piano concerto blows) but a lot of his music is well thought out and innovative. Mussorgsky and Strauss II were neither innovative, nor influential. They built upon their forerunners (Balakirev and Strauss I) and their musical traditions were left on the wayside. Mussorgsky's orchestration is almost amateurish at times.

I don't listen to Schönberg very often, but the fact that he changed the course of musical history...well, like him or hate him, he's A-tier important. And I like Ligeti a lot, never mind that he's incredibly innovative and influential. Have you heard his Etudes? They blow me away every time by how absurdly creative they are. And that's only with the piano-he's routinely worked with instruments most have never even heard of.

Chopin is great but he is not versatile. He is one of the seminal composers for the piano, but all of S and S+ not only were tremendous keyboard composers (exceptions: Mahler and to a lesser extent Tchaikovsky) but also master orchestrators who shaped the music repertoire on so many levels. Some of them also have great chamber music, lieder, opera-the list goes on. Furthermore, Chopin was innovative but not more so than Liszt/Schumann and definitely not as much as Prokofiev, Debussy, and Ravel. Chopin will forever have a place in my heart but he will never have a place in S tier.

Saint-Saëns was probably the most painful decision for me behind Schumann (who I wanted to be in S tier so badly). I first put him in high A, and then low A, and then after more thought he got a high B. Why? Because, well, he's so normal. He was a genius of course but he applied them towards staying within the boundaries. Despite being a fan of the progressives, he made a few bold moves and creative decisions but none that were truly daring. So much of his music ends up feeling so normal in a time where everything was changing. I like Saint-Saëns so much, I've played his violin and piano concertos as well as the accompaniment for his cello concerto...it's delightful music but that's all it is. I guess he could be in A tier but for now I believe he does deserve B. I just feel like he could've done so much more.

Clementi has several good sonatas and sonatinas, but they're all but forgotten and he barely hangs on to recognition based on a couple of children's pieces. Does he deserve it? Maybe not. But that's how it is, despite how innovative and influential he was back then his music has not stood the ultimate test; the test of time. That is in fact why Monteverdi is not higher ranked.

The composers that I've listened to and that I left out (accidentally):
Faurè-low B
Vieuxtemps-low C
Fanny Mendelssohn-mid C
Meyerbeer-high B
Ornstein-low C


----------



## Malx

Two biggest omissions for me are Holmboe and Faure - but at the end of the day a list, albeit a decently constructed one, is just a list.
Listen and enjoy the music thats where the fun is.


----------



## chu42

Malx said:


> Two biggest omissions for me are Holmboe and Faure - but at the end of the day a list, albeit a decently constructed one, is just a list.
> Listen and enjoy the music thats where the fun is.


Personally, my biggest regret is accidentally leaving out Meyerbeer. But yes, all composers deserve a chance for their music to be enjoyed.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Too many things to disagree with, but damned good fun and a decent list all the same.

Is that Richard Clayderman in F? I didn't know he had written anything, and I am immensely relieved I haven't heard any of it. But in any case, it cannot be worse than Einaudi. Proper botty water.

Where's Magnard?


----------



## hammeredklavier

I can't believe putting one of JS Bach's biggest idols in F with Nietzsche, an amateur.
Magnificat Fugues are direct precursors to the Well-Tempered Clavier:










and Hummel should be in A~B.

Hummel piano concertos:
Op.85: 



Op.89: 



Op.113: 



24 Etudes Op.125, 24 Preludes Op.67






This was written in the same year as Beethoven's Eroica and became inspiration for Chopin's 4th Ballade, which would be written like 37 years later. Listen from 4:00





Early Romanticism, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, Schubert ( at least in keyboard genres ) wouldn't have been possible without Hummel: 
https://www.earlymusicamerica.org/files/EMagSummer07Hummel.pdf
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f4f0/c00e3e7848dae4d0f94335502b7a332fd117.pdf


----------



## PlaySalieri

tdc said:


> For me at this time (my opinion may eventually change on this) only J.S. Bach and Mozart are first tier composers. Beethoven is tier 2 with Brahms, Wagner etc.
> 
> Bartok and Monteverdi should be moved up to tier 2 composers in my opinion.
> 
> I'll also add that what tier a composer is in doesn't necessarily reflect how much I like their music. I listen to certain pieces by Rodrigo as much as I listen to anything else at the moment. Not sure what tier I would place him in but among my personal favorites he ranks quite highly. Certain composers will just "speak" to certain listeners, regardless of "tier" (which to an extent will always have a degree of subjectivity).


Beethoven surely should be tier 1 - since he virtually moved music forward into the romantic age single handed. Is this based on personal preference or some other reasoning?


----------



## Dimace

Good work, but Wagner in 3rd category is unthinkable.


----------



## tdc

stomanek said:


> Beethoven surely should be tier 1 - since he virtually moved music forward into the romantic age single handed. Is this based on personal preference or some other reasoning?


I think your description is a little exaggerated, in another thread I already provided you with comments by Rosen suggesting that some works of Mozart could be considered early Romantic and showed how Classicism could be destroyed. Hummel, Weber, Schubert and Chopin were also key figures in moving music forward into the Romantic age.

By your logic Monteverdi and Debussy should also be tier 1 then since they were of equal importance in moving music forward into Baroque and Modernism respectfully.

I admit my preference does impact my views on this, which is why I said I remain open to the possibility of changing my mind eventually since so many others clearly hold Beethoven in such high esteem.


----------



## Guest

First 3 categories

- These comprise 34 composers. I have a suspicion that these composers have been based very largely on results of "favourite composer" polls, of which there have been many to chose from at T-C going back many years. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the main source, and that the lists have little to do with "influence" etc.

- I agree with "stomanek" that Brahms and Schubert should be the only two composers in group "S", with the others moved to group "A". I reckon that the general popularity of these two composers is high enough above the others listed to warrant being placed in their own unique group.

- The inclusion of Barber and Scriabin in list "A" are the only two composers who seem slightly overarated, according to the popularity polls as I recall them. I would have thought that Grieg, Messiaen or Webern would be stronger candidates for group "A", based on T-C popularity polls, than either Barber or Scriabin.

Category "F"

The inclusion of Pachelbel in the "joke" category must be a mistake. Pachelbel wrote a wide range of music, including for harpsichord, organ, vocal, much of it very good indeed. I don't regard Eunaudi as a classical composer. He is more of a cross-over composer.

Notable Exclusions

I find the funniest thing about the entire set of lists to be the non-inclusion anywhere of either Pettersson or Henze, especially given all the discussion concerning these two composers that has taken place at the Forum over many months now.

Perhaps they are included in a "beyond a joke" category, "G", yet to be revealed.


----------



## PlaySalieri

tdc said:


> I think your description is a little exaggerated, in another thread I already provided you with comments by Rosen suggesting that some works of Mozart could be considered early Romantic and showed how Classicism could be destroyed. Hummel, Weber, Schubert and Chopin were also key figures in moving music forward into the Romantic age.
> 
> By your logic Monteverdi and Debussy should also be tier 1 then since they were of equal importance in moving music forward into Baroque and Modernism respectfully.


OK I accept your point - I thought that Beethoven's symphonies would be important enough to get him into the top tier,along with the quartets etc.


----------



## tdc

stomanek said:


> I thought that Beethoven's symphonies would be important enough to get him into the top tier,along with the quartets etc.


I think most people would agree with you. I'm just stating my opinion and admitting it is impacted to a degree by my preferences and it may eventually change. There is no arguing his 'greatness'.


----------



## PlaySalieri

tdc said:


> I think most people would agree with you. I'm just stating my opinion and admitting it is impacted to a degree by my preferences and it may eventually change. There is no arguing his 'greatness'.


i only questioned this as you said your own personal listening does not correspond with a tiered list. where would you place rodrigo? who you listen to a lot. So I naturally assumed you were trying to be objective.

I listen to very little Bach these days - but wouldnt dream of placing him in anything but top tier


----------



## tdc

stomanek said:


> i only questioned this as you said your own personal listening does not correspond with a tiered list. where would you place rodrigo? who you listen to a lot. So I naturally assumed you were trying to be objective.
> 
> I listen to very little Bach these days - but wouldnt dream of placing him in anything but top tier


I was attempting to be more objective when talking about the tiered list.

Rodrigo would make my personal top ten, maybe even top 5 but I wouldn't place him in an 'objective' top twenty.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Partita said:


> - I agree with "stomanek" that Brahms and Schubert should be the only two composers in group "S", with the others moved to group "A". I reckon that the general popularity of these two composers is high enough above the others listed to warrant being placed in their own unique group.
> 
> - The inclusion of Barber and Scriabin in list "A" are the only two composers who seem slightly overarated, according to the popularity polls as I recall them. I would have thought that Grieg, Messiaen or Webern would be stronger candidates for group "A", based on T-C popularity polls, than either Barber or Scriabin.


I would put Schubert lower in the list. TC polls don't say anything substantial, they're dictated by many people who have strong biased favoritism for Schubert. Going through his output, I'm amazed at the sophistication of the writing for the bass.
People pretend he was a child prodigy, (was he really?) but look at this song he wrote at 17.


----------



## PlaySalieri

hammeredklavier said:


> I would put Schubert lower in the list. TC polls don't say anything substantial, they're dictated by many people who have strong biased favoritism for Schubert. Going through his output, I'm amazed at the sophistication of the writing for the bass.
> People pretend he was a child prodigy, (was he really?) but look at this song he wrote at 17.


If we exclude his songs - Schuberts fame rests on two incredible symphonies (or 1.5), some of the finest chamber music ever composed, and his incomparable piano works. As someone already said its not quantity but quality - and I feel that hisbest works are so good he does deserve a 2nd tier place. I would discard all Mahler's symphonies for the unfinished - though I accept this may not be a consensus.


----------



## Bulldog

stomanek said:


> I would discard all Mahler's symphonies for the unfinished - though I accept this may not be a consensus.


And I would discard all Schubert's symphonies for any one of Mahler's.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bulldog said:


> And I would discard all Schubert's symphonies for any one of Mahler's.


ok - you send me your Schubert symphonies and you can have my haitink Mahler box set


----------



## Guest

Mahler's high popularity can't be denied. He was among my top favourite composers when I was in my mid-late teens. But I'm afraid to say that he has been much less of a favourite with me for some time now. I find his symphonies are generally too long, and I lose interest about half way through. Some movements don't make much sense in terms of layout (e.g. with odd bits of choral work), and several of the main themes I now find a bit cheesy. 

Sibelius has replaced Mahler in my ratings. There's a lot more variety and sophistication going on in many of the Sibelius' works. They're generally a lot shorter, which suits me better than long pieces. 
Another composer I've lost a lot on former interest in is Tchaikovsky, but I still rate him quite highly. Yet another is J S Bach. That's not to suggest that he ought not to be in the top 3, just that I find a lot of "sameness" going on with Bach. Handel too has rather dropped out quite a lot in my listening. The main "constants" among my top favourites are Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, and Schumann.


----------



## chu42

Partita said:


> - These comprise 34 composers. I have a suspicion that these composers have been based very largely on results of "favourite composer" polls, of which there have been many to chose from at T-C going back many years. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the main source, and that the lists have little to do with "influence" etc.


That's surprising and also mildly insulting. I rarely ever frequent TC (look at my join date compared to my amount of posts) and your conclusion is a bit odd-I suspect Chopin is consistently more popular than Schumann.



Partita said:


> I agree with "stomanek" that Brahms and Schubert should be the only two composers in group "S", with the others moved to group "A". I reckon that the general popularity of these two composers is high enough above the others listed to warrant being placed in their own unique group.


I disagree, and this is slightly contrary to your first statement, is it not? Brahms and Schubert are definitely not as popular with general audiences as Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, etc. And popularity is not the only factor here.



Partita said:


> The inclusion of Barber and Scriabin in list "A" are the only two composers who seem slightly overarated, according to the popularity polls as I recall them. I would have thought that Grieg, Messiaen or Webern would be stronger candidates for group "A", based on T-C popularity polls, than either Barber or Scriabin.


Now that's ironic, because I placed them in A since I believe they are underrated. We can talk about that if you'd like, that's why I made this in the first place (to have a good-natured discussion about composers). I suspect that if I were a TC veteran I wouldn't be so, well, disparaged.



Partita said:


> The inclusion of Pachelbel in the "joke" category must be a mistake. Pachelbel wrote a wide range of music, including for harpsichord, organ, vocal, much of it very good indeed. I don't regard Eunaudi as a classical composer. He is more of a cross-over composer.


As I've already incessantly stated, I'm well aware of Pachelbel's excellent ouevre and his inclusion is tongue-in-cheek-and even in all seriousness he wouldn't be above C tier because his comparatively his music has not stood the test of time. Bach considered Pachelbel great, and he revered Buxtehude as a legend and yet Diedrich is quite low. If he isn't a very popular composer, I have the leeway to place hin where I see fit-which is where discussion can take place.

I hope this is the last time I say this; I would advise you to not take this list too seriously; it's



Partita said:


> U]Notable Exclusions[/U]
> 
> I find the funniest thing about the entire set of lists to be the non-inclusion anywhere of either Pettersson or Henze, especially given all the discussion concerning these two composers that has taken place at the Forum over many months now.
> 
> Perhaps they are included in a "beyond a joke" category, "G", yet to be revealed.


I have never heard of either composer. I only ranked the composers I had listened to at least semi-regularly and the only ones missing are:
Fanny Mendelssohn
Meyerbeer
Faurè
Vieuxtemps
Feinberg
Cherubini
Ornstein

I would love to have an open discussion about these placements. I don't appreciate being talked down upon and having assertions heaped upon.


----------



## Mifek

Partita said:


> - I agree with "stomanek" that Brahms and Schubert should be the only two composers in group "S", with the others moved to group "A". I reckon that the general popularity of these two composers is high enough above the others listed to warrant being placed in their own unique group.


I'm afraid you are wrong. Tchaikovsky and Chopin are at least as high (if not higher) in most "general publicity" polls. So you can either ignore this (and base your ranking on the opinion of a selected group of "highly respected" or "better informed" music lovers/specialists) or place them all in about the same tier.


----------



## chu42

People are forgetting about the factor of timelessness; the ability of an composer's ouvre to stick in the public mind. Innovation and influence are important but if they are then forgotten, then what is this use? Music's main purpose for listening, not for historical study.

Let's see here: If this list were made in...
1900: Moszkowski and Rubinstein would likely be next to Rachmaninov. Debussy, Ravel, and Schoenberg would be much lower.
1810: Hummel, Moscheles, and Czerny would be significantly higher and Bach would be much lower.
1790: Boccherini, Cherubini, and Clementi would be much higher. Bach would be D tier.
1710: Buxtehude, Telemann, and Pachelbel would be S tier. Bach wouldn't be anywhere near them.

So take that as you would. People's tastes change over time and it says a lot when a composer remains appreciated for a long stretch of time.


----------



## Jacck

chu42 said:


> People are forgetting about the factor of timelessness; the ability of an composer's ouvre to stick in the public mind. Innovation and influence are important but if they are then forgotten, then what is this use? Music's main purpose for listening, not for historical study.
> 
> Let's see here: If this list were made in...
> 1900: Moszkowski and Rubinstein would likely be next to Rachmaninov.
> 1810: Hummel, Moscheles, and Czerny would be significantly higher and Bach would be much lower.
> 1790: Boccherini, Cherubini, and Clementi would be much higher. Bach would be D tier.


sometimes it is a matter of chance who gets forgotten and who will stay. For example, Bach was virtually forgotten until rediscovered by Mendelssohn.


----------



## ManateeFL

Dimace said:


> Good work, but Wagner in 3rd category is unthinkable.


Yup, Wagner should definitely be in the S tier.


----------



## PlaySalieri

chu42 said:


> People are forgetting about the factor of timelessness; the ability of an composer's ouvre to stick in the public mind. Innovation and influence are important but if they are then forgotten, then what is this use? Music's main purpose for listening, not for historical study.
> 
> Let's see here: If this list were made in...
> 1900: Moszkowski and Rubinstein would likely be next to Rachmaninov.
> 1810: Hummel, Moscheles, and Czerny would be significantly higher and Bach would be much lower.
> 1790: Boccherini, Cherubini, and Clementi would be much higher. Bach would be D tier.


true - but how long have bach mozart and beethoven been widely considered top tier?

since maybe 1920? so 100 years

where as clementi and boccherini were all but forgotten by 1830

I cant see much changing - in 1960 you would have made this same point - and I would have said by 2019 it will still be mozart bach and beethoven

and I would have been right


----------



## chu42

Jacck said:


> sometimes it is a matter of chance who gets forgotten and who will stay. For example, Bach was virtually forgotten until rediscovered by Mendelssohn.


True, and then he was revered as great for the rest of history. He was forgotten temporarily because his great music was deemed too proper for the changing tastes of the people leaning towards the galant. Beethoven and Mozart were certainly influenced by him even before he was famous, so sooner or later someone would've discovered him.


----------



## chu42

stomanek said:


> true - but how long have bach mozart and beethoven been widely considered top tier?
> 
> since maybe 1920? so 100 years
> 
> where as clementi and boccherini were all but forgotten by 1830
> 
> I cant see much changing - in 1960 you would have made this same point - and I would have said by 2019 it will still be mozart bach and beethoven
> 
> and I would have been right


They have been top tier for longer-Bach had captured the public and academic circles since the 1830s. Beethoven's status has hardly declined since his death. Mozart's popularity hardly waned-comparisons have been made throughout history referring to Mendelssohn, Saint-Saëns, whomever as the new Mozart. Tchaikovsky's favorite was Mozart.


----------



## PlaySalieri

chu42 said:


> They have been top tier for longer-Bach had captured the public and academic circles since the 1830s. Beethoven's status has hardly declined since his death. Mozart's popularity hardly waned-comparisons have been made throughout history referring to Mendelssohn, Saint-Saëns, whomever as the new Mozart. Tchaikovsky's favorite was Mozart.


OK so its probably more likely that 20th C composers we currently hold in high regard will fade - or late 19th composers such as Debussy, Nielsen.


----------



## chu42

ManateeFL said:


> Yup, Wagner should definitely be in the S tier.


And I disagree; he surely changed music but not without Liszt, and he wasn't versatile. And in terms of popularity, none of his operas are performed nearly as often as Verdi, Puccini, and Mozart.


----------



## Guest

Mifek said:


> I'm afraid you are wrong. Tchaikovsky and Chopin are at least as high (if not higher) in most "*general publicity" polls*. So you can either ignore this (and base your ranking on the opinion of a selected group of "highly respected" or "better informed" music lovers/specialists) or place them all in about the same tier.


I don't know what you mean by "general publicity polls".

I referred to "general popularity" of the composers. I had in mind the results based on the plethora of "favourite composer" type of polls that have taken place here at T-C over many years. If I tried I could probably dig around to find some of them, but these old threads tend to get well and truly buried as so much else gets posted on this Forum.

From recollection I'm pretty sure that neither Chopin nor Tchaikovsky have ever been placed higher than Brahms and Schubert in the TC polls. I recall that Tchaikovsky is normally placed lower down in the top 10, but I think that Chopin tended to lag behind somewhat, although not by very much.

Possibly you could point to any specific evidence you have that suggests that Chopin and Tchaikovsky are at least as highly rated as Brahms and Schubert.


----------



## chu42

stomanek said:


> OK so its probably more likely that 20th C composers we currently hold in high regard will fade - or late 19th composers such as Debussy, Nielsen.


Not likely. Looking at history's trends, the composers who are lesser known are often those who fit in too well with their time-when people move on they disappear. Many of those who are at first received with controversy either disappear quickly or gain more appreciation over time and then cement themselves into music history. I can't see somebody causing a huge scandal, then becoming revered, then just fading away. That has never happened in history to my knowledge.

Of course this also has to do with where music goes-and this is often impossible to predict. Will Minimalism become the new foray of music or will New Complexity take over? Or will both be pushed aside by time for something else? Nobody knows.


----------



## chu42

Partita said:


> Possibly you could point to any specific evidence you have that suggests that Chopin and Tchaikovsky are at least as highly rated as Brahms and Schubert.


Here's some evidence concerning colloquial popularity:

Top 5 Classical Composers on Spotify before 2019 by plays:

J.S. Bach 4.4 million
Mozart 4.1 Million
Beethoven 3.9 Million
Chopin 3.7 Million
Debussy 3.1 Million

I found it interesting that Pachelbel ranks roughly with Brahms-between 2-3 million plays-I suspect that many use the Canon for weddings and the like.

Link to the amount of Google searches for composers-roughly correlates with amount of public viewing of their music.


----------



## Becca

chu42 said:


> And I disagree; he surely changed music but not without Liszt, and he wasn't versatile. And in terms of popularity, none of his operas are performed nearly as often as Verdi, Puccini, and Mozart.


I don't understand all this preoccupation with variety of output. So what if Mahler didn't write piano works (many others didn't also), or that Wagner 
"wasn't versatile" ... I'd rather listen to someone who focused on one area and did it well than someone who did a bit of everything.


----------



## Becca

chu42 said:


> Here's some evidence concerning colloquial popularity:
> 
> Top 5 Classical Composers on Spotify before 2019 by plays:
> 
> J.S. Bach 4.4 million
> Mozart 4.1 Million
> Beethoven 3.9 Million
> Chopin 3.7 Million
> Debussy 3.1 Million
> 
> I found it interesting that Pachelbel ranks roughly with Brahms-between 2-3 million plays-I suspect that many use the Canon for weddings and the like.
> 
> Link to the amount of Google searches for composers-roughly correlates with amount of public viewing of their music.
> 
> https://external-preview.redd.it/VCBkGEg2jNZVCbrV1WJYVYCFIINKZiED2xIzwGlUvF4.png?auto=webp&1baeb965


Measuring by number of plays is meaningless unless somehow you factor in the length of the works being played. Is one play of a Mahler symphony or Wagner opera really equivalent in any meaningful way to one Chopin piano work, etc.?


----------



## chu42

Becca said:


> I don't understand all this preoccupation with variety of output. So what if Mahler didn't write piano works (many others didn't also), or that Wagner
> "wasn't versatile" ... I'd rather listen to someone who focused on one area and did it well than someone who did a bit of everything.


OK, but a common trait among the greats is that they did everything well! Schubert had lieder, sonatas, chamber music, and symphonies of enduring popularity and high quality. So did Schumann. Every composer save Mahler in S and above has iconic works spanning multiple categories. You could make an argument for moving Mahler down but not Wagner up.

It is a testament to Wagner's influence and enduring popularity that he got as high of a ranking as he did with only opera, and polarizing opera at that.


----------



## chu42

CnC Bartok said:


> Too many things to disagree with, but damned good fun and a decent list all the same.
> 
> Is that Richard Clayderman in F? I didn't know he had written anything, and I am immensely relieved I haven't heard any of it. But in any case, it cannot be worse than Einaudi. Proper botty water.
> 
> Where's Magnard?


Now here is a beautiful response. My tier ranking is hardly academic opinion or a scientific analysis, a lot of it is subjective and just for fun. And sometimes disagreements can be more fun than agreements.

I'm not sure if Clayderman can even be considered a composer but having taught piano in China and having to deal with his godawful arrangements was a huge pain. There was something like Für Elise arranged in 6/8 and other such monstrosities...


----------



## ManateeFL

chu42 said:


> And I disagree; he surely changed music but not without Liszt, and he wasn't versatile. And in terms of popularity, none of his operas are performed nearly as often as Verdi, Puccini, and Mozart.


He was far more influential than Liszt. And his opera aren't performed as often largely because of the massive demands his operas place on a theater and the lack of singers capable of singing them. His operas may not be performed as often, but they are incredibly popular and it's always a huge event when any opera company undertakes a Ring cycle. Anyone who has ever tried to buy tickets to Ring cycle at the Met and see how quickly they sell out knows what I'm talking about.

In any case, noting some other lists of composers -- in his book Phil Goulding places Wagner at 4, Digital Dream Door places Wagner at 4. If Mahler and Tchaikovsky make the second tier, theres no good reason Wagner shouldn't.


----------



## ManateeFL

chu42 said:


> OK, but a common trait among the greats is that they did everything well! Schubert had lieder, sonatas, chamber music, and symphonies of enduring popularity and high quality. So did Schumann. Every composer save Mahler in S and above has iconic works spanning multiple categories. You could make an argument for moving Mahler down but not Wagner up.
> 
> It is a testament to Wagner's influence and enduring popularity that he got as high of a ranking as he did with only opera, and polarizing opera at that.


Well, not really. There are plenty of great composers who didn't do EVERYTHING well, and quite a few who had their specialized areas: Berlioz, Chopin, Sibelius, Mahler, etc.

Versatility could be taken as a factor, but it shouldn't be given so much weight as to override all other determining factors.


----------



## Guest

chu42 said:


> That's surprising and also mildly insulting. I rarely ever frequent TC (look at my join date compared to my amount of posts) and your conclusion is a bit odd-I suspect Chopin is consistently more popular than Schumann.


I don't see what's even mildly insulting about saying that your top 3 tiers include composers that closely resemble those which tend to be thrown up in forum-based composer polls.



chu42 said:


> I disagree, and this is slightly contrary to your first statement, is it not? Brahms and Schubert are definitely not as popular with general audiences as Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, etc. And popularity is not the only factor here.


It depends on how you define "general audiences". If you mean people who only listen to the morning playlist schedules of "classic fm" type of radio stations, then you may be correct. But if you mean the type of people who participate in music forums such as this then I do not agree. As I said, Brahms and Schubert get far more attention, and are more generally highly rated in favourite composer polls.



chu42 said:


> I have never heard of either composer. I only ranked the composers I had listened to at least semi-regularly and the only ones missing are:
> 
> etc


This Forum has been hearing a great deal about Pettersson and Henze over recent months. I thought you might have stumbled across these two composers on your travels. I wonder if Paul Best (the strong advocate of these two composers) has seen this thread?


----------



## chu42

ManateeFL said:


> Well, not really. There are plenty of great composers who didn't do EVERYTHING well, and quite a few who had their specialized areas: Berlioz, Chopin, Sibelius, Mahler, etc.
> 
> Versatility could be taken as a factor, but it shouldn't be given so much weight as to override all other determining factors.


And all of them save Mahler are below Wagner, no? I referred specifically to S tier when I referred to those who were good in many genres. Versatility isn't the main factor here-the side product of versatility is popularity and influence in multiple genres.

And Liszt's influence is vastily underrated. He was an early spark in both Impressionism and serialism, he influenced Wagner tremendously with his chromaticism, he essentially invented the symphonic poem and he, with, Berlioz, made programmatic music legitimate. Not to mention his influence on keyboard technique itself, which is only rivalled by the likes of Beethoven and Bach. He isn't rated higher for the same reason as Wagner.

And I get that Wagner is popular, but it's absolutely less of a general popularity. You can't pretend that he's performed less _only_ because he's harder to set up. He sells well because he has many devoted fans-his opera is more love it/hate it than that of, say, Mozart. The fact is that he's not as loved as Puccini or Verdi-even in academic circles-but based on his influence and innovation I can't in good reason rank him lower.


----------



## chu42

Partita said:


> I don't see what's even mildly insulting about saying that your top 3 tiers include composers that closely resemble those which tend to be thrown up in forum-based composer polls.


Well the obvious implication here (even if no harm was meant) is that I took cursory glances at popularity polls instead of doing any actual...well, to be fair this list was not made seriously and it's more of a culmulation of musical impressions from a lot of books and videos over the years, so I guess I can't be offended by the idea that I didn't do any "real" research for this poll. All is well.



Partita said:


> It depends on how you define "general audiences". If you mean people who only listen to the morning playlist schedules of "classic fm" type of radio stations, then you may be correct. But if you mean the type of people who participate in music forums such as this then I do not agree. As I said, Brahms and Schubert get far more attention, and are more generally highly rated in favourite composer polls.


But a composer's popularity is not only defined by his/her more educated circles. There is surely academic evidence that Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, etc. are excellent composers and they also just happen to be more popular than Brahms or Schubert in the general public. So within the context of a tier ranking where both public and academic influence is taken into account, I see no issue with placing them with Brahms and Schubert.



Partita said:


> This Forum has been hearing a great deal about Pettersson and Henze over recent months. I thought you might have stumbled across these two composers on your travels. I wonder if Paul Best (the strong advocate of these two composers) has seen this thread?


I don't frequent this forum and when it comes to the more modern composers, I am not nearly the most knowledgeable. But thanks for introducing them-the best thing about this kind of thread is the spread of information.


----------



## chu42

Becca said:


> Measuring by number of plays is meaningless unless somehow you factor in the length of the works being played. Is one play of a Mahler symphony or Wagner opera really equivalent in any meaningful way to one Chopin piano work, etc.?


You're right, but I have a feeling that shorter works in general are still more popular...By that I mean that composers with easily accessible short works are more popular with the general public than those with exclusively long works (Wagner, Mahler, Berlioz etc).

Now Brahms/Schubert both have popular long works and short works as do the rest of S tier save Mahler so what you're saying isn't directly relevant anyways. I find no objective method of measuring popularity other than general view count on sites like Youtube.


----------



## Mifek

Partita said:


> I don't know what you mean by "general publicity polls".


I mean polls that involve as many voters as possible, so they are more likely to reflect the opinion of general publicity (rather than a view of a relatively small group of devoted fans or professionals).



Partita said:


> I referred to "general popularity" of the composers. I had in mind the results based on the plethora of "favourite composer" type of polls that have taken place here at T-C over many years.


This is ok, but you should be aware that TC is not representative neither for the general population nor for a much smaller group of people who consider themselves "music lovers". In other words, it is not difficult to notice that such composers like Brahms, Mahler, Vaughan Williams, Schönberg or Fauré (not to mention Schnittke, Lutosławski, Josquin, Hildegard, etc) receive disproportionately higher ratings on TC, while there is also another group of composers (including Tchaikovsky, Chopin and Vivaldi, among others) who seem to be significantly less valued by the TC community than by the "general public". I am not saying this is "good" or "bad". All I'm saying is that we need to keep in mind that such a difference does exist.



Partita said:


> Possibly you could point to any specific evidence you have that suggests that Chopin and Tchaikovsky are at least as highly rated as Brahms and Schubert.


Here are two examples:
https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/my-favorite-classical-composers-of-all-time
https://www.thetoptens.com/greatest-classical-composers/

Just go on the street and ask your average Joes which two of the four composers (Brahms, Schubert, Chopin and Tchaikovsky) they like the most. Asking 20 people should be enough. Unless you live in Germany or Austria, you will get Chopin and Tchaikovsky winning this poll by a large margin.


----------



## Bulldog

FWIW, here's my list of the top ten composers in no particular order:

Bach
Beethoven
Brahms
Chopin
Haydn
Mahler
Mozart
Schubert
Tchaikovsky
Wagner

The list is mainly based on my perception of general consensus with a little personal preference included.


----------



## Botschaft

Bulldog said:


> FWIW, here's my list of the top ten composers in no particular order:
> 
> Bach
> Beethoven
> Brahms
> Chopin
> Haydn
> Mahler
> Mozart
> Schubert
> Tchaikovsky
> Wagner
> 
> The list is mainly based on my perception of general consensus with a little personal preference included.


In no particular order? That's in alphabetic order.


----------



## Bulldog

Waldesnacht said:


> In no particular order? That's in alphabetic order.


You've got me on that one. :lol:


----------



## chu42

Bulldog said:


> FWIW, here's my list of the top ten composers in no particular order:
> 
> Bach
> Beethoven
> Brahms
> Chopin
> Haydn
> Mahler
> Mozart
> Schubert
> Tchaikovsky
> Wagner
> 
> The list is mainly based on my perception of general consensus with a little personal preference included.


Not a bad list at all but Handel/Rachmaninov ought to be in or near the top 10, perhaps replacing Wagner/Mahler. Wagner is hugely popular but this comes from something more resembling of a huge cult following (that I am a part of, by the way) than anything else, whereas we have a more general appreciation for figures like Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov.

My ranking is made with public popularity being a big factor but not the only factor, which is why you see people like Schönberg and Monteverdi at a relatively high standing and Chopin relatively low, that is, in comparison to their public standing.


----------



## Bulldog

chu42 said:


> Not a bad list at all but Handel/Rachmaninov ought to be in or near the top 10, perhaps replacing Wagner/Mahler. Wagner is hugely popular but this comes from something more resembling of a huge cult following (that I am a part of, by the way) than anything else, whereas we have a more general appreciation for figures like Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov.


Unlike you, I don't place much stock in the notion that great composers covered all or most of the classical genres.


----------



## Woodduck

chu42 said:


> *My ranking is made with public popularity being a big factor *but not the only factor, which is why you see people like Schönberg and Monteverdi at a relatively high standing and Chopin relatively low, that is, in comparison to their public standing.


At the beginning of this thread you said "I decided to have a little fun and create a composer tier list. Factors that went in included innovation, influence, and timelessness, with a little bit of personal bias going in-overall it's not that serious of a list."

Nothing about popularity there. Add that to your criteria, and it's pretty remarkable that you could come up with these rankings at all. What does it all really mean?


----------



## chu42

Bulldog said:


> Unlike you, I don't place much stock in the notion that great composers covered all or most of the classical genres.


I'm not saying that a composer can't be great unless he's versatile. I'm saying it's much harder for a composer to be great unless he's versatile. My S and A tier reflect this.

My thinking here is that their works can touch more people in more of a variety of ways. God knows there are thousands of people out there who love classical music but can't stand opera. In that case, Wagner does nothing for them.

And then there's the question of genius/talent. If Wagner is a seminal composer of opera, then what are we to make of Handel, who is brilliant in not only opera, but oratorio, chamber music, orchestral music, organ...the same and perhaps more can be said of Mozart.

Only by the popularity and innovation of Wagner can we even beg a comparison. At the end of the day, all these men were genii and far above us mere mortals but some are admittedly more talented than others.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> At the beginning of this thread you said "I decided to have a little fun and create a composer tier list. Factors that went in included innovation, influence, and timelessness, with a little bit of personal bias going in-overall it's not that serious of a list."
> 
> Nothing about popularity there. Add that to your criteria, and it's pretty remarkable that you could come up with these rankings at all. What does it all really mean?


You're absolutely right. You have just beaten me on timing as that was the very point I was going to make in the next few minutes. I won't bother posting it now.

All this stuff about the lists being based on a combination of influence, innovation etc, and now it seems with with popularity at the level of mass audiences thrown in, looks a very strange concoction.

I also agree with you that, even if the lists were compiled strictly in accordance with the criteria as stated in the OP, it would be virtually impossible to produce anything meaningful, except lists based on personal preference, since the stated criteria are not measurable in any objective way.


----------



## chu42

Woodduck said:


> At the beginning of this thread you said "I decided to have a little fun and create a composer tier list. Factors that went in included innovation, influence, and timelessness, with a little bit of personal bias going in-overall it's not that serious of a list."
> 
> Nothing about popularity there. Add that to your criteria, and it's pretty remarkable that you could come up with these rankings at all. What does it all really mean?


Timelessness=popularity. How well a composer sticks into the mind of the public in the past and the present. The music of any number of forgotten composers may have been well-written, creative, or intelligent, but if it is gone it is nothing.

And don't worry about why I came up with the list in the first place, just act like a normal forum member and quibble over these subjective and somewhat arbitrary tier rankings. Sometimes you just gotta have a bit of fun, even if it's not all too conducive of the art itself.

And if it seems a waste of time, you can let it be. It's just harmless fun-this sort of list didn't affect _my_ appreciation of these guys anyhow; I have favorites on every tier save F.


----------



## Woodduck

chu42 said:


> Timelessness=popularity. How well a composer sticks into the mind of the public in the past and the present. The music of any number of forgotten composers may have been great, but if it is gone it is nothing.
> 
> And don't worry about why I came up with the list in the first place, just act like a normal forum member and quibble over these subjective and somewhat arbitrary tier rankings. Sometimes you just gotta have a bit of fun, even if it's not all too conducive of the art itself.
> 
> And if it seems a waste of time, you can let it be. It's just harmless fun-this sort of list didn't affect _my_ appreciation of these guys anyhow; I have favorites on every tier save F.


Timelessness and popularity are not the same thing at all. But OK, if we're just having fun, I'll have a little fun and point out that, based on their statements and actions, Liszt, Brahms, Bruckner, Verdi, Mahler, Reger, Wolf, Puccini, Franck, Massenet, Chausson, Debussy, D'Indy, Rimsky-Korsakov, Sibelius, Strauss, Schoenberg and a very long list of other composers would definitely have put Wagner in category "S," and some of them may have been tempted to make the trio in category "S+" a quartet. Apparently they were hearing _something_...


----------



## chu42

hammeredklavier said:


> I can't believe putting one of JS Bach's biggest idols in F with Nietzsche, an amateur.
> Magnificat Fugues are direct precursors to the Well-Tempered Clavier:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and Hummel should be in A~B.
> 
> Hummel piano concertos:
> Op.85:
> 
> 
> 
> Op.89:
> 
> 
> 
> Op.113:
> 
> 
> 
> 24 Etudes Op.125, 24 Preludes Op.67
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was written in the same year as Beethoven's Eroica and became inspiration for Chopin's 4th Ballade, which would be written like 37 years later. Listen from 4:00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Early Romanticism, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, Schubert ( at least in keyboard genres ) wouldn't have been possible without Hummel:
> https://www.earlymusicamerica.org/files/EMagSummer07Hummel.pdf
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f4f0/c00e3e7848dae4d0f94335502b7a332fd117.pdf


Pachelbel is of high quality. I already explained why I jokingly put him in F. He would be C at best because of the (undeserved) obscurity of his other works.

I'm well aware of Hummel's quality, I have performed his very concerti. Doesn't change public opinion about him, which is next to nothing. He could stand to be a higher up due to his influence, however.

What I don't get is the idea that Mendelssohn etc.. would not have been possible without a predecessor like Hummel. Mendelssohn wasn't great because he was influenced by Hummel, he was great because he was a genius. If Hummel didn't exist then Mendelssohn's music would be different, but would it be worse...? You're basically telling me that if Mendelssohn was born before Hummel he would've not produced anything of value. There's always a great who came before. Hummel is in debt to Clementi, Haydn, Bach, Monteverdi, Tallis...it goes on to almost ad infinitum. The only complete original composer is the one who invents his own music without listening to others first.


----------



## chu42

Woodduck said:


> Well, OK, if we're just having fun, I'll have a little fun and point out that, based on their statements and actions, Liszt, Brahms, Bruckner, Verdi, Mahler, Reger, Wolf, Puccini, Franck, Massenet, Chausson, Debussy, D'Indy, Rimsky-Korsakov, Sibelius, Strauss, Schoenberg and a very long list of other composers would definitely have put Wagner in category "S," and some of them may have been tempted to make the trio in category "S+" a quartet. Apparently they were hearing _something_...


Now that is a fun response.

But we can scratch out Brahms and Verdi. Brahms secretly liked Wagner's music but to put him in S is something he would not do. Not sure why Verdi was listed there at all...

And you fail to mention that there are an equal if not higher amount of critics and ccomposers from the 19th/early 20th century who would've put Wagner in F tier. Every Jewish composer, that's for sure, along with both Schumanns, von Bülow, Hanslick, every opera buffa composer, the list goes on....

And it's not fair to assume composers who came after Wagner would've rated him S because that's the direction music went. Would it be fair of me to assume that almost every Classical, Gallant, and Baroque composer would've despised Wagner as a degenerate?

Not sure what's the fuss about Wagner about being high A tier instead of S tier. He's a great if you ask me, but to elevate his influence to S tier is to devalue the influence of Liszt, Schönberg and Stravinsky.

And why's the disagreement over timelessness here? The tastes of the public change through time, so the ability of music to stay within public taste (i.e._popularity_) through periods of time is a measure of how timeless a work is. This goes for any kind of art. What's your definition of timelessness?


----------



## Guest

Mifek said:


> I mean polls that involve as many voters as possible, so they are more likely to reflect the opinion of general publicity (rather than a view of a relatively small group of devoted fans or professionals).
> 
> This is ok, but you should be aware that TC is not representative neither for the general population nor for a much smaller group of people who consider themselves "music lovers". In other words, it is not difficult to notice that such composers like Brahms, Mahler, Vaughan Williams, Schönberg or Fauré (not to mention Schnittke, Lutosławski, Josquin, Hildegard, etc) receive disproportionately higher ratings on TC, while there is also another group of composers (including Tchaikovsky, Chopin and Vivaldi, among others) who seem to be significantly less valued by the TC community than by the "general public". I am not saying this is "good" or "bad". All I'm saying is that we need to keep in mind that such a difference does exist.
> 
> Here are two examples:
> https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/my-favorite-classical-composers-of-all-time
> https://www.thetoptens.com/greatest-classical-composers/
> 
> Just go on the street and ask your average Joes which two of the four composers (Brahms, Schubert, Chopin and Tchaikovsky) they like the most. Asking 20 people should be enough. Unless you live in Germany or Austria, you will get Chopin and Tchaikovsky winning this poll by a large margin.


As I stated previously, I accept that the opinions of people who come to classical music forums such as this probably differ in the aggregate from those of more casual listeners of classical music.

However, reference to the opinions of what "average Joes" think was not relevant at the time I made my comment which you picked up on. The OP was talking about the construction of "tiers" of composers based on factors such as influence, innovation etc. He said that his choices were part-influenced by his own preferences, but he did not say that his choices were influenced by his understanding of the opinions of "average Joes".

My comment in post #34 regarding the "general popularity" of certain composers was clearly in the context of forum based polls, as you will see if you care to go back to re-read what I wrote in that post. As ought to be perfectly clear, I was not referring to the opinions of "average Joes".

Regarding my opinion that the forum-based rating of Brahms and Schubert suggests that they could be included in their own group, I think you will see that this is the case if you care to delve into the detailed results of the last main favourite composer poll (Top 10 composers). This took place in February 2019, and you participated in it, along with many others. If you care to look at the detailed results, I think you will find that there were far more votes for each of Brahms and Schubert than there were for Chopin, Tchaikovsky, and Rachmaninov. As far as I can recall, the same results occurred in several previous T-C polls.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

A lot of the questions I'd have about placements have already been addressed by others, and so I won't bring them up again, but here are two questions I'd like you to answer:

Why is Rachmaninoff in S tier? (should be in low A / high B)
Why would you put Faure in low B tier? (should probably be in A tier, or at least high B tier)


----------



## chu42

Partita said:


> As I stated previously, I accept that the opinions of people who come to classical music forums such as this probably differ in the aggregate from those of more casual listeners of classical music.
> 
> However, reference to the opinions of what "average Joes" think was not relevant at the time I made my comment which you picked up on. The OP was talking about the construction of "tiers" of composers based on factors such as influence, innovation etc. He said that his choices were part-influenced by his own preferences, but he did not say that his choices were influenced by his understanding of the opinions of "average Joes".
> 
> My comment in post #34 regarding the "general popularity" of certain composers was clearly in the context of forum based polls, as you will see if you care to go back to re-read what I wrote in that post.
> 
> Regarding my opinion that the forum-based rating of Brahms and Schubert suggests that they could be included in their own group, I think you will see that this is the case if you care to delve into the detailed results of the last main favourite composer poll (Top 10 composers). This took place in February 2019, and you you participated in it, along with many others. If you care to look at the detailed results I think you will find that there were far more votes for each of Brahms and Schubert than there were for Chopin, Tchaikovsky, and Rachmaninov. As far as I can recall, the same result occurred in previous polls.


Perhaps I didn't specify properly, but my understanding was that timelessness is soldered to the public's ability to appreciate works over time. The present public opinion of a hundred year old work is certainly a measure of it's timelessness. This isn't applicable to newer works where the culture of today is not significantly different from the culture of the time of composition.

This definition of timelessness goes for any kind of art, literature, film, etc.


----------



## chu42

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> A lot of the questions I'd have about placements have already been addressed by others, and so I won't bring them up again, but here are two questions I'd like you to answer:
> 
> Why is Rachmaninoff in S tier? (should be in low A / high B)
> Why would you put Faure in low B tier? (should probably be in A tier, or at least high B tier)


Objectively, you will not be able to find public/academic consensus that Fauré is as great or as popular as Rachmaninov.

Subjectively, Fauré's music is beautiful but to my ears it doesn't seem as or as consistently moving. He didn't always orchestrate his own music and his piano works are not nearly as complex or well-crafted. With that being said, his music is still very intelligent in its own right.

Based on his later works I could definitely see him veering towards Scriabin in rank. Rachmaninov isn't going anywhere though, he's too much of a giant pretty much everywhere.


----------



## Guest

chu42 said:


> Perhaps I didn't specify properly, but my understanding was that timelessness is soldered to the public's ability to appreciate works over time. The present public opinion of a hundred year old work is certainly a measure of it's timelessness. This isn't applicable to newer works where the culture of today is not significantly different from the culture of the time of composition.
> 
> This definition of timelessness goes for any kind of art, literature, film, etc.


So, by "timelessness" you meant the public's ability to appreciate works over time, or what might perhaps be more aptly called "lasting popularity".

It's still not clear what you mean by "public". I had assumed initially, perhaps wrongly, that you meant the opinions of that segment of the population whose main interest in the music area is classical music, rather than the largest possible coverage that includes just about anyone who may happen to like a piece of classical music but whose knowledge and familiarity with classical music beyond that is non-existent.

Since the results will be highly sensitive with respect to one's definition of the relevant audience, it's not surprising that some confusion has emerged in some of the discussion so far. If your intended audience coverage is very wide, then it seems to involve a very complex set of weightings in order to do justice to all of the considerations you list. Personally, I wouldn't know where to start. If on the other hand your intended audience is very much narrower, the simplest solution might be to look at poll based results. There have been many of these, all saying much the same thing each time.


----------



## Woodduck

chu42 said:


> Now that is a fun response.
> 
> But we can scratch out Brahms and Verdi. Brahms secretly liked Wagner's music but to put him in S is something he would not do. Not sure why Verdi was listed there at all...


Brahms was conflicted about Wagner because their artistic philosophies were so different and because their followers made such a fuss (which Brahms came to regret somewhat). But he knew very well what a huge game-changer Wagner was, studied his music eagerly, and even wanted to attend the Bayreuth festival, avoiding it only so as not to provoke a scene. In private, he once half-jokingly called himself "the best of Wagnerians."

Verdi, asked about Wagner late in life, expressed the highest admiration for him, and said of _Tristan und Isolde_ that he stood in awe of it, almost unable to believe that it was composed by a human being. Add to that the undeniable influence of Wagner in transforming Verdi's own operatic style, beginning in the 1850s when Wagner's works began to be heard in Italy.

Neither Verdi nor Brahms was given to hyperbole, so their tributes are significant.



> And you fail to mention that there are an equal if not higher amount of critics and ccomposers from the 19th/early 20th century who would've put Wagner in F tier. Every Jewish composer, that's for sure, along with both Schumanns, von Bülow, Hanslick, every opera buffa composer, the list goes on....


Equal if not higher? Where do you get that information? I'll wager any amount that you're way off. And why would you assume that Jewish composers would rate Wagner's music poorly? Mahler's fanatical devotion to it is legendary; he said, ""There are only him [Beethoven] and Richard [Wagner] - and after them, nobody" (I assume that "nobody" included even himself). Mahler was keenly aware of Wagner's antisemitic statements, but as a musician he knew what he was hearing. Schoenberg attended every Wagner performance he could, and began as a thoroughly Wagner-saturated composer. Berg (not Jewish, but close to Schoenberg) remained Wagner-saturated. Goldmark, Korngold, Schreker, Zemlinsky, Herrmann, Waxman... Doesn't the idea that being Jewish should determine one's musical judgments strike you as - I beg your pardon - rather racist?

Schumann didn't live long enough to hear Wagner's mature works. Clara was very conservative (she found _Tristan_ "disgusting," which gives us a pretty good indication of her limitations). Bulow was a proponent of Wagner's works who only soured a bit after Cosima left him. Hanslick (a critic, not a composer) was a notorious reactionary who gradually acknowledged Wagner and would probably have come round completely if he'd lived to be 200... :lol:



> And it's not fair to assume composers who came after Wagner would've rated him S because that's the direction music went. Would it be fair of me to assume that almost every Classical, Gallant, and Baroque composer would've despised Wagner as a degenerate?


There's a difference between what has actually happened and what "might have" happened if history had been different. Such hypotheticals are unanswerable and absurd. No serious composer (or scholar) of stature now disputes Wagner's importance.



> Not sure what's the fuss about Wagner about being high A tier instead of S tier. He's a great if you ask me, but to elevate his influence to S tier is to devalue the influence of Liszt, Schönberg and Stravinsky.


It isn't to devalue anyone. But his influence was as great as anyone's - greater, if we look beyond music to the culture as a whole (there are threads on this very subject). I'll only say here that Wagner is the only composer to cause such a stir in society, even after his death, that he had an "ism" attached to his name.



> And why's the disagreement over timelessness here? The tastes of the public change through time, so the ability of music to stay within public taste (i.e._popularity_) through periods of time is a measure of how timeless a work is. This goes for any kind of art. What's your definition of timelessness?


"Popularity" is a matter of numbers. "Timelessness" is a matter of durability. They tend to overlap, but are not the same.


----------



## Mifek

Partita said:


> Regarding my opinion that the forum-based rating of Brahms and Schubert suggests that they could be included in their own group, I think you will see that this is the case if you care to delve into the detailed results of the last main favourite composer poll (Top 10 composers). This took place in February 2019, and you participated in it, along with many others. If you care to look at the detailed results, I think you will find that there were far more votes for each of Brahms and Schubert than there were for Chopin, Tchaikovsky, and Rachmaninov. As far as I can recall, the same results occurred in several previous T-C polls.


Have I ever claimed that any poll (or game) among the TC members showed Tchaikovsky and Chopin to be valued equally to Brahms and Schubert? It was just the opposite - what I clearly stated in my previous post was that the relatively small TC community evidently differes in this respect from the overall community of classical music lovers, as demonstrated by the results of two internet polls on much larger samples.

I admit that it was indeed my fault that I didn't notice how much attention you paid to the polls (or to a game) in which some TC members took part. However, when you asked me what I meant by "general publicity polls", I made it very clear that I meant something else than the TC poll/game. Based on the examples I have shown to you, it should be clear by now that for the general public of classical music lovers both Tchaikovsky and Chopin are ranked a bit higher than Brahms and Schubert, so when ranking composers based on "general popularity", one should not place the latter two in a higher tire. I hope you won't have any problems with agreeing with this.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Brahms was conflicted about Wagner because their artistic philosophies were so different and because their followers made such a fuss...


Actually, Brahms hated Wagner because Richard let Johannes's darkest secret out of the bag: The owner of classical music's best beard hated cats. Brahms would sit by his window with a crossbow that Dvořák had given him and shoot arrows at the cats in the street. Once he'd speared a cat, he would reel it in like he was fishing. Brahms would listen to the sounds the cats made as they expired, and he'd incorporate the sounds into his music.

Some people think Wagner was making this up, but The Guardian saw fit to repeat his claim.


----------



## Bulldog

chu42 said:


> Rachmaninov isn't going anywhere though, he's too much of a giant pretty much everywhere.


Maybe he is a giant. Hollywood did very well by him, and lovers of lush/romantic music eat him up. However, there are many folks not in that category to whom Rachmaninov is not so special.

Personally, I love much of his solo piano music and his 3rd piano concerto. The remainder doesn't hold significant interest for me. Given that solo keyboard is my favorite genre, I'd likely place Rachmaninov somewhere in my top forty but nowhere near top ten.


----------



## Woodduck

Bulldog said:


> Maybe he is a giant. Hollywood did very well by him, and lovers of lush/romantic music eat him up. However, there are many folks not in that category to whom Rachmaninov is not so special.
> 
> Personally, I love much of his solo piano music and his 3rd piano concerto. The remainder doesn't hold significant interest for me. Given that solo keyboard is my favorite genre, I'd likely place Rachmaninov somewhere in my top forty but nowhere near top ten.


Rachmaninoff maintained a very high standard in most of his works (he never really got the hang of opera, though he wrote several, but he's in good company there). I love his music, and he's certainly proved popular and durable, but he isn't very important to the development of music. If that's a major criterion, he shouldn't be higher than about the middle of these rankings.

A criterion that hasn't been mentioned is _expressive range,_ i.e., how many qualities of feeling does a composer succeed in communicating, and how resourceful is he in finding new forms to meet new expressive needs. A composer who seems to be saying more or less the same thing over and over from work to work should certainly rank lower than one whose expressive and stylistic range is greater. I think Rachmaninoff's range is fairly narrow - narrower than, say, Tchaikovsky's.


----------



## KenOC

This recording is probably the most accurate remembrance we have of how Rachmaninoff played his own works. I was very surprised by his taste, attention to detail, and restraint. Quite a classical fellow, really.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Actually, Brahms hated Wagner because Richard let Johannes's darkest secret out of the bag: The owner of classical music's best beard hated cats. Brahms would sit by his window with a crossbow that Dvořák had given him and shoot arrows at the cats in the street. Once he'd speared a cat, he would reel it in like he was fishing. Brahms would listen to the sounds the cats made as they expired, and he'd incorporate the sounds into his music.
> 
> Some people think Wagner was making this up, but The Guardian saw fit to repeat his claim.


"Actually" may be a slight exaggeration...


----------



## tdc

My attempt at a somewhat objective top twenty:

1. J.S. Bach
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Debussy
5. Brahms
6. Wagner
7. Haydn
8. Monteverdi
9. Ravel
10. Bartok
11. Chopin
12. Schubert
13. Handel
14. Schumann 
15. Prokofiev
16. Stravinsky
17. Mahler 
18. Tchaikovsky
19. Vivaldi
20. Liszt


----------



## Phil loves classical

tdc said:


> My attempt at a somewhat objective top twenty:
> 
> 1. J.S. Bach
> 2. Mozart
> 3. Beethoven
> 4. Debussy
> 5. Brahms
> 6. Wagner
> 7. Haydn
> 8. Monteverdi
> 9. Ravel
> 10. Bartok
> 11. Chopin
> 12. Schubert
> 13. Handel
> 14. Schumann
> 15. Prokofiev
> 16. Stravinsky
> 17. Mahler
> 18. Tchaikovsky
> 19. Vivaldi
> 20. Liszt


Good list. I'd drop Brahms down several notches (ok maybe only a few), and raise Prokofiev and Stravinsky up above Haydn and Monteverdi, and Liszt above Chopin. Love Debussy in top 10 but not top 5.


----------



## Xisten267

chu42 said:


> View attachment 122983
> 
> 
> I decided to have a little fun and create a composer tier list. *Factors that went in included innovation, influence, and timelessness*, with a little bit of personal bias going in-overall it's not that serious of a list.
> Also, a lot of guys I don't really listen to have taken high spots while some obscure guys I like a lot may have lower spots. All of the composers on this list, high or low, deserve a chance. I hope that everybody can find some jewels among the low-tier obscure guys.
> 
> But F tier is literally just spite. I'm aware that Pachelbel has some decent compositions but Canon in D has done its damage...


An interesting exercise, but by the criteria of innovation, influence and timelessness, Richard Wagner certainly should be at the S+ tier.

Also, by the same criteria, Vivaldi ought to be at least as high as Handel - after all, he advanced the technical possibilies of the violin, was one of the first very famous composers to make cello sonatas, created one of the earliest sets of programmatic music that has widespread recognition today, and was one of the most important early exponents of the solo concerto.


----------



## Xisten267

Josquin, anyone? Or Machaut, Ockeghem, Gesualdo, Byrd...? Great music didn't begin with Monteverdi.


----------



## chu42

Bulldog said:


> Maybe he is a giant. Hollywood did very well by him, and lovers of lush/romantic music eat him up. However, there are many folks not in that category to whom Rachmaninov is not so special.
> 
> Personally, I love much of his solo piano music and his 3rd piano concerto. The remainder doesn't hold significant interest for me. Given that solo keyboard is my favorite genre, I'd likely place Rachmaninov somewhere in my top forty but nowhere near top ten.


As a pianist, solo keyboard is my genre as well. I play and listen to far more Liszt, Schumann, and Chopin than I do Rachmaninov but I can't help but marvel at what he was able to do not only at the keyboard but with other instruments. I don't listen to him so much anymore because he is overplayed but this is so for a reason. The public simply can't get enough of Rach...


----------



## chu42

Allerius said:


> An interesting exercise, but by the criteria of innovation, influence and timelessness, Richard Wagner certainly should be at the S+ tier.
> 
> Also, by the same criteria, Vivaldi ought to be at least as high as Handel - after all, he advanced the technical possibilies of the violin, was one of the first very famous composers to make cello sonatas, created one of the earliest sets of programmatic music that has widespread recognition today, and was one of the most important early exponents of the solo concerto.


Perhaps you guys are right. I had been ranking Wagner lower because of his influence in only one genre but the fact is that he was so influential in one genre that it pretty much transcended to all genres.

But Vivaldi? Compared with Biber and Locatelli, Vivaldi was a conservative on the violin. His cello pieces were certainly influential but largely overshadowed by the later Boccherini.

And if we get into genres other than that of stringed instruments his influence begins to decline. Many of his operas have not survived and the ones that have are nowhere near as popular (nor as well written) as the operas of Handel. Even if Handel had exclusively written oratorios and opera he would still be revered as a great, yet he has many other fine pieces to speak of.


----------



## chu42

Allerius said:


> Josquin, anyone? Or Machaut, Ockeghem, Gesualdo, Byrd...? Great music didn't begin with Monteverdi.


I'm well aware. I have been on a Hildegard binge for the past few weeks. I chose not to include Rennaisance and Medieval composers because the list would be far too large and it is already convoluted enough as it is.

Great music did not begin with anyone. It's impossible to find a cutoff point if we do not limit the eras.


----------



## Woodduck

I suspect that most here - like me - simply haven't explored Medieval and Renaissance music enough, or that its idioms are too foreign to us, to allow us to feel comfortable rating most of it. I do know that whenever I listen to Josquin I'm greatly impressed with its creativeness and strength, much more than with a lot of Renaissance music. With most polyphonic masses, however lovely they sound, I'm ready to quit about halfway through.


----------



## chu42

Woodduck said:


> I suspect that most here - like me - simply haven't explored Medieval and Renaissance music enough, or that its idioms are too foreign to us, to allow us to feel comfortable rating most of it. I do know that whenever I listen to Josquin I'm greatly impressed with its creativeness and strength, much more than with a lot of Renaissance music. With most polyphonic masses, however lovely they sound, I'm ready to quit about halfway through.


Try some masses of Carlos Gesualdo. They're often....unconventional, to say the least.


----------



## PlaySalieri

KenOC said:


> Actually, Brahms hated Wagner because Richard let Johannes's darkest secret out of the bag: The owner of classical music's best beard hated cats. Brahms would sit by his window with a crossbow that Dvořák had given him and shoot arrows at the cats in the street. Once he'd speared a cat, he would reel it in like he was fishing. Brahms would listen to the sounds the cats made as they expired, and he'd incorporate the sounds into his music.
> 
> Some people think Wagner was making this up, but The Guardian saw fit to repeat his claim.


yeah the Guardian also debunks it - source of Wagner's original comment cant be identified


----------



## Mifek

Here is how I see a top 10 list that would more or less reflect the view of the TC community or any other _heterogenous_ group of devoted fans of classical music:

Bach
Beethoven
Mozart
Brahms
Wagner
Schubert
Haydn
Mahler
Handel
Debussy

And here is how I see a _more objective_ top 10 list that tries to take into account the opinion of the overwhelming majority of all classical music listeners (while still appreciating at least some great composers who would otherwise struggle to get to this short list).

Beethoven
Mozart
Bach
Wagner
Tchaikovsky
Chopin
Schubert
Brahms
Debussy
Vivaldi

And, just for a record, here is the top 10 list of my personal favorites, so you can evaluate to what extent my above suggestions might be biased:

Bach
Chopin
Beethoven
Tchaikovsky
Prokofiev
Mozart
Schubert
Brahms
Shostakovich
Vivaldi


----------



## Guest

Mifek said:


> Here is how I see a top 10 list that would more or less reflect the view of the TC community or any other _heterogenous_ group of devoted fans of classical music:
> 
> Bach
> Beethoven
> Mozart
> Brahms
> Wagner
> Schubert
> Haydn
> Mahler
> Handel
> Debussy
> 
> And here is how I see a _more objective_ top 10 list that tries to take into account the opinion of the overwhelming majority of all classical music listeners (while still appreciating at least some great composers who would otherwise struggle to get to this short list).
> 
> Beethoven
> Mozart
> Bach
> Wagner
> Tchaikovsky
> Chopin
> Schubert
> Brahms
> Debussy
> Vivaldi


Looking at each list in turn:

The TC List

Based on my recollection of several past "favourite composer" polls, I think that Wagner has usually appeared below Brahms, Schubert and Mahler.

Another quite regular feature of TC composer polls has been a "bunching" of several composers around the same or very similar scores, so that the perceived differences in votes between them are not statistically significant. Hence the differences in "ranks" are more apparent than real.

The bunching varies somewhat from poll to poll but typically includes Wagner, Haydn, and Tchaikovsky in joint 7th slots. Beyond this there was usually a further bunching of several composers - including Sibelius, Shostakovich, Dvorak, Debussy, Handel, Chopin - where it is similarly not possible to say with any confidence that any one is higher rated than another.

Your "Overwhelming Majority" list

Presumably you have taken into account the information in the polls that you referred to previously, i.e "Ranker" and "The Top Tens".

These must surely be of dubious value. They're anonymous and anyone could vote on these polls, including people who know next to nothing about classical music, or who have extremely limited interests. Faced with such problems, I am sceptical of their usefulness to say the least.

On the list you have given, I'm a little surprised that you have kept Wagner in 4th spot (as in the previous list), and yet in both of these other polls Wagner's poll rating is much lower. In one of them he doesn't appear at all, and in the other he is in 17th position. So it's curious that you appear not to have taken this into account.

Possibly you have looked at other sources as well. You haven't said so but you may have been looking at Phil Goulding's list where he places Wagner at No 4. Remember that this was a sample based on one contributor, namely himself. As mentioned earlier by another member, Digital Dream Door also placed Wagner in the same No 4 position, but it should be noted they very largely followed the Goulding list, with all selections being finally determined by the forum's moderator.


----------



## Xisten267

chu42 said:


> But Vivaldi? Compared with Biber and Locatelli, Vivaldi was a conservative on the violin. His cello pieces were certainly influential but largely overshadowed by the later Boccherini.


Perhaps, but this does not remove his credit for being one of the pioneers of the instrument. Also, the music of Biber, Locatelli and Boccherini seems to have a much smaller demand than that of Vivaldi nowadays: worldwide, the searches for the Red Priest on google in the past twelve months were twenty four times more frequent than those for these other three composers _together_, as you can see *on Google Trends*. This suggests me that at least in terms of the "timelessness", Vivaldi is in his own level when compared to these three.



chu42 said:


> And if we get into genres other than that of stringed instruments his influence begins to decline. Many of his operas have not survived and the ones that have are nowhere near as popular *(nor as well written)* as the operas of Handel. Even if Handel had exclusively written oratorios and opera he would still be revered as a great, *yet he has many other fine pieces to speak of*.


Well, I may have a bias towards Vivaldi then, because a have some collections of arias by both composers and, frankly, I have a remarkable preference for the venetian. Handel has some beautiful arias such as the very popular _Ombra mai fu_, but I've never found something as touching by him (to me at least) as Vivaldi's _Sovente il sole_. That aria is in the same league as some of the greatest baroque arias such as _Erbarme dich_ in my opinion. In the field of oratorios Handel may be the one to call the shots, but nevertheless IMO Vivaldi's _Juditha Triumphans_ has some great moments aswell. And some sacred pieces of the Red Priest such as the _Gloria_ and the _Lauda Jerusalem_ top Handel in terms of intensity in my perspective. Also, of course Handel has his innovative organ concertos, but Vivaldi also has his innovative cello compositions.






If is true that Handel has fine pieces of music outside of his main genres of composition (opera and oratorio), the same can be said about Vivaldi aswell in my opinion, at least considering what I know of the music of both composers.


----------



## Xisten267

chu42 said:


> I'm well aware. I have been on a Hildegard binge for the past few weeks. I chose not to include Rennaisance and Medieval composers because the list would be far too large and it is already convoluted enough as it is.
> 
> *Great music did not begin with anyone. It's impossible to find a cutoff point if we do not limit the eras.*


We couldn't know for sure, for much of what was producted from the times of Hildegard and before didn't make it to our days. Even if it's true that there's no cutoff point for great music, certainly there is for great music _that we can listen today_.


----------



## Xisten267

Woodduck said:


> I suspect that most here - like me - simply haven't explored Medieval and Renaissance music enough, or that its idioms are too foreign to us, to allow us to feel comfortable rating most of it. I do know that whenever I listen to Josquin I'm greatly impressed with its creativeness and strength, much more than with a lot of Renaissance music. With most polyphonic masses, however lovely they sound, I'm ready to quit about halfway through.


I'm in no way an expert of early music, but I occasionally explore it and have found some bits of music here and there that I like. My last substantial discoveries were Ockeghen's _Missa pro Defunctis_ and Byrd's _Mass for Four Voices_.

I don't know Carlo Gesualdo's masses yet, but I do like some of his late madrigals. My favorite at the moment is _Moro Lasso_, a subtle yet very intense and troubled, dark piece of early music in my opinion.


----------



## PlaySalieri

I think if Wagner is to be rated 4

I would like to propose that Mozart should certainly be no 1.

Why?

Wagner only produced opera. Was he a more important opera composer than Mozart? 

One cant imagine a world without The Ring - but then it's scarcely less unthinkable to have a world without the daponte operas and Zauberflote.

So a 1 genre composer can make it to position 4.

neither Beethoven or Bach will go down in history as major opera composers - and yet Mozart excelled in all the areas bach and Beethoven mastered.

he has the edge though - based of Wagner's ranking of 4 - the weighting put on being a great opera composer should be sufficient to give Mozart the top spot.

But of course no 4 for Wagner is just too high.


----------



## chu42

Allerius said:


> Perhaps, but this does not remove his credit for being one of the pioneers of the instrument. Also, the music of Biber, Locatelli and Boccherini seems to have a much smaller demand than that of Vivaldi nowadays: worldwide, the searches for the Red Priest on google in the past twelve months were twenty four times more frequent than those for these other three composers


You are right that Vivaldi is far more popular than the others- which is partially why he is ranked so much higher than them.



Allerius said:


> Well, I may have a bias towards Vivaldi then, because a have some collections of arias by both composers and, frankly, I have a remarkable preference for the venetian. Handel has some beautiful arias such as the very popular _Ombra mai fu_, but I've never found something as touching by him (to me at least) as Vivaldi's _Sovente il sole_. That aria is in the same league as some of the greatest baroque arias such as _Erbarme dich_ in my opinion. In the field of oratorios Handel may be the one to call the shots, but nevertheless IMO Vivaldi's _Juditha Triumphans_ has some great moments aswell. And some sacred pieces of the Red Priest such as the _Gloria_ and the *Lauda Jerusalem* top Handel in terms of intensity in my perspective. Also, of course Handel has his innovative organ concertos, but Vivaldi also has his innovative cello compositions.
> 
> If is true that Handel has fine pieces of music outside of his main genres of composition (opera and oratorio), the same can be said about Vivaldi as well in my opinion.


Vivaldi has some fine choral pieces, but to the general public he is largely unknown in that category. If Vivaldi is Handel's equal in their respective categories (concertos vs. opera), Vivaldi surely does not have the same standing as Handel in their subsequent categories, even if we lump in oratorio with opera for Handel. Handel's keyboard suites, violin sonatas, chamber music, organ concerti...the list goes on.

I think Vivaldi is in a great position. He stands among Stravinsky, R. Strauss, Berlioz, and other such pioneers. He also stands quite close Chopin who similarly has taken the world with a single instrument.


----------



## Xisten267

chu42 said:


> You are right that Vivaldi is far more popular than the others- which is partially why he is ranked so much higher than them.
> 
> Vivaldi has some fine choral pieces, but to the general public he is largely unknown in that category. If Vivaldi is Handel's equal in their respective categories (concertos vs. opera), Vivaldi surely does not have the same standing as Handel in their subsequent categories, even if we lump in oratorio with opera for Handel. Handel's keyboard suites, violin sonatas, chamber music, organ concerti...the list goes on.
> 
> I think Vivaldi is in a great position. He stands among Stravinsky, R. Strauss, Berlioz, and other such pioneers. He also stands quite close Chopin who similarly has taken the world with a single instrument.


I accept that Vivaldi can't match Handel in terms of keyboard music, but he has some beautiful violin sonatas aswell, those from his Op. 1 being a good example in my opinion, and also some very interesting chamber concerti, at least to my ears.

Talking about the list, Vivaldi belonging to the _A_ category is OK to me. It's Handel at _S_ that I would change.


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> I think if Wagner is to be rated 4
> 
> I would like to propose that Mozart should certainly be no 1.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Wagner only produced opera. Was he a more important opera composer than Mozart?
> 
> One cant imagine a world without The Ring - but then it's scarcely less unthinkable to have a world without the daponte operas and Zauberflote.
> 
> So a 1 genre composer can make it to position 4.
> 
> neither Beethoven or Bach will go down in history as major opera composers - and yet Mozart excelled in all the areas bach and Beethoven mastered.
> 
> he has the edge though - based of Wagner's ranking of 4 - the weighting put on being a great opera composer should be sufficient to give Mozart the top spot.
> 
> But of course no 4 for Wagner is just too high.


I wouldn't quarrel with anyone's placing Mozart at #1. But I don't think Wagner should have anything to do with it. Both were masters of opera - but there's opera, and then there's opera...

I think Wagner presents a unique problem; he's difficult to place on these "ranking" lists for several reasons: 1.) He wrote little besides opera, although the _Wesendonck Songs_ and the _Siegfried Idyll_ are much-loved; 2.) a fair percentage of music listeners don't listen to, or even enjoy, opera; 3.) his operas are generally long and complex and thus, for many, intimidating; 4.) for some people, his reputation in matters non-musical is an impediment to enjoying his music. But most important would be 5.) his operas are feats of musical/dramatic/philosophical imagination without precedent, visionary masterpieces to which few, if any, artworks in any field, including music, can be compared.

I'm not fond of attempts to "rank" composers in any but the roughest way, and I don't know, or care, where Wagner "should" stand. I'm content to leave Bach, Mozart and Beethoven as a triumvirate at the top of the heap as "pure composers." But as an extraordinary creative mind who did things unique, significant and enduring, and who by doing so had a huge impact on the world of music and beyond, I don't think Wagner takes a back seat to anyone. Pushed to rank him, I'll gladly agree with those who place him at #4.


----------



## Xisten267

stomanek said:


> I think if Wagner is to be rated 4
> 
> I would like to propose that Mozart should certainly be no 1.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Wagner only produced opera. Was he a more important opera composer than Mozart?
> 
> One cant imagine a world without The Ring - but then it's scarcely less unthinkable to have a world without the daponte operas and Zauberflote.
> 
> So a 1 genre composer can make it to position 4.
> 
> neither Beethoven or Bach will go down in history as major opera composers - and yet Mozart excelled in all the areas bach and Beethoven mastered.
> 
> he has the edge though - based of Wagner's ranking of 4 - the weighting put on being a great opera composer should be sufficient to give Mozart the top spot.
> 
> But of course no 4 for Wagner is just too high.


Wagner's dramas were a game changer for the world of music as a whole, not only to the genre of opera. Subsequent composers of any genre, liking or not his music, had to react to them. The possibilities opened by his operas even paved the way for a (then) completely new kind of music: the movie soundtrack. The same can't be said about Mozart operas. I think that they are great, but their importance didn't extrapolate their field.

As I see it, Mozart didn't invent something crucial to the history of music like Wagner did - what he did was to develop, to perfect what came before him to what in my opinion is the zenith of the music of his time.

I like lists and think that they're fun to make and see, and that's why I'm trying to participate here. I don't think I have any more problem with rankings than anybody else. That said, Wagner would stand at #1 or #2 in a list of favorite composers of mine, ahead of Mozart (a composer I also love).


----------



## Swosh

Chopin is an S for me.


----------



## Guest

This entire discussion is somewhat confused because it's not clear whether we're supposed to be discussing the composers we believe are the "greatest" composers, or those who happen to be our personal favourites, either long term or currently. Clearly, the two categories are not the same.

Some of the comments regarding Wagner, and whether he merits the No 4 slot, seem to relate mainly to his innovations and influence, which are of course attributes of greatness. It's quite possible to consider Wagner to be among the greatest composers based on such considerations and yet not be attracted to his work, either because of a dislike of opera in general or because of a preference for another style of opera.

I think that this notion of Wagner meriting rank No 4 is quite without foundation, anyway. This rating is not supported by any of the many TC composer polls that I can recall seeing over many years. He usually comes out several notches further down the top 10, and has occasionally dropped into the low teens. Nor does there appear to be any evidence to support such a high position from the more popular based polls that were alluded to in a previous post. e.g. "Ranker" and "Top Ten". I have also looked at the UK's "Classic FM _Hall of Fame_" results over recent years and there's little Wagner.

The only "evidence" I have come across that suggests such a high rating for Wagner at No 4 is from the rankings by Phil Goulding many years ago for the purposes of his book, and those rankings were his personal opinions only. As I mentioned previously, another music forum seized on these rankings for the purpose of constructing their own. There was some discussion among the membership of that forum at the time but basically the decisions on ranks were all taken by the moderator. [I know because I was there at the time, 2006, in the thick of it, and very fraught several of those composer discussions were].

I don't think that Wagner deserves the No 4 slot. It's too high by at least several notches. His output range is too narrow, and is not of a style that all opera lovers like. His influence was indeed great but I doubt that this counts for much in most peoples' estimation of their favourites or even the greatest. I very much doubt that without his innovations the world of classical music would have ceased to develop. Somebody would have come up with something else that might have been just as good.

It wasn't all that long after Wagner's death that composers like Debussy were developing impressionism, minimalism (Satie), and some were going back to dabble with the classical style (Prokofiev). There was also Stravinsky who branched away from the older traditions in various ways. Shortly after that, there was the 2nd Viennese school, and then later there was a big growth in nationalist styles that drew on all manner of styles. Trying to suggest that any or all of this was dependent on Wagner's innovations and influence is wishful thing. Some composers. of course, simply continued writing in the romantic style to which they were accustomed (e.g. Elgar, Sibelius).


----------



## PlaySalieri

Allerius said:


> Wagner's dramas were a game changer for the world of music as a whole, not only to the genre of opera. Subsequent composers of any genre, liking or not his music, had to react to them. The possibilities opened by his operas even paved the way for a (then) completely new kind of music: the movie soundtrack. The same can't be said about Mozart operas. I think that they are great, but their importance didn't extrapolate their field.
> 
> As I see it, Mozart didn't invent something crucial to the history of music like Wagner did - what he did was to develop, to perfect what came before him to what in my opinion is the zenith of the music of his time.
> 
> I like lists and think that they're fun to make and see, and that's why I'm trying to participate here. I don't think I have any more problem with rankings than anybody else. That said, Wagner would stand at #1 or #2 in a list of favorite composers of mine, ahead of Mozart (a composer I also love).


OK fair enough

I think probably for those of us who have not properly discovered Wagner - we do need it explaining to us.

As soon as I have some time - Im going to devote one whole day to Tannhauser.


----------



## Xisten267

Partita said:


> This entire discussion is somewhat confused because it's not clear whether we're supposed to be discussing the composers we believe are the "greatest" composers, or those who happen to be our personal favourites, either long term or currently. Clearly, the two categories are not the same.
> 
> Some of the comments regarding Wagner, and whether he merits the No 4 slot, seem to relate mainly to his innovations and influence, which are of course attributes of greatness. It's quite possible to consider Wagner to be among the greatest composers based on such considerations and yet not be attracted to his work, either because of a dislike of opera in general or because of a preference for another style of opera.
> 
> *I think that this notion of Wagner meriting rank No 4 is quite without foundation, anyway. This rating is not supported by any of the many TC composer polls that I can recall seeing over many years. He usually comes out several notches further down the top 10, and has occasionally dropped into the low teens. Nor does there appear to be any evidence to support such a high position from the more popular based polls that were alluded to in a previous post. e.g. "Ranker" and "Top Ten". I have also looked at the UK's "Classic FM Hall of Fame" results over recent years and there's little Wagner.*
> 
> The only "evidence" I have come across that suggests such a high rating for Wagner at No 4 is from the rankings by Phil Goulding many years ago for the purposes of his book, and those rankings were his personal opinions only. As I mentioned previously, another music forum seized on these rankings for the purpose of constructing their own. There was some discussion among the membership of that forum at the time but basically the decisions on ranks were all taken by the moderator. [I know because I was there at the time, 2006, in the thick of it, and very fraught several of those composer discussions were].
> 
> I don't think that Wagner deserves the No 4 slot. It's too high by at least several notches. His output range is too narrow, and is not of a style that all opera lovers like. His influence was indeed great but I doubt that this counts for much in most peoples' estimation of their favourites or even the greatest. I very much doubt that without his innovations the world of classical music would have ceased to develop. Somebody would have come up with something else that might have been just as good.
> 
> It wasn't all that long after Wagner's death that composers like Debussy were developing impressionism, minimalism (Satie), and some were going back to dabble with the classical style (Prokofiev). There was also Stravinsky who branched away from the older traditions in various ways. Shortly after that, there was the 2nd Viennese school, and then later there was a big growth in nationalist styles that drew on all manner of styles. Trying to suggest that any or all of this was dependent on Wagner's innovations and influence is wishful thing. Some composers. of course, simply continued writing in the romantic style to which they were accustomed (e.g. Elgar, Sibelius).


Please, take into consideration the current position of Wagner in this poll and also in this one. Also, look here at who is at the top in the most recommended operas poll, also here. Don't forget to also consider which composers got the first positions of recommendation here and here, here aswell.

At least at TC, Wagner seems to have a solid popularity.


----------



## Xisten267

stomanek said:


> OK fair enough
> 
> I think probably for those of us who have not properly discovered Wagner - we do need it explaining to us.
> 
> As soon as I have some time - Im going to devote one whole day to Tannhauser.


I would like to suggest you the opera _Lohengrin_ as a gateway to Wagner. It's a very beautiful work that he composed at the end of his Middle period, just before the death of his mother and his involvement with left-wing politics.

The first half of the second act of Lohengrin was a revelation to me the first time I listened to it; it opened my eyes (and ears) to Wagner's music other than the orchestral excerpts, and to opera in general (I had not experienced Mozart's operas at that point though). My first contact with it came from the performance that I share below, and that I still love:


----------



## PlaySalieri

Allerius said:


> I would like to suggest you the opera _Lohengrin_ as a gateway to Wagner. It's a very beautiful work that he composed at the end of his Middle period, just before the death of his mother and his involvement with left-wing politics.
> 
> The first half of the second act of Lohengrin was a revelation to me the first time I listened to it; it opened my eyes (and ears) to Wagner's music other than the orchestral excerpts, and to opera in general (I had not experienced Mozart's operas at that point though). My first contact with it came from the performance that I share below, and that I still love:


OK thanks - I will try Lohengrin


----------



## Woodduck

Partita said:


> This entire discussion is somewhat confused because *it's not clear whether we're supposed to be discussing the composers we believe are the "greatest" composers, or those who happen to be our personal favourites, *either long term or currently. Clearly, the two categories are not the same.


The OP never aspired to objectivity, so this isn't worth worrying about. We're just saying what impresses us as important in forming our own ratings.



> *Some of the comments regarding Wagner, and whether he merits the No 4 slot, seem to relate mainly to his innovations and influence, which are of course attributes of greatness. * It's quite possible to consider Wagner to be among the greatest composers based on such considerations and yet not be attracted to his work, either because of a dislike of opera in general or because of a preference for another style of opera.


Certainly true. Taste reigns supreme for all of us, but innovation and influence are among the less personal and subjective factors we can consider.



> *I think that this notion of Wagner meriting rank No 4 is quite without foundation, anyway. This rating is not supported by any of the many TC composer polls* that I can recall seeing over many years. He usually comes out several notches further down the top 10, and has occasionally dropped into the low teens. Nor does there appear to be any evidence to support such a high position from the more popular based polls that were alluded to in a previous post. e.g. "Ranker" and "Top Ten". I have also looked at the UK's "Classic FM _Hall of Fame_" results over recent years and there's little Wagner.


The last thing I would consult in forming a judgment on artistic genius is a poll, unless those polled were distinguished musicians and scholars. Popularity means something, but of course Wagner is quite popular, perhaps surprisingly so given the difficulties involved in producing his works and the time and expense involved in consuming them. It's really absurd to compare the popularity of such immense creations with that of Classical symphonies or Romantic concertos. For most people his ranking will be determined based on a handful of overtures and "bleeding chunks" (which, however, are certainly among the best of their kind).



> *The only "evidence" I have come across that suggests such a high rating for Wagner at No 4 is from the rankings by Phil Goulding many years ago for the purposes of his book,* and those rankings were his personal opinions only.


I think the opinions of some of the great composers themselves might constitute evidence that Wagner deserves consideration as one of the supreme geniuses in music. Mahler, Strauss, Schoenberg, Berg, Puccini and Massenet - all of whom wrote opera in Wagner's wake (or, in Mahler's case, produced and conducted it) - paid him the highest of tributes, and none fancied himself Wagner's equal. Mahler, Reger, Wolf, Chausson, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams and others attended Bayreuth festivals and found the experience overwhelming, even life-changing. Great musicians - conductors, singers, etc. - have had no doubts about Wagner's stature.



> His influence was indeed great but I doubt that this counts for much in most peoples' estimation of their favourites or even the greatest.


It's important to this thread, as stated in the OP.



> I very much doubt that without his innovations the world of classical music would have ceased to develop.


No one has ever claimed that music would stop developing without _any_ composer. But it would develop differently. The course of 19th and 20th century music without Wagner is unimaginable.



> Somebody would have come up with something else that might have been just as good.


What do you mean "just as good"? How do you know? And really, how many artistic achievements are "just as good" as _Tristan und Isolde,_ or just as influential? There's a whole fascinating book on that one work's impact on Western culture. ("The First Hundred Years of Wagner's Tristan" by Elliott Zuckerman).



> It wasn't all that long after Wagner's death that composers like Debussy were developing impressionism, minimalism (Satie), and some were going back to dabble with the classical style (Prokofiev). There was also Stravinsky who branched away from the older traditions in various ways.


Debussy and "impressionism" were strongly influenced by Wagner. Neoclassicism was a conscious rejection of an extravagant, hyperexpressive Romantic aesthetic which Wagner and his followers embodied (see Stravinsky's sniffy remarks about him).



> Shortly after that, there was the 2nd Viennese school,


Where would Schoenberg have been without Wagner?



> and then later there was a big growth in nationalist styles that drew on all manner of styles. Trying to suggest that any or all of this was dependent on Wagner's innovations and influence is wishful thing.


Nobody claims that Wagner was the only game in town, merely that he had an impact, positive or negative, on most of those games. If you were a significant composer from about 1860 or 1870 to around WW I, Wagner was a huge object in the road and you had to deal with him.



> Some composers. of course, simply continued writing in the romantic style to which they were accustomed (e.g. Elgar, Sibelius).


Neither of whom would have been the same without Wagner.

You may want very much to keep Wagner out of the #4 spot, but attempts to demonstrate his unworthiness objectively run into some major objectively demonstrable obstacles. I don't care where anyone wants to put him in their personal top ten or fifteen, but if we want to start bringing "facts" to the table we need to get them straight.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> As I see it, Mozart didn't invent something crucial to the history of music like Wagner did - what he did was to develop, to perfect what came before him to what in my opinion is the zenith of the music of his time.







But if you're going to keep claiming Mozart didn't invent anything substantial, you'll also apply the same logic to Beethoven as well, right? I hope you don't say "Grosse Fuge is so innovative, Beethoven deserves to be on the same place as Wagner in terms of innovation."

I remember you saying about the piece: "I can't think of any other work by Beethoven's predecessors that could keep dissonances going for this long". But, if you ask my opinion, the first 4 minutes (the variations) are indeed striking in that respect, but the rest of the movement doesn't strike me any more than a typical Haydn/Mozart quartet. (In fact I find the ending of K421 



 or the fugue of K546 



 underrated in comparison.)

C major Razumovsky quartet Op.59 No.3 is a masterpiece, but I feel Beethoven could have done something more in the piece considering it's obviously modelled on Dissonance quartet K465.

And let's not forget the connection between the first movement of Beethoven's Op.111 with Mozart's Adagio and Fugue K546.

Turns out that Beethoven wasn't the first guy to write calm intro to a stormy main section for a violin sonata either.. 




In fact I could claim, in Beethoven's chamber music involving both a keyboard and strings, there's no part as disturbing as the development and coda of Mozart K478 : 



Stormy movements of Beethoven's middle period piano sonatas are a continuation of Mozart's Prelude of K394 :





We can perhaps credit Beethoven for increasing the length of the symphony, adding voices in it (which I personally think was a bad idea in the first place, along with the invention of the modern piano)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Last_Words_of_Christ_(Haydn)
_Haydn uses an extremely wide range of tonalities for a composition of the time. Musicologist Mark Spitzer observes of this: "In its tonal freedom [it] anticipates [Haydn's] late Masses, particularly the Harmoniemesse ... The only other Classical 'multi-piece' which spreads itself across the entire tonal gamut with this architectural breadth is Beethoven's String Quartet in C♯ minor, op. 131 ... *Why, then, is Beethoven given credit for experimental daring when Haydn, once again, gets there first?"*_

I find the final "earthquake" in Haydn's Seven Last Words of Christ more striking than the finale of Op.131


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


>


Nice video, but Mozart didn't invent the fantasy form, wasn't the first to use minor keys and, although may have created some of the most iconic and beautiful pieces of the _Sturm und Drang_ in music, wasn't the pioneer of this style of composition also - that was Gluck. I didn't study this piece closely, but from the video I suppose that Mozart was doing some harmonic advances in this work - he was innovative, and I didn't say he wasn't. My point here is that he didn't create something completely new - rather, he expanded and perfected ideas of others.



hammeredklavier said:


> But if *you're going to keep claiming Mozart didn't invent anything substantial*, you'll also apply the same logic to Beethoven as well, right? I hope you don't say "Grosse Fuge is so innovative, Beethoven deserves to be on the same place as Wagner in terms of innovation."


The point here is what is in bold. I didn't say that Mozart didn't invent anything substantial (such as, you could cite, the piano quartet) - I did say that in my view his innovations weren't as crucial, didn't have such a lasting and profound impact on the history of western music as those of Richard Wagner. I didn't claim also that RW was a greater composer than Mozart in other criteria that are not _influence_ and _innovation_ (although I did say that in terms of my personal preferences he comes first than Mozart, a composer I also love). If you're to argue that I'm wrong, then you should start showing me something really influential that Wolfgang has created - something that could top Wagner's very innovative concepts of _gesamtkunstwerk_, _leitmotiv_ and _infinite melody_, his new approach at conducting, his invention of new instruments, his original philosophic ideas applied to music, his advanced use of chromaticism, harmonic suspensions and fast tonal shifts in lengthy, complex structures etc. That video you attached to your reply doesn't do it.

The rest of your post is just one more of those free, unsubstantiated, revisionist attacks you seem to love doing on Beethoven - a composer I had not even cited in any of my revised posts in this thread. What you said here is nothing new on your part, and as others have already discussed your points in other threads, and as this one doesn't seem to be about "Mozart vs Beethoven", I'm not going to discuss them again here.


----------



## Guest

Allerius said:


> Please, take into consideration the current position of Wagner in this poll and also in this one. Also, look here at who is at the top in the most recommended operas poll, also here. Don't forget to also consider which composers got the first positions of recommendation here and here, here aswell.
> 
> At least at TC, Wagner seems to have a solid popularity.


Sorry but all this is irrelevant. We are not discussing whether or not Wagner was a great opera composer, or has a solid backing at T-C. I don't doubt either fact at all. As far as I'm concerned, we're discussing whether it's reasonable to place Wagner in the No 4 slot in a ranked list of all composers based on the opinions of a typical selection of members of this Forum. There has been an attempt by another member (mifek) to suggest that the opinions of a wider selection of people should be taken into account, but in doing so he has still come up with Wagner in the No 4 slot.

What I'm saying is very simple indeed. I'll spell it out:

1. In the OP's tiered list of composers in post # 1, he included Wagner in tier "A". This tier is the third one down from the top, and there are 13 composers placed above him in tiers S+ and S.

2. I fully agree that Wagner is underrated according to this system of classification. By all the usual standards of popularity and greatness, he ought to be in "S", and some of those in S should be moved down. In fact, I think the whole concept of "tiers" is unhelpful, misleading and totally unnecessary, but going along with this concept for a moment longer ...

3. In order to rank the individual composers within any or all of the top 3 tiers, I do not see how it can be done except by reference to empirical data based on peoples' preferences. There have been many previous discussions on this issue here at T-C, which I won't discuss any further.

4. From my recollection of the various composers polls that have been carried out at T-C I believe that Wagner's rating has been below the No 4 slot. I'm not referring to "games" but full-scale polls, with the number of participants being anywhere between about 40-80 members. The exact position of Wagner has varied from poll to poll, but a typical ranking of joint No 7 (shared with Haydn and Tchaikovsky) would be reasonable as far as I can recall. Apart from the "big 3", generally, Brahms, Schubert and Mahler were placed above Wagner.

5. I've had a quick look but unfortunately I can't find any of the various polls that I referred to above, some of which go back to about 2012, since there has been much other material added to this site over the years. Another problem seems to be that there have quite large chunks of posting history have gone missing as a result of various major site crashes. For example, I'm sure there was a "top 10" favourite composer poll in 2017, but I can't find the results. This was probably a casualty of the big crash that year.​
Latest T-C Composer Poll

What I have found, however, is the latest "top 10 favourite composer" poll that was carried out over 3 weeks in February 2019. This poll was initiated by S P Summers. Unfortunately there was no summary of the results provided. In view of the above, in order to try to validate my comments I've had a look at the results and from my calculations it would seem that there were 64 valid responses. Among these, there were 17 that included Wagner in the lists. This result placed Wagner in joint 13th position along with Ravel. On this latest occasion, therefore, Wagner was placed quite a lot further down the lists than previous performance would suggest was likely.


----------



## KenOC

I have the results of two composer polls, one on the old Amazon forum and the other here. Wagner figures in the top ten on the poll here, but not on the other poll.

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

Composers (A later poll on Talk Classical):
1 - Beethoven
2 - Bach
3 - Mozart
4 - Wagner
5 - Mahler
6 - Tchaikovsky
7 - Schubert
8 - Stravinsky
9 - Brahms
10 - Haydn


----------



## hammeredklavier

_"Wagner asked, 'Is it possible to find anything more perfect than every piece in Don Giovanni? Where else has music individualized and characterized so surely?' Tchaikovsky's famous comment is, 'Through that work I have come to know what music is.'"_
https://books.google.ca/books?id=2NN9y_7fZZoC&pg=PA159

"_This "revelation" of the music of Don Giovanni on the threshold of adulthood was a crucial factor in his decision a few years later to leave behind him the security of a career in the civil service and to aspire to become a composer. As he later confessed to Nadezhda von Meck in a letter from 1878 (quoted in more detail below): "The music of Don Giovanni was the first music which produced a tremendous impression on me. It awoke a holy enthusiasm in me which would later bear fruit. Through this music I entered that world of artistic beauty inhabited only by the greatest geniuses [...] It is to Mozart that I am obliged for the fact that I have dedicated my life to music. He gave the first impulse to my musical powers and made me love music more than anything else in the world"_"
http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart

_"Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, *it was a completely new thing.* What marvelous dissonance! What harmony!"_ -J. Brahms
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA134
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135

_"The Germans have always been at every time the greatest harmonists and the Italians the greatest melodists. But from the moment the north produced a Mozart, we of the south were beaten on our own ground, because this man rises above both nations, uniting in himself all the charms of Italian melody and all the profundity of German harmony."_ -G. Rossini, 1867
https://books.google.ca/books?id=C37Gq2GagZIC&pg=PA355


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> The last thing I would consult in forming a judgment on artistic genius is a poll, unless those polled were distinguished musicians and scholars. Popularity means something, but of course Wagner is quite popular, perhaps surprisingly so given the difficulties involved in producing his works and the time and expense involved in consuming them. It's really absurd to compare the popularity of such immense creations with that of Classical symphonies or Romantic concertos. For most people his ranking will be determined based on a handful of overtures and "bleeding chunks" (which, however, are certainly among the best of their kind).


There you go again, trying to elevate Wagner into the realm of super-hero, as a composer who cannot be properly assessed by mere ordinary T-C members, but only by "distinguished musicians and scholars." As far as I'm concerned, unless you inform us otherwise, I can only assume that you are an ordinary T-C member, in which case your opinion is no better than any others here. Personally, I would prefer to place more faith in the aggregated opinions of a fair cross-section of the membership here than that of any single individual, no matter how much they crack on that they know, or the opinions of bunch of so-called distinguished musicians and scholars. [I know from my own field of professional expertise that it's possible to select experts who will support a range of opinions on various relevant topics.]



Woodduck said:


> I think the opinions of some of the great composers themselves might constitute evidence that Wagner deserves consideration as one of the supreme geniuses in music. Mahler, Strauss, Schoenberg, Berg, Puccini and Massenet - all of whom wrote opera in Wagner's wake (or, in Mahler's case, produced and conducted it) - paid him the highest of tributes, and none fancied himself Wagner's equal. Mahler, Reger, Wolf, Chausson, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams and others attended Bayreuth festivals and found the experience overwhelming, even life-changing. Great musicians - conductors, singers, etc. - have had no doubts about Wagner's stature.


I don't doubt that Wagner was widely admired and was influential for a while. But this doesn't mean that he deserves to be placed in the No 4 spot in the pantheon of top composers. His output range was far too narrow, and it's in an area that is by no means of greatest interest to the majority of those keen on classical music.



Woodduck said:


> No one has ever claimed that music would stop developing without _any_ composer. But it would develop differently. The course of 19th and 20th century music without Wagner is unimaginable.


Nor did I. What I said was that music would have probably developed in other ways that, for all we know, might have been as good if not better. Besides, I'm not convinced by any means that all of Wagner's "innovations" were entirely down to him. Some quite obviously were, but there were precedents in terms of the use of dissonance, and as regards the use of German epic literature it's well-known that Robert Schumann had made use of this, which probably helped to inspire Wagner. Schumann was also a very good writer on music trends and discussed the concepts of introducing poetic/literary features into music.



Woodduck said:


> Debussy and "impressionism" were strongly influenced by Wagner. Neoclassicism was a conscious rejection of an extravagant, hyperexpressive Romantic aesthetic which Wagner and his followers embodied (see Stravinsky's sniffy remarks about him).


Despite what toady words Debussy may have said in favour of Wagner, I don't detect much of Wagner's influence on Debussy in the latter's music. The latter composer wanted to get away from Germanic culture with what he saw as the overriding influence of Beethoven and his successors, including Wagner, as much as possible. Ravel was inclined to do so even more strongly.



> Where would Schoenberg have been without Wagner?


That's a mighty leap to suggest that Schoenberg would have been bereft of ideas without Wagner. Schoenberg also paid strong lip service towards Brahms, but hardly followed up any ideas with the 12-tone serial approach to atonality he and others pioneered. There was a step change that would probably have occurred independently of the influence of either Wagner or Brahms.



Woodduck said:


> You may want very much to keep Wagner out of the #4 spot, but attempts to demonstrate his unworthiness objectively run into some major objectively demonstrable obstacles. I don't care where anyone wants to put him in their personal top ten or fifteen, but if we want to start bringing "facts" to the table we need to get them straight.


That's not a valid comment. I aim simply to give Wagner the credit he is due, no more and no less, and not to bump him further up the ranks at the expense of others who are more worthy. As I have been at pains to point out, I don't doubt that Wagner is deserving of a place somewhat lower down in the Top 10, although as noted in my previous post it looks as though he may have slipped into the low teens according to the latest T-C "favourite composer" poll carried out earlier this year.


----------



## chu42

Swosh said:


> Chopin is an S for me.


I'm a pianist, and as a pianist who is constantly surrounded by the music and influence of Chopin I have to concede that not everything in music is about piano. Chopin is certainly incredible but even in his own genre he wasn't as innovative as Liszt, who essentially created Impressionism and sparked the chromaticism and anti-tonality seen in Wagner and even as late as Schoenburg. Not to mention Liszt's etudes which were able to take piano technique to a whole new level- I much prefer Chopin's etudes and while his were also game-changers they seem almost conservative in what Liszt and Alkan were able to do with piano technique.



Allerius said:


> I accept that Vivaldi can't match Handel in terms of keyboard music, but he has some beautiful violin sonatas aswell, those from his Op. 1 being a good example in my opinion, and also some very interesting chamber concerti, at least to my ears.
> 
> Talking about the list, Vivaldi belonging to the _A_ category is OK to me. It's Handel at _S_ that I would change.


Handel belongs in S tier, no doubt about it. Romantic opera is defined by Verdi/Wagner, Classical opera is defined by Mozart, and Baroque opera defined by Handel. The fact that Mozart and Beethoven still felt his shadow so many years after his death is a testament to his overreaching prowess in so many genres. In fact, Beethoven opined that Handel was "the greatest composer that ever lived."

And as for Wagner...I am convinced that he is indeed undervalued and should be at the very least on top of Mahler, who was also narrow in ouevre but not as influential as Wagner. Good arguments are being made.

But number 4 spot is unthinkable. Wagner did not singlehandedly change the course of musical history, despite what many would like to believe. He was the very big head of a very big chain that started partially with Berlioz and had roots going back as far as Carlo Gesualdo.

And even if he did, would his limited repertory be enough to get him among those who were not only masters in Wagner's area, but in almost all other major areas? What if someone like Handel or Mozart had been born in Wagner's time? Would he have not been able to do so much more for music than Wagner?

Of course that is merely hypothetical but in terms of sheer skill in all things composing, it is clear that Wagner has quite the boundary.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> OK fair enough
> 
> I think probably for those of us who have not properly discovered Wagner - we do need it explaining to us.
> 
> As soon as I have some time - Im going to devote one whole day to Tannhauser.


I thought your previous comments about Mozart vis-a-vis Wagner etc were valid. I can't see why you appear to have conceded that you don't know enough about Wagner to have made those comments. I haven't seen anything stated about Wagner's reputation that isn't likely to be generally well known by the more seasoned members of T-C, such as you. I certainly haven't seen anything about Wagner that I haven't seen many times before. I'm more than sufficiently familiar with Wagner's biography and works, having acquired it ages ago.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I have the results of two composer polls, one on the old Amazon forum and the other here. Wagner figures in the top ten on the poll here, but not on the other poll.
> 
> Composers (Amazon):
> 1 - Beethoven
> 2 - Bach
> 3 - Mozart
> 4 - Haydn
> 5 - Mahler
> 6 - Schubert
> 7 - Brahms
> 8 - Stravinsky
> 9 - Handel
> 10 - Tchaikovsky
> 
> Composers (A later poll on Talk Classical):
> 1 - Beethoven
> 2 - Bach
> 3 - Mozart
> 4 - Wagner
> 5 - Mahler
> 6 - Tchaikovsky
> 7 - Schubert
> 8 - Stravinsky
> 9 - Brahms
> 10 - Haydn


Can you give details of the T-C poll in term of its date and who initiated it


----------



## KenOC

Partita said:


> Can you give details of the T-C poll in term of its date and who initiated it


Sorry, no. It was a while back.


----------



## chu42

Woodduck said:


> Where would Schoenberg have been without Wagner?


To what extent do you believe Charles Ives was influenced by Richard Wagner? According to Ives himself, the majority of his musical influence came from his father who was a bandmaster and encouraged Ives to try new ideas with tonality and structure. If this is to be believed (Ives was not the most reliable source for his own life's events) then it could be quite important because it seems that Ives was developing ideas towards serialism completely devoid of Schoenberg's influence. His "Variation on America" was composed in 1891, far before Schoenberg began his more radical ideas.


----------



## Portamento

Woodduck said:


> Where would Schoenberg have been without Wagner?


Where would anyone have been without Pérotin?


----------



## Guest

chu42 said:


> I'm a pianist, and as a pianist who is constantly surrounded by the music and influence of Chopin I have to concede that not everything in music is about piano. Chopin is certainly incredible but even in his own genre he wasn't as innovative as Liszt, who essentially created Impressionism and sparked the chromaticism and anti-tonality seen in Wagner and even as late as Schoenburg. Not to mention Liszt's etudes which were able to take piano technique to a whole new level- I much prefer Chopin's etudes and while his were also game-changers they seem almost conservative in what Liszt and Alkan were able to do with piano technique.


I'm a big enthusiast of piano music. My playing skills are at best highly rudimentary, so I can't pretend that I have much "hands-on" experience as such. But I have certainly listened to a great deal of piano music, and my classical music collection is awash with it.

I just thought I'd add that chromatism is not something that greatly impresses me in piano music. I'm happy with it up to a point in chamber and orchestral works but in piano music it's not a feature that makes it special for me. I definitely do not dislike any of the great composers' piano music, but I'm generally happier listening to Schumann's and Schubert's piano music than most others.



chu42 said:


> Handel belongs in S tier, no doubt about it. Romantic opera is defined by Verdi/Wagner, Classical opera is defined by Mozart, and Baroque opera defined by Handel. The fact that Mozart and Beethoven still felt his shadow so many years after his death is a testament to his overreaching prowess in so many genres. In fact, Beethoven opined that Handel was "the greatest composer that ever lived."


I can see why you thought it might be useful to base a discussion of composers using the concept of "tiers". In fact, I recall there was another thread recently on this same topic, but with a different focus asking whether or not people think in terms of "tiers" among composers.

Personally, I do not think that "tier" is a useful concept, except perhaps in respect of the "big 3" versus the rest. To some extent the concept of "tiers" among the top composers has been a rod to your own back, as much of the discussion in this thread has been related to whether or not you have correctly separated the various composers in your "S" and "A" tiers. I believe that this distinction is arbitrary and not useful, and I also dispute the placement of some of the entries in each of these categories.



chu42 said:


> And as for Wagner...I am convinced that he is indeed undervalued and should be at the very least on top of Mahler, who was also narrow in ouevre but not as influential as Wagner. Good arguments are being made.
> 
> But number 4 spot is unthinkable. Wagner did not singlehandedly change the course of musical history, despite what many would like to believe. He was the very big head of a very big chain that started partially with Berlioz and had roots going back as far as Carlo Gesualdo.
> 
> And even if he did, would his limited repertory be enough to get him among those who were not only masters in Wagner's area, but in almost all other major areas? What if someone like Handel or Mozart had been born in Wagner's time? Would he have not been able to do so much more for music than Wagner?
> 
> Of course that is merely hypothetical but in terms of sheer skill in all things composing, it is clear that Wagner has quite the boundary.


As you will have gathered, I'm very happy to concur with your view that the No 4 spot is too high for Wagner, given the limitations you refer to.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Partita said:


> I thought your previous comments about Mozart vis-a-vis Wagner etc were valid. I can't see why you appear to have conceded that you don't know enough about Wagner to have made those comments. I haven't seen anything stated about Wagner's reputation that isn't likely to be generally well known by the more seasoned members of T-C, such as you. I certainly haven't seen anything about Wagner that I haven't seen many times before. I'm more than sufficiently familiar with Wagner's biography and works, having acquired it ages ago.


I think there was a touch of irony in my comments.

There is no need to have the genius of Mozart or Bach explained or justified to them because it manifests quite obviously.

Where I stand at the moment with Wagner's ranking is - on a personal level - he should be behind Verdi - since I like Verdi's operas much better - another 1 genre composer.

if Wagner inspired Verdi to compose Othello we have much to thank the former for.

But - there is this nagging feeling that the door to the magic of Wagner's world may one day be unlocked. I just need to read the libretto carefully - understand what is going on - how the music and drama fuses etc.


----------



## Woodduck

Partita said:


> There you go again, trying to elevate Wagner into the realm of super-hero, as a composer who cannot be properly assessed by mere ordinary T-C members, but only by "distinguished musicians and scholars." As far as I'm concerned, unless you inform us otherwise, I can only assume that you are an ordinary T-C member, in which case your opinion is no better than any others here. Personally, I would prefer to place more faith in the aggregated opinions of a fair cross-section of the membership here than that of any single individual, no matter how much they crack on that they know, or the opinions of bunch of so-called distinguished musicians and scholars.
> 
> I don't doubt that Wagner was widely admired and was influential for a while. But this doesn't mean that he deserves to be placed in the No 4 spot in the pantheon of top composers. His output range was far too narrow, and it's in an area that is by no means of greatest interest to the majority of those keen on classical music.
> 
> Nor did I. What I said was that music would have probably developed in other ways that, for all we know, might have been as good if not better. Besides, I'm not convinced by any means that all of Wagner's "innovations" were entirely down to him. Some quite obviously were, but there were precedents in terms of the use of dissonance, and as regards the use of German epic literature it's well-known that Robert Schumann had made use of this, which probably helped to inspire Wagner. Schumann was also a very good writer on music trends and discussed the concepts of introducing poetic/literary features into music.
> 
> Despite what toady words Debussy may have said in favour of Wagner, I don't detect much of Wagner's influence on Debussy in the latter's music. The latter composer wanted to get away from Germanic culture with what he saw as the overriding influence of Beethoven and his successors, including Wagner, as much as possible. Ravel was inclined to do so even more strongly.
> 
> That's a mighty leap to suggest that Schoenberg would have been bereft of ideas without Wagner. Schoenberg also paid strong lip service towards Brahms, but hardly followed up any ideas with the 12-tone serial approach to atonality he and others pioneered. There was a step change that would probably have occurred independently of the influence of either Wagner or Brahms.
> 
> That's not a valid comment. I aim simply to give Wagner the credit he is due, no more and no less, and not to bump him further up the ranks at the expense of others who are more worthy. As I have been at pains to point out, I don't doubt that Wagner is deserving of a place somewhat lower down in the Top 10, although as noted in my previous post it looks as though he may have slipped into the low teens according to the latest T-C "favourite composer" poll carried out earlier this year.


So cranky! Where did I "go again"? I haven't made any extraordinary claims about Wagner. My observations are quite commonplace. You don't have to believe me, and I'm sure you simply wouldn't dream of giving me any credit for knowing anything about a composer I've spent decades getting to know, but as Anna Russell said in her _Ring_ parody, "I'm not making this up, you know!"

As I've said, I don't believe in hard and fast ranking of composers, and although I tend to think Wagner is as good a candidate for #4 as anyone, I don't care where you put him and I'm not arguing with whatever ranking you prefer. All I've done is point out some areas in which I think your own rather contentious efforts to keep him from ascending too high betray an insufficient grasp of what makes him unique.

I would suppose that no one can say for sure which composer had the greatest influence on music as such - Beethoven is probably as good a candidate, and there are reasonable claims made for Bach and Debussy - but I do know that no artist, with the possible exception of Shakespeare, has had such a broad influence on Western culture. So many people have discussed this, including some here on TC, that there's hardly any excuse for not having some sense of it.

If we do want to look more narrowly at Wagner's sheer musical technique and powers of invention, it should be appreciated that he had a superior ability to absorb techniques and ideas from everywhere as needed, to adapt them with extraordinary flexibility to serve his unique personal visions, and to expand his musical language in fresh and striking directions with each new work in order to express things new not only to himself but to the broad, communicative vocabulary of Western music. He wasn't innovative in just one way; he was a restless, driven visionary who kept on searching, and each new opera, despite being unlike any he had written before, was accomplished like the single, decisive stroke of the samurai, hitting a previously unimaginable mark dead on. When people say that he composed "only" operas, they are apt to be missing the fact that those operas contain a variety of musical form and expression much greater than that of most composers who cranked out the usual stream of quartets, trios, symphonies, concertos, etc. Of course one needs to listen to and study the operas in order to appreciate this.

As for your effort to minimize Wagner's effect on Debussy, the latter began as a fervent Wagnerian, and we shouldn't miss the imprint of Wagners harmonic wizardry, his ability to invoke subtle atmospheres, and his freedom from conventional formal procedures. Debussy's objections to his predecessor were a matter of sensibility, but his musical debt was great (much to his chagrin when _Parsifal _kept creeping into _Pelleas._) As for Schoenberg, I certainly didn't say that Schoenberg would have been "bereft of ideas" without Wagner. Who would say such a stupid thing? But let's not engage in "would have beens." What we actually find is a powerful Wagnerian presence in Schoenberg's early and middle-period works. And do we even need to discuss _Tristan,_ chromaticism, and atonality? The young Schoenberg too was a Wagner devotee who devoured the scores of the operas and attended performances when he could afford to.

I could go on for hours discussing the influence of Wagner, but I doubt you're interested. With all due respect, I find your remarks on the composer pretty ill-informed and shallow. As for your interest in polls, I just have no more to say.


----------



## Art Rock

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


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> As I've said, I don't believe in hard and fast ranking of composers, and although I tend to think Wagner is as good a candidate for #4 as anyone, I don't care where you put him and I'm not arguing with whatever ranking you prefer. All I've done is point out some areas in which I think your own rather contentious efforts to keep him from ascending too high betray an insufficient grasp of what makes him unique.


I found the above to be very amusing. For someone who says he's not bothered about ranks you have sure been doing your hardest to enshrine Wagner in the No 4 spot.

Contrary to your assertion, nor do I believe in "hard and fast ranking of composers". On the contrary, I have pointed out that there is a range of uncertainty attaching to the ranks from typical polls. If you care to look back at post # 103, you will observe that I stressed that a feature of all TC composer polls has been a "bunching" of several composers around the same or very similar scores, so that the perceived differences in "ranks" are more apparent than real.

It is also completely incorrect to suggest that I have somehow tried to keep Wagner in a lower (worse) position than he deserves. It's a ludicrous assertion to make. I have not tried in any way to change the facts regarding his popularity, as seems to be implied by your comment. All I have done is to point out that in the majority of TC "favourite composer" polls, of which I can recall the main details, Wagner has generally come out at a lower position than the No 4 slot that member mifek proposed.

I have not tried to rubbish Wagner in any way as you seem to believe, but have simply attempted to provide a possible explanation why he is not more highly rated than he is. It is hardly contentious to point out that Wagner's range was narrow, and that this quite possibly accounts for a major part of the result. It also seems uncontentious that some of his innovations were not completely new. Maybe you thought they were?

Nor should it be treated almost as blasphemy to suggest that Wagner's influence was not as great as some people evidently like to fantasise upon. Not everyone was in debt to Wagner. Brahms and Tchaikovsky pointed two fingers, and Sibelius carried on on usual. Despite what you say, Debussy went off in another direction, which is where he earned his reputation. Other styles that emerged later probably had only a tenuous connection with Wagner's heritage, even if some of composers may have paid lip service to the man in their early days. In the case of some English composers after the end the Great War there was quite a strong reaction against composers of German origin.

Of course, if you'd care to set out your presumed superior knowldege about Wagner in a proper set of journal articles available for peer review, then I think that would be a better idea than trying to denigrate my comments made on a mere internet forum. Your talents might be wasted here.



Woodduck said:


> I could go on for hours discussing the influence of Wagner, but I doubt you're interested. With all due respect, I find your remarks on the composer pretty ill-informed and shallow. As for your interest in polls, I just have no more to say.


I could quite easily say that I find your remarks on Wagner to be pretty obsessive and OTT in his praise. Whilst you and others rate him very highly, others have a lesser opinion.


----------



## chu42

Partita said:


> Personally, I do not think that "tier" is a useful concept, except perhaps in respect of the "big 3" versus the rest. To some extent the concept of "tiers" among the top composers has been a rod to your own back, as much of the discussion in this thread has been related to whether or not you have correctly separated the various composers in your "S" and "A" tiers. I believe that this distinction is arbitrary and not useful, and I also dispute the placement of some of the entries in each of these categories.


Well, the tiers are there because they are a popular method of ranking people/things. The usefulness of A vs. S is easily disputed, but I would say the best thing about the tiers is that it is easy to rank people that are too difficult to rank in a standard list.

For example, Bach-Beethoven-Mozart is a nigh-impossible job in a standard list. And then Schubert, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, etc., many people will find it difficult to give them all individual ranks rather than ranking by tier.

Now, the separation between high A and low S could be very arbitrary but let's be honest here, the problem people have isn't that Wagner didn't make S-tier, the problem is that he isn't 4th place...

Wagner fans number far higher in TC than I've found in other such forums. It is possible to find polls out there that place Verdi, Puccini, etc. above Wagner as the "greatest opera composer"- that would be a pipe dream here.

For the record, I found it much easier to place Mahler in S-tier over Wagner simply because his ouevre, while limited, is still much more accessible/attractive to the common public than Wagner.


----------



## Woodduck

Partita said:


> I found the above to be very amusing. For someone who says he's not bothered about ranks you have sure been doing your hardest to enshrine Wagner in the No 4 spot.
> 
> Contrary to your assertion, nor do I believe in "hard and fast ranking of composers". On the contrary, I have pointed out that there is a range of uncertainty attaching to the ranks from typical polls. If you care to look back at post # 103, you will observe that I stressed that a feature of all TC composer polls has been a "bunching" of several composers around the same or very similar scores, so that the perceived differences in "ranks" are more apparent than real.
> 
> It is also completely incorrect to suggest that I have somehow tried to keep Wagner in a lower (worse) position than he deserves. It's a ludicrous assertion to make. I have not tried in any way to change the facts regarding his popularity, as seems to be implied by your comment. All I have done is to point out that in the majority of TC "favourite composer" polls, of which I can recall the main details, Wagner has generally come out at a lower position than the No 4 slot that member mifek proposed.
> 
> I have not tried to rubbish Wagner in any way as you seem to believe, but have simply attempted to provide a possible explanation why he is not more highly rated than he is. It is hardly contentious to point out that Wagner's range was narrow, and that this quite possibly accounts for a major part of the result. It also seems uncontentious that some of his innovations were not completely new. Maybe you thought they were?
> 
> Nor should it be treated almost as blasphemy to suggest that Wagner's influence was not as great as some people evidently like to fantasise upon. Not everyone was in debt to Wagner. Brahms and Tchaikovsky pointed two fingers, and Sibelius carried on on usual. Despite what you say, Debussy went off in another direction, which is where he earned his reputation. Other styles that emerged later probably had only a tenuous connection with Wagner's heritage, even if some of composers may have paid lip service to the man in their early days. In the case of some English composers after the end the Great War there was quite a strong reaction against composers of German origin.
> 
> Of course, if you'd care to set out your presumed superior knowldege about Wagner in a proper set of journal articles available for peer review, then I think that would be a better idea than trying to denigrate my comments made on a mere internet forum. Your talents might be wasted here.
> 
> I could quite easily say that I find your remarks on Wagner to be pretty obsessive and OTT in his praise. Whilst you and others rate him very highly, others have a lesser opinion.


The remark of mine which seems to have generated this exchange was in post #110:_

"I'm not fond of attempts to 'rank' composers in any but the roughest way, and I don't know, or care, where Wagner 'should' stand. I'm content to leave Bach, Mozart and Beethoven as a triumvirate at the top of the heap as 'pure composers.' But as an extraordinary creative mind who did things unique, significant and enduring, and who by doing so had a huge impact on the world of music and beyond, I don't think Wagner takes a back seat to anyone. Pushed to rank him, I'll gladly agree with those who place him at #4."_

It should be clear from my moderate tone and careful wording that I was expressing a personal view, not staking out a position or making an argument. I wasn't planning to pursue what you rudely call my "OTT obsession" any further. You've made some very questionable assertions, along with some silly remarks such as this one: "Nor should it be treated almost as blasphemy to suggest that Wagner's influence was not as great as some people evidently like to fantasize upon. Not everyone was in debt to Wagner." That says nothing about anything, but is mere rhetorical posturing. "Blasphemy," "some people,""fantasize"... It's all bullpucky. And no one has ever said that "everyone was in debt to Wagner." You're blasting a straw man - making stuff up, apparently in order to have an excuse to be querulous.

Perhaps you think that a passionate interest in and enthusiasm for an artist necessarily constitutes an "obsession." But that's just one of your straw-man insults. The truth is, I've said nothing extraordinary about Wagner - nothing that thousands of others haven't said over the last century and a half. But you'd rather consult "polls" than do any real homework on a subject for which you clearly have little sympathy. Fortunately, Wagner's reputation - and the real extent of his influence on music and culture - has never been dependent on those who care as little about them as you do.


----------



## annaw

I would be very okay with Wagner placed 4th (or in top 3  ), but my opinion is subjective. I don't see any objective way to actually rank composers. There are so many things and factors to be considered. To rank things objectively and to say that A is better than B, you need numbers or something that could be compared, but that's just not possible in a case like this.

How do we choose which is the most important factor and how do you present these factors so that they would be facts not opinions - for example how can one say if Wagner is better than Brahms? How do you 'evaluate' their influence, accessibility (I personally don't think that accessibility should be considered - I don't find Schoenberg to be easily accessible, but despite that, I admit his musical genius. Also, accessibility is a very personal factor) and, above everything, the greatness of their compositions?

Even if we were able to present such things numerically, how would you decide who is better - a very influential composer or a very innovative composer (for a moment, let's assume these two things don't overlap)? People value innovativeness and influence very differently and so those who believe innovativeness >> influence, would prefer the innovative composer and those who say influence >> innovativeness would say that the more influential composer is better.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> ...And why would you assume that Jewish composers would rate Wagner's music poorly? Mahler's fanatical devotion to it is legendary; he said, ""There are only him [Beethoven] and Richard [Wagner] - and after them, nobody" (I assume that "nobody" included even himself). Mahler was keenly aware of Wagner's antisemitic statements, but as a musician he knew what he was hearing.


Mahler did not accept his own Jewishness, so that's a bad example. In his infamous letter to Alma he sounds almost anti-semitic.



> Schoenberg attended every Wagner performance he could, and began as a thoroughly Wagner-saturated composer. Berg (not Jewish, but close to Schoenberg) remained Wagner-saturated. Goldmark, Korngold, Schreker, Zemlinsky, Herrmann, Waxman... Doesn't the idea that being Jewish should determine one's musical judgments strike you as - I beg your pardon - rather racist?


Schoenberg was another composer who was in denial of his own heritage. Later on, after being forced out of Gemany, he changed his tune.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> It should be clear from my moderate tone and careful wording that I was expressing a personal view, not staking out a position or making an argument. I wasn't planning to pursue what you ... call my "OTT obsession" any further.


I don't think that's true.



> The truth is, I've said nothing extraordinary about Wagner - nothing that thousands of others haven't said over the last century and a half. But you'd rather consult "polls" than do any real homework on a subject for which you clearly have little sympathy. Fortunately, Wagner's reputation - and the real extent of his influence on music and culture - has never been dependent on those who care as little about them as you do.


The net result is that, yes, Woodduck does tend to overestimate Wagner, consistently, every time the name is mentioned.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> Nice video, but Mozart didn't invent the fantasy form, wasn't the first to use minor keys and, although may have created some of the most iconic and beautiful pieces of the _Sturm und Drang_ in music, wasn't the pioneer of this style of composition also - that was Gluck. I didn't study this piece closely, but from the video I suppose that Mozart was doing some harmonic advances in this work - he was innovative, and I didn't say he wasn't. My point here is that he didn't create something completely new - rather, he expanded and perfected ideas of others.


Again, this is the same convenient logic used over and over again. "xxx never invented anything new". What disturbs me the most is that you often use this logic to overhype something else. For example, Beethoven's innovation, which is already (frankly) overhyped way out of proportion compared to other greats' in classical music communities. I find that lots of people think it's far more a sacrilege to question Beethoven's innovation than Bach, Mozart, Haydn's. "Mozart stayed safe, Beethoven broke the mould" is like the most cliched slogan in classical music. But I ask why. You say Mozart did not invent "Sturm and Drang". But as you saw in that video, Beethoven did not create "Stile Pathetique" either. 
-Beethoven wasn't the first to write a calm intro to a stormy section to start a violin sonata either.
-Beethoven wasn't the first to expand the string quartet form using various tonalities in multi movements either.
-Beethoven wasn't the first to write a dissonant fugue for strings either.

Consider these:
"Mozart sonata in A minor K310 has fortissimo butting up against pianissimo in a way that has never been done in a piano sonata." 




"Mozart went futher than anyone in "Thematische Arbeit". The introduction to the Dissonance Quartet even perplexed Haydn."
https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lecture/transcript/print/mozart-quartet-in-c-major-k465-dissonance/
"Mozart's string quartets and symphonies K550, K551 were direct sources of inspiration for Schoenberg's Fourth String Quartet."





As for the case of chromaticism; say if I criticize Chopin's chromaticism comparing with Wagner's, people would surely react like "Chopin's chromaticism (in works such as the Winterwind Etude and B minor Scherzo) is unique and completely different from Wagner's, they can't be compared. They're just apples and oranges." So isn't it reasonable to suggest Mozart's chromaticism is "just different" from Chopin's and Wagner's as well? 
Consider the way Mozart builds tension using chromaticism in Gloria of Missa Brevis K258 



 Do Chopin and Wagner utilize chromaticism this way? What of the "diatonic containment of chromaticism" in the 40th symphony? 




Even Wagner wasn't the first to write the tristan chord. He took a lot from Liszt, but if you're going use Wagner to claim that Mozart didn't event anything new - you should at least show some consistency with your argument on others like Beethoven as well. You might not agree, but from certain perspectives he can be considered to have "failed" to emulate Mozart's chromaticism:
-In the last Razumovsky Op.59 No.3, Beethoven tries to write like Mozart Dissonance Quartet, he fails to achieve Mozart's feel of flow.
-In the third piano concerto Op.37, Beethoven admitted himself he couldn't write like Mozart's 24th. Even Brahms confirmed it.
-The Funeral March from Eroica symphony can be seen as just a long-winded way of saying the things Mozart already said in Maurerische Trauermusik.

I often find that compared to Haydn and Mozart,- Beethoven is far more romanticized as an innovator with modern "propaganda". It's not a bad thing, but in many instances I feel it does more harm than good in our attempt to objectively evaluate their achievements. I'm not saying we should not consider Wagner and Beethoven as innovators. But we should not rely on this logic "xxx never invented anything new" too much - as I explained above, it can "backfire" on icons who have been conventionally regarded as innovators, such as Beethoven. We know the convenient logic everyone uses: "it all depends on how you look at it."


----------



## chu42

annaw said:


> I would be very okay with Wagner placed 4th (or in top 3  ), but my opinion is subjective. I don't see any objective way to actually rank composers. There are so many things and factors to be considered. To rank things objectively and to say that A is better than B, you need numbers or something that could be compared, but that's just not possible in a case like this.
> 
> How do we choose which is the most important factor and how do you present these factors so that they would be facts not opinions - for example how can one say if Wagner is better than Brahms? How do you 'evaluate' their influence, accessibility (I personally don't think that accessibility should be considered - I don't find Schoenberg to be easily accessible, but despite that, I admit his musical genius. Also, accessibility is a very personal factor) and, above everything, the greatness of their compositions?
> 
> Even if we were able to present such things numerically, how would you decide who is better - a very influential composer or a very innovative composer (for a moment, let's assume these two things don't overlap)? People value innovativeness and influence very differently and so those who believe innovativeness >> influence, would prefer the innovative composer and those who say influence >> innovativeness would say that the more influential composer is better.


Yup, impossible to rank completely objectivity.

With that being said, the conversations that erupt from these kinds of rankings are invariable fun and interesting. I don't regret a single second of what is most accurately termed "nonsense".


----------



## tdc

Allerius said:


> The point here is what is in bold. I didn't say that Mozart didn't invent anything substantial (such as, you could cite, the piano quartet) - I did say that in my view his innovations weren't as crucial, didn't have such a lasting and profound impact on the history of western music as those of Richard Wagner.


Rosen on Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 26:

"Both the loose melodic structure and the reliance for figuration for tension are characteristics of the early Romantic style, as in the concertos of Hummel and Chopin. It was not Beethoven but Mozart who showed how the classical style might be destroyed...viewed in this light it can be seen as the greatest of early Romantic concertos."

On Mozart's String Quintets:

"In the Quintets Mozart expanded the range of the form beyond Haydn's range, and attained a massiveness that Beethoven himself never surpassed."

Rosen also states the exposition of the C major Quintet matches Beethoven's 9th and is larger than the Eroica.

So we have two of the main innovations Beethoven is so often credited for (pointing the way to Romanticism and expansion of form) already achieved by Mozart. I think this is clear evidence that Mozart's innovations were as crucial and impactful on music as those of Wagner.

All this said originality and innovation in itself only goes so far in determining the impact of a composer. As far as opera goes, Gluck was more original than Mozart. But it was Mozart who understood the implications of many of the various innovations of the time and was able to apply them in a more tight-knit logical way, creating masterpieces. In this way there are similarities between the approaches and compositional contributions of Mozart and Bach.


----------



## PlaySalieri

tdc said:


> Rosen on Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 26:
> 
> "Both the loose melodic structure and the reliance for figuration for tension are characteristics of the early Romantic style, as in the concertos of Hummel and Chopin. It was not Beethoven but Mozart who showed how the classical style might be destroyed...viewed in this light it can be seen as the greatest of early Romantic concertos."
> 
> On Mozart's String Quintets:
> 
> "In the Quintets Mozart expanded the range of the form beyond Haydn's range, and attained a massiveness that Beethoven himself never surpassed."
> 
> Rosen also states the exposition of the C major Quintet matches Beethoven's 9th and is larger than the Eroica.
> 
> So we have two of the main innovations Beethoven is so often credited for (pointing the way to Romanticism and expansion of form) already achieved by Mozart. I think this is clear evidence that Mozart's innovations were as crucial and impactful on music as those of Wagner.
> 
> All this said originality and innovation in itself only goes so far in determining the impact of a composer. As far as opera goes, Gluck was more original than Mozart. But it was Mozart who understood the implications of many of the various innovations of the time and was able to apply them in a more tight-knit logical way, creating masterpieces. In this way there are similarities between the approaches and compositional contributions of Mozart and Bach.


many serious listeners have bought into the view that Haydn and Beethoven were the only innovators of those times and Mozart merely perfected exiting forms.

It's good to see this being challenged at last.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> At the beginning of this thread you said "I decided to have a little fun and create a composer tier list. Factors that went in included innovation, influence, and timelessness, with a little bit of personal bias going in-overall it's not that serious of a list."
> 
> Nothing about popularity there. Add that to your criteria, and it's pretty remarkable that you could come up with these rankings at all. What does it all really mean?


I agree. After all, what non-subjective criterion could be the basis of such a ranking other than popularity? That is why, when this subject has come up before, I cite the number of in-print recordings for each composer, an imperfect but probably at least as good as any other measure of popularity. Thus, according to arkivmusic.com:
1. Bach 2. Mozart 3. Beethoven 4. Brahms 5. Schubert 6.Tchaikovsky 7. Schumann 8. Handel 9. Verdi 10. Mendelssohn 11. Debussy 12. Chopin 13. Liszt 14. Haydn 15. Ravel 16. Vivaldi 17. Wagner 18. R. Strauss 19. Dvorak 20. Puccini 21. Prokofiev 22. Rachmaninoff 23. Shostakovich 24. Saint-Saens 25. Rossini 26. Mahler 27. Faure 28. Stravinsky 29. Grieg 30. Bizet 31. Britten 32. Donizetti 33. Gounod 34. Elgar 35. Bartok 36. Massenet 37. Gershwin 38. Sibelius 39. Telemann 40. Franck (the list goes on, but I'm too tired to compile it).
I think this turns out to be a telling list. Only three of these composers have been dead less than 50 years, and those three not much less, so, no fads or flashes in the pan. Also, without more recent composers, we don't have to get into lengthy arguments about who is or isn't a "classical" composer. No bias for or against snobby connoisseurs or uniformed casual listeners / dummies. No pro- or anti-opera or vocal music bias. Sure, Bach has a huge catalog of works and that adds to the number of in print recordings, but doesn't he deserve recognition for producing such a large quantity of great music? I think I could come up with a reasonable argument favoring every one of these rankings.


----------



## Bulldog

fluteman said:


> I agree. After all, what non-subjective criterion could be the basis of such a ranking other than popularity? That is why, when this subject has come up before, I cite the number of in-print recordings for each composer, an imperfect but probably at least as good as any other measure of popularity. Thus, according to arkivmusic.com:
> 1. Bach 2. Mozart 3. Beethoven 4. Brahms 5. Schubert 6.Tchaikovsky 7. Schumann 8. Handel 9. Verdi 10. Mendelssohn 11. Debussy 12. Chopin 13. Liszt 14. Haydn 15. Ravel 16. Vivaldi 17. Wagner 18. R. Strauss 19. Dvorak 20. Puccini 21. Prokofiev 22. Rachmaninoff 23. Shostakovich 24. Saint-Saens 25. Rossini 26. Mahler 27. Faure 28. Stravinsky 29. Bizet 30. Britten 31. Donizetti (the list goes on, but I'm too tired to compile it).


That is a good list for measuring popularity except that it is not kind to composers who wrote very long works which accounts for Wagner's relatively low ranking.


----------



## AeolianStrains

Bulldog said:


> That is a good list for measuring popularity except that it is not kind to composers who wrote very long works which accounts for Wagner's relatively low ranking.


On the other hand, doing it "hours recorded" is unkind to composers who are popular but didn't compose too many works. Maybe some algorithm that takes both into account could be more accurate.


----------



## fluteman

Bulldog said:


> That is a good list for measuring popularity except that it is not kind to composers who wrote very long works which accounts for Wagner's relatively low ranking.


I can't agree with that at all. For one thing, very long theatrical productions and concerts are not as desired or popular in contemporary western culture as they were in the 19th century. As this is a popularity ranking, such trends are exactly what it is supposed to be measuring. Moreover, to me, Wagner's great strength was as a dramatist. I've long argued that theater is more specific to its time and place than abstract music, and takes more education and study (whether formal or not) to appreciate. Notice how many of Wagner's recordings consist solely of instrumental preludes and overtures. And note the irony that despite the argument many here make that Wagner forever ruined Mendelssohn's reputation, Mendelssohn ranks higher. There is far more music than theater in Mendelssohn, while for Wagner it is the reverse. In my opinion, for similar reasons, Brahms ranks higher than Tchaikovsky.


----------



## Bulldog

fluteman said:


> I can't agree with that at all. For one thing, very long theatrical productions and concerts are not as desired or popular in contemporary western culture as they were in the 19th century. As this is a popularity ranking, such trends are exactly what it is supposed to be measuring. Moreover, to me, Wagner's great strength was as a dramatist. I've long argued that theater is more specific to its time and place than abstract music, and takes more education and study (whether formal or not) to appreciate. And note the irony that despite the argument many here make that Wagner forever ruined Mendelssohn's reputation, Mendelssohn ranks higher. There is far more music than theater in Mendelssohn, while for Wagner it is the reverse. In my opinion, for similar reasons, Brahms ranks higher than Tchaikovsky.


On ArkivMusic, a 4-disc opera counts as 1 recording; a Beethoven piano quintet counts as 1 recording. That's the reason for my comment about Wagner, and it's a valid one.


----------



## fluteman

Bulldog said:


> On ArkivMusic, a 4-disc opera counts as 1 recording; a Beethoven piano quintet counts as 1 recording. That's the reason for my comment about Wagner, and it's a valid one.


Well, no, that isn't necessarily entirely valid, as opera excerpts can be and often are recorded, especially in Wagner's case, where his preludes and overtures are routinely recorded without the entire opera. Rossini is an even more extreme example of that. In general, opera composers benefit greatly in this ranking due to vocal recital albums, that might include only one or two arias from a particular composer, as well as overture recordings. But in my opinion that's only fair to opera composers, most of whom, not just Wagner, wrote lengthy works most do not routinely listen to in their entirety these days. Short excerpts of their operas stand very well on their own, and no doubt that greatly boosted their popularity from the start.


----------



## Bulldog

fluteman said:


> Well, no, that isn't necessarily entirely valid, as opera excerpts can be and often are recorded, especially in Wagner's case, where his preludes and overtures are routinely recorded without the entire opera. Rossini is an even more extreme example of that. In general, opera composers benefit greatly in this ranking due to vocal recital albums, that might include only one or two arias from a particular composer, as well as overture recordings. But in my opinion that's only fair to opera composers, most of whom, not just Wagner, wrote lengthy works most do not routinely listen to in their entirety these days. Short excerpts of their operas stand very well on their own, and no doubt that greatly boosted their popularity from the start.


If ArkivMusic counted a 4-disc opera as 4 (not 1), Wagner would be higher in the rankings.


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> I agree. After all, what non-subjective criterion could be the basis of such a ranking other than popularity? That is why, when this subject has come up before, I cite the number of in-print recordings for each composer, an imperfect but probably at least as good as any other measure of popularity. Thus, according to arkivmusic.com:
> 1. Bach 2. Mozart 3. Beethoven 4. Brahms 5. Schubert 6.Tchaikovsky 7. Schumann 8. Handel 9. Verdi 10. Mendelssohn 11. Debussy 12. Chopin 13. Liszt 14. Haydn 15. Ravel 16. Vivaldi 17. Wagner 18. R. Strauss 19. Dvorak 20. Puccini 21. Prokofiev 22. Rachmaninoff 23. Shostakovich 24. Saint-Saens 25. Rossini 26. Mahler 27. Faure 28. Stravinsky 29. Grieg 30. Bizet 31. Britten 32. Donizetti 33. Gounod 34. Elgar 35. Bartok 36. Massenet 37. Gershwin 38. Sibelius 39. Telemann 40. Franck (the list goes on, but I'm too tired to compile it).
> I think this turns out to be a telling list. Only three of these composers have been dead less than 50 years, and those three not much less, so, no fads or flashes in the pan. Also, without more recent composers, we don't have to get into lengthy arguments about who is or isn't a "classical" composer. No bias for or against snobby connoisseurs or uniformed casual listeners / dummies. No pro- or anti-opera or vocal music bias. Sure, Bach has a huge catalog of works and that adds to the number of in print recordings, but doesn't he deserve recognition for producing such a large quantity of great music? I think I could come up with a reasonable argument favoring every one of these rankings.


Up to a point I agree with you that "popularity" is the best, if not the only, way of ranking composers. Other measures such as influence and innovation are fine as discussion points concerning individual composers, but there's no satisfactory way of defining these terms sufficiently well to allow them to be measured for the purpose of compiling ranked lists. Hence, in discussions about the "greatness" of composers I always give short shrift to suggestions that these factors should taken into account in rating one composer against another - which partly explains my disputatious discussion with Woodduck above regarding Wagner's overall rating.

The problem is to decide which is the best method of measuring "popularity". Each measure will potentially give different answers. One based on the opinions of people who tend to congregate in music forums like this one may be dissimilar to another based on the listening patterns of the "classic FM" audiences. In fact they are usually very different indeed. Then there are these "_Ranke_r" type of polls, as referred to in an earlier post by member mifek. The contributors are larger in number and cover a wide range of issues, not just music. The question is are the music results reliable? Personally, I do care about the opinions of a very wide base of people even if we charitably assume that they all have at least some interest in classical music, albeit possibly very small in some cases.

The use of ArkivMusik.com, to which you refer, is an old method that's been used by many people who are savvy about these things over the years to get a rough idea of popularity among different composers. I have referred to it occasion, as too have various others on this Forum. I first discovered it around 2006 when I was involved in similar discussions to this on composer ratings on another music board that specialises in ranking music across all genres. As a rough indicator of popularity, it's OK up to a point but I think it has too many problems to be of much use in ranking classical composers at the fine level that some people are interested in. I have found minor problems like it doesn't contain all recordings in some areas, and sometimes it double-counts works in various ways. There is the bigger problem of different composition mix among certain composers, as alluded to by others. All in all, I don't think it's sufficiently reliable to dispense with more direct means of measuring popularity.

Then we come to forum based favourite composer polls. They are by no means reliable. Some of those on T-C have given conflicting ratings for certain composers, Wagner especially it would seem. . What tends to be overlooked by many is that they all contain inherent considerable uncertainty about each of the ranks when the normal statistical uncertainties are taken into account. For example, Schumann might have a calculated rank of 13 in a certain poll, but in terms of the range of statistical uncertainty he could be anywhere in the range 7-19 (numbers here chosen purely to illustrate the nature of the problem in principle). The same applies to all the ranks both higher up and further down, except that the degree of uncertainty increases with the lower ranks (less popular composers). This comes about from the size of the usual samples found in such polls, and the closeness and bunching of scores. In other words, all of the ranks that come out of forum based polls should be treated with considerable caution.


----------



## KenOC

I suggest that the “ranking” of music is determined by how often pieces and composers are actually performed. This includes not only major orchestral venues, but chamber and solo performances as well.

In all cases, though, in the long run it’s “enduring popularity” that counts. All others will fade into the shadows and be forgotten.


----------



## PlaySalieri

KenOC said:


> I suggest that the "ranking" of music is determined by how often pieces and composers are actually performed. This includes not only major orchestral venues, but chamber and solo performances as well.
> 
> In all cases, though, in the long run it's "enduring popularity" that counts. All others will fade into the shadows and be forgotten.


well Bruch is the most played VC

but probably not in the top 10 VCs ranked by TC members


----------



## Art Rock

stomanek said:


> well Bruch is the most played VC
> 
> but probably not in the top 10 VCs ranked by TC members


It was #6 in the ranked string concertos by TC members (link).


----------



## annaw

KenOC said:


> *I suggest that the "ranking" of music is determined by how often pieces and composers are actually performed. This includes not only major orchestral venues, but chamber and solo performances as well.*
> 
> In all cases, though, in the long run it's "enduring popularity" that counts. All others will fade into the shadows and be forgotten.


That's again unfair towards composers with very prestigious and long works. For example, the composers with a huge chamber or solo music output will certainly be ranked higher just because their music is often easier to perform. To make a good production of _Tristan und Isolde_, you need to think about the theatrical aspect (for example the stage/costume design and acting), you need an orchestra and Wagner singers who are able to sing the parts. In addition, it's much longer. Therefore, while someone might be singing the part of Tristan in _Tristan und Isolde_ for 4 hours (+ intermissions), a piano soloist might have played 20 different solo works during that time.


----------



## Xisten267

tdc said:


> Rosen on Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 26:
> 
> "Both the loose melodic structure and the reliance for figuration for tension are characteristics of the early Romantic style, as in the concertos of Hummel and Chopin. It was not Beethoven but Mozart who showed how the classical style might be destroyed...viewed in this light it can be seen as the greatest of early Romantic concertos."
> 
> On Mozart's String Quintets:
> 
> "In the Quintets Mozart expanded the range of the form beyond Haydn's range, and attained a massiveness that Beethoven himself never surpassed."
> 
> Rosen also states the exposition of the C major Quintet matches Beethoven's 9th and is larger than the Eroica.
> 
> So we have two of the main innovations Beethoven is so often credited for (pointing the way to Romanticism and expansion of form) already achieved by Mozart. I think this is clear evidence that Mozart's innovations were as crucial and impactful on music as those of Wagner.
> 
> All this said originality and innovation in itself only goes so far in determining the impact of a composer. As far as opera goes, Gluck was more original than Mozart. But it was Mozart who understood the implications of many of the various innovations of the time and was able to apply them in a more tight-knit logical way, creating masterpieces. In this way there are similarities between the approaches and compositional contributions of Mozart and Bach.


Nice try, but we both know that the transition from the Classical to the Romantic eras happened gradually and that the romantic composers didn't reject the Classical forms and principles of composition - the transition wasn't marked by a rupture like in the cases of Baroque to Classical or of Romantic to Modern.

Considering this, I think that it's fair to assume that Mozart helped yes to somehow pave the way towards the new era of music with a new approach to compostion here and there - together with many other composers such as Beethoven of course but also Haydn, Hummel, Weber, Clementi, Cherubini and, considering that Classical and Romantic eras form a single continuum, why not Sammartini (one of the first composers of "symphonies" that aren't opera overtures; also one of the first composers to abolish the basso continuo and to apply sonata form to his compositions - all these innovations were absorved by the romantics), Stamitz (the main figure behind the Mannheim school, known for his importance in developing the symphony, a key genre in the music of the XIX century), Gluck (with his _Orpheus and Eurydice_ that antecipates Wagner in it's approach of focusing in the drama and creating a continuous musical line, rather than one divided into separated arias and recitatives), CPE Bach (with his "Empfindungen" fantasy that focus on emotions) etc.

I understand that Beethoven is a key figure of the transition between these two eras because of the impressive number of innovations he introduced. He expanded yes the lenght of the music of his time but also what could be done inside of it's many forms, adding a new world of rhythms and expression to the forms inherited from Mozart and Haydn, giving more prominence to the development sections and codas of his pieces. If we are to say that Romanticism "started" somewhere, I think that it would be fair to assume that it was at some moment contemporary to Beethoven's life and many achievements - although it would be utterly wrong in my view to attribute to him the "advent" of Romanticism: there was no such thing.

Regarding Mozart's K. 537: there's not a consensus of this piano concerto as being as progressive as Rosen suggests. Einstein, for example, see it as nothing more than Mozart making a parody of himself:

"..It [the piano concerto No. 26] is very Mozartean, while at the same time it does not express the whole or even the half of Mozart. It is, in fact, so 'Mozartesque' that one might say that in it Mozart imitated himself-no difficult task for him. It is both brilliant and amiable, especially in the slow movement; it is very simple, even primitive, in its relation between the solo and the tutti, and so completely easy to understand that even the nineteenth century always grasped it without difficulty..." - Alfred Einstein.

In terms of piano concertos, I think that a reasonable line pointing towards romanticism would be : J.C. Bach -> Mozart -> Beethoven -> Hummel -> Chopin. The transition was gradual in my view.


----------



## fluteman

Partita said:


> Up to a point I agree with you that "popularity" is the best, if not the only, way of ranking composers. Other measures such as influence and innovation are fine as discussion points concerning individual composers, but there's no satisfactory way of defining these terms sufficiently well to allow them to be measured for the purpose of compiling ranked lists. Hence, in discussions about the "greatness" of composers I always give short shrift to suggestions that these factors should taken into account in rating one composer against another - which partly explains my disputatious discussion with Woodduck above regarding Wagner's overall rating.
> 
> The problem is to decide which is the best method of measuring "popularity". Each measure will potentially give different answers. One based on the opinions of people who tend to congregate in music forums like this one may be dissimilar to another based on the listening patterns of the "classic FM" audiences. In fact they are usually very different indeed. Then there are these "_Ranke_r" type of polls, as referred to in an earlier post by member mifek. The contributors are larger in number and cover a wide range of issues, not just music. The question is are the music results reliable? Personally, I do care about the opinions of a very wide base of people even if we charitably assume that they all have at least some interest in classical music, albeit possibly very small in some cases.
> 
> The use of ArkivMusik.com, to which you refer, is an old method that's been used by many people who are savvy about these things over the years to get a rough idea of popularity among different composers. I have referred to it occasion, as too have various others on this Forum. I first discovered it around 2006 when I was involved in similar discussions to this on composer ratings on another music board that specialises in ranking music across all genres. As a rough indicator of popularity, it's OK up to a point but I think it has too many problems to be of much use in ranking classical composers at the fine level that some people are interested in. I have found minor problems like it doesn't contain all recordings in some areas, and sometimes it double-counts works in various ways. There is the bigger problem of different composition mix among certain composers, as alluded to by others. All in all, I don't think it's sufficiently reliable to dispense with more direct means of measuring popularity.
> 
> Then we come to forum based favourite composer polls. They are by no means reliable. Some of those on T-C have given conflicting ratings for certain composers, Wagner especially it would seem. . What tends to be overlooked by many is that they all contain inherent considerable uncertainty about each of the ranks when the normal statistical uncertainties are taken into account. For example, Schumann might have a calculated rank of 13 in a certain poll, but in terms of the range of statistical uncertainty he could be anywhere in the range 7-19 (numbers here chosen purely to illustrate the nature of the problem in principle). The same applies to all the ranks both higher up and further down, except that the degree of uncertainty increases with the lower ranks (less popular composers). This comes about from the size of the usual samples found in such polls, and the closeness and bunching of scores. In other words, all of the ranks that come out of forum based polls should be treated with considerable caution.


All good points, especially your final comment. And I don't mean to be too hard on Bulldog, as lengthy operas are more expensive and difficult to produce than short pieces, and presumably won't be recorded or purchased as often. But I think the composer who suffers the most in this kind of ranking due to the length of his works is Mahler rather than any of the opera composers. As I said, a single opera can be chopped up and served as many individual arias, overtures, preludes and interludes. Look at Mozart's Zauberflote, Verdi's Traviata, Wagner's Tristan and Bizet's Carmen. The most famous bits of each are recorded and performed on their own all the time. Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries got a big boost in popularity just from the movie Apocalypse Now. People who knew of my interest in classical music asked me to recommend a recording. Mozart's Aria of the Queen of the Night and Bizet's Torreador Song are pop culture standards for many who have never seen or heard the complete operas. But Mahler's long works are not as easily chopped up and recorded or performed in small excerpts.

Another composer who probably suffers a bit with this kind of ranking is Bruckner, who is just outside the top 40. But I think there is simply no way to accurately parse statistical popularity to the extent Bulldog would want. Look at downloads, for example. These are generally sold as individual discrete "songs". With classical music, each movement of a symphony or string quartet is usually treated as an individual "song". But not always. A lengthy classical work with no discrete breaks is usually treated as a single song, but again, not always. But would a classical music fan download a single movement of a symphony? Probably not. A single Schubert song? More likely. Would he or she create a classical hits custom playlist downloading individual tracks from various sources? Well, I suspect some do that, or at least throw in a classical track with other music they like. You'd really have to study listening habits to get a better feel for all of this.

In the end, though, I stand by my opinion that Mahler and Bruckner suffer more from this sort of simplistic, mechanical measure of popularity than does Wagner. As for the composers who benefit most from it, I'd nominate Gounod and Massenet, and even Donizetti. But again, consider the popularity of individual arias and instrumental excerpts for each of these, regardless of how often one hears their entire operas.


----------



## hammeredklavier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._40_(Mozart) 
_"The first movement begins darkly, not with its first theme but with the accompaniment, played by the lower strings with divided violas. The technique of beginning a work with an accompaniment figure was later used by Mozart in his last piano concerto (KV. 595) and later became a favorite of the Romantics (examples include the openings of Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto and Sergei Rachmaninoff's Third Piano Concerto)."_

Also I find the B major ending of this fascinating:


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> Again, this is the same convenient logic used over and over again. "xxx never invented anything new".


I didn't say that. What I said is that Mozart, although innovative, didn't create something completely new that had the same impact of the Wagner's progressive ideas and inventions concerning music. Mozart for me expanded, perfected what came before him, as I already told you before.



hammeredklavier said:


> What disturbs me the most is that you often use this logic to overhype something else. For example, Beethoven's innovation, which is already (frankly) overhyped way out of proportion compared to other greats' in classical music communities. I find that lots of people think it's far more a sacrilege to question Beethoven's innovation than Bach, Mozart, Haydn's. "Mozart stayed safe, Beethoven broke the mould" is like the most cliched slogan in classical music. But I ask why. You say Mozart did not invent "Sturm and Drang". But as you saw in that video, Beethoven did not create "Stile Pathetique" either.


I think that Beethoven was the main exponent of such style, although I wouldn't attribute it's invention to him either.



hammeredklavier said:


> -Beethoven wasn't the first to write a calm intro to a stormy section to start a violin sonata either.
> -Beethoven wasn't the first to expand the string quartet form using various tonalities in multi movements either.
> -Beethoven wasn't the first to write a dissonant fugue for strings either.


...but Beethoven developed these ideas and reached new, unprecedented heights with them. Dissonance has never been as shocking as in Op. 133 before, and Op. 131 has a single predecessor by Haydn that is very different in terms of mood, character, form (except by the number of movements), rhythm and, of course, use of theme and variations. Also, with the exception of Op. 135, Beethoven's late quartets seem to involve formal and structural relationships between each other that are innovative.



hammeredklavier said:


> Consider these:
> "Mozart sonata in A minor K310 has fortissimo butting up against pianissimo in a way that has never been done in a piano sonata."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Mozart went futher than anyone in "Thematische Arbeit". The introduction to the Dissonance Quartet even perplexed Haydn."
> https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lecture/transcript/print/mozart-quartet-in-c-major-k465-dissonance/
> "Mozart's string quartets and symphonies K550, K551 were direct sources of inspiration for Schoenberg's Fourth String Quartet."


Your first citation can be an utterly new idea; but is it really that influential?

The other two aren't creations of Mozart: there's more dissonant music coming before him (in Bach for example), and he wasn't the first and only composer before the Second Viennese School to use tone rows. Actually, I think that Schoenberg could have said that he was influenced by both Bach and Beethoven aswell in his approaches to composition. He chose Mozart, perhaps because he had a personal preference towards his music, and that's it.



hammeredklavier said:


> As for the case of chromaticism; say if I criticize Chopin's chromaticism comparing with Wagner's, people would surely react like "Chopin's chromaticism (in works such as the Winterwind Etude and B minor Scherzo) is unique and completely different from Wagner's, they can't be compared. They're just apples and oranges." So isn't it reasonable to suggest Mozart's chromaticism is "just different" from Chopin's and Wagner's as well?
> Consider the way Mozart builds tension using chromaticism in Gloria of Missa Brevis K258
> 
> 
> 
> Do Chopin and Wagner utilize chromaticism this way? What of the "diatonic containment of chromaticism" in the 40th symphony?


But see, Gesualdo was using advanced chromaticism centuries before Mozart.



hammeredklavier said:


> Even Wagner wasn't the first to write the tristan chord. He took a lot from Liszt, but if you're going use Wagner to claim that Mozart didn't event anything new - you should at least show some consistency with your argument on others like Beethoven as well. You might not agree, but from certain perspectives he can be considered to have "failed" to emulate Mozart's chromaticism:
> -In the last Razumovsky Op.59 No.3, Beethoven tries to write like Mozart Dissonance Quartet, he fails to achieve Mozart's feel of flow.
> -In the third piano concerto Op.37, Beethoven admitted himself he couldn't write like Mozart's 24th. Even Brahms confirmed it.
> -The Funeral March from Eroica symphony can be seen as just a long-winded way of saying the things Mozart already said in Maurerische Trauermusik.


Wagner didn't invent the tristan chord, but the tonal relations he developed from it are entirely new. Also, music that edges atonality had never been used so extensively before in such large structures as those in which he worked.



hammeredklavier said:


> I often find that compared to Haydn and Mozart,- Beethoven is far more romanticized as an innovator with modern "propaganda". It's not a bad thing, but in many instances I feel it does more harm than good in our attempt to objectively evaluate their achievements. I'm not saying we should not consider Wagner and Beethoven as innovators. But we should not rely on this logic "xxx never invented anything new" too much - as I explained above, it can "backfire" on icons who have been conventionally regarded as innovators, such as Beethoven. We know the convenient logic everyone uses: "it all depends on how you look at it."


Some of Beethoven's most original innovations below:

- Beethoven invented the lied cycle in Op. 98;
- He also created an entirely new, unprecedented way of making variations in his Op. 120;
- Beethoven also is responsible for the application of choruses in forms that were purely intrumental before, starting in his very progressive but IMO underrated Op. 80;
- He also seems to be the direct precursor to the idea of _symphonic poem_ with his Op. 68 and his incidental overtures;
- Beethoven's approach to rhythm was unique for his time. In the single final movement of his Op. 125, for example, there are no less than twenty five (!) changes of tempo. That would have been unthinkable by Mozart.

All these were completely new ideas that were extremely influential not only in the 19th century but also after. What Mozart did create that was this influential?

You see, I'm in no way saying that Mozart didn't invent new things, but that his entirely new ideas aren't influential in the scale of Wagner - or Beethoven. His major influence in my view comes from the development and the reach of apotheosis of already stablished ideas.


----------



## Xisten267

Partita said:


> *Sorry but all this is irrelevant.* We are not discussing whether or not Wagner was a great opera composer, or has a solid backing at T-C. I don't doubt either fact at all. As far as I'm concerned, we're discussing whether it's reasonable to place Wagner in the No 4 slot in a ranked list of all composers based on the opinions of a typical selection of members of this Forum. There has been an attempt by another member (mifek) to suggest that the opinions of a wider selection of people should be taken into account, but in doing so he has still come up with Wagner in the No 4 slot.


It's not. You said:

"I think that this notion of Wagner meriting rank No 4 is quite without foundation, anyway. This rating *is not supported by any of the many TC composer polls* that I can recall seeing over many years. He usually comes out several notches further down the top 10, and has occasionally dropped into the low teens."

I showed how wrong you were.

...

What could be argued is that in my answer to this paragraph of yours I should have payed more attention to your fragile premise instead of to your arguments.


----------



## Xisten267

chu42 said:


> Handel belongs in S tier, no doubt about it. Romantic opera is defined by Verdi/Wagner, Classical opera is defined by Mozart, and *Baroque opera defined by Handel*.


Are you sure about that? What about Lully and Rameau? Their operas were at least as influential as those of Handel, weren't they?

Vivaldi operas have been rediscovered only recently, and perhaps they could benefit from a revaluation in the future. Unfortunately I can't say that that I know more than a few Vivaldi and Handel operas, and some random arias, although the ones I know are on a par with each other IMO.

...but it's your list, and I accept your final position. I admire Handel, although I can't say I really understand his music. Others are much more enthusiastic about his works than I am, at this moment at least.


----------



## Guest

Allerius said:


> It's not. You said:
> 
> "I think that this notion of Wagner meriting rank No 4 is quite without foundation, anyway. This rating *is not supported by any of the many TC composer polls* that I can recall seeing over many years. He usually comes out several notches further down the top 10, and has occasionally dropped into the low teens."
> 
> I showed *how wrong* you were.
> 
> ...
> 
> What could be argued is that in my answer to this paragraph of yours I should have payed more attention to your *fragile premise* instead of to your arguments.


Your comments are very confusing. I'm not sure how you reckon you showed "how wrong" I was. Nor do I understand what you mean by "fragile premise".


----------



## Xisten267

Partita said:


> Your comments are very confusing. I'm not sure how you reckon you showed "how wrong" I was. Nor do I understand what you mean by "fragile premise".


You said that the rating of Wagner as the #4 composer is not supported by TC polls, yet I showed you that there are TC (also DDD) polls/rankings in which he or his works appear in the #4 position or above.

Also, I undestood that your premise in the paragraph I answered to was that polls can show the greatness of a composer; I think that this position, already contested by other member in post #118, is fragile.


----------



## Guest

Allerius said:


> Are you sure about that? What about Lully and Rameau? Their operas were at least as influential as those of Handel, weren't they?
> 
> Vivaldi operas have been rediscovered only recently, and perhaps they could benefit from a revaluation in the future. Unfortunately I can't say that that I know more than a few Vivaldi and Handel operas, and some random arias, although the ones I know are on a par with each other IMO.
> 
> ...but it's your list, and I accept your final position. I admire Handel, although I can't say I really understand his music. Others are much more enthusiastic about his works than I am, at this moment at least.


From my experience of internet music forms, polls etc, I would say that Handel is generally much more highly rated than either Rameau or Lully. Handel's opera, oratorios, chamber works, orchestral works etc are, in total, a great deal more famous than those of the other two. Next to Bach, Handel must be the most outstanding baroque composer in terms of general fame.

I don't care for the "tiers" system as such, but given that's what we're discussing in this thread I would include Handel in in the "S" tier. In other words, he would be included within my personal top 13 composers. I do agree, however, that it might be touch and go as regards an up to date poll of TC members in general. He might have slipped into the top end of tier "A".

I don't what's happened to all the Handel fans that used to be quite a feature of T-C in previous times. Several of his bigger fans I recall from former (and in my view much better) times seem to have disappeared.


----------



## fluteman

Partita said:


> Your comments are very confusing. I'm not sure how you reckon you showed "how wrong" I was. Nor do I understand what you mean by "fragile premise".


Given your intelligent comments above, in response to the in print recordings ranking I mentioned, I'm puzzled that you even engage in this debate. Surely, talkclassical composer popularity polls, though entertaining, have no larger validity or significance beyond the small group of members here who choose to participate. Not only do many music listeners not join or even look at or know about talkclassical, many of those who are here, myself included, choose not to participate in those polls. So there is an enormous selection bias, among other issues.


----------



## hammeredklavier

-----------------------------------------


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> Given your intelligent comments above, in response to the in print recordings ranking I mentioned, I'm puzzled that you even engage in this debate. Surely, talkclassical composer popularity polls, though entertaining, have no larger validity or significance beyond the small group of members here who choose to participate. Not only do many music listeners not join or even look at or know about talkclassical, many of those who are here, myself included, choose not to participate in those polls. So there is an enormous selection bias, among other issues.


Can you clarify which post of mine you are referring to. The one you have selected does not seem correct.


----------



## chu42

Allerius said:


> Are you sure about that? What about Lully and Rameau? Their operas were at least as influential as those of Handel, weren't they?
> 
> Vivaldi operas have been rediscovered only recently, and perhaps they could benefit from a revaluation in the future. Unfortunately I can't say that that I know more than a few Vivaldi and Handel operas, and some random arias, although the ones I know are on a par with each other IMO.
> 
> ...but it's your list, and I accept your final position. I admire Handel, although I can't say I really understand his music. Others are much more enthusiastic about his works than I am, at this moment at least.


Obviously, Handel wasn't the only famous Baroque opera composer, as neither was Mozart the only major Classical composer of opera nor Verdi/Wagner in Romanticism. But the general consensus is that these people were the ones who stand out the most and have the most fame, performances, and acclaim among these eras.

Handel is widely acknowledged to have composed some of the finest opera not only of his time, but of all time. Giulio Cesare and Serse in particular will be commonly found within "greatest opera" lists.

Vivaldi, for all his fame as a composer of concerti, has not had a great deal of acclaim for opera in the ~100 years that he has been famous, despite having composed over 40 of them. If a re-evaluation is to happen, it is long overdue. We cannot just give the benefit of the doubt to composers simply because they have not been "reevaluated" or "rediscovered", for the same could be said for any number of obscure composers in history. We simply look at what has been said and what is being said.

In 50 years, who knows? Perhaps Vivaldi's operas will become popular and he will rise in status towards Handel- but as history has shown, I doubt this will be the case.

In terms of the "greats", we often have to let go our own prejudices for a proper ranking. I would've ranked Schumann a lot higher if that weren't the case. These rankings remain subjective, but not subjective in the idea of "whose music I prefer".


----------



## Guest

Allerius said:


> You said that the rating of Wagner as the #4 composer is not supported by TC polls, yet I showed you that there are TC (also DDD) polls/rankings in which he or his works appear in the #4 position or above.


It's absurd to suggest that just because Wagner has achieved 4th or higher position in regard to certain works is sufficient evidence to justify such a high overall No 4 top composer position. His range of work is much too narrow to justify that, as most people agree, except perhaps a handful of his most ardent supporters many of whom probably have little interest in classical music outside opera, from what I can detect from their involvement here.

As for DDD's ranking of Wagner in the No 4 spot, as I mentioned before that was based very largely on Phil Goulding's list. It's a ranking that dates from 2006, and involved a minimal amount of membership voting. All of the top 10 rankings largely reflected the personal opinions of the moderator who ran the proceedings. I very much suspect that if the work was done afresh today,with a voting system in place that involved the membership, then Wagner would come out much lower. However, that wouldn't happen because the DDD classical music section is virtually dead.

As I have stated several times previously, most TC composer ranking polls, and a few others of similar nature on other forums that I recall seeing in the past, have placed Wagner further down the list. On some polls he has been very low indeed. The poll that KenOC referred to is a mystery to me, as I don't recall ever seeing it, and I do keep an eye on these things out of general interest.

In the latest TC poll he was in joint 11th position. That poll was based on the membership at February 2019.



Allerius said:


> Also, I understood that your premise in the paragraph I answered to was that polls can show the greatness of a composer; I think that this position, already contested by other member in post #118, is fragile.


Sorry but again I do not understand what you are trying to say. Please clarify further. All the various ramblings in post# 118 don't have any bearing on the question of the empirical evidence of Wagner's rank in the favourite composer stakes. It's all mainly a lot of adulation mixed up with waffle and wishful thinking about how great Wagner ought to be seen, not how he is actually seen by the wider audience of classical music fans. All totally irrelevant to the matter in hand.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I honestly doubt any of us could really rank master composers in terms of quality. How do you choose between the aesthetic choices they made compared to each other? I also disagree a whole body of a composer's work be considered compared to their best. Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique is greater in scope than anything written by Haydn (am I'm a fan of pretty anything Haydn's written), and as great as anyone's, but his name is not in a top 20 list. Bach was inventive with harmony, but his rhythms are less notable than every other composer in a top 10 list. Wagner deserves high praise for his use of harmony regardless of genre or body of work. Stravinsky's use of rhythms was unprecedented, and never improved upon. There are many facets of great music. Tier lists based on body of work is a fun exercise, but not worth arguing about.


----------



## fluteman

Partita said:


> Can you clarify which post of mine you are referring to. The one you have selected does not seem correct.


I thought your post no. 152 made a number of good points. No doubt all of your other posts are intelligent and thoughtful too, but I don't understand why you would bother to get into a lengthy debate about TC polls, which have no validity or relevance beyond the particular group who chooses to participate or vote, or the OP's first post or anything similar to it, which are obviously no more than the posters' own subjective opinions, however well-informed and interesting those opinions (sometimes) are.


----------



## fluteman

Bulldog said:


> If ArkivMusic counted a 4-disc opera as 4 (not 1), Wagner would be higher in the rankings.


And if ArkivMusic didn't count recordings of individual arias, overtures, preludes, and other orchestral excerpts from the operas, many of which are merely a part of albums that include works of multiple composers, Wagner would plunge far down in the rankings, as would most of the other composers who specialized mostly or entirely in operas. As I've already repeatedly said, the ArkivMusic rankings are an imperfect measure of popularity, but are relatively kind to opera composers. Mahler and Bruckner, on the other hand, fare less well.


----------



## chu42

Phil loves classical said:


> I honestly doubt any of us could really rank master composers in terms of quality. How do you choose between the aesthetic choices they made compared to each other? I also disagree a whole body of a composer's work be considered compared to their best. Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique is greater in scope than anything written by Haydn (am I'm a fan of pretty anything Haydn's written), and as great as anyone's, but his name is not in a top 20 list. Bach was inventive with harmony, but his rhythms are less notable than every other composer in a top 10 list. Wagner deserves high praise for his use of harmony regardless of genre or body of work. Stravinsky's use of rhythms was unprecedented, and never improved upon. There are many facets of great music. Tier lists based on body of work is a fun exercise, but not worth arguing about.


You're right, but I would like to point out that "greatness" is often seen in the context of what a composer's environment and contemporaries were at the time. Scope and rhythm were simply not on the minds of Haydn and Bach for whatever reason, does it make their music any worse for wear? If Haydn or Bach were shifted 100 years into the past or the future, would their music still have been better than their most of their contemporaries? I'd wager that it's a yes, based on what they were able to do in their respective periods.


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> I thought your post no. 152 made a number of good points. No doubt all of your other posts are intelligent and thoughtful too, but I don't understand why you would bother to get into a lengthy debate about TC polls, which have no validity or relevance beyond the particular group who chooses to participate or vote, or the OP's first post or anything similar to it, which are obviously no more than the posters' own subjective opinions, however well-informed and interesting those opinions (sometimes) are.


I know. You are quite right in your observations. I'll just say that I too am very distrustful of forum based polls and have never voted in the kind we are presently talking about. I have only stated what I have because my opinions are based on observing trends from quite a lot of past composer polls, both here and elsewhere. Even though the results have varied quite a lot, I believe it's possible to draw reasonably firm conclusions from them in terms of main features. That Wagner is not typically placed as highly as 4th by the more discerning types of classical music fans who tend to visit forums like this one is one such conclusion.


----------



## Phil loves classical

chu42 said:


> You're right, but I would like to point out that "greatness" is often seen in the context of what a composer's environment and contemporaries were at the time. Scope and rhythm were simply not on the minds of Haydn and Bach for whatever reason, does it make their music any worse for wear? If Haydn or Bach were shifted 100 years into the past or the future, would their music still have been better than their most of their contemporaries? I'd wager that it's a yes, based on what they were able to do in their respective periods.


I don't want to speculate on how they would fare in different time periods. As for worse for wear, some of Bach's works sound rigid to me in rhythm. But not Haydn. I can listen to him in any different light and enjoy his music.


----------



## chu42

Phil loves classical said:


> I don't want to speculate on how they would fare in different time periods. As for worse for wear, some of Bach's works sound rigid to me in rhythm. But not Haydn. I can listen to him in any different light and enjoy his music.


In that case, that is completely personal preference (i.e., "favorite composers" or "which composer do I enjoy more").


----------



## tdc

Phil loves classical said:


> I honestly doubt any of us could really rank master composers in terms of quality. How do you choose between the aesthetic choices they made compared to each other? I also disagree a whole body of a composer's work be considered compared to their best. Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique is greater in scope than anything written by Haydn (am I'm a fan of pretty anything Haydn's written), and as great as anyone's, but his name is not in a top 20 list. *Bach was inventive with harmony, but his rhythms are less notable than every other composer in a top 10 list. *Wagner deserves high praise for his use of harmony regardless of genre or body of work. Stravinsky's use of rhythms was unprecedented, and never improved upon. There are many facets of great music. Tier lists based on body of work is a fun exercise, but not worth arguing about.


Being hyper complex with rhythm is not an essential feature of creating good music in my view, and it tends to be something that crops up as musical styles evolve over periods of time. If you look at jazz music pretty much all of it was in 4/4 time until Dave Brubeck, it was a great innovation and a way to keep things interesting, but I wouldn't criticize earlier jazz composers simply for being less notable in their use of rhythm. In rock music it is the same as the style evolved more bands have experimented with complex rhythms. Yet how much great music can still be written in different variants of 3/4 and 4/4? It is about as vast as the system of tonality itself.


----------



## tdc

hammeredklavier said:


> If you think Beethoven was really that influential on a level Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn couldn't reach:
> Name one great composer of the same or higher magnitude and caliber as Tchaikovsky who decided to become a composer himself because of his music.
> Name one great composer in* the same or higher status as Ravel who thought Mozart was trash, Beethoven was God.
> *


I know what you meant here but just pointing out you got the composers reversed. Ravel thought Beethoven's music was an abomination and Mozart's music was sublime.

Chopin felt that Beethoven "turned his back on eternal principles".


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> @Allerius, again you resort to convenient logic. Conveniently pick and choose to suit yourself. This is the problem with the extreme Beethoven fandom. They're just so obsessed with making Beethoven the Immortal God of Innovation and Revolution, they just won't accept others' opinions thinking Beethoven a little overhyped in this regard.


I'm not from any kind of alledged "extreme Beethoven fandom". He is my favorite composer yes (together with Wagner and Bach), but this doesn't prevent me of listening to other geniuses of music such as Mozart and actually enjoying their works quite a lot. I've _never_ attacked the figure of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart since I started my participation here, and I don't plan to do so because I respect and love him and his music. Yet here in this thread I feel compelled to defend Beethoven because _you_ doesn't stop bashing him. I don't believe in your revisionism regarding the works of Beethoven, although I admire your knowledge of Mozart and classical music in general.



hammeredklavier said:


> "Dissonance has never been as shocking as in Op. 133 before". It is shocking, but only in the first 4 minutes (the variations), but at the same time it is a little superficially bangy (for lack of a better term) compared to Bach and Mozart. Sure, Stravinsky thought it was good, but then he had no respect for the finale of the Ninth.


It's so shocking that the audiences couldn't grasp on it when it was composed, and Beethoven had to remove it from Op. 130 and publish it separately. It was reviewed then as "incomprehensible, like Chinese", "a confusion of Babel" and "an indecipherable, uncorrected horror". _Very_ shocking.



hammeredklavier said:


> "Gesualdo was using advanced chromaticism centuries before Mozart." Sure, if you think Gesualdo was really that advanced, why not say music did not advance since the time of Gesualdo? Wasn't the tonal hierarchy "unrefined" back then before the time of common practice? Why then would you praise the homorhythms of Grosse Fuge for the dissonance -- You said yourself, dissonance was nothing new.


My current position regarding the Grosse Fuge is that for me the levels of "harsh" dissonance in it - shocking dissonance, not dissonance that sounds natural, like in Mozart - are unprecedented for it's time. Still, I have no problem agreeing with you that dissonant works are very old and that even before Gesualdo they were present (for example in Machaut's mass, back in the Middle Ages), and of course I may reconsider this view if some strong evidence that I'm not right is presented.



hammeredklavier said:


> Just look at the video I gave you link to - the recording of Schoenberg saying with his own lips: "I owe very, very much to Mozart; and if one studies, for instance, the way in which I write for string quartet, then one cannot deny that I have learned this directly from Mozart and I'm proud of it." "When I composed my Fourth String Quartet, I said this time I must compose like Mozart."


I understand that Mozart was very influential on Schoenberg, but I challenge the notion that he is the only one that could have been, considering that for example Bach and Beethoven also used tone rows in their works. I mean, he was influential of course, but did he create/was the only one to use the means to this influence?



hammeredklavier said:


> People like you and Woodduck would cite Brahms and other major figures to emphasize the significance of Wagner, but why won't you accept the things they said regarding Beethoven:
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA134#v=onepage&q&f=false
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135#v=onepage&q&f=false


Remarks like this can vary in their nature. The one you cited is negative towards Beethoven, but Brahms could compare positively him to previous composers aswell:

"Composers in the old days used to keep strictly to the base of the theme, as their real subject. Beethoven varies the melody, harmony and rhythms so beautifully." - Johannes Brahms


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> If you think Beethoven was really that influential on a level Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn couldn't reach:


I didn't say this. I don't know what makes you think that I believe in this.



hammeredklavier said:


> [Name one great composer of the same or higher magnitude and caliber as Tchaikovsky who decided to become a composer himself because of his music.
> Name one great composer in the same or higher status as Ravel who thought Mozart was trash, Beethoven was God.


Charles Ives is one of the most innovative composers of the twentieth century and it seems that he praised Beethoven while not liking Mozart. Berlioz had a great predilection towards Beethoven and seemed to prefer Gluck over Mozart.



hammeredklavier said:


> I'm amused you would cite Choral Fantasia Op.80 as an "underrated work". To be honest, Beethoven's vocal writing stinks. It's comparable to Chopin's orchestration. Mass in C major Op.86 - I can't stand a minute listening to Kyrie~ Kyrie~ with that meager melody. It is no wonder why Hummel laughed at Beethoven about the work. Whenever Beethoven writes for the choir, I'm constantly reminded of Dervish Chorus from Ruins of Athens.


Your personal opinion. I'm very impressed with Beethoven's vocal works and would like that he had composed more.



hammeredklavier said:


> Even Verdi criticized the vocal writing of the Ninth. Even Wagner wanted to fix it.
> 
> _"In his influential article of 1873, 'Zum Vortrage der neunten Symphonie Beethoven's' ('Performing Beethoven's Ninth Symphony'), he set out his ideas about how that could be achieved and his reasons for modifying the work's existing orchestration. For Wagner, Beethoven's deafness, and the more primitive instruments available to him, meant that certain passages lacked clarity and brilliance. Wagner's aim was to rectify these shortcomings"_
> (The iconic symphony: performing Beethoven's Ninth Wagner's Way by Raymond Holden https://www.jstor.org/stable/41440727?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents )
> 
> It's understandable, because after all, Beethoven was deaf.


Mozart was criticed in his time because his work "had too many notes", and Bach was viewed as academic and conservative by some of his contemporaries. His work was reevaluated only in the first half of the nineteenth century, and only from then on his fame as a composer grew up to it's IMO rightful place amongst the greatest of all composers.

No one is above any kind of criticism, and sometimes some great composers may have aesthetic divergences towards others and may want to "improve" their works even if these works are great as they are.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> In fact, in some cases I would place Haydn above Beethoven. There's no symphony like "La Passione" in Beethoven, for example.


There's no symphony like the "Eroica" in Haydn either. I understand that both composers had different voices in music and distinct ways of expressing them.



hammeredklavier said:


> Now, Here's something seriously underrated:
> 
> "Beethoven made his own copy of K608 and procured a copy of K.594."
> ("Automatic Genius: Mozart and the Mechanical Sublime" by Annette Richards)
> 
> "As Wolfgang Plath has pointed out, the influence of Mozart's Fantasy in F minor, K. 608 was considerable in the nineteenth century. Aside from the editions, manuscripts, and arrangements already mentioned, many public performances can be documented. Beethoven owned the work and made his own arrangement of the fugue. Schubert's F Minor Fantasy for piano four-hands, op. 103 (D. 940, 1828), suggests his reaction to the whole of Mozart's piece, whereas Franz Lachner's Wind Octet in B flat, op. 156 (1859) demonstrates his reception of the Andante"
> https://www.loc.gov/collections/mol...e-to-archives/allegro-and-andante-in-f-minor/


I don't dispute the influence of Mozart in the nineteenth century, but I don't think that he has some entirely new creation that has been so influential as those of Beethoven and Wagner.


----------



## Bulldog

This thread should be renamed "Bash The Famous Composers".


----------



## tdc

Allerius said:


> Nice try, but we both know that the transition from the Classical to the Romantic eras happened gradually and that the romantic composers didn't reject the Classical forms and principles of composition - the transition wasn't marked by a rupture like in the cases of Baroque to Classical or of Romantic to Modern.


I'm not sure how this is relevant. My argument is not about a rupture or gradual transition, I simply pointed out there is evidence for Mozart showing specific Romantic tendencies in his music before Beethoven. There is also evidence of Beethoven taking notice of and building on certain innovations in Mozart's music therefore I don't perceive a lot of evidence that Beethoven or Wagner's impact on music was more crucial or important than the contributions of Mozart.

I don't think any of the shifts between musical periods were instantaneous, they all developed in stages. D Scarlatti and CPE Bach helped point the way before Haydn and the Modern era did not begin with Wagner, it began with Debussy, and along the way there were other composers who helped bridge the gap such as Chabrier and Satie among others.



Allerius said:


> Regarding Mozart's K. 537: there's not a consensus of this piano concerto as being as progressive as Rosen suggests. Einstein, for example, see it as nothing more than Mozart making a parody of himself:
> 
> "..It [the piano concerto No. 26] is very Mozartean, while at the same time it does not express the whole or even the half of Mozart. It is, in fact, so 'Mozartesque' that one might say that in it Mozart imitated himself-no difficult task for him. It is both brilliant and amiable, especially in the slow movement; it is very simple, even primitive, in its relation between the solo and the tutti, and so completely easy to understand that even the nineteenth century always grasped it without difficulty..." - Alfred Einstein.


In the book Rosen explains why this concerto and many others (like 13-18) are often misunderstood, and their innovations not fully appreciated.

I believe this is indicative of just how brilliant and progressive Mozart really was. Sometimes there is much more under the surface.

"To appreciate K. 537 we cannot listen to it with the same expectations that we might have for the other works. It demands to be judged by later standards...It is so simple in character that if it were not a masterpiece, it would be merely pretty. Already it is an example of that popular, lean almost faux-naïve grace that is the glory of The Magic Flute."


----------



## fluteman

Partita said:


> From my experience of internet music forms, polls etc, I would say that Handel is generally much more highly rated than either Rameau or Lully. Handel's opera, oratorios, chamber works, orchestral works etc are, in total, a great deal more famous than those of the other two. Next to Bach, Handel must be the most outstanding baroque composer in terms of general fame.
> 
> I don't care for the "tiers" system as such, but given that's what we're discussing in this thread I would include Handel in in the "S" tier. In other words, he would be included within my personal top 13 composers. I do agree, however, that it might be touch and go as regards an up to date poll of TC members in general. He might have slipped into the top end of tier "A".
> 
> I don't what's happened to all the Handel fans that used to be quite a feature of T-C in previous times. Several of his bigger fans I recall from former (and in my view much better) times seem to have disappeared.


Then you should be happy with the in-print recordings list, with Handel (8) behind only Bach (1), and well ahead of Vivaldi (16) and Telemann (39). So long as we're only discussing overall popularity and not intrinsic merit or historical or cultural significance, however those would be defined (not an easy task as this thread demonstrates), I'd think that order, and most if not all of the rest of the top 40 list I posted, should be more or less non-controversial.


----------



## Xisten267

tdc said:


> I'm not sure how this is relevant. My argument is not about a rupture or gradual transition, I simply pointed out there is evidence for Mozart showing specific Romantic tendencies in his music before Beethoven. There is also evidence of Beethoven taking notice of and building on certain innovations in Mozart's music therefore I don't perceive a lot of evidence that Beethoven or Wagner's impact on music was more crucial or important than the contributions of Mozart.
> 
> I don't think any of the shifts between musical periods were instantaneous, they all developed in stages. D Scarlatti and CPE Bach helped point the way before Haydn and the Modern era did not begin with Wagner, it began with Debussy, and along the way there were other composers who helped bridge the gap such as Chabrier and Satie among others.


My point, expressed in post #157, is that not only Mozart but also other composers may have been important in the gradual change from Classicism towards Romanticism, and that thus the fact you presented in my view is not so crucial do the history of music such as, say, Wagner's composition of Tristan, which inspired directly some great composers to write music - a good deal of it outside of opera, by the way - that used ideas by him or that were opposed to those of him.

Wagner may have not started the modernist tendencies, but some of the most influential composers of these movements started their innovations as an opposition to or as a consequence of his style and ideas. I don't think that this happened in the same scale with Mozart.



tdc said:


> In the book Rosen explains why this concerto and many others (like 13-18) are often misunderstood, and their innovations not fully appreciated.
> 
> I believe this is indicative of just how brilliant and progressive Mozart really was. Sometimes there is much more under the surface.
> 
> "To appreciate K. 537 we cannot listen to it with the same expectations that we might have for the other works. It demands to be judged by later standards...It is so simple in character that if it were not a masterpiece, it would be merely pretty. Already it is an example of that popular, lean almost faux-naïve grace that is the glory of The Magic Flute."


Perhaps Rosen may have done some interesting points in his book. I admit I've never read it, so I cannot say for sure.


----------



## Euler

Partita said:


> It's absurd to suggest that just because Wagner has achieved 4th or higher position in regard to certain works is sufficient evidence to justify such a high overall No 4 top composer position. His range of work is much too narrow to justify that, as most people agree, except perhaps a handful of his most ardent supporters many of whom probably have little interest in classical music outside opera, from what I can detect from their involvement here.


Opera is so multifaceted and expansive an artform that its specialists need not be narrow. Wagner's emotional and aesthetic range is immense -- was he really a limited composer relative to, say, Haydn? Previously you admitted lacking the attention span to listen to full operas, so perhaps you're not best placed to evaluate Wagner. I also don't think most opera buffs are disinterested in instrumental classical music; the inverse is surely more common.


----------



## chu42

Euler said:


> Opera is so multifaceted and expansive an artform that its specialists need not be narrow. Wagner's emotional and aesthetic range is immense -- was he really a limited composer relative to, say, Haydn? Previously you admitted lacking the attention span to listen to full operas, so perhaps you're not best placed to evaluate Wagner. I also don't think most opera buffs are disinterested in instrumental classical music; the inverse is surely more common.


You're not wrong in that opera composers require many skills- they must be able to orchestrate, write for voice, write and stage a drama, and a host of other things that we probably don't tend to think about.

But it's also true that writing for smaller scales, such as lieder, chamber music, and other more intimate settings, require a completely different set of skills and are no less important to music as a whole.

You mention Haydn- now there's a man who could surely write for opera (even if perhaps not on the level of Gluck or Mozart) and literally anything else he was called upon to do so. I would say Wagner is relatively limited compared to Haydn even if Haydn didn't completely change the musical world...but he absolutely did, in his own way.


----------



## tdc

Allerius said:


> My point, expressed in post #157, is that not only Mozart but also other composers may have been important in the gradual change from Classicism towards Romanticism, and that thus the fact you presented in my view is not so crucial do the history of music such as, say, Wagner's composition of Tristan, which inspired directly some great composers to write music - a good deal of it outside of opera, by the way - that used ideas by him or that were opposed to those of him.
> 
> Wagner may have not started the modernist tendencies, but some of the most influential composers of these movements started their innovations as an opposition to or as a consequence of his style and ideas. I don't think that this happened in the same scale with Mozart.
> 
> Perhaps Rosen may have done some interesting points in his book. I admit I've never read it, so I cannot say for sure.


I'm not denying Wagner's immense impact on music, nor Beethoven's, but as others have pointed out it is difficult to ascertain these things precisely, and since Mozart and Bach came before Beethoven and Wagner, and because their music has been so widely studied and influential on composers (including Beethoven and Wagner). I think it is difficult to prove Beethoven's and Wagner's impact was greater.

They were two influential composers no doubt, they both also tended to like things 'big' and 'loud', but neither means their music has had the most impact.


----------



## Xisten267

tdc said:


> I'm not denying Wagner's immense impact on music, nor Beethoven's, but as others have pointed out it is difficult to ascertain these things precisely, and since Mozart and Bach came before Beethoven and Wagner, and because their music has been so widely studied and influential on composers (including Beethoven and Wagner). I think it is difficult to prove Beethoven's and Wagner's impact was greater.
> 
> They were two influential composers no doubt, they both also tended to like things 'big' and 'loud', but neither means their music has had the most impact.


I think that this is a very strong point. I can agree that it's very hard, probably impossible, to sistematically measure the exact amount of influence/impact a great composer or one of his works has had in the development of music. Yet, I believe that it's possible to have a general, imprecise estimate on this based on readings about the uses of this or that technique by some of the most famous composers. This would be only an approximation and may not correspond to reality, unfortunately.

My main point about Mozart in this thread, that seems to have incited some passions here, is that his influence, although great, is based much more in the development and improvement of techniques and conceptions of others than in innovations completely original by him, and that his original ideas (I cited the invention of the piano quartet as an example) doesn't seem to me to be as crucial to the history of music as those of Beethoven or Wagner (I cited examples of these previously). I don't know what about this claim is so polemic here.


----------



## Xisten267

Partita said:


> It's absurd to suggest that just because Wagner has achieved 4th or higher position *in regard to certain works* is sufficient evidence to justify such a high overall No 4 top composer position. His range of work is much too narrow to justify that, as most people agree, except perhaps a handful of his most ardent supporters many of whom probably have little interest in classical music outside opera, from what I can detect from their involvement here.


He is currently the 4th most voted composer in the *"The greatest composer?" poll* made in 2013, that has 292 voters at the moment. If you really bothered to actually open the links I provided you, then you should have noticed this. The other links were complementary in the sense that their results suggest that certain Wagner works have a reasonable popularity here at TC. I understood from a previous post of yours that you were interested in these matters of popularity in polls, and that you're claiming that Wagner was somewhat unpopular here, so those links were my answer to this alleged claim (think of the DDD links as a sort of "bonus").



Partita said:


> Sorry but again I do not understand what you are trying to say. Please clarify further. All the various ramblings in post# 118 don't have any bearing on the question of the empirical evidence of Wagner's rank in the favourite composer stakes. It's all mainly a lot of adulation mixed up with waffle and wishful thinking about how great Wagner ought to be seen, not how he is actually seen by the wider audience of classical music fans. All totally irrelevant to the matter in hand.


When you say that "I think that this notion of Wagner meriting rank No 4 is quite without foundation, anyway. This rating is not supported by any of the many TC composer polls", you seem to imply (to me, at least) that his artistic merits can be objectively measured by a mere poll. This would be the premise I said I though to be fragile, and this because many members don't participate of these polls and also because popularity only doesn't seem to be the best factor to measure the degree of the achievements of an artist.

Of course I should not say this, but the post that you refer to as containing "ramblings" was in my humble opinion brilliant in it's concise display of well-thought ideas, contrary to what you wrote.


----------



## Bulldog

Allerius said:


> He is currently the 4th most voted composer in the *"The greatest composer?" poll* made in 2013, that has 292 voters at the moment.


Looks like as good a poll as any others, and the voter turnout is impressive. I'll pencil Wagner in at the no. 4 spot.


----------



## KenOC

If we’re talking “greatest composers,” my own assessments depends on the quality and impact of the music they wrote and on nothing else. I don’t care whose music they drew on, their innovations, or their influence on subsequent development in music. Those are not just secondary -- they’re irrelevant.


----------



## hammeredklavier

------------------------------------------------------


----------



## KenOC

Beethoven certainly had some innovations. But his greatest innovation is seldom recognized: "You can write whatever music you want, in any way you want, so long as you can get away with it."

The era of bowing to preceding eras of music was over, if the composer so willed it. Certainly Beethoven's music, in itself, was not very influential except in its less important parameters: it's size and scale being the first of those.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> So I take it that we evaluate the level of influence and impact an artist has on history based on these two criteria:
> 
> #1. Innovation of new techniques, forms.
> #2. Perfection of pre-existing techniques, forms.
> 
> For some reason, when it comes to Beethoven, some people just decide to not consider #2 and over-emphasize #1. So should we give that much extra credit to Beethoven for doing #1 so well, why don't we also talk about how good Beethoven actually was with #2?
> 
> For example,
> Triple Concerto Op.56: Beethoven's most significant attempt at concerto with multiple solo instruments.
> Fantasy Op.77: Beethoven's most significant attempt at the keyboard fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the extreme Beethoven enthusiasts were actually reasonable, they would say "Beethoven did #1 better than his predecessors but he did #2 not as good as they did. Therefore we can't really say he was more influential or impactful than them in history. Beethoven and them were all great." Or something like that, at the very least.
> 
> In reality, they don't talk like this:
> They'll only exaggerate and inflate #1 about Beethoven way out of proportion and claim "Beethoven was influential in the scale unimaginable by his predecessors". This is the general pattern I see in the logic they go on about all the time.
> But the illusion that Beethoven was more influential than his predecessors is just today's Beethovenian extremists' imagination: it's just all just modern propaganda. No serious great composer ever trashed Beethoven's predecessors while worshipping Beethoven.
> 
> _"Berlioz uses Mozart's Don Giovanni and Beethoven's late quartets to measure progress in the public's musical education."_
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=1_0VBgAAQBAJ
> _"Suddenly, Schumann was promoting Haydn's music, which ceased to arouse any particular interesting," at the expense of Beethoven.
> The intense study of Haydn's quartets brought Schumann's published criticisms of the composer to an abrupt and irrevocable halt in 1842."_
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=B5SlCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA28
> 
> It's baffling sometimes how much the fandom would go about in overhyping Beethoven's status as Immortal God of Innovation.
> 
> By the way, I wish people never did any of these rankings and simply appreciated what's good about each artist.
> But in reality it's not like that. There are always people initiating discussions and polls involving rankings everywhere and other people being angry with them.
> I'll never forget how, back in 2006, the 250th anniversary of Mozart's birth the number of people who were angry about Mozart being ranked high in classical music. (Even Andras Schiff wrote an article on it.) Next year, the 250th anniversary of Beethoven's birth, I expect no one will ever mock Beethoven for anything. Because he was so perfect. The (Romanticized) Hero who Changed Music Forever.
> I'd say it's about time we assess how unfair the situation is with some objectivity.


Beethoven's middle period piano sonatas and works in many other genres were perfect in form. In the piano sonatas his expressions are further realized than Mozart's, who is more general, while giving nothing in terms of structure and form. He was able to enlarge the form without sacrificing it nor losing sense of structure. I wouldn't expect anything less of a genius coming after Mozart.


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> Looks like as good a poll as any others, and the voter turnout is impressive. I'll pencil Wagner in at the no. 4 spot.


You may recall that you initiated and organised a "_Top 100 Classical Composers_" poll in early 2014. You were strict in the application of the rules you set, which is to your credit. All of the voters who participated could be indentified and their votes seen. It was left entirely to each voter's discretion to decide how they interpreted "top composers".

The results of that poll were set out by you a few weeks after the start. They are given below for the top 20 composers only. The numbers in brackets are the points scored by each composer according to your system of weighting.

1. Johann Sebastian Bach (3,509)
2. Ludwig van Beethoven (3,488)
3. Franz Schubert (3,131)
4. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (3,094)
5. Johannes Brahms (3,017)
6. Gustav Mahler (2,881)
7. Franz Joseph Haydn (2,714)
8. Jean Sibelius (2,452)
*9. Richard Wagner (2,444)*
10. Claude Debussy (2,415)
11. Dmitri Shostakovich (2,371)
12. Robert Schumann (2,279)
13. Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky (2,229)
14. Maurice Ravel (2,203)
15. Frederic Chopin (2,172)
16. Felix Mendelssohn (2,168)
17. Antonin Dvorak (2,054)
18. George Frideric Handel (2,023)
19. Sergei Prokofiev (2,019)
20. Igor Stravinsky (2,001)


----------



## Guest

Allerius said:


> He is currently the 4th most voted composer in the *"The greatest composer?" poll* made in 2013, that has 292 voters at the moment. If you really bothered to actually open the links I provided you, then you should have noticed this. The other links were complementary in the sense that their results suggest that certain Wagner works have a reasonable popularity here at TC. I understood from a previous post of yours that you were interested in these matters of popularity in polls, and that you're claiming that Wagner was somewhat unpopular here, so those links were my answer to this alleged claim (think of the DDD links as a sort of "bonus").


Of all the Composer ranking polls I have ever seen on T-C, the one to which you refer above is without doubt the most ridiculous and the least reliable in terms of the results it threw up.

It is riddled with problems from start to finish. The results are not worth a row of beans in terms of providing even a half-decent set of ranks for the top 10 composers as a whole.

Some of the main problems:

1. Its initiator, KenOC, asked for up to 3 nominations for "Greatest Composers". He didn't specify what he meant by this term. This lack of definition left several participants quite bewildered and didn't know how to respond. He has since made a number of comments in other threads that he doesn't believe in the concept of "greatness" or that it can be measured.

2. Several participants added more than 3 nominations in contravention of the rules. Some ticked all the boxes.

3. The whole exercise was treated by many people as a big joke, and seen by some as merely yet another attempt by the OP to put Beethoven's name at the top of the heap.

4. There were many scathing criticisms of the voting system. I have seldom seen such a long litany of cynical jibes aimed at any poll.

5. Some members said explicitly that they had no idea what "greatest" meant or how to measure it, so they didn't bother voting at all.

6. There were many anonymous votes, making the whole thing suspect and no different in principle from the dubious results produced by systems like the one used in the _"Ranker"_ polls. Anonymous votes make polls look very suspicious as they might be the result of an attempt to manipulate the outcome.

7. After several weeks of voting, KenOC reported that Tchaikovsky was in 4th position, after Beethoven, Bach, Mozart. After this, it seems that Wagner leaped ahead. That is suspicious as there didn't appear to be many subsequent contributors mentioning Wagner's name. It seems that many were anonymous.

8. It's quite likely that many of the votes were lost completely as a result of the big site crash in 2017, when it seems that some six to nine months of posts were lost for ever. There is a big gap if you look at the posts from March 2017 to October 2017. It's like losing a sizeable number of ballot boxes.​
Aside from the above, it would seem that your interests in this matter are not neutral as Wagner was among your 3 "greatest" composers in that poll. You either turned a blind eye to all these obvious problems, or didn't read through the 250+ posts as I have done in order to assess the poll's reliability.

All in all, the poll results stink. The poll was obviously excellent material for a huge joke, or as providing a "master class" in how NOT to organise a sensible forum poll, but beyond that it is next to useless.

Anyone who knows anything about statistics (and I don't include the dabblers" on this board) would run a mile if they they were seriously asked to consider this poll's validity.


----------



## KenOC

Partita said:


> Of all the Composer ranking polls I have ever seen on T-C, the one to which refer above is without doubt the most ridiculous one and the least reliable in terms of the results it threw up.
> 
> It is riddled with problems from start to finish...


Hmmm... I take it, then, that you do not agree with the results! :lol:


----------



## Guest

I have discovered yet another old TC Composer Poll. This one was started in January 2011 by ex-member, RBrittain. He asked for nominations of the top 25 composers, and wrote: _All you have to do is list your Top 25. That's all, no rounds, no complexities, just have a think and list your Top 25. You have a week, or possibly 2 weeks (haven't decided yet), to do so, so there is no rush._

Looking through the thread quickly, it seems that he was diligent in making sure that all the rules were observed as far as possible. All votes were available to be seen. He adopted a weighting system based on set of declining scores from the top to the last one.

The results were presented several weeks later and later updated by another member. The Top 25 were:

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


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Hmmm... I take it, then, that you do not agree with the results! :lol:


Hmmm... I take it, then, that you also do not agree with the results either (judging from several of your in-thread comments)! :lol:

Come on, tell us. Do you have much faith in the detailed results below the top 3?

And what do reckon about all the probable missing votes in 2017 due to the extended Site crash causing the complete loss of much data for many months?


----------



## KenOC

I have little faith in any poll on a site like this, but they're fun.

Lost data? Missing votes? I don't remember anything like that, and given the high recorded vote count I doubt it happened.

BTW, what's your heartburn with anonymous votes? That's the way most election systems work after all.


----------



## Guest

Wo and behold, yet another old TC Composer Poll.

This one was started in June 2012 by ex-member, Turangalila. The voting system was quite complex and I won't bother to explain it in detail. Basically, people could allocate a certain number of points to composers they liked the best, and could do so on a repeated basis until a composer achieved a certain score after which that composer was "enshrined", and the whole process moved forward to the next etc.

The results were given in July 2012. Here are the top 25 positions:

1. Johann Sebastian Bach
2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
3. Ludwig van Beethoven
4. Franz Schubert
5. Johannes Brahms
*6. Richard Wagner*
7. Joseph Haydn
8. Robert Schumann
9. George Frideric Handel
10. Gustav Mahler
11. Felix Mendelssohn
12. Claude Debussy
13. Antonín Dvořák
14. Frédéric Chopin
15. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
16. Igor Stravinsky
17. Maurice Ravel
18. Sergei Prokofiev
19. Dmitri Shostakovich
20. Richard Strauss
21. Franz Liszt
22. Béla Bartók
23. Giuseppe Verdi
24. Claudio Monteverdi
25. Jean Sibelius


----------



## Hiawatha

The type in the chart in post 1 is very small so I might have missed him but my first thought was "where is Elgar?" Warlock somewhat incredibly is in Tier C (that's above Delius!) so I'm not following it entirely.


----------



## OperaChic

Allerius said:


> popularity only doesn't seem to be the best factor to measure the degree of the achievements of an artist.


Excellent point.

I remember reading Phil Goulding's book that placed Wagner at the number 4 position many many years ago. I wasn't too fond of it overall, but one thing I do recall is that Goulding did not pull the rankings out of thin air. It was his attempt at creating a reasonable introductory list of composers for the classical music newcomer based on extensive reading and research of music history books, musicolgocial and critical analyses, biographies, encyclopedias and the like. Given that, its not exactly hard to see why Goulding placed Wagner that high: he was one of the most significant cultural figures of the 19th century, and his works had a profound affect that rippled through the world of music and infilitrated the spheres of the other arts and social movements. Novelists from Proust to Joyce to Mann, poets like Baudelaire and Eliot, philosophers and critics including Nietzsche and Shaw, and a long list of composers including Mahler, Bruckner, Elgar, Strauss, Franck were infatuated with him, referenced him in their own artworks, acknowleged their debt to him.

Of course, as has already been pointed out, no one listens to a composer because they are or have been influential. Influence is simply an indicator of how powerful an impact an artist has had on the lives and outlooks of others. And Wagner's music has always had a tremendous power to move people, and to inspire people, from conductors and composers to music lovers. Surely that speaks to the greatness of his artistry.

So what makes Wagner so compelling? Certainly his daring harmonic innovations and his masterful orchestration were something noteworthy, but the reason he ignites passion in listeners is his musical inpiration and imagination. His ability to create countless distinctive and memorable themes and his gift for musical transformation and variation, mutating chord sequences or even a few notes into new and fascinating permutations, combining multiple motifs in complex counterpoint and abandoned lyricism that also somehow manages to be psychologically and dramatically relevant to the story and characters being portrayed. He was able, through music, to reach emotional depths entirely beyond description in words. All of this on the grandest possible scale and in some of the largest symphonic structures known in music.

The fact that he mainly wrote music for musical dramas is being held against him, but if anything the fact that he wrote for a genre that is peripheral for many classical music listeners and yet still is incredibly popular, one of the most recorded and performed of all composers and intensely loved by many again only reaffirms the potency of his music.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I have little faith in any poll on a site like this, but they're fun.
> 
> Lost data? Missing votes? I don't remember anything like that, and given the high recorded vote count I doubt it happened.
> 
> BTW, what's your heartburn with anonymous votes? That's the way most election systems work after all.


Of course polls can be fun. I don't participate actively in such polls, but I'm interested to see how various people vote, partly in order to see if I can tie up their preferences with their comments elsewhere.

However I share your lack of faith in any poll on a site like this. Some polls are less reliable than others. For reasons given, the one we're talking about was among the least reliable in my opinion. In case you hadn't noticed, some folk around here been quoting this poll as evidence that Wagner is the 4th "greatest" composer according to TC membership.

Lost data. Did you not read what I wrote? You must be aware that in 2017 there was a big site crash involving the loss of many posts. If you look at the poll in question you'll see that there is a big gap in posts after February 2017 until later in the year. I don't know the explanation for this big gap and was wondering whether the Site crash is might have affected the results from any loss of data.

Anonymous voting is fine for elections etc, but for opinions it's usually better to know who has contributed to the poll so that it can be seen that it is all above board, and hasn't been manipulated for possible devious purposes. You perhaps ought to have made the poll voting transparent, so that the results could be analysed in a better way.


----------



## KenOC

I disagree with all your points. But they are too wearisome to respond to any longer.


----------



## Guest

OperaChic said:


> Excellent point.
> 
> I remember reading Phil Goulding's book that placed Wagner at the number 4 position many many years ago. I wasn't too fond of it overall, but one thing I do recall is that Goulding did not pull the rankings out of thin air. It was his attempt at creating a reasonable introductory list of composers for the classical music newcomer based on extensive reading and research of music history books, musicolgocial and critical analyses, biographies, encyclopedias and the like. Given that, its not exactly hard to see why Goulding placed Wagner that high: he was one of the most significant cultural figures of the 19th century, and his works had a profound affect that rippled through the world of music and infilitrated the spheres of the other arts and social movements. Novelists from Proust to Joyce to Mann, poets like Baudelaire and Eliot, philosophers and critics including Nietzsche and Shaw, and a long list of composers including Mahler, Bruckner, Elgar, Strauss, Franck were infatuated with him, referenced him in their own artworks, acknowleged their debt to him.
> 
> Of course, as has already been pointed out, no one listens to a composer because they are or have been influential. Influence is simply an indicator of how powerful an impact an artist has had on the lives and outlooks of others. And Wagner's music has always had a tremendous power to move people, and to inspire people, from conductors and composers to music lovers. Surely that speaks to the greatness of his artistry.
> 
> So what makes Wagner so compelling? Certainly his daring harmonic innovations and his masterful orchestration were something noteworthy, but the reason he ignites passion in listeners is his musical inpiration and imagination. His ability to create countless distinctive and memorable themes and his gift for musical transformation and variation, mutating chord sequences or even a few notes into new and fascinating permutations, combining multiple motifs in complex counterpoint and abandoned lyricism that also somehow manages to be psychologically and dramatically relevant to the story and characters being portrayed. He was able, through music, to reach emotional depths entirely beyond description in words.
> 
> The fact that he mainly wrote music for musical dramas is being held against him, but if anything the fact that he wrote for a genre that is peripheral for many classical music listeners and yet still is incredibly popular, one of the most recorded and performed of all composers and intensely loved by many again only reaffirms the potency of his music.


I agree with some of what you say, although I'm not quite so sure about his lasting influence, given the emergence of other styles in later periods, and the fact that some famous composers largely side-stepped Wagner.

However, I think you may agree that the No 4 spot is very high when there are various other great composers of similar or possibly greater stature to consider.

All forum polls individually are suspect, some being worse than others. I don't trust any of these polls individually but in aggregate, and when averaged out, they'e about as good as one can expect to get. A rather lower position for Wagner tends to be indicated, and in some polls a very low result has been achieved.

As you are aware, Goulding's list wasn't a poll but simply his personal opinion of the composers he thought were the greatest based on criteria that he thought are appropriate. It has perhaps attracted more attention than it deserves.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I disagree with all your points. But they are too wearisome to respond to any longer.


Too awkward you mean.

You start all these silly polls but don't appear ready to deal with reasonable queries about them. I wonder why.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Partita said:


> I agree with some of what you say, although I'm not quite so sure about his lasting influence, given the emergence of other styles in later periods, and the fact that some famous composers largely side-stepped Wagner.
> 
> However, I think you may agree that the No 4 spot is very high when there are various other great composers of similar or possibly greater stature to consider.
> 
> All forum polls individually are suspect, some being worse than others. I don't trust any of these polls individually but in aggregate, and when averaged out, they'e about as good as one can expect to get. * A rather lower position for Wagner tends to be indicated,* and in some polls a very low result has been achieved.
> 
> As you are aware, Goulding's list wasn't a poll but simply his personal opinion of the composers he thought were the greatest based on criteria that he thought are appropriate. It has perhaps attracted more attention than it deserves.


Isn't this due to the level of interest in opera, say, compared with symphonies

I know mahler composed more than just symphonies - but he is really regarded as a symphonist - yet tends to rate many places higher than Wagner in these polls.


----------



## KenOC

Partita said:


> Too awkward you mean.
> 
> You start all these silly polls but don't appear ready to deal with reasonable queries about them. I wonder why.


I wish you good fortune in your search for enlightenment.


----------



## Guest

PlaySalieri said:


> Isn't this due to the level of interest in opera, say, compared with symphonies
> 
> I know mahler composed more than just symphonies - but he is really regarded as a symphonist - yet tends to rate many places higher than Wagner in these polls.


I don't think that it's fair to say that Mahler rates "many places higher than Wagner". I would agree that he tends to be somewhat higher. I do agree that although he is mainly regarded as a symphonist this stands him in a better starting position because symphonic works are possibly more popular overall than opera. But obviously the quality and quantity of the symphonies is also relevant and here Mahler scores highly, even though I'm not personally a huge fan of them all. Generally, the highest rated composers from internet polls are those who wrote high quality music, not necessarily all the time, over all the main music genres: Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Schubert, and to lesser extent Tchaikovsky. [Neither Bach nor Brahms wrote opera but they wrote a great deal of choral music.] Wagner and Mahler actually do extremely well given the limitations in their ranges.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I wish you good fortune in your search for enlightenment.


That's very kind of you. I'll keep you informed of my progress.


----------



## Guest

Would you believe it? I've discovered yet another TC "Favourite Composer Poll".

It was initiated by ex-member, Davilla, in August 2016. The OP stated: "_It was very difficult for me to come to a list of top ten composers, and I know that I've probably omitted some of the all-time greats in this list, which is why I'm curious as to what others would list as their top ten. Anyways, here is mine.._.

There were over 80 valid-looking responses to this poll over several months. The voting ended abruptly in early February 2017, presumably on account of the Site crash I referred to earlier.

Unfortunately, despite a fairly large number of responses, most of which seem to be in a decent shape, there was no analysis of the results that I have spotted in the thread before voting stopped.

I have carried out a very quick tally-up based solely on a count of composer names, with no attempt at any weighting according to position in the lists. I don't think this is likely to be a serious problem since several contributions did not specify a ranking as such, just a list of names.

The top 20 composers according to my calculations are (rank, composer, count of votes):

1	-	Bach JS	(	56	)
2	-	Beethoven	(	54	)
3	-	Mozart	(	49	)
4	-	Brahms	(	41	)
5	-	Schubert	(	40	)
6	-	Mahler	(	35	)
*7	-	Wagner	(	26	)*
7	-	Haydn J	(	26	)
9	-	Shostakovich	(	22	)
10	-	Debussy	(	21	)
11	-	Dvorak	(	20	)
12	-	Tchaikovsky	(	19	)
12	-	Sibelius	(	19	)
12	-	Schumann	(	19	)
15	-	Ravel	(	16	)
16	-	Prokofiev	(	15	)
16	-	Bartok	(	15	)
18	-	Stravinsky	(	14	)
19	-	Rachmaninoff	(	13	)
19	-	Handel	(	13	)


----------



## hammeredklavier

----------------------------------------------------


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> Beethoven's middle period piano sonatas and works in many other genres were perfect in form. In the piano sonatas his expressions are further realized than Mozart's, who is more general, while giving nothing in terms of structure and form. He was able to enlarge the form without sacrificing it nor losing sense of structure. I wouldn't expect anything less of a genius coming after Mozart.


"Some" middle period sonatas such as Waldstein, Tempest, Appassionata, to be precise. I'm curious if you've listened to the 19th, 20th, 25th, 26th at all. "Mozart has nothing in structure and form?", are you sure about that?









As a casual piano player myself, I feel that certain Beethoven sonatas are well-known to other piano players and labelled as masterpieces just because they're in the Holy Book of 32. Even though the general quality is frankly not quite at the level in my view. For some sonatas, I imagine if they weren't titled "piano sonata" or included in the Holy Book of 32, they would have been totally obscure or unknown. Yes, from the Beethovenian perspective you could say Beethoven "enlarged the form without sacrificing it nor losing sense of structure." But conversely, from the Mozartian perspective, 
Beethoven could only work with "sonatas", his attempt to move outside his "safety zone" pretty much failed. (Op.77)
K608: 



K399: 



K394: 



K475: 



K397: 



K511: 



K401: 



K396: 



K594: 




Overall, it is my opinion Beethoven 32 sonatas as a set doesn't deserve the title "New Testament of Music" due to not having consistency of quality in the level as Bach Well-Tempered Clavier, the "Old Testament".


hammeredklavier said:


> @16:00: here is the boogie-woogie. Some people would go on about how this is a precursor to jazz, but I don't see how 'important' that is cause jazz is not even part of the classical music tradition. By following this logic, Pachelbel's canon in D should be considered one of the greatest piece ever written cause its chord progressions birthed modern pop.
> @18:00: all Beethoven does is writing left hand bass tremolo C-G, with some right hand chords that can't even be considered proper melody.
> @18:30: he does some tinkly stuff in the right hand.
> @19:15: again, he goes back to doing lefthand tremolo, with right hand chords that aren't even proper melody.
> @19:50: again, Beethoven goes back to doing some tinkly stuff in the right hand.
> @21:20: does trill on D in the right hand for 1 minute.
> 
> The best part of this piece is the first movement, as great as it may be, I wouldn't say it's the greatest because the slow introduction is derivative of his earlier, formally-superior piano sonatas such as Pathetique, Appassionata and even Mozart K475.
> 
> 
> 
> The allegro is kind of reminiscent of Mozart K426.
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from certain passages that anticipate Chopin Op.10 No.12, Op.25 No.12,
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how this can be at the same tier as his more inspired sonatas such as Moonlight, Tempest, Apassionata.


----------



## OperaChic

Partita said:


> I agree with some of what you say, although I'm not quite so sure about his lasting influence, given the emergence of other styles in later periods, and the fact that some famous composers largely side-stepped Wagner.
> 
> However, I think you may agree that the No 4 spot is very high when there are various other great composers of similar or possibly greater stature to consider.
> 
> All forum polls individually are suspect, some being worse than others. I don't trust any of these polls individually but in aggregate, and when averaged out, they'e about as good as one can expect to get. A rather lower position for Wagner tends to be indicated, and in some polls a very low result has been achieved.
> 
> As you are aware, Goulding's list wasn't a poll but simply his personal opinion of the composers he thought were the greatest based on criteria that he thought are appropriate. It has perhaps attracted more attention than it deserves.


What other composers, besides the big 3, have had a larger lasting influence on music though? You can say that about any significant composer -- that as time goes on and new musical trends develop, a composer's influence recedes. What major composer wasn't largely "side-stepped" by some of those that followed? I believe some of Wagner's most lasting influences and innovations have been in the area of film music or in little cultural traditions that many take for granted, like the darkening of a theater before a performance, or in the way conductors face the musicians instead of the audience as was custom before him.

The 4 spot is very high, but at this level you can make strong cases for or against several composers based on how one chooses to weigh varying criteria. If we are considering popularity among classical music connoisseurs, then I'd agree that the 4 position is a bit too high, as there is a portion of listeners who have no interest in his primary art form.


----------



## PlaySalieri

OperaChic said:


> What other composers, besides the big 3, have had a larger lasting influence on music though? You can say that about any significant composer -- that as time goes on and new musical trends develop, a composer's influence recedes. What major composer wasn't largely "side-stepped" by some of those that followed? I believe some of Wagner's most lasting influences and innovations have been in the area of film music or in little cultural traditions that many take for granted, like the darkening of a theater before a performance, or in the way conductors face the musicians instead of the audience as was custom before him.
> 
> The 4 spot is very high, but at this level you can make strong cases for or against several composers based on how one chooses to weigh varying criteria. If we are considering popularity among classical music connoisseurs, then I'd agree that the 4 position is a bit too high, as *there is a portion of listeners who have no interest in his primary art form.*


near 50% judging by a recent poll on TC are not interested in opera - well over 50% have just a casual interest


----------



## fluteman

OperaChic said:


> What other composers, besides the big 3, have had a larger lasting influence on music though? You can say that about any significant composer -- that as time goes on and new musical trends develop, a composer's influence recedes. What major composer wasn't largely "side-stepped" by some of those that followed? I believe some of Wagner's most lasting influences and innovations have been in the area of film music or in little cultural traditions that many take for granted, like the darkening of a theater before a performance, or in the way conductors face the musicians instead of the audience as was custom before him.
> 
> The 4 spot is very high, but at this level you can make strong cases for or against several composers based on how one chooses to weigh varying criteria. If we are considering popularity among classical music connoisseurs, then I'd agree that the 4 position is a bit too high, as there is a portion of listeners who have no interest in his primary art form.


You make good points, but to answer your opening question, I'd nominate Debussy and Stravinsky as having had at least as great a cultural influence as Wagner. And, though by now I'm beating a dead horse, the ArkivMusic list is not skewed against opera lovers, at least not to the extent TC apparently is. There, Puccini, Bizet, Donizetti, Gounod and Massenet all sneak into the top 40 (edit: and I forgot about Rossini!), and only Verdi (9) surpasses Wagner (17). It's only a measure of superficial popularity at best, but the opera specialists get a lot more love than they do here at TC, other than Wagner. How long would this thread have to continue before someone argued that Verdi should be in the top ten? Longer than I'm willing to stay with it. ;-)


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> I'd nominate Debussy and Stravinsky as having had at least as great a cultural influence as Wagner.


What is their _cultural_, as opposed to purely _musical,_ impact?


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> What is their _cultural_, as opposed to purely _musical,_ impact?


We've discussed this in other threads, on occasions when I was not recovering from some difficult surgery. But very briefly, at least the way I use these terms, when Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries is used in a famous scene in Apocalypse Now, or when John Williams borrows heavily from Stravinsky's Sacrificial Dance from The Right of Spring for the famous theme in Jaws, or even the music of Marius Constant is used for the Theme from The Twilight Zone, the impact differs from what it was as music performed for a concert audience. It attains a broader cultural significance beyond what the original composer could have anticipated or intended. I think this differs from "impact" in the sense of influence on later composers, which many composers intend and some are perhaps all too interested in achieving.

It's still a "musical impact" on the listener in the first instance, of course!


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> We've discussed this in other threads, on occasions when I was not recovering from some difficult surgery. But very briefly, for me, when Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries is used in a famous scene in Apocalypse Now, or when John Williams borrows heavily from Stravinsky's Sacrificial Dance from The Right of Spring for the famous theme in Jaws, or even the music of Marius Constant is used for the Theme from The Twilight Zone, the impact differs from what it was as music performed for a concert audience. It attains a broader cultural significance beyond what the original composer could have anticipated or intended. I think this differs from "impact" in the sense of influence on later composers, which many composers intend and some are perhaps all too interested in achieving.
> 
> It's still a "musical impact" in the first instance, of course!


All of that is musical influence. Your "broader cultural influence" remains at issue; certainly there would be some, but it might be hard to trace. Given Wagner's impact, easy to trace, on poets and novelists, theatrical production and performance, theater architecture, film and film music, conducting, philosophy, and psychology, in addition to music - absolute, programmatic and operatic - I think you should have said "musical" rather than "cultural" in your initial statement. I wouldn't have questioned it, given that no one can make a definitive statement about whose musical influence is greatest.


----------



## PlaySalieri

fluteman said:


> We've discussed this in other threads, on occasions when I was not recovering from some difficult surgery. But very briefly, at least the way I use these terms, when Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries is used in a famous scene in Apocalypse Now, or when John Williams borrows heavily from Stravinsky's Sacrificial Dance from The Right of Spring for the famous theme in Jaws, or even the *music of Marius Constant is used for the Theme from The Twilight Zone*, the impact differs from what it was as music performed for a concert audience. It attains a broader cultural significance beyond what the original composer could have anticipated or intended. I think this differs from "impact" in the sense of influence on later composers, which many composers intend and some are perhaps all too interested in achieving.
> 
> It's still a "musical impact" on the listener in the first instance, of course!


which piece? One of my favourite TV themes


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> All of that is musical influence. Your "broader cultural influence" remains at issue; certainly there would be some, but it might be hard to trace. Given Wagner's impact, easy to trace, on poets and novelists, theatrical production and performance, theater architecture, film and film music, conducting, philosophy, and psychology, in addition to music - absolute, programmatic and operatic - I think you should have said "musical" rather than "cultural" in your initial statement. I wouldn't have questioned it, given that no one can make a definitive statement about whose musical influence is greatest.


Oh dear. Well, if it makes you feel any better, I didn't mean to imply that "cultural impact" in the sense I was using it, i.e., outside the purely musical sphere, necessarily should be one of the most important criteria in the "composer ranking" that is going on in this thread. One problem with that is that music often has that sort of extra-musical impact as a result of cultural trends, rather than initiating or causing them. But if you want to claim there is no distinction to be made between the impact of music on other music and its impact on other art forms or non-musical values or ideas, my rejoinder would be, how is it that discussions such as that of this thread focus on the former almost exclusively and on the latter almost not at all? The implication is that the latter can safely be taken for granted and not examined, and I do not agree with that.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Oh dear. Well, if it makes you feel any better, I didn't mean to imply that "cultural impact" in the sense I was using it, i.e., outside the purely musical sphere, necessarily should be one of the most important criteria in the "composer ranking" that is going on in this thread. One problem with that is that music often has that sort of extra-musical impact as a result of cultural trends, rather than initiating or causing them. But if you want to claim there is no distinction to be made between the impact of music on other music and its impact on other art forms or non-musical values or ideas, my rejoinder would be, how is it that discussions such as that of this thread focus on the former almost exclusively and on the latter almost not at all? The implication is that the latter can safely be taken for granted and not examined, and I do not agree with that.


How do you deduce from anything I've said that I 'm claiming "no distinction to be made between the impact of music on other music and its impact on other art forms or non-musical values or ideas"? You said that you considered the "cultural influence" of Debussy and Stravinsky at least as great as that of Wagner. I just respond to the words people choose, and so I addressed cultural influence. If you really meant "musical influence," we can talk about that. But I think all three had enormous musical influence, and I won't fight about it.

I'd be interested to know where you trace the influence of Debussy, Stravinsky and Wagner, respectively.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> "Some" middle period sonatas such as Waldstein, Tempest, Appassionata, to be precise. I'm curious if you've listened to the 19th, 20th, 25th, 26th at all. "Mozart has nothing in structure and form?", are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a casual piano player myself, I feel that certain Beethoven sonatas are well-known to other piano players and labelled as masterpieces just because they're in the Holy Book of 32. Even though the general quality is frankly not quite at the level in my view. For some sonatas, I imagine if they weren't titled "piano sonata" or included in the Holy Book of 32, they would have been totally obscure or unknown. Yes, from the Beethovenian perspective you could say Beethoven "enlarged the form without sacrificing it nor losing sense of structure." But conversely, from the Mozartian perspective,
> Beethoven could only work with "sonatas", his attempt to move outside his "safety zone" pretty much failed. (Op.77)
> K608:
> 
> 
> 
> K399:
> 
> 
> 
> K394:
> 
> 
> 
> K475:
> 
> 
> 
> K397:
> 
> 
> 
> K511:
> 
> 
> 
> K401:
> 
> 
> 
> K396:
> 
> 
> 
> K594:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overall, it is my opinion Beethoven 32 sonatas as a set doesn't deserve the title "New Testament of Music" due to not having consistency of quality in the level as Bach Well-Tempered Clavier, the "Old Testament".


I was saying Beethoven was not giving up anything in terms of structure or form. Mozart was of course real tight in structure and form. I agree there are some weaker sonatas in the 32, but there are a lot that really expanded the form and contained an individuality never heard before. For me consistency in quality of output is less important than how high the highs are.


----------



## Enthusiast

I suppose it is generally agreed that the "top 3" must be Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. But then it gets difficult - or do I mean "then we see the futility? - because, not only are there several Romantic candidates for the 4th spot but you also have the runners up from the choices of the "greatest 3". So Bach is greater than Handel and Mozart greater than Haydn? OK, but shouldn't Handel and Haydn be considered for #4? Or do we ringfence the Romantics so that they get a shot (Brahms vs. Wagner ... vs. Schubert and/or Schumann)? And then what happens with the post-Romantics? The only way that makes sense for me is to group together the top ranked in one big group of "how could they have produced such amazing music?" composers. And to follow this with another big group who are evidently not quite so great but nevertheless were extraordinary geniuses.


----------



## chu42

Ah, so you're proposing a tier list.


----------



## Enthusiast

I guess but with perhaps three (or even two) broad tiers and an understanding that to get into a tier at all is quite something. And I don't think I would enjoy or greatly value the discussions that negotiated who belongs where.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> How do you deduce from anything I've said that I 'm claiming "no distinction to be made between the impact of music on other music and its impact on other art forms or non-musical values or ideas"? You said that you considered the "cultural influence" of Debussy and Stravinsky at least as great as that of Wagner. I just respond to the words people choose, and so I addressed cultural influence. If you really meant "musical influence," we can talk about that. But I think all three had enormous musical influence, and I won't fight about it.
> 
> I'd be interested to know where you trace the influence of Debussy, Stravinsky and Wagner, respectively.


No, I meant cultural impact and significance, not musical impact. When Beethoven's 9th Symphony was played in Berlin to commemorate the tearing down of the wall, and the reunification of East and West Germany, it was not just because it is a great piece of music. Over many years it has attained a profound cultural significance, perhaps especially the fourth movement set to Schiller's Ode to Joy, but the entire symphony as well. There are endless other examples, most in a slightly or greatly lighter vein, but they are still meaningful. Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker means Christmas for generations of children who will never have any special interest in classical music. Popular music, written to capture the zeitgeist of the moment and often for a single narrow age and socioeconomic demographic, well-done as it may be, seldom has that long-term impact.

As for Wagner, Debussy and Stravinsky, they have all had major cultural and musical impacts, obviously. To me, the main difference is that the latter two are much more recent composers, and even the greatest cultural icons of the past gradually recede as newer ones arise. Of course, the other side of that coin is that Debussy and Stravinsky absorbed the lessons of Wagner (and Mozart and Beethoven), so Wagner's ideas do not disappear but become integrated into the cultural fabric. And Wagner's ideas are not just adopted by other composers. When Francis Ford Coppola used The Ride of the Valkyries in his 1979 movie Apocalypse Now, he knew that music had a particular cultural significance and meaning that his audience would immediately understand. If it had been written specially for that movie and never heard before, I doubt it would have had the same impact, at least not immediately.

People talk endlessly about the use of dissonance and complex, compound meters in The Rite of Spring. Fair enough. But isn't it equally important that this ballet is about Pagan religious rituals, including human sacrifice? No swans, no toys coming to life, and choreography that completely turns traditional ballet on its head. I admit, Stravinsky didn't invent all of that out of nothing in 1913. But it sure was new to Nijinsky and the dancers, who had a difficult time learning it, and no doubt the orchestra too (it's a tough piece even for top professional orchestras to this day). Is it any surprise many audience members, though they were sophisticated Parisians, booed and shouted at its premiere?

And yet, in 1940, only 27 years later, The Rite figured prominently in Disney's Fantasia, an animated cartoon for young American children (as did Debussy's The afternoon of a faun, despite its overt sexuality, quite shocking when first performed). Isn't that indicative of some profound shifts in western culture between 1913 and 1940, whether cause or effect or, more likely, some of both?

If you look at Beethoven's 9th, Wagner's Liebestod, Debussy's afternoon of a faun, Stravinsky's Rite, and many less iconic classical music works purely in musical terms, I think you miss an important aspect of their impact on western culture.


----------



## Woodduck

^^^ Thanks for the examples. But I don't think they make any sort of case for the music of Debussy and Stravinsky having anything close to the multidimensional cultural significance of the Wagnerian music-drama. The "significance" of things can be either symptomatic or causal, and the examples you cite represent the former much more than the latter. I think the causal significance of Debussy and Stravinsky was primarily their effect on the way music sounded; the adoption of their sounds certainly said something about the culture, but I don't see it having had much independent effect on it, much as Beethoven's 9th came to symbolize political aspiration but didn't do much (if anything) to bring down the Berlin wall. Some diffused cultural effect there certainly has been, but if it's any greater than that of any number of other major composers I still need to have that shown to me.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> I'll never forget how, back in 2006, the 250th anniversary of Mozart's birth the number of people who were angry about Mozart being ranked high in classical music. (Even Andras Schiff wrote an article on it.) Next year, the 250th anniversary of Beethoven's birth, I expect no one will ever mock Beethoven for anything. Because he was so perfect. The (Romanticized) Hero who Changed Music Forever.
> I'd say it's about time we assess how unfair the situation is with some objectivity.


Back in 2008 I had some negative experiences with some Bach worshippers of Orkut who would enter in non-moderated communities of other famous composers and start mocking them and trolling. I though of these people as a bunch of fanatical snobs, and although at first their action difficulted my appreciation of his music, today I'm proud that I didn't become a hater and that I can still appreciate Bach's wonderful oeuvre.

The point is, what would be the good in condemning the actions of people who attack the marvels of some great composers if one starts to act like them in the first place? Forget those people who bashed Mozart back in 2006. His place in history is already warranted as one of the great, great masters of classical music, and if some can't see this I understand that it's their fault, not the composer's.


----------



## Xisten267

<< Remove this post please >>


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> "Some" middle period sonatas such as Waldstein, Tempest, Appassionata, to be precise. I'm curious if you've listened to the 19th, 20th, 25th, 26th at all.


Sonata No. 25 may be one of the smallest in scale Beethoven has ever produced, yet in my opinion it has it's own charm at portraying the composer in a lighter mood. Of course it has it's surprises: the interesting harmony of the first movement, with fast and frequent modulations built in it's small structure; the use of a then uncommon 9/8 time signature in the Andante; the contrasts the composer introduced in his Rondo. Those who think Beethoven only produced "big" and "loud" music definitely should give a chance to this sonata IMO.

Sonata No. 26 is the famous "Les Adieux" and I don't see why would you cite it as being problematic. Sonatas Nos. 19 and 20 may be relatively easy and simple, but they were composed back in Beethoven's Early period (around the time of his Op. 2 sonatas), and as far as I can remember he didn't even want them to be published.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> Back in 2008 I had some negative experiences with some Bach worshippers of Orkut who would enter in non-moderated communities of other famous composers and start mocking them and trolling. I though of these people as a bunch of fanatical snobs, and although at first their action difficulted my appreciation of his music, today I'm proud that I didn't become a hater and that I can still appreciate Bach's wonderful oeuvre.
> 
> The point is, what would be the good in condemning the actions of people who attack the marvels of some great composers if one starts to act like them in the first place? Forget those people who bashed Mozart back in 2006. His place in history is already warranted as one of the great, great masters of classical music, and if some can't see this I understand that it's their fault, not the composer's.


I can understand somewhat, it's not the composers that I particularly hate, it's the images people associate with them I have issues with. In classical piano-related communities, there are people who worship Beethoven, Chopin, (and sometimes Rachmaninoff), as if they were the only ones who knew how to write for keyboard. My critical attitude toward Beethoven, Chopin partly stems from my experience interacting with these people. They're not just few people. It's a constant thing that's going even these days and if I hear another 'Mozart is all fluff' from them I'm going to puke from frustration. I have felt it's necessary someone should stand up and propose an argument exact opposite of theirs to counteract their "propaganda". Mozart's status in classical music may not necessarily be underrated, but I think certain side, character of his work are still underrated in that respect.


----------



## PlaySalieri

hammeredklavier said:


> I can understand somewhat, it's not the composers that I particularly hate, it's the images people associate with them I have issues with. In classical piano-related communities, there are people who worship Beethoven, Chopin, (and sometimes Rachmaninoff), as if they were the only ones who knew how to write for keyboard. My critical attitude toward Beethoven, Chopin partly stems from my experience interacting with these people. They're not just few people. It's a constant thing that's going even these days and if I hear another 'Mozart is all fluff' from them I'm going to puke from frustration. I have felt it's necessary someone should stand up and propose an argument exact opposite of theirs to counteract their "propaganda". Mozart's status in classical music may not necessarily be underrated, but I think certain side, character of his work are still underrated in that respect.


K394 is one of those pieces you want to hear how all the masters played it.

Its unusual to say this about Mozart where he does not get enough credit for one genre since he is generally praised to the skies in every other genre he touched but solo piano must be one where he does not get enough recognition. Two octaves short of a modern piano he did wonders with that tinny little fortepiano they keep at the salzburg mozarteum.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I can understand somewhat, it's not the composers that I particularly hate, it's the images people associate with them I have issues with. In classical piano-related communities, there are people who worship Beethoven, Chopin, (and sometimes Rachmaninoff), as if they were the only ones who knew how to write for keyboard. My critical attitude toward Beethoven, Chopin partly stems from my experience interacting with these people. They're not just few people. It's a constant thing that's going even these days and if I hear another 'Mozart is all fluff' from them I'm going to puke from frustration. I have felt it's necessary someone should stand up and propose an argument exact opposite of theirs to counteract their "propaganda".


Obviously you're hanging out with the wrong people. I suggest finding a new crowd for the sake of your mental health.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> I can understand somewhat, it's not the composers that I particularly hate, it's the images people associate with them I have issues with. In classical piano-related communities, there are people who worship Beethoven, Chopin, (and sometimes Rachmaninoff), as if they were the only ones who knew how to write for keyboard. My critical attitude toward Beethoven, Chopin partly stems from my experience interacting with these people. They're not just few people. It's a constant thing that's going even these days and if I hear another 'Mozart is all fluff' from them I'm going to puke from frustration. I have felt it's necessary someone should stand up and propose an argument exact opposite of theirs to counteract their "propaganda". Mozart's status in classical music may not necessarily be underrated, but I think certain side, character of his work are still underrated in that respect.


Have you ever thought of starting a blog about Mozart? You seem to have a lot of knowledge about his music, and you could share your experiences with it. You could help others to reevaluate their views about his compositions that in your opinion deserve more credit, this by explaining exactly what you think is so interesting about them. I don't think you need to bash Beethoven while doing so, but clearly there's a connection between the music of the masters of Bonn and of Salzburg, and you could enforce it. I understand that music "progresses" (better IMO to use the word "changes") over time, and you could write about Mozart's role in this. Obviously great keyboard music didn't start nor end with Beethoven, Chopin or Rachmaninoff.

Perhaps it could be interesting to open a thread about this here at TC aswell.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> ^^^ Thanks for the examples. But I don't think they make any sort of case for the music of Debussy and Stravinsky having anything close to the multidimensional cultural significance of the Wagnerian music-drama. The "significance" of things can be either symptomatic or causal, and the examples you cite represent the former much more than the latter. I think the causal significance of Debussy and Stravinsky was primarily their effect on the way music sounded; the adoption of their sounds certainly said something about the culture, but I don't see it having had much independent effect on it, much as Beethoven's 9th came to symbolize political aspiration but didn't do much (if anything) to bring down the Berlin wall. Some diffused cultural effect there certainly has been, but if it's any greater than that of any number of other major composers I still need to have that shown to me.


Sorry, I know you're an admirer of Wagner, but I don't do ranking. That's really only a popularity contest, and I posted a decent, but imperfect, popularity ranking based on record sales. Others could have found more accurate statistics and created a better list, but they didn't, instead continuing to advance subjective opinions, as you do, as well-informed and intelligent as they may be. For me, Wagner was a great artist, a great dramatist as much as a great musician, but born in 1813 and very much a 19th-century artist. For better or worse, it is now the 21st century. Not only has music changed, drama has changed, probably even more dramatically. I am very much interested in modern art, literature and theater as well as music. In all of those areas, we are very far from where we were in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Was Richard Sheridan a greater dramatist than Tom Stoppard? George Eliot a greater novelist than Nadine Gordimer? Claude Monet a greater artist than Pablo Picasso? I find these comparisons meaningless. They all played important cultural roles in their own eras.

Even when one compares contemporaries, they often have very different artistic aims and approaches and aren't really comparable. Had Wagner couched his commentary on Mendelssohn in more respectful terms (and left out the Jewish stuff), we might remember it as an intelligent description of two very different aesthetic approaches. Alas, composers are notorious for writing self-serving denunciations of any music that is not in accord with their own approach. Pierre Boulez is a more recent example. Maybe it's fortunate in this context that writing books, essays and letters is going out of style.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Sorry, I know you're an admirer of Wagner, but *I don't do ranking.* That's really only a popularity contest, and I posted a decent, but imperfect, popularity ranking based on record sales. Others could have found more accurate statistics and created a better list, but they didn't, instead continuing to advance subjective opinions, as you do, as well-informed and intelligent as they may be. For me, Wagner was a great artist, a great dramatist as much as a great musician, *but born in 1813 and very much a 19th-century artist. For better or worse, it is now the 21st century.* Not only has music changed, drama has changed, probably even more dramatically. *I am very much interested in modern art, literature and theater as well as music. In all of those areas, we are very far from where we were in the 18th and 19th centuries.*
> 
> Was Richard Sheridan a greater dramatist than Tom Stoppard? George Eliot a greater novelist than Nadine Gordimer? Claude Monet a greater artist than Pablo Picasso? *I find these comparisons meaningless. *They all played important cultural roles in their own eras.
> 
> Even when one compares contemporaries, they often have very different artistic aims and approaches and aren't really comparable. Had Wagner couched his commentary on Mendelssohn in more respectful terms (and left out the Jewish stuff), we might remember it as an intelligent description of two very different aesthetic approaches. Alas, composers are notorious for writing self-serving denunciations of any music that is not in accord with their own approach. Pierre Boulez is a more recent example. Maybe it's fortunate in this context that writing books, essays and letters is going out of style.


Your responses are baffling me. Where have I suggested ranking? It was you who proposed a comparison by stating that you thought Debussy and Stravinsky had at least as great a cultural influence as Wagner. I've simply, and repeatedly, asked you to support that. The couple of instances of what you consider influence don't show anything close to the impact on various fields of human endeavor which Wagner's work is known - not supposed, but known - to have exerted. And why is the fact that he was a 19th-century and not a 21st-century artist an impediment to understanding that impact, or a negation of its significance? If anything, it gives us a larger perspective on a longer time through which his influence can be traced.

You're interested in drama? OK. In Wagner's case, it can't be separated from music. You may be aware that Adolphe Appia, the Swiss theorist of theatrical staging perhaps more responsible than any other single individual for moving the aesthetics and technology of stagecraft into the 20th century, was motivated by the musically and dramatically visionary canvases of Wagner's operas to re-imagine the stage as a realm of expressive light and space. To be more specific: it was the psychological narrative of Wagner's music itself, with its complex employment of thematic metamorphosis as a means of illuminating subconscious dramatic motivations and associations, which was the primary inspiration for Appia's innovations. With _Tristan_ and the _Ring_ in his mind's ear, he felt the prosaic inadequacy and incongruity of painted backdrops and naturalistic props, and sought to liberate the mind and engage the emotions of the spectator by embodying in the magic of light and space the inner space of the mind that Wagner had embodied in his music. There's a straight line of descent from Wagner's conception of music drama through Appia's radically simplified theater of light to the abstract stagings of Wieland Wagner and the 20th century stage in general. Add to this the concealed orchestra pit, the amphitheater style of seating, the complete darkening of the hall, and a more naturalistic style of acting - all introduced by Wagner himself at Bayreuth - and the composer's influence on the art of drama, musical and otherwise (including film and film music), can be seen as profound and permanent.

It might be relevant to mention here that the creators of the stream-of-consciousness novel (Proust, Joyce, Woolf) and symbolist poetry were inspired by the same radical attributes of Wagner's musical narrative.

I have to ask: do you really think that a single Stravinsky ballet (which you mention in post #230), or even Stravinsky's entire musical aesthetic, were the ultimate sources of comparably important changes in the arts? If that argument can be made, I'd be interested in hearing it.


----------



## Guest

Wagner’s chief disciples and main enthusiasts at T-C know very well that he was a “one-trick pony” in terms of the variety of musical genres in which he was capable of writing, and it very much appears as if they are simply looking around for any other claims to fame to bolt on to his reputation, like “innovation” and influence, in an attempt to provide added credence to their views. 

As I have said on previous occasions, and as others have also remarked, there are probably precedents for several of the so-called “innovations” made by Wagner. I doubt that he sat down one day and dreamed it all up from scratch, all on his own. I accept that there were probably a few original features, and I do not doubt that he pulled together various pre-existing strands very well, may have added value, and generally advanced things, and he certainly made a very good job of the finished products, namely his operas.

In any case, influence of itself is not measurable in a reliable objective manner. Even if there was some way of measuring it, there is the problem of deciding how important it is relation to other factors of possible relevance in assessing a composer’s rating. Just because the most ardent fans of Wagner may consider his influence to have been extremely high does not mean that account of this ought to be taken by other people in forming their own views on whether or not they like Wagner. 

To them Wagner’s innovations and influence should be irrelevant. Most people decide on which composers they like based entirely the quality of the music they wrote, not how influential they are reckoned to have been. When it comes to expressing a viewpoint on their favourite composers, most people generally consider the quality of the music, and the amount of it, across the various genres in which they wrote. 

I have nothing against Wagner. In fact, I like his work. I can see why his fans rave about him. I wouldn’t personally rate him inside my “top 10”, but I’m quite happy to see him there based on the opinions of a wider selection of discerning people such as may be found on this Forum.


----------



## mmsbls

Partita said:


> Wagner's chief disciples and main enthusiasts at T-C know very well that he was a "one-trick pony" in terms of the variety of musical genres in which he was capable of writing, and it very much appears as if they are simply looking around for any other claims to fame to bolt on to his reputation, like "innovation" and influence, in an attempt to provide added credence to their views.
> 
> As I have said on previous occasions, and as others have also remarked, there are probably precedents for several of the so-called "innovations" made by Wagner. I doubt that he sat down one day and dreamed it all up from scratch, all on his own. I accept that there were probably a few original features, and I do not doubt that he pulled together various pre-existing strands very well, may have added value, and generally advanced things, and he certainly made a very good job of the finished products, namely his operas.
> 
> In any case, influence of itself is not measurable in a reliable objective manner. Even if there was some way of measuring it, there is the problem of deciding how important it is relation to other factors of possible relevance in assessing a composer's rating. Just because the most ardent fans of Wagner may consider his influence to have been extremely high does not mean that account of this ought to be taken by other people in forming their own views on whether or not they like Wagner.
> 
> To them Wagner's innovations and influence should be irrelevant. Most people decide on which composers they like based entirely the quality of the music they wrote, not how influential they are reckoned to have been. When it comes to expressing a viewpoint on their favourite composers, most people generally consider the quality of the music, and the amount of it, across the various genres in which they wrote.
> 
> I have nothing against Wagner. In fact, I like his work. I can see why his fans rave about him. I wouldn't personally rate him inside my "top 10", but I'm quite happy to see him there based on the opinions of a wider selection of discerning people such as may be found on this Forum.


I would not presume to estimate Wagner's influence, but I'm aware that others have done so and seem to place Wagner rather high. We had a few threads that included discussions of a list created by Charles Smith at Western Kentucky University. He creates a list of most influential composers which is based on over 20,000 sources.

His list of influential composers starts:

1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Wagner
4. Debussy
5. Stravinsky


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Where have I suggested ranking?


You said, "Thanks for the examples. But I don't think they make any sort of case for the music of Debussy and Stravinsky having anything close to the multidimensional cultural significance of the Wagnerian music-drama." You are welcome to that opinion, it's not mine but not unreasonable, but I don't do multidimensional cultural significance rankings, even for contemporaries, much less artists whose careers were a century apart. I provided a ranking that may not be the most profound or significant, but at least it is based on objective statistics. I like your term "music-drama", though.



Woodduck said:


> You're interested in drama? OK. In Wagner's case, it can't be separated from music.


That is a very true and important point.



Woodduck said:


> I have to ask: do you really think that a single Stravinsky ballet (which you mention in post #230), or even Stravinsky's entire musical aesthetic, were the ultimate sources of comparably important changes in the arts?


Yes. But see my first response above. I have no intention of arguing issues like this with you. Neither of us is wrong. Not only are aesthetic tastes not capable of objective proof, aesthetic principles or "cultural significance" aren't either, at least not entirely. Humans have much in common, but our differing cultural backgrounds, upbringing, education, etc., inevitably leaves us somewhat apart in these areas. I cited what to me are the vitally important writings of the 18th-century British empiricist philosopher David Hume on these issue a while back to the boredom and puzzlement of many here. I won't return to that.

Maybe an example will clarify: To me, Tristan was an astounding achievement. But so was The Magic Flute. It is almost hard for me to believe that the latter was written in the age of powdered wigs. And so was The Rite of Spring. If you wish to put Tristan far ahead of the other two, that's fine. I neither agree with you, nor can I prove you wrong.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I would not presume to estimate Wagner's influence, but I'm aware that others have done so and seem to place Wagner rather high. We had a few threads that included discussions of a list created by Charles Smith at Western Kentucky University. He creates a list of most influential composers which is based on over 20,000 sources.
> 
> His list of influential composers starts:
> 
> 1. Bach
> 2. Beethoven
> 3. Wagner
> 4. Debussy
> 5. Stravinsky


Do you consider the list to be reliable?

What use do you think can be made of it in ranking composers?

I've been familiar with the West Kentucky list since 2006 when it was discussed on another classical music forum, of which I was a member, doing work on ranking composers. Nobody on that forum attached much significance to the list, as it all seemed to be be dubious accuracy. In any case, it wasn't clear what relevance influence" had to "greatness" in terms of the weight to be attached to it compared with other aspects. This is the point I've been at pains to stress in various previous comments on this thread, and you too seem not to have taken this on board.

I remember looking at the Kentucky list in some detail at the time, and commenting adversely on it. I even wrote to the author to give him my views, and all I got back was a silly reply. I wish all those old threads were still available for inspection but they're not. I guess the lists may have been amended since then, but I doubt that the methodology has changed much.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> You said, "Thanks for the examples. But I don't think they make any sort of case for the music of Debussy and Stravinsky having anything close to the multidimensional cultural significance of the Wagnerian music-drama." You are welcome to that opinion, it's not mine but not unreasonable, but I don't do multidimensional cultural significance rankings, even for contemporaries, much less artists whose careers were a century apart. I provided a ranking that may not be the most profound or significant, but at least it is based on objective statistics. I like your term "music-drama", though.


Comparisons are not necessarily "rankings." Beyond conceding that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven may remain the principal busts on the piano, and putting Wagner close to them on my own piano, I've never done a ranking of composers. Just so we're clear about that.



> Neither of us is wrong. Not only are aesthetic tastes not capable of objective proof, aesthetic principles or "cultural significance" aren't either, at least not entirely. Humans have much in common, but our differing cultural backgrounds, upbringing, education, etc., inevitably leaves us somewhat apart in these areas.


Cultural influence has many objectively demonstrable factors which are widely recognized and easy to talk about, even while their significance is somewhat subject to individual perception and changing perspectives through time. Baudelaire, Maeterlinck, Proust, Joyce, Woolf, Verdi, Puccini, Debussy, Dvorak, Jung, Herzl, Tolkien, Appia, Mahler, Strauss, Schoenberg, Korngold, and numerous other well-known major and minor cultural movers can both tell us and show us in their work how Wagner influenced them, quite independent of our personal backgrounds and preferences.



> Maybe an example will clarify: To me, Tristan was an astounding achievement. But so was The Magic Flute. It is almost hard for me to believe that the latter was written in the age of powdered wigs. And so was The Rite of Spring. If you wish to put Tristan far ahead of the other two, that's fine. I neither agree with you, nor can I prove you wrong.


Maybe you should take a deeper look into "the age of powdered wigs." _Zauberflote_ had precursors in the theater of the time, it has roots in Freemasonry, and it was written on the cusp of the Romantic era. It's remarkable mainly because its music is by Mozart, who elevated it above otherwise similar entertainments. _Tristan_ was a musical and cultural thunderbolt and virtually created a new kind of drama, a drama of internal rather than external action, a psychological action told almost entirely through music - and unheard-of, disturbing, overpowering music at that, music that made erotic passion audible in ways that literally had people unaccustomed to such things fainting in the aisles and weeping the night away. This isn't a personal, subjective impression; some things in art are objectively real, and substantially checkable. (I've mentioned before this an excellent cultural study by Elliott Zuckerman titled "The First Hundred Years of Wagner's Tristan." It sets forth the importance of the opera better than I can after not having read the book for decades.)

I hasten to add that I'm not "ranking" Mozart and Wagner as composers, or even _Zauberflote_ and _Tristan_ in terms of artistic quality, although I do have ideas about both questions and could express them (and perhaps surprise some here). I'm not being merely argumentative. I just don't like seeing realities obscured by unnecessary debate, especially when I feel I have particular insight into the realities in question. I don't object to anyone's feeling that _Le Sacre du Printemps_ was just as significant as _Tristan_, but I still think it's worth laying out some historical facts for perspective. My own perspective on Stravinsky's influence may well be limited, and I'm happy to be better informed. I certainly see him as representing a major anti-Romantic trend in 20th-century music, and I recognize his participation in expanding the vocabulary of 20th-century dance, thanks initially to Diaghilev and then to George Balanchine.


----------



## mmsbls

Partita said:


> Do you consider the list to be reliable?
> 
> What use do you think can be made of it in ranking composers?
> 
> I've been familiar with the West Kentucky list since 2006 when it was discussed on another classical music forum, of which I was a member, doing work on ranking composers. Nobody on that forum attached much significance to the list, as it all seemed to be be dubious accuracy.


I think the list is an effort made by an expert in bibliometrics in determining which composers had the most influence on the musical community. I don't know how it compares to other such lists, but I would tend to believe his results more than those of anyone on TC (since I don't know their background, and I do know something about his methods). The list could, of course, be useful in ranking composer's influence. A forum simply isn't the place to evaluate the validity of such lists. I posted those links since you seemed to believe that Wagner could not possibly be so highly influential. The people I know personally with expertise in music seem to disagree with your assessment.



Partita said:


> In any case, it wasn't clear what relevance influence" had to "greatness" in terms of the weight to be attached to it compared with other aspects. This is the point I've been at pains to stress in various previous comments on this thread, and you too seem not to have taken this on board.


It's not clear which factors ought to be part of composer rankings, and further, it's even less clear what weight to attach to each factor. That's why I think just about everyone on TC views these lists as subjective rankings from a small group of modestly informed classical music listeners. It's fun and interesting to see how others here view the composers. Of course, I know you believe that it's unclear how to use influence to evaluate greatness.



Partita said:


> I remember looking at the Kentucky list in some detail at the time, and commenting adversely on it. I even wrote to the author to give him my views, and all I got back was a silly reply. I wish all those old threads were still available for inspection but they're not. I guess the lists may have been amended since then, but I doubt that the methodology has changed much.


Was it truly a silly reply, or did you simply disagree with his response?

I honestly believe you are taking the TC polls too seriously. You critique them almost as though they were submitted to peer-reviewed journals. They are simply fun but do inform those of us who understand how to evaluate them. We can learn something about the views of TC members. There is no correct answer. Is Wagner #4, #8, #20? Who knows? How would anyone know? It may be fun to argue rankings, but no one should argue as though there is a correct answer.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> I'm not being merely argumentative. I don't like seeing realities obscured by unnecessary debate. I don't mind that you feel _Le Sacre du Printemps_ was equally significant, but I still think it's worth laying out some historical facts for perspective. My own perspective on Stravinsky's influence may well be limited, and I'm happy to be better informed. I certainly see him as representing a major anti-Romantic trend in 20th-century music, and I recognize his participation in expanding the vocabulary of 20th-century dance, thanks initially to Diaghilev and then to George Balanchine.


You can read up on Le sacre, as you obviously have on Wagner. It is routinely called the most significant and influential work of music of the 20th century (though as you rightly point out with respect to Wagner's operas, it is not just a work of music, and I just got done saying I'm not much for naming the most or the greatest). Tristan was indeed a thunderbolt, but a 19th-century thunderbolt. As I've said in other contexts, to me theater generally is more specific to its time than music. Most people who would immediately recognize the Ride of the Valkyries have never sat through an entire four-hour Wagner opera and never will. (I say that not as a put down of Wagner, obviously.)

Theater today is vastly different from that of Wagner's time, thanks in part to the industrialization of our society and technological change, not least with the onset of commercial recording, radio, TV, and now the internet. Although Stravinsky's three famous early ballets predate most of that (except recording), his work, including Le sacre, turned out to be fertile ground for many, even most, succeeding modernists, who in turn have had a profound impact on our modern culture. Balanchine, whom you mention, collaborated with Stravinsky and had an almost overwhelming impact on modern dance. Jean Cocteau was another collaborator. Stravinsky and Picasso were close friends and collaborators. But his influence went vastly beyond those who worked with him directly. Nadia Boulanger was one of his disciples, and she taught many of the most important composers of the 20th century.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> You can read up on Le sacre, as you obviously have on Wagner. It is routinely called the most significant and influential work of music of the 20th century (though as you rightly point out with respect to Wagner's operas, it is not just a work of music, and I just got done saying I'm not much for naming the most or the greatest). Tristan was indeed a thunderbolt, but a 19th-century thunderbolt. As I've said in other contexts, to me theater generally is more specific to its time than music. Most people who would immediately recognize the Ride of the Valkyries have never sat through an entire four-hour Wagner opera and never will. (I say that not as a put down of Wagner, obviously.)
> 
> Theater today is vastly different from that of Wagner's time, thanks in part to the industrialization of our society and technological change, not least with the onset of commercial recording, radio, TV, and now the internet. Although Stravinsky's three famous early ballets predate most of that (except recording), his work, including Le sacre, turned out to be fertile ground for many, even most, succeeding modernists, who in turn have had a profound impact on our modern culture. Balanchine, whom you mention, collaborated with Stravinsky and had an almost overwhelming impact on modern dance. Jean Cocteau was another collaborator. Stravinsky and Picasso were close friends and collaborators. But his influence went vastly beyond those who worked with him directly. Nadia Boulanger was one of his disciples, and she taught many of the most important composers of the 20th century.


Very good points. It's been a little like pulling teeth, but thanks!  May I point out, though, that the "Parisian" Modernism of which Stravinsky was a leading figure is now as much a historical artifact as Wagner's Romanticism? To me most of its artistic manifestations seem a bit quaint and "retro," although Stravinsky's music and Picasso's art retain their craftsmanlike quality despite no longer seeming daring. Were they a bit too self-consciously daring to begin with? I say this only because you keep repeating that Wagner was a 19th-century artist, as if he had little to say to us now. Perhaps audiences are the best judge of that. To me, the period in which art is created really means nothing, except when I'm personally unsympathetic to it. A person in 2019 may well find that Vermeer's "Girl with a Red Hat" transcends time and touches his soul, while "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" looks like a period piece by an _enfant ne plus terrible._

But I digress.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Partita said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you consider the list to be reliable?
> 
> What use do you think can be made of it in ranking composers?
> 
> 
> 
> I think the list is an effort made by an expert in bibliometrics in determining which composers had the most influence on the musical community. I don't know how it compares to other such lists, but I would tend to believe his results more than those of anyone on TC (since I don't know their background, and I do know something about his methods). The list could, of course, be useful in ranking composer's influence. A forum simply isn't the place to evaluate the validity of such lists. I posted those links since you seemed to believe that Wagner could not possibly be so highly influential. The people I know personally with expertise in music seem to disagree with your assessment.
Click to expand...

When you say you know something about his methods, I wonder how far you have delved into them. I haven't looked at it for some 13 years, and things may have changed, but when I did so in 2006 I was un-impressed. It was based mainly on things like the number and length of journal articles, etc, and this sort of thing can throw up dubious results, as we've recently seen in connection with the length of "wiki" articles, as referred to the current "_definitive list of greatest composers"_ thread elsewhere.



mmsbls said:


> Partita said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, it wasn't clear what relevance influence" had to "greatness" in terms of the weight to be attached to it compared with other aspects. This is the point I've been at pains to stress in various previous comments on this thread, and you too seem not to have taken this on board.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not clear which factors ought to be part of composer rankings, and further, it's even less clear what weight to attach to each factor. That's why I think just about everyone on TC views these lists as subjective rankings from a small group of modestly informed classical music listeners. It's fun and interesting to see how others here view the composers. Of course, I know you believe that it's unclear how to use influence to evaluate greatness.
Click to expand...

Your response confirms more or less what I said, namely that "influence" is only one factor to be reckoned with, that it can only be measured with much difficulty and limited reliability, and that no-one knows how much weight to attach to influence compared with other attributes of "greatness". Against this, there are some on here who seem to think that it's the most important factor, and talk as if it's a proven fact beyond dispute that one composer they happen to like enormously is the one with the greatest influence. All I have been attempting to do is to correct, and partially to deflate, their misconceived views.



mmsbls said:


> Partita said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember looking at the Kentucky list in some detail at the time, and commenting adversely on it. I even wrote to the author to give him my views, and all I got back was a silly reply. I wish all those old threads were still available for inspection but they're not. I guess the lists may have been amended since then, but I doubt that the methodology has changed much.
> 
> 
> 
> Was it truly a silly reply, or did you simply disagree with his response?
> 
> I honestly believe you are taking the TC polls too seriously. You critique them almost as though they were submitted to peer-reviewed journals. They are simply fun but do inform those of us who understand how to evaluate them. We can learn something about the views of TC members. There is no correct answer. Is Wagner #4, #8, #20? Who knows? How would anyone know? It may be fun to argue rankings, but no one should argue as though there is a correct answer.
Click to expand...

Regards the reply I received from Kentucky, it did not comment on my main substantive query, or my request for certain clarifications.

My main query was to ask how far account had been taken the importance of earlier contributions by other composers, in order to gain an appreciation of the "value added" innovation by the composer in question. Obviously, if a certain composer was partly or mainly riding on the backs of his predecessors in terms of innovation, then to some extent then the "influence" attributed to that composer will over estimate that composer's true contribution.

Regards my request for clarification, I asked how all the bits of textual references had been filtered to allow for double-counting, as it seemed to me that the researcher has simply added up several sources, some of which included references to previous articles etc. I asked because I could see that he hadn't made any such attempt, and that my question might well stump him.

My expectations were met. In the very short reply, there was no attempt to answer any of my points. All I got was something along the lines: "_... of course there is much uncertainty in this kind of assessment … I don't pretend this list is definitive … It's probably better than nothing … It confirms many peoples' expectations ... You try to do any better … g'day, don't bother me again"._

I think your last sentence above has unfairly misinterpreted what I've been saying. It's not me who's been taking the poll results too seriously but some others appear to have done so by attaching unwarranted attention to certain results. I've never stated that there is a correct answer to the rankings. On the contrary, I have been stressing the uncertainty attaching to the results of any poll. In an earlier post, I gave an illustrative example of a poll in which Schumann came out at No 13, but noted that he could be any where in the range 7 to 19, if the underlying uncertainty of poll statistics is taken into account. If that kind of comment doesn't indicate my scepticism about the reliability of forum-based polls, I don't know what does.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> I would not presume to estimate Wagner's influence, but I'm aware that others have done so and seem to place Wagner rather high. We had a few threads that included discussions of a list created by Charles Smith at Western Kentucky University. He creates a list of most influential composers which is based on over 20,000 sources.
> 
> His list of influential composers starts:
> 
> 1. Bach
> 2. Beethoven
> 3. Wagner
> 4. Debussy
> 5. Stravinsky


Different institutes give different results. Maximilian Schich, Doheum Park, Arram Bae & Juyong Park from University of Texas and Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) performed statistical research analysis on 63,679 CDs of music and 13,981 composers from the period of 1500~2015, created a map showing their network of influence and ranked them in terms of influence on music history. 
https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-015-0039-z
_"In the composer-composer network JS Bach has the highest degree, k=1,551, approximately 103 times that of average degree k¯¯¯=15.1, followed by WA Mozart with k=1,086."_

The list went like
https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-015-0039-z/tables/1

1. Bach (k =1551)
2. Mozart (k =1086)
3. Handel
4. Brahms
...


----------



## hammeredklavier

I don't understand the logic about "cultural influence" regarding Wagner. 

Chopin is (regarded by many people today to be) the first great composer born outside of the Germanic sphere, and even to this day he's the undisputed icon of Polish patriotism in music. The Poles print his portrait on banknotes and have promoted International Chopin Piano Competition of Warsaw so much that it has become the most prestigious piano competition for every pianist in the world today. 
But what if Chopin wasn't Polish, but Germanic, and did not have any nationalist significance? Would it have diminished or weakened any of his "cultural impact"? Would people still have gone this far promoting a competition dedicated just to his music? 

Likewise, if Wagner did not express any German nationalism or any antisemitism in music, would Hitler have promoted his music at all? 
It is my opinion we should judge composers based on their work and what it caused within the music history strictly, not what non-musicians said about them. (I personally don't care what Albert Einstein said about Mozart. He wasn't even a pro-musician) 
I don't see any point in all this hype with composers' "cultural influence".
Why do we criticize David C F Wright for judging composers not only by their work but also by their extra-musical traits? (like ridiculing Schubert for frequenting brothels)

With Mozart, there is a multi-billion dollar industry surrounding all kinds of stuff ranging from Kugel chocolates to the pseudo-scientific phenomenon "Mozart Effect", the tourism industry of the entire city of Salzburg. Bachtrack.com lists him and Beethoven as the two most played composers in the world. --- because of all this, Mozart is often criticized as being overrated, not deserving the popularity he enjoys with the "ignorant masses". 

But how is this even different from the kind of cultural influence Wagner has had on the world anyway?


----------



## Guest

^With reference to post # 250, I have read through the article referred to. It's quite dense mathematically, and to understand it fully you'd need a good understanding of statistical theory, and some knowledge of network and topology theory.

A quick and hopefully very simple summary follows:

1. The authors from the University of Texas wanted to see what use could be made of the very large _Arkivmusic.com_ database and that of _Allmusic.com_ in establishing popularity ratings and other features of the main classical composers. They published an article in 2015 based on data from these sources as at 2013.

2. By analysing several key aspects of the many thousands of CDs they produced four sets of rankings relating to different aspects of popularity. To do this they first had to discard duplicate CDs are compilation CDs that featured works that had already appeared on stand-alone CDs. All this preliminary cleaning up of the data seemed perfectly in order, but how well it was done I do not know as it could be a big chore.

3. They were interested not just in the overall popularity of individual composers by also in the extent to which they were connected with each other, as measured by whether or a CD included more than one composer's works. Four separate lists were produced, with the top ratings as given for each:

(i) composers' popularity: Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Verdi, Tchaikovsky, Schumann, Handel, Wagner, Chopin, Haydn, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Debussy, Puccini, Vivaldi, Dvorak, Ravel, Strauss R.

(ii) composers' compatibility with others, top 5: Bach, Mozart, Handel, Brahms, Mendelssohn

(iii) the extent to which a composer tends to be paired with other prominent composers, top 5: Bach, Mozart, Handel, Brahms, Mendelssohn

(iv) the frequency by which a composer acts as an intermediary between two other composers, top 5: Bach, Mozart, Handel, Piazolla, Brahms​
4. The first set of results showing the top 20 most popular composers are probably the most interesting for the purpose of this thread. The list seems to be in pretty good general order to me, roughly consistent with results from various other sources, and overall I wouldn't quibble.

5. Their analysis does not attempt to say anything of direct relevance to the matters of "innovation" or "influence". It is all strictly related to popularity and related issues.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't understand the logic about "cultural influence" regarding Wagner.
> 
> Chopin is (regarded by many people today to be) the first great composer born outside of the Germanic sphere, and even to this day he's the undisputed icon of Polish patriotism in music. The Poles print his portrait on banknotes and have promoted International Chopin Piano Competition of Warsaw so much that it has become the most prestigious piano competition for every pianist in the world today.
> But what if Chopin wasn't Polish, but Germanic, and did not have any nationalist significance? Would it have diminished or weakened any of his "cultural impact"? Would people still have gone this far promoting a competition dedicated just to his music?
> 
> Likewise, if Wagner did not express any German nationalism or any antisemitism in music, Hitler wouldn't have promoted his music.
> It is my opinion we should judge composers based on their work and what it caused within the music history strictly, not what non-musicians said about them. (I personally don't care what Albert Einstein said about Mozart. He wasn't even a pro-musician)
> I don't see any point in all this hype with composers' "cultural influence".
> Why do we criticize David C F Wright for judging composers not only by their work but also by their extra-musical traits? (like ridiculing Schubert for frequenting brothels)
> 
> With Mozart, there is a multi-billion dollar industry surrounding all kinds of stuff ranging from Kugel chocolates to the pseudo-scientific phenomenon "Mozart Effect", the tourism industry of the entire city of Salzburg. Bachtrack.com lists him and Beethoven as the two most played composers in the world. --- because of all this, Mozart is often criticized as being overrated, not deserving the popularity he enjoys with the "ignorant masses".
> 
> But how is this even different from the kind of cultural influence Wagner has had on the world anyway?


I agree. The "cultural influence" of certain composers is for social historians to write about. It has virtually nothing to do with the quality of the music they wrote, except highly indirectly insofar that if they had written lousy music they wouldn't have any cultural influence. Any cultural influence is a consequence of the quality of the composer's music and its appeal, not an extra reason for rating it highly. The subject of "cultural influence" tends to be dragged up when people are looking for supplementary ways to boost their favourite composers' reputations, but essentially on false pretences.


----------



## ManateeFL

Partita said:


> Any cultural influence is a consequence of the quality of the composer's music and its appeal


That seems to be exactly what those talking of Wagner's cultural influence have been saying. And if its a consequence of the quality of a composer's music and appeal, it's worth considering when discussing the greatness of a composer's work.

I really don't understand what the argument has been about.


----------



## mmsbls

Partita said:


> When you say you know something about his methods, I wonder how far you have delved into them. I haven't looked at it for some 13 years, and things may have changed, but when I did so in 2006 I was un-impressed. It was based mainly on things like the number and length of journal articles, etc, and this sort of thing can throw up dubious results, as we've recently seen in connection with the length of "wiki" articles, as referred to the current "_definitive list of greatest composers"_ thread elsewhere.



That's reasonable.



Partita said:


> ...Against this, there are some on here who seem to think that it's the most important factor, and talk as if it's a proven fact beyond dispute that one composer they happen to like enormously is the one with the greatest influence. All I have been attempting to do is to correct, and partially to deflate, their misconceived views.


I have not interpreted any responses in the manner you have. I'm guessing that no one at TC believes that influence is close to the most important factor. One of us is apparently wrong.



Partita said:


> ... I think your last sentence above has unfairly misinterpreted what I've been saying. It's not me who's been taking the poll results too seriously but some others appear to have done so by attaching unwarranted attention to certain results. I've never stated that there is a correct answer to the rankings. On the contrary, I have been stressing the uncertainty attaching to the results of any poll. In an earlier post, I gave an illustrative example of a poll in which Schumann came out at No 13, but noted that he could be any where in the range 7 to 19, if the underlying uncertainty of poll statistics is taken into account. If that kind of comment doesn't indicate my scepticism about the reliability of forum-based polls, I don't know what does.


My last sentence says that no one ought to argue as though there is a correct answer. I did not mean that you specifically should not but rather that no one should. It seems that you agree.


----------



## Woodduck

ManateeFL said:


> That seems to be exactly what those talking of Wagner's cultural influence have been saying. And if its a consequence of the quality of a composer's music and appeal, it's worth considering when discussing the greatness of a composer's work.
> 
> *I really don't understand what the argument has been about.*


Neither do I. If we're interested in a reasonable assessment a composer's influence and importance to the wider culture, we look, first, at the extent and significance of the things people have done in response to his work, and, second, at the presence over time of his work in the affections of the public and the attention of scholars. This is not some sort of necromancy. It's largely a matter of research.


----------



## Woodduck

mmsbls said:


> I'm guessing that no one at TC believes that influence is close to the most important factor. One of us is apparently wrong.


I agree. I've not seen anyone express that view. People assess music primarily by its perceived content and its direct effect on them.


----------



## Woodduck

Partita said:


> The "cultural influence" of certain composers is for social historians to write about. It has virtually nothing to do with the quality of the music they wrote, except highly indirectly insofar that if they had written lousy music they wouldn't have any cultural influence. Any cultural influence is a consequence of the quality of the composer's music and its appeal, not an extra reason for rating it highly. The subject of "cultural influence" tends to be dragged up when people are looking for supplementary ways to boost their favourite composers' reputations, but essentially on false pretences.


It's true that the artistic quality of music isn't dependent on the composer's influence. Influence is not a test of musical value, but in the long trajectory of history it's a useful indicator, and in general a very reliable one. If we find a composer's contemporaries, in music and beyond it, responding strongly to his work, we have every reason to expect something remarkable when we look at it. The continued response of later composers, the listening public, and scholars only makes this expectation closer to a sure thing.

I seriously doubt that anyone here is "dragging up" anything on "false pretenses."


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I have not interpreted any responses in the manner you have. I'm guessing that no one at TC believes that influence is close to the most important factor. One of us is apparently wrong.


I do not accept that i am wrong. The evidence is quite clear.

I've been saying all along that the only way to measure a composer's greatness is by their popularity. Other factors, such as innovation and influence, are either non-measurable or irrelevant, and at best only a side product of their greatness.

By contrast, some have strongly implied that they view influence to be the most important factor. 
See, for example posts 110, 118, 133. These posts should suffice to show that emphasis has been placed, not on poll rating success, but on factors such as Wagners:

_"... huge impact on the world of music and beyond"

"... opinions of some of the great composers themselves [constituting[ evidence that Wagner deserves consideration as one of the supreme geniuses in music"

".. no artist, with the possible exception of Shakespeare, has had such a broad influence on Western culture"_.​
i could have referred to several similar posts made by other members. They all contain the view that Wagner's influence operating in various ways is a strong factor that they believe ought to affect his ranking. They believe his ranking based on "influence" is sufficient to justify his assumed rank of No 4. In one case it was argued that he ought to be in the No 1 spot. This kind of argument strongly suggests that these members are looking at "influence" as the major factor.

According to the very latest posts, it is now apparently accepted that possession of strong influence is a by product of a composer's greatness established in other ways. I detect a bit of recent shuffling of position going on here. This wasn't the manner in which their views were originally expressed. Rather, the concept of poll ranking by means of popularity polls was put aside in favour of stressing the importance of "influence". It's all there to be seen in the various posts.


----------



## fluteman

hammeredklavier said:


> Different institutes give different results. Maximilian Schich, Doheum Park, Arram Bae & Juyong Park from University of Texas and Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) performed statistical research analysis on 63,679 CDs of music and 13,981 composers from the period of 1500~2015, created a map showing their network of influence and ranked them in terms of influence on music history.
> https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-015-0039-z
> _"In the composer-composer network JS Bach has the highest degree, k=1,551, approximately 103 times that of average degree k¯¯¯=15.1, followed by WA Mozart with k=1,086."_
> 
> The list went like
> https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-015-0039-z/tables/1
> 
> 1. Bach (k =1551)
> 2. Mozart (k =1086)
> 3. Handel
> 4. Brahms
> ...
> 
> View attachment 123355


OK, I grudgingly admit, that statistical analysis probably has at least a certain degree of validity. Thanks for alerting me to it. I would point out the similarity of their results to my "jotted on the back of an envelope analysis" of recordings in ArkivMusic. The similarity is not surprising, as their work is based on current recordings, as my list was.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Very good points. It's been a little like pulling teeth, but thanks!  May I point out, though, that the "Parisian" Modernism of which Stravinsky was a leading figure is now as much a historical artifact as Wagner's Romanticism?


Touché. Maybe not as much an historical artifact as Wagner's Romanticism, but certainly headed in that direction. I might have added to my learned post (which was really only a tiresome retread of points I have made here before, often in painfully greater dull detail), had I looked at the all-knowing Wikipedia entry for Stravinsky earlier, that Stravinsky was named one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century by Time Magazine in 1998. Then you could immediately and correctly have responded, "Who cares what Time Magazine says about anything these days?"


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Partita said:


> I've been saying all along that the only way to measure a composer's greatness is by their popularity. Other factors, such as innovation and influence, are either non-measurable or irrelevant, *and at best only a side product of their greatness.*


Of course, the same thing can be said about popularity. :lol:

It's impossible to "measure" greatness, let alone by a single standard.


----------



## mmsbls

Partita said:


> I do not accept that i am wrong. The evidence is quite clear.


Fine, I could be wrong. I said "One of us is apparently wrong." You believe you are not wrong, and therefore, I am wrong in thinking that no TC member thinks that influence is the most important factor. So one of us was, indeed, apparently wrong. I do believe that some may think influence is an important factor.

On a separate note, I'm not sure how important I feel it is, but I do not consider influence when I vote in composer polls.


----------



## DavidA

Partita said:


> I do not accept that i am wrong. The evidence is quite clear.
> 
> I've been saying all along that the only way to measure a composer's greatness is by their popularity. Other factors, such as innovation and influence, are either non-measurable or irrelevant, and at best only a side product of their greatness.
> 
> By contrast, some have strongly implied that they view influence to be the most important factor.
> See, for example posts 110, 118, 133. These posts should suffice to show that emphasis has been placed, not on poll rating success, but on factors such as Wagners:
> 
> _"... huge impact on the world of music and beyond"
> 
> "... opinions of some of the great composers themselves [constituting[ evidence that Wagner deserves consideration as one of the supreme geniuses in music"
> 
> *".. no artist, with the possible exception of Shakespeare, has had such a broad influence on Western culture"*_.​
> i could have referred to several similar posts made by other members. They all contain the view that Wagner's influence operating in various ways is a strong factor that they believe ought to affect his ranking. They believe his ranking based on "influence" is sufficient to justify his assumed rank of No 4. In one case it was argued that he ought to be in the No 1 spot. This kind of argument strongly suggests that these members are looking at "influence" as the major factor.
> 
> According to the very latest posts, it is now apparently accepted that possession of strong influence is a by product of a composer's greatness established in other ways. I detect a bit of recent shuffling of position going on here. This wasn't the manner in which their views were originally expressed. Rather, the concept of poll ranking by means of popularity polls was put aside in favour of stressing the importance of "influence". It's all there to be seen in the various posts.


Do people who talk like this live in the real world? Most people even in the West have hardly heard of Wagner and might just recognise the 'Ride of the Vakyries' when linked to a film but nothing else. It is only in the rarified world of opera that Wagner gets a look in. True, as I heard a historian say today on television, his works might have influenced a certain Fuhrer to bring a Gotterdamerung on Germany in the madness that took place at the end of WW2, but that was not probably RW's intention. We need to get real and realise that opera is a pretty specialised interest (as is Shakespeare, actually, among most ordinary people) and Wagner is a specialist interest within that. Bluster all you like but they are the facts.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

DavidA said:


> True, as I heard a historian say today on television, his works might have influenced a certain Fuhrer to bring a Gotterdamerung on Germany in the madness that took place at the end of WW2, but that was not probably RW's intention.


If true that would certainly count as having a broad influence on Western culture. Intentional or not.


----------



## chu42

DavidA said:


> Do people who talk like this live in the real world? Most people even in the West have hardly heard of Wagner and might just recognise the 'Ride of the Vakyries' when linked to a film but nothing else. It is only in the rarified world of opera that Wagner gets a look in. True, as I heard a historian say today on television, his works might have influenced a certain Fuhrer to bring a Gotterdamerung on Germany in the madness that took place at the end of WW2, but that was not probably RW's intention. We need to get real and realise that opera is a pretty specialised interest (as is Shakespeare, actually, among most ordinary people) and Wagner is a specialist interest within that. Bluster all you like but they are the facts.


Bach is most often compared to the Shakespeare of music, and then Beethoven. I agree, Wagner's cultural influence is very little compared to these two. Pachelbel's Canon probably has more general recognition than even the most famous Wagner tunes (of which there is only one in popular culture, the Ride of the Valkyries as you mentioned).


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

chu42 said:


> Bach is most often compared to the Shakespeare of music, and then Beethoven. I agree, Wagner's cultural influence is very little compared to these two. Pachelbel's Canon probably has more general recognition than even the most famous Wagner tunes (of which there is only one in popular culture, the Ride of the Valkyries as you mentioned).


The bridal chorus from Lohengrin? Dum, Dum, dum-dum...

But "cultural influence" isn't the same as recognition in popular culture.


----------



## chu42

Poppin' Fresh said:


> The bridal chorus from Lohengrin? Dum, Dum, dum-dum...
> 
> But "culture influence" isn't the same as recognition in popular culture.


Yes, and the Bridal Chorus (although most don't know that the Bridal Chorus is Wagner while most people know that the 5th Symphony is Beethoven). And yes, influence and recognition are not one and the same but they overlap. Wagner had a great deal of influence on movie music which is indeed recognized, just not under the name of Wagner.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> Fine, I could be wrong. I said "One of us is apparently wrong." You believe you are not wrong, and therefore, I am wrong in thinking that no TC member thinks that influence is the most important factor. So one of us was, indeed, apparently wrong. I do believe that some may think influence is an important factor.
> 
> On a separate note, I'm not sure how important I feel it is, but I do not consider influence when I vote in composer polls.


Whatever you may be thinking when you vote in a poll, and however well designed and administered that poll may be (and few are, as doing polls right is usually difficult and expensive), a poll is at best a popularity contest. And there are probably more objective and accurate ways to measure popularity than polls, as at least one post here (finally!) shows. I do agree with Partita that in the long run popularity is a rough proxy for cultural influence or greatness. But only a rough proxy, not least because generally these artists were aiming to create something of long-run significance rather than mere popularity. True, some of them were also concerned with the popularity of their work, even to the point of obsession, but others cared about it only so far as they needed a source of money to put food on the table and to enable them to continue working.


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> Whatever you may be thinking when you vote in a poll, and however well designed and administered that poll may be (and few are, as doing polls right is usually difficult and expensive), a poll is at best a popularity contest. And there are probably more objective and accurate ways to measure popularity than polls, as at least one post here (finally!) shows. I do agree with Partita that in the long run popularity is a rough proxy for cultural influence or greatness. But only a rough proxy, not least because generally these artists were aiming to create something of long-run significance rather than mere popularity. True, some of them were also concerned with the popularity of their work, even to the point of obsession, but others cared about it only so far as they needed a source of money to put food on the table and to enable them to continue working.


Composer polls at TC basically tell us roughly how much the participants like the poll's top 10, 50, or maybe 100 composers. That can be interesting as long as one understands the polls limitations. On TC, for example, those who post significantly in the opera sections tend to participate less often in composer polls. I believe opera composers are then less well represented in the results.

Perhaps the results tell us something about cultural influence. I'm not sure. Greatness is so subjective that these type of polls only tell us something if one believes greatness has a lot to do with how well liked the composer's music is. So maybe the results say something about greatness.

Composer polls are fun for many, and arguing about the results can be fun as well. The most interesting thing I learned from the polling was that very few TC members place Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart all in their top 3 and that many don't have all 3 in their top 10. When I first joined, I assumed everyone loved those 3 and would place them very high on their list of most liked composers. I was rather surprised.


----------



## Woodduck

Partita said:


> I do not accept that i am wrong. The evidence is quite clear.
> 
> *I've been saying all along that the only way to measure a composer's greatness is by their popularity. * *Other factors, such as innovation and influence, are either non-measurable or irrelevant,* and at best only a side product of their greatness.
> 
> By contrast, *some have strongly implied that they view influence to be the most important factor.*
> See, for example posts 110, 118, 133. These posts should suffice to show that emphasis has been placed, not on poll rating success, but on factors such as Wagners:
> 
> _"... huge impact on the world of music and beyond"
> 
> "... opinions of some of the great composers themselves [constituting[ evidence that Wagner deserves consideration as one of the supreme geniuses in music"
> 
> ".. no artist, with the possible exception of Shakespeare, has had such a broad influence on Western culture"_.​
> i could have referred to several similar posts made by other members. They all contain the view that Wagner's influence operating in various ways is a strong factor that they believe ought to affect his ranking. *They believe his ranking based on "influence" is sufficient to justify his assumed rank of No 4.* In one case it was argued that he ought to be in the No 1 spot. This kind of argument *strongly suggests that these members are looking at "influence" as the major factor.
> *
> According to the very latest posts, it is now apparently accepted that possession of strong influence is a by product of a composer's greatness established in other ways. * I detect a bit of recent shuffling of position going on here. * This wasn't *the manner in which their views were originally expressed. * Rather, the concept of poll ranking by means of popularity polls was put aside in favour of stressing the importance of "influence". It's all there to be seen in the various posts.


I'm afraid you've read things into other people's statements which are just not there. Since you refer extensively to my statements in this context, I need to say that not only has there been no "reshuffling" of any position on my part, but your belief to the contrary is only one of the unjustified assumptions you're making.

To begin with, I've never argued for any definitive ranking of any composer. We all have our personal hierarchies, and on the basis of mine, never pretending to absolute objectivity but having what I consider excellent reasons, I said I'd be happy to put Wagner at #4. I stated my view clearly in post #110:

_"As an extraordinary creative mind who did things unique, significant and enduring, and who by doing so had a huge impact on the world of music and beyond, I don't think Wagner takes a back seat to anyone. Pushed to rank him, I'll gladly agree with those who place him at #4." _

There's no implication there that I consider Wagner's influence the _primary_ factor in valuing his work. But, jumping to that conclusion, you've been trying ever since to prove that my supposed view couldn't possibly be a legitimate one. You responded in post #113:

_"Some of the comments regarding Wagner, and whether he merits the No 4 slot, seem to relate mainly to his innovations and influence, which are of course attributes of greatness... I think that this notion of Wagner meriting rank No 4 is quite without foundation, anyway. This rating is not supported by any of the many TC composer polls that I can recall seeing over many years...I don't think that Wagner deserves the No 4 slot. It's too high by at least several notches..."
_
You go on to give reasons why Wagner doesn't "deserve the No. 4 slot," as if there were such a thing as a No. 4 slot which we all recognize, based on criteria with which we should all agree. But there are no such slot and criteria. It's fine to argue a composer's merits and say why we think he's worthy of esteem (or not), but to tussle over "rankings" in what is largely a game is useless. I'm not doing that at all; I'm merely trying to supplement or correct the perceptions of people who may not be aware of the varied ways in which Wagner's works have influenced aspects of our culture. When one contributor here cites only the likes of "Apocalypse Now" as an example of cultural influence, I clearly have my work cut out for me!

Whether a composer's influence "ought to affect his ranking" depends on what we're ranking him on. The OP says: "Factors included innovation, influence, and timelessness, with a little bit of personal bias going in." That's as close as the thread comes to establishing criteria for "ranking" composers. If those criteria don't sound good to you, why not take it up with the originator of the thread?

You say, "the only way to measure a composer's greatness is by their popularity. Other factors, such as innovation and influence, are either non-measurable or irrelevant, and at best only a side product of their greatness." The first part of that is self-evidently false, given (among other possible examples) that the most popular composer in 19th-century Europe was probably Johann Strauss. I mean, I love Strauss waltzes, and so did Brahms and Wagner and almost everyone else, but... (and there's always the 19th century's most popular opera composer, Meyerbeer). The rest of your statement, too, is mostly wrong: innovativeness is not a "side-product," but one of the hallmarks, of a great creative mind, and influence, if it can't be measured perfectly, can be assessed pretty well with the passage of time.

The idea that popularity polls are the only - or even the best - measures of artistic greatness blows my mind.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> *Do people who talk like this live in the real world? *Most people even in the West have hardly heard of Wagner and might just recognise the 'Ride of the Vakyries' when linked to a film but nothing else. It is only in the rarified world of opera that Wagner gets a look in.


This is appalling. I and others have rather painstakingly - and by now rather painfully - specified the diverse spheres of human activity impacted by the work of Wagner, but the use of the "Ride" in movies is the only instance you can name? That says far more about your cultural frame of reference than it does about the real world you say I don't live in.

Do give us your choices of the most influential artists, and tell us what those influences look like. Perhaps they have their melodies used in TV commercials and their paintings enlarged on the sides of buses?


----------



## Woodduck

chu42 said:


> Bach is most often compared to the Shakespeare of music, and then Beethoven. I agree, Wagner's cultural influence is very little compared to these two. Pachelbel's Canon probably has more general recognition than even the most famous Wagner tunes (of which there is only one in popular culture, the Ride of the Valkyries as you mentioned).


You're saying that the number of people who recognize a composer's tunes is the measure of his cultural influence? Really?

Please support your statement that "Wagner's cultural influence is very little" compared to that of Bach and Beethoven, telling us what you include under "culture" and how its been impacted by these composers.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Partita said:


> *I've been saying all along that the only way to measure a composer's greatness is by their popularity.* Other factors, such as innovation and influence, are either non-measurable or irrelevant, and at best only a side product of their greatness.


I disagree with this statement. Different eras have different idioms, and works in less familiar idioms will always be less popular. I believe the greatness has more to do with what a composer does within that idiom. Literature is different than music in that works in different languages can be translated, and someone not familiar with the German of Goethe can still appreciate to a higher degree a translation into the reader's native language than the work of Prokofiev or Webern to those more familiar with Classical and Romantic idioms.


----------



## Dimace

Despite my 17 years musical studies and 45 years occupation, I admit that I don't know so many things about the composers value, abilities, influence, acceptance etc. What I know is that ANY composer who made me happy with his music or helped me with his compositions to be better is GREAT. If I want to write something for Beethoven's music, for Bach's ability, for Wagner's operatic brilliance etc. I MUST know music to a level near to these guys. It is logical, I believe. Unfortunately something like this remains in the sphere of my wildest fantasies and every attempt of critic is ending here...


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> Whatever you may be thinking when you vote in a poll, and however well designed and administered that poll may be (and few are, as doing polls right is usually difficult and expensive), a poll is at best a popularity contest. And there are probably more objective and accurate ways to measure popularity than polls, as at least one post here (finally!) shows. I do agree with Partita that in the long run popularity is a rough proxy for cultural influence or greatness. But only a rough proxy, not least because generally these artists were aiming to create something of long-run significance rather than mere popularity. True, some of them were also concerned with the popularity of their work, even to the point of obsession, but others cared about it only so far as they needed a source of money to put food on the table and to enable them to continue working.


I fully acknowledge that it is impossible to measure "greatness" among composers without accepting the risk of possible error. It is like trying to measure "beauty". In both cases, there are no universally agreed standards by which to measure it uniquely. We each have our own standards, and these could vary over long periods, for an individual and for societies as a whole.

In order to obtain any handle on "greatness", we have to ask if there may be any proxy measures that could serve to illustrate the public's consensus opinion. There are but we soon hit further problems, as none of the several possible proxy measures is by any means ideal.

"Influence" is a secondary level indicator since it results from the popularity of the composer in question in and around of the time of his existence, and how far later composers wanted to follow that composer's lead. The latter is partly a function of how they considered audiences would react to music incorporating similar features, and of their own skills in writing music in that style. The whole thing soon becomes circular and it is difficult to know exactly what is being measured.

"Lasting popularity" of the composer in question is, I reckon, the best of the suggested proxy measures. This is mainly because this offers scope for numerical measurement, e.g. by suitably constructed polls and possibly by the use of CD counts. However, opinion polls are by no means without their own difficulties.

Forum-based polls such as those at TC are highly problematic. The audiences are ill defined, ranging from people with hardly any experience to some with a great deal. All the polls are based on self-selecting samples, which could easily bias the results. I trust them only to the limited extent that they show a broad trend in identifying a similar pattern of results among the main composers.

In regard to polls by outside organisations carried out on a larger scale, it must be accepted that the results will vary from one poll to another, so that there will exist not just one set of rankings of popularity but potentially several depending on the people who respond and their musical tastes.

The more I think about the CD-count method mentioned by you (as enhanced by the likes of the Texas University study referred to earlier) the more attracted I am towards this method as a useful supplementary measure. It embodies a lot of commercial information about what is likely to sell the best, and this will reflect consumer tastes as well as the opinions of suppliers to the classical music market in terms of what they consider is the best to perform. Whilst some may find this somewhat vulgar as a measure of composer "greatness", I take the opposite view and have more confidence in the marketing men getting it right compared with the opinions of a few forum punters with whatever fanciful ideas they may wish to entertain regarding their own favourite composers.


----------



## DavidA

Poppin' Fresh said:


> The bridal chorus from Lohengrin? Dum, Dum, dum-dum...
> 
> But "cultural influence" isn't the same as recognition in popular culture.


I'm always amazed this is played at weddings. Shows how many people don't realise how the wedding in Lohengrin ended. :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Poppin' Fresh said:


> If true that would certainly count as having a broad influence on Western culture. Intentional or not.


I'm not sure whether it would count as a influence on 'culture' itself. Certainly the man's fixation counted towards the destruction of the country he led. Of course the other fixation was the mad king Ludwig who built fantasy castles and bankrupted Bavaria in the process! I was listening to Tannhauser last night (my wife was out!) and I can we'll see how one can be swept up in obsession with this composer. It's that sort of music combined with the fantasy world he creates. However I prefer the fantasy to remain what it is - fantasy. Entertainment!


----------



## Byron

Hmmm. So I headed on over to arkivmusic out of curiosity, and checked out some of the numbers on recordings for good ol' Johann Sebastian. Apparently he has 6,982 available. Impressive. Alright I've been convinced. I'm rolling with this premise. Popularity equals greatness. Or it at least counts as a rough approximation of greatness. His Mass in B minor has 102 recordings. The Goldberg Variations have 223 recordings. So the Goldberg Variations are more than twice as great as the Mass in B minor. Some might object, but you can't argue with the numbers people. Wait though. The Toccata and Fugue in D minor has 282 recordings. I don't care if you think it's a bit of a hackneyed potboiler, this is evidence that it's far greater than his lowly mass. But let's not forget the greatest Bach composition of all. People far and wide sing its praises. It touches the very depth of our souls, and there is probably no equal in its expressive genius in the field of music. Drum roll please. J.S. Bach's most astonishing composition is.....wait for it...the Air on a G string, with 408 recordings. And because we've established popularity is an indicator of greatness, we can roughly say its 4 times as great as the Mass in B minor.


----------



## ManateeFL

Partita said:


> The more I think about the CD-count method mentioned by you (as enhanced by the likes of the Texas University study referred to earlier) the more attracted I am towards this method as a useful supplementary measure. It embodies a lot of commercial information about what is likely to sell the best, and this will reflect consumer tastes as well as the opinions of suppliers to the classical music market in terms of what they consider is the best to perform. Whilst some may find this somewhat vulgar as a measure of composer "greatness", I take the opposite view and have more confidence in the marketing men getting it right compared with the opinions of a few forum punters with whatever fanciful ideas they may wish to entertain regarding their own favourite composers.


Let's throw out all the thoughts and impressions of scholars, composers, musicians, critics, aficionados throughout the centuries as largely irrelevant...ignore the role a composer or particular compositions played in shaping and defining western culture and affecting the course of musical development because it's not quantifiable...hell, let's even forget our own ears and perceptive capabilities/critical listening faculties and leave it up to marketing people and forces of supply and demand as the best indicator of greatness? And this is somehow a grounded and reasonable outlook as opposed to the "fanciful" ideas of others? My head is spinning a bit.


----------



## Guest

Byron said:


> Hmmm. So I headed on over to arkivmusic out of curiosity, and checked out some of the numbers on recordings for good ol' Johann Sebastian. Apparently he has 6,982 available. Impressive. Alright I've been convinced. I'm rolling with this premise. Popularity equals greatness. Or it at least counts as a rough approximation of greatness. His Mass in B minor has 102 recordings. The Goldberg Variations have 223 recordings. So the Goldberg Variations are more than twice as great as the Mass in B minor. Some might object, but you can't argue with the numbers people. Wait though. The Toccata and Fugue in D minor has 282 recordings. I don't care if you think it's a bit of a hackneyed potboiler, this is evidence that it's far greater than his lowly mass. But let's not forget the greatest Bach composition of all. People far and wide sing its praises. It touches the very depth of our souls, and there is probably no equal in its expressive genius in the field of music. Drum roll please. J.S. Bach's most astonishing composition is.....wait for it...the Air on a G string, with 408 recordings. And because we've established popularity is an indicator of greatness, we can roughly say its 4 times as great as the Mass in B minor.


How would go about producing a list of the greatest composers?

Would you bother to place them in any kind of order?

Take us through all the steps. Tell us what data you would require, and how you would obtain it?

I'm sure you must have some detailed plan worked out so it shouldn't take you too long.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

I'm late to the thread, but Rachmaninoff above Wagner is absurd, and I say this as a pretty big fan of Rach. He wrote some great music, but was almost irrelevant in terms of influence, innovation, or importance outside of public popularity. Wagner, meanwhile, was nearly as influential as "the big 3" and was as original/innovative as any composer in history. He undoubtedly belongs in S-tier, and Rach undoubtedly does not. I'd personally prefer to see S-tier whittled down a bit in general. I think having 6 or 7 (roughly double of S+ tier) seems right. In that I'd keep Handel, Haydn, Brahms, and Schubert, include Wagner, and then it would be down to Debussy, Mahler, Schumann, Chopin, and Stravinsky for the final 1 or 2 spots. Though Mahler and Schumann are my personal favorites of those, I'd probably argue for Stravinsky and Debussy due to their influence.


----------



## Guest

ManateeFL said:


> Let's throw out all the thoughts and impressions of scholars, composers, musicians, critics, aficionados throughout the centuries as largely irrelevant...ignore the role a composer or particular compositions played in shaping and defining western culture and affecting the course of musical development because it's not quantifiable...hell, let's even forget our own ears and perceptive capabilities/critical listening faculties and leave it up to marketing people and forces of supply and demand as the best indicator of greatness? And this is somehow a grounded and reasonable outlook as opposed to the "fanciful" ideas of others? My head is spinning a bit.


I can only repeat what I asked in the previous post.

Let's see exactly what you propose. Full details please.

Don't be shy to offer your results if you've already carried out the analysis.

If you haven't yet done it but have good idea what the results might suggest once you have done so, perhaps you could give us a clue about the rankings, the top 20 will do.


----------



## Byron

Partita said:


> Would you bother to place them in any kind of order?


No, I wouldn't. Do you not appreciate it when someone cast aspersions, attempts to discredit other's methods and criteria or mocks the intelligent and well thought out remarks of others? Perhaps you should look at yourself in the mirror then.


----------



## ManateeFL

Partita said:


> I can only repeat what I asked in the previous post.
> 
> Let's see exactly what you propose. Full details please.
> 
> Don't be shy to offer your results if you've already carried out the analysis.
> 
> If you haven't yet done it but have good idea what the results might suggest once you have done so, perhaps you could give us a clue about the rankings, the top 20 will do.


I can tell you what I wouldn't do. Throw out all that other criteria and put my faith in the hands of marketers.

You were so quick to dismiss Phil Goulding's list as opinion. I'm not impressed with this as a viable alternative, and I find your reasoning and arguments less than convincing. Sorry!!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> (Wagner's) operas are feats of musical/dramatic/philosophical imagination without precedent, visionary masterpieces to which *few, if any, artworks in any field,* including music, can be compared.


I'm a Wagnerite myself, but this is taking things too far. Literature was doing this long before Wagner came around, and often in a much more original way given that Wagner's philosophy was almost entirely borrowed from Schopenhauer and Buddhism.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Allerius said:


> Wagner's dramas were a game changer for the world of music as a whole, not only to the genre of opera. Subsequent composers of any genre, liking or not his music, had to react to them. The possibilities opened by his operas even paved the way for a (then) completely new kind of music: the movie soundtrack. The same can't be said about Mozart operas. I think that they are great, but their importance didn't extrapolate their field.


Not disputing that Wagner's dramas were a game changer for music, but I think you undersell the importance of Mozart's innovations. One need only to listen to a heavy dose of baroque opera, listen to some Gluck, and then to Mozart to hear just how far Mozart developed the genre. It's hard to imagine that Wagner's own innovations would've been possible without Mozart's elevation of opera to something approaching a fully hybridized genre in which the drama and music were of equal importance, and in which the two were so intricately intertwined. Even as much as I love Handel's operas, much of the time I feel I could enjoy them just as much if I weren't following along to the libretto. The same can't be said for Mozart. Gluck was obviously important for facilitating that change in direction as well, but in a very rough form that has little of the brilliance and spark of genius that's in Mozart's mature operas.


----------



## Resurrexit

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Wagner's philosophy was almost entirely borrowed from Schopenhauer and Buddhism.


Well that's not exactly true. Philosophers like Hegel, Feuerbach and Kant among others all had an influence on Wagner and on the content of his work.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Byron said:


> No, I wouldn't. Do you not appreciate it when someone cast aspersions, attempts to discredit other's methods and criteria or mocks the intelligent and well thought out remarks of others? *Perhaps you should look at yourself in the mirror then.*


I think this is good advice.

I have often been guilty of over stepping the mark in these debates and there is nothing more developing than a good honest assessment of oneself and see where one's flaws are.


----------



## Guest

Byron said:


> No, I wouldn't. Do you not appreciate it when someone cast aspersions, attempts to discredit other's methods and criteria or mocks the intelligent and well thought out remarks of others? Perhaps you should look at yourself in the mirror then.


I asked you a reasonable set of questions and it would seem that you haven't as yet worked out what kind of approach you might use to derive a list of the greatest composers. It seems that have only decided that you wouldn't rank them. It doesn't sound as though you've made much progress, does it?


----------



## Byron

Partita said:


> I asked you a reasonable set of questions and it would seem that you haven't as yet worked out what kind of approach you might use to derive a list of the greatest composers. It seems that have only decided that you wouldn't rank them. It doesn't sound as though you've made much progress, does it?


What, do you not agree that Bach's Air on a G string is roughly 4 times as great as his Mass in B minor? I'm shocked. The methodology was so infallible and the logic so sound.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Resurrexit said:


> Well that's not exactly true. Philosophers like Hegel, Feuerbach and Kant among others all had an influence on Wagner and on the content of his work.


I'd be interested in hearing more about this since Schopenhauer seems to get all the attention when it comes to influence on Wagner. I've read (or have tried to read) some Hegel and Kant, and I'm not immediately sensing what the influence on Wagner could be; perhaps because their major writings were usually about extremely abstract ideas that don't lend themselves well to dramatization the way Schopenhauer's do.


----------



## Guest

ManateeFL said:


> I can tell you what I wouldn't do. Throw out all that other criteria and put my faith in the hands of marketers.
> 
> You were so quick to dismiss Phil Goulding's list as opinion. I'm not impressed with this as a viable alternative, and I find your reasoning and arguments less than convincing. Sorry!!


No, I'm not interested in what you wouldn't do. I asked you what you would do by way of measuring popularity of the main classical composers, or if you prefer their relative "greatness". I know it's not easy but I would appreciate hearing your advice on exactly how you would go about this exercise. The more details the better, as I'm very keen to learn about any new methodologies that I may have missed.


----------



## Resurrexit

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'd be interested in hearing more about this since Schopenhauer seems to get all the attention when it comes to influence on Wagner. I've read (or have tried to read) some Hegel and Kant, and I'm not immediately sensing what the influence on Wagner could be; perhaps because their major writings were usually about extremely abstract ideas that don't lend themselves well to dramatization the way Schopenhauer's do.


May I suggest Roger Scruton's book "Death Devoted Heart: Sex and the Sacred in Wagner's Tristan und Isolde"? He discusses it at much more depth and with far more nuance than I am able able to here, but one small quotation will have to suffice: "Kant...the ultimate inspiration behind the view of human nature that is expressed and vindicated in Wagner's operas, and which finds it's most surprising and moving elaboratation in the tale of Tristan and Isolde."

There's also the work of Paul Heise, which is freely available online, who in one of the most thorough accounts of the Ring available interprets the work as an allegory and aligns the characters and actions of the drama with the forces at work in forging civilization from the raw material of nature. Heise derives his allegory from a close reading of the philosophy of Wagner's early mentor, Ludwig Feuerbach. You can find it here:

https://www.wagnerheim.com/

I'd also recommend Bryan Magee's discussion of the influence of a variety of philosophical sources on Wagner in his book "The Tristan Chord: Wagner and Philosophy".


----------



## DavidA

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'd be interested in hearing more about this since Schopenhauer seems to get all the attention when it comes to influence on Wagner. I've read (or have tried to read) some Hegel and Kant, and I'm not immediately sensing what the influence on Wagner could be; perhaps because their major writings were usually about extremely abstract ideas that don't lend themselves well to dramatization the way Schopenhauer's do.


Don't you realise that philosophy is the art of making the obvious appear exceedingly complicated and abstract? :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm a Wagnerite myself, but this is taking things too far. Literature was doing this long before Wagner came around, and often in a much more original way given that Wagner's philosophy was almost entirely borrowed from Schopenhauer and Buddhism.


I think you're narrowing my statement, or simply narrowing the scope of Wagner's work. Literature was doing what, specifically? I'm not arguing for Wagner as a philosopher, but as a visionary, multidimensional artist. What works of art would you compare with Wagner's _Ring, Tristan,_ and _Parsifal_ for the _totality_ of their originality of concept (what operas before them tackled such subject matter in such original ways?), originality and complexity of musical substance (which speaks for itself), and philosophical, political and psychological implications? Note that I said "few, if any," so I'm open to suggestions.


----------



## DavidA

Resurrexit said:


> May I suggest Roger Scruton's book "Death Devoted Heart: Sex and the Sacred in Wagner's Tristan und Isolde"? He discusses it at much more depth and with far more nuance than I am able able to here, but one small quotation will have to suffice: "Kant...the ultimate inspiration behind the view of human nature that is expressed and vindicated in Wagner's operas, and which finds it's most surprising and moving elaboratation in the tale of Tristan and Isolde."
> 
> There's also the work of Paul Heise, which is freely available online, who in one of the most thorough accounts of the Ring available interprets the work as an allegory and aligns the characters and actions of the drama with the forces at work in forging civilization from the raw material of nature. Heise derives his allegory from a close reading of the philosophy of Wagner's early mentor, Ludwig Feuerbach. You can find it here:
> 
> https://www.wagnerheim.com/
> 
> I'd also recommend Bryan Magee's discussion of the influence of a variety of philosophical sources on Wagner in his book "The Tristan Chord: Wagner and Philosophy".


Do you also recommend lying on a bed of nails while we read this stuff?


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Do you also recommend lying on a bed of nails while we read this stuff?


A bed of nails would be preferable to snark like this.


----------



## mmsbls

The discussion has become a bit personal. Let's focus back on composers and how to rank them.


----------



## mmsbls

ManateeFL said:


> You were so quick to dismiss Phil Goulding's list as opinion. I'm not impressed with this as a viable alternative, and I find your reasoning and arguments less than convincing. Sorry!!


I wouldn't dismiss Goulding's list, and I don't view it as opinion. It's more an attempt to assimilate what experts have collectively written about composers. Assuming his bias in selecting material for his assessment was relatively minimal, he's simply interpreting what the collective, expert, classical music community thinks.

I actually view Goulding's list as one of the best attempts to rank composers that I have seen. I don't think he included much about popularity in his assessment which is fine.

It seems to me that there are really 2 ways to estimate greatness. First, a collective assessment of experts, and second, likability based on some group of listeners (presumably a group that has heard a reasonable amount of classical music - TC members probably satisfy that criteria). The two methods are quite distinct. What I have thought interesting is that the two assessments seem to agree modestly well. One could argue that the two assessments break down with modern music and early music, but for a wide range of classical music, there seems to be significant overlap.


----------



## mmsbls

TC threads have long identified the difficulty in defining greatness and in creating "greatest" lists. Everyone seems to agree that the definition is subjective with some arguing that there are objective components that could play a significant role. This thread has identified several possible factors leading to greatness (e.g. innovation, popularity, influence, timelessness, quality of the music, etc.). Each factor is itself subjective in that there are several ways to quantify or evaluate the factor. 

I assume TC member differ in which factors they view as important. Perhaps all are at least somewhat important, and some likely overlap (i.e. popularity and timelessness). Could people say which factors they personally value much more than others?

Is there a reason to discount popularity assuming we are talking about the popularity to a group of classical music listeners who have extensive listening experience with a wide range of composers?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DavidA said:


> Don't you realise that philosophy is the art of making the obvious appear exceedingly complicated and abstract? :lol:


Depends on what we're talking about. Philosophy is a vast field that, at its most general, encompasses all aspects of human thought and existence. Perhaps your mind is vast enough to understand all of this completely and simply, but the rest of us mere mortals are not so lucky.


----------



## DavidA

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Depends on what we're talking about. Philosophy is a vast field that, at its most general, encompasses all aspects of human thought and existence. Perhaps your mind is vast enough to understand all of this completely and simply, but the rest of us mere mortals are not so lucky.


The art of great teaching is to make the difficult appear simple. Philosophers tend to do the opposite to kid people they are being profound.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> I think you're narrowing my statement, or simply narrowing the scope of Wagner's work. Literature was doing what, specifically? I'm not arguing for Wagner as a philosopher, but as a visionary, multidimensional artist. What works of art would you compare with Wagner's _Ring, Tristan,_ and _Parsifal_ for the _totality_ of their originality of concept (what operas before them tackled such subject matter in such original ways?), originality and complexity of musical substance (which speaks for itself), and philosophical, political and psychological implications? Note that I said "few, if any," so I'm open to suggestions.


Literature before Wagner possessed (to quote you): "feats of... dramatic/philosophical imagination without precedent, visionary masterpieces..." Hamlet, Don Quixote, and Blake's Vala, Milton, and Jerusalem to name but a few. I grant that Wagner holds this eminent position within music and nothing within the medium compares; I only objected to the claim that he was without precedent in all the arts.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> I'm not arguing for Wagner as a philosopher, but as a visionary, multidimensional artist. What works of art would you compare with Wagner's _Ring, Tristan,_ and _Parsifal_ for the _totality_ of their originality of concept (what operas before them tackled such subject matter in such original ways?), originality and complexity of musical substance (which speaks for itself), and philosophical, political and psychological implications? Note that I said "few, if any," so I'm open to suggestions.


That's a reasonable point of view to which you are entitled, but aren't you straying rather far from the original topic of this thread, which I interpreted to be confined to composers of music, or at least to the musical aspect of their output?

But staying with your thesis, it's interesting how the increasingly multimedia aspect of art in the 20th and now 21st centuries, has contributed to the long-term significance of the work of both Wagner and Stravinsky, even though the former entirely predated the modern era and the latter worked at its very earliest period. Wagnerian Romanticism and what you refer to as Parisian Modernism have both long outlived what might have been presumed to be their 'sell by' dates. I think a large part of that is historical accident, fed by a technological revolution that was a unique event in the development of western culture, as live performance art was replaced or supplemented by the recorded, the broadcast, and the electronically manipulated. This development was auspicious for the work of Wagner and Stravinsky and their disciples, which were useful for, and heavily influenced, movie, radio and TV music, for example. There is an obvious progression from Wagner to Korngold to John Williams, and from Stravinsky to Copland and Bernstein to Lin-Manuel Miranda, a Bernstein disciple who helped write the Spanish-language version of West Side Story.

One can therefore look at the considerable multimedia aspect of all sorts of modern or post-modern art as owing a significant direct or indirect debt to both Wagner and Stravinsky. And now that we are moving well into the post-technological, electronic era, despite the hoots of derision from many of you, it will become impossible to ignore the long-term cultural influence of Philip Glass, Henryk Górecki, and Arvo Pärt, among others (the "others" including, I'm so sorry to have to say, ouch, ouch, ouch, Stockhausen and Cage).

I don't think there is any definitive way to resolve exactly how any of this ought to impact the "ranking" discussion in this thread, however. It's relevant, but in part it's a tangential subject.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DavidA said:


> The art of great teaching is to make the difficult appear simple. Philosophers tend to do the opposite to kid people they are being profound.


You're making a huge generalization here. This is only true of some philosophers, and even then only true of some philosophers on certain subjects. A guy like Bertrand Russell wrote with great clarity on most philosophical subjects, but his writing on math and logic will be impenetrable for anyone not versed in those fields. Much difficulty can also be had because of the problems of translation, where the concepts being expressed/examined in a text have no direct English correlation. Still, yes, I'd say this accurately describes much of the work of Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, and Derrida.

Also, a good chunk of philosophy is difficult because philosophers are writing _for other philosophers,_ not the common man, and thus aren't looking to "kid people" as they never expected "people" to read it. Science isn't much different in this respect.


----------



## Guest

Byron said:


> No one has been concerned about measuring popularity in this thread. These methods are probably a decent indicator of popularity. But you were the one to make the assertion that popularity was the most reliable way to determine greatness. There have been plenty of other methods suggested by others throughout this discussion, many of which you have ridiculed and scorned.


I'm confused. Are you now saying that you believe forum based polls and CD-counts are decent indicators of popularity? If so, haven't you contradicted yourself, since you were previously ridiculing CD counts.

I do think that lasting popularity is the best measure of greatness of composers. That's not because it's ideal or without difficulty of measurement, but simply it's better than anything else and is capable of measurement.

If you can think of a better measure of greatness that is capable of producing a ranked list then I'd like to hear about it from you. I have asked you several times for details of any system that you consider is better than those based on popularity, and you conspicuously keep on dodging any answer. I can only take it that you haven't as clue about how to set up any alternative method that it not based on popularity, but that you simply want to criticise the system that I many others suggest is the best available.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Literature before Wagner possessed (to quote you): "feats of... dramatic/philosophical imagination without precedent, visionary masterpieces..." Hamlet, Don Quixote, and Blake's Vala, Milton, and Jerusalem to name but a few. I grant that Wagner holds this eminent position within music and nothing within the medium compares; I only objected to the claim that he was without precedent in all the arts.


Those are good examples of works I'd agree to call "visionary masterpieces." I'd only ask how much they're visionary simultaneously in terms of both substance and medium - i.e., how much they re-imagine both the subjects they treat and the aesthetics of their peculiar arts (poetry or prose).


----------



## Woodduck

Partita said:


> I do think that lasting popularity is the best measure of greatness of composers. That's not because it's ideal or without difficulty of measurement, but simply it's better than anything else and is capable of measurement.


Now that we've taken our polls and "measured" music, what do we actually have? Have we procured anything of value? What do we really know? Do we know what, besides simple popularity, is being measured? Do we know _why_ our polls rate things as they do?

Is aesthetic judgment the province of accountants and statisticians? What an inspiring thought.


----------



## KenOC

Partita said:


> I'm confused. Are you now saying that you believe forum based polls and CD-counts are decent indicators of popularity? If so, haven't you contradicted yourself, since you were previously ridiculing CD counts.


This whole argument can be avoided if we realize that there is no inherent quality of "greatness" in any music. There is only a consensus of opinion, driven by current fashions and enthusiasms - and quite subject to change. Yes, I include Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and the rest. After all, where is the music of the "great" renaissance composers? Certainly long faded in popularity. But has it become less "great" than it once was? No, it is only we that have changed.

Our music, like ourselves, is subject to the vagaries or time and taste. To paraphrase: "The graveyards are full of indispensable music." So...

Of cord and cassia-wood is the lute compounded;
Within it lie ancient melodies.
Ancient melodies weak and savourless,
Not appealing to present men's taste.
Light and color are faded from the jade stops;
Dust has covered the rose-red strings.
Decay and ruin came to it long ago,
But the sound that is left is still cold and clear.
I do not refuse to play it, if you want me to;
But even if I play people will not listen.
How did it come to be neglected so?
Because of the Ch'iang flute and the zithern of Ch'in.


----------



## PlaySalieri

How does one explain though - if there is nothing inherently great about a single piece of music compared to others - how it is that all the polls look remarkably similar. On what is this consensus based?


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I wouldn't dismiss Goulding's list, and I don't view it as opinion. It's more an attempt to assimilate what experts have collectively written about composers. Assuming his bias in selecting material for his assessment was relatively minimal, he's simply interpreting what the collective, expert, classical music community thinks.
> 
> I actually view Goulding's list as one of the best attempts to rank composers that I have seen. I don't think he included much about popularity in his assessment which is fine.
> 
> It seems to me that there are really 2 ways to estimate greatness. First, a collective assessment of experts, and second, likability based on some group of listeners (presumably a group that has heard a reasonable amount of classical music - TC members probably satisfy that criteria). The two methods are quite distinct. What I have thought interesting is that the two assessments seem to agree modestly well. One could argue that the two assessments break down with modern music and early music, but for a wide range of classical music, there seems to be significant overlap.


You suggest there are 2 ways to estimate greatness: (i) expert opinion, (ii) likebability based on the opinions of a group of listeners.

Expert opinion

This is an elusive term. There is no single list of greatest composers that encapsulates the collective view of all experts. Experts in any area can normally be counted upon to have a range of opinions, and I would thought have none more so than in the area of relevance to ranking of classical composers.

I believe that there is no such thing as "expert opinion". All that can be said is that there is range of "expert opinions" which can vary widely in terms of which composers are rated the best and in what order. Which opinion among many is best or correct is anyone's guess.

As for Phil Goulding's list, as you have acknowledged, it was not based on his own personal opinion of the greatest composers, but on his assessment of what he believed experts had collectively written about composers. Obviously, therefore, his rankings are based on his opinion of what he believed was the consensus opinion of experts. Hence, by definition his list was based on his opinion. Someone else could easily have produced a different list based on the same or possibly different set of expert opinions.

Likeability

I prefer to use the term "long term preference", but it's the same thing. I believe this is better because it reflects the opinions of a large body of people who are the actual consumers of the product. They know best what's worth listening to, rather than what they might told is the best by some unknown bunch of so-called "experts" whose tastes in music may be completely different.

Market Measures

You didn't mention it but there's a third approach to measuring greatness. It's what might termed the "market solution". The market in this case comprises the consumers of the music and the artists who make decisions on what to produce, and how much of it. It's nothing other than the result of the interplay of the forces of "supply" and "demand", in this case producing data that can be examined in order to help determine relative greatness, e.g. size of CD lists, as discussed earlier.


----------



## KenOC

PlaySalieri said:


> How does one explain though - if there is nothing inherently great about a single piece of music compared to others - how it is that all the polls look remarkably similar. On what is this consensus based?


Just as my post says, "current fashions and enthusiasms". One year cars all have tail fins, another year they don't. Hemlines go up and down, pretty much in lockstep. Why should fashions in music be different?​


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> This whole argument can be avoided if we realize that there is no inherent quality of "greatness" in any music. There is only a consensus of opinion, driven by current fashions and enthusiasms - and quite subject to change. Yes, I include Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and the rest. After all, where is the music of the "great" renaissance composers? Certainly long faded in popularity. But has it become less "great" than it once was? No, it is only we that have changed.


I fully agree with you and that's all I have been saying.

It's consensus opinion that matters exclusively. If opinion generally thinks that X is rubbish then it's rubbish. There's no point trying to argue that it's not rubbish because it was once more popular or because some "expert" thinks it ought not to be considered rubbish.

How do we measure "consensus opinion"? Answer: by polls and other empirical devices, not by consulting experts, or by taking too seriously the opinions of a journalist many years ago who once made an assessment of what he thought the experts were saying.


----------



## PlaySalieri

KenOC said:


> Just as my post says, "current fashions and enthusiasms". One year cars all have tail fins, another year they don't. Hemlines go up and down, pretty much in lockstep. Why should fashions in music be different?​


Fashion tends to be transient/ephemeral.

The canon of great composers has been more or less constant for the last 100 years.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Partita said:


> I fully agree with you and that's all I have been saying.
> 
> It's consensus opinion that matters exclusively. If opinion generally thinks that X is rubbish then it's rubbish. There's no point trying to argue that it's not rubbish because it was once more popular or because some "expert" thinks it ought not to be considered rubbish.
> 
> How do we measure "consensus opinion"? Answer: by polls and other empirical devices, not by consulting experts, or by taking too seriously the opinions of a journalist many years ago who once made an assessment of what he thought the experts were saying.


Consensus - who though?

Bruch's VC is the most played and popular VC in the repertoire

But I am sure it would not even make the top 5 on this board.


----------



## KenOC

PlaySalieri said:


> Fashion tends to be transient/ephemeral.
> 
> The canon of great composers has been more or less constant for the last 100 years.


Well, a hundred years ago quite a few now-fashionable composers would not have been considered "great" -- Prokofiev, Bartok, Shostakovich, Britten at least. To the extent they have become popular and entered the Pantheon, an equal number have had to give up their chairs there, even though their music has remained the same. Thus it has been and will likely always be.


----------



## PlaySalieri

KenOC said:


> Well, a hundred years ago quite a few now-fashionable composers would not have been considered "great" -- Prokofiev, Bartok, Shostakovich, Britten at least. To the extent they have become popular and entered the Pantheon, an equal number have had to give up their chairs there, even though their music has remained the same. Thus it has been and will likely always be.


who was popular 100 years ago in serious classical music and is now ignored?


----------



## toshiromifune

PlaySalieri said:


> How does one explain though - if there is nothing inherently great about a single piece of music compared to others - how it is that all the polls look remarkably similar. On what is this consensus based?


On randomness. Beethoven, Mozart and Bach just got lucky that people like them more than other composers. There is nothing inherently better in their music compared to other music, it's all subjective.


----------



## PlaySalieri

toshiromifune said:


> On randomness. Beethoven, Mozart and Bach just got lucky that people like them more than other composers. There is nothing inherently better in their music compared to other music, it's all subjective.


Then all we are doing here is comparing individual taste.


----------



## Woodduck

toshiromifune said:


> On randomness. Beethoven, Mozart and Bach just got lucky that people like them more than other composers. There is nothing inherently better in their music compared to other music, it's all subjective.


Right. If you were under the impression that "Mary Had a Little Lamb" was a greater work than "The Well-Tempered Klavier," you haven't consulted the post-preschool cohort. Or maybe you're still in preschool.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Right. If you were under the impression that "Mary Had a Little Lamb" was a greater work than "The Well-Tempered Klavier," you haven't consulted the post-preschool cohort. Or maybe you're still in preschool.


When "we" agree that "Mary had a Little Lamb" is the greater work, then it will be. It will be useless to deny its status.


----------



## fluteman

PlaySalieri said:


> Then all we are doing here is comparing individual taste.


That's right. Aesthetics cannot be reduced to a few basic scientific or logical principles, at least not entirely. It becomes an empirical issue: What do we observe that people find aesthetically worthwhile, worldwide or within a certain culture or society? One can perform statistical analysis, which isn't as easy to do well as you may think, but can yield significant results, at least up to a point. One can do historical research, and that can shed some light on the matter. But if you want definitive answers, it might be better to pick a different subject to discuss.


----------



## Bulldog

PlaySalieri said:


> Consensus - who though?
> 
> Bruch's VC is the most played and popular VC in the repertoire


Do you have any evidence for the above statement? The figures on ArkivMusic don't show the Bruch close to the most popular violin concertos.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> When "we" agree that "Mary had a Little Lamb" is the greater work, then it will be. It will be useless to deny its status.


Far be it from me to debate art with preschoolers. Or status with anyone.


----------



## toshiromifune

Woodduck said:


> Right. If you were under the impression that "Mary Had a Little Lamb" was a greater work than "The Well-Tempered Klavier," you haven't consulted the post-preschool cohort. Or maybe you're still in preschool.


I still kinda am in the classical music preschool, which explains why I think that the only part of The Well Tempered Klavier greater than Mary Had a Little Lamb is the first Prelude and Fugue.


----------



## Dimace

Very nice conversation.

My point of view is that influence is not enough for a fair composers evaluation. We need also musical value, impact to music evolution, originality, etc. 

If we use all these parameters, Bach, Beethoven and Wagner are playing alone. Each of them revolutionised music with his unique and unparallele way.


----------



## DavidA

Must confess it baffles me how people can refer to Wagner with phrases like 'a visionary, multidimensional artist'. The fact is he wasn't. He was a musical genius but his genius was limited to the field of opera. He was never multidimensional in the sense that Mozart was - ie in tackling and mastering just about every musical form as the genius from Salzburg did in his short 35 years of life. No Wagner limited his genius to one form - opera. In that he resembles Verdi, although Verdi did write sacred works in addition. Just how successful Wagner was depends on your point of view. But to say he was 'multidimensional' appears very misplaced.


----------



## DavidA

toshiromifune said:


> On randomness. Beethoven, Mozart and Bach just got lucky that people like them more than other composers. There is nothing inherently better in their music compared to other music, it's all subjective.


Well then, bring on Andrew Lloyd-Webber! :lol:


----------



## KenOC

Bulldog said:


> Do you have any evidence for the above statement? The figures on ArkivMusic don't show the Bruch close to the most popular violin concertos.


On the old Amazon forum, at least, Bruch didn't make the grade. But he's big on the FM around here!

Violin concerti:
1 - Beethoven
2 - Brahms
3 - Shostakovich: #1 A-minor
4 - Tchaikovsky
5 - Sibelius
6 - Prokofiev: #1 D-major
7 - Prokofiev: #2 G minor
8 - Mendelssohn
9 - Barber
10 - Szymanowski: #1


----------



## fluteman

DavidA said:


> Well then, bring on Andrew Lloyd-Webber! :lol:


If Andrew Lloyd-Webber is a dominant factor in the development of western music over the next century, I'm not sorry I won't be alive to see it.


----------



## PlaySalieri

DavidA said:


> Must confess it baffles me how people can refer to Wagner with phrases like 'a visionary, multidimensional artist'. The fact is he wasn't. He was a musical genius but his genius was limited to the field of opera. He was never multidimensional in the sense that Mozart was - ie in tackling and mastering just about every musical form as the genius from Salzburg did in his short 35 years of life. No Wagner limited his genius to one form - opera.* In that he resembles Verdi, although Verdi did write sacred works in addition. *Just how successful Wagner was depends on your point of view. But to say he was 'multidimensional' appears very misplaced.


yeah 4 sacred works and one very operatic requiem


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bulldog said:


> Do you have any evidence for the above statement? The figures on ArkivMusic don't show the Bruch close to the most popular violin concertos.


I believe it is the most played VC in the concert hall though I cant back that up as there seem to be no stats. I base it on my experience of attending concerts in the last 30 years looking through concert schedules etc - the Bruch VC seems to appear more than any other unless my memory is wrong.

It was also voted no 1 in 1996 on Classic FM.


----------



## PlaySalieri

fluteman said:


> That's right. Aesthetics cannot be reduced to a few basic scientific or logical principles, at least not entirely. It becomes an empirical issue: What do we observe that people find aesthetically worthwhile, worldwide or within a certain culture or society? One can perform statistical analysis, which isn't as easy to do well as you may think, but can yield significant results, at least up to a point. One can do historical research, and that can shed some light on the matter. But if you want definitive answers, it might be better to pick a different subject to discuss.


But you can make an academic case for one piece of music over another.


----------



## fluteman

PlaySalieri said:


> who was popular 100 years ago in serious classical music and is now ignored?


Three opera composers who were probably more popular in the 19th century than they are today are Weber, Meyerbeer and Thomas. Cherubini, Hummel, Reicha, Pleyel, Hoffmeister and Onslow aren't heard much these days. Of course, some of this music is "rediscovered" from time to time.



PlaySalieri said:


> But you can make an academic case for one piece of music over another.


That is more or less what I meant by my "historical research" comment.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Those are good examples of works I'd agree to call "visionary masterpieces." I'd only ask how much they're visionary simultaneously in terms of both substance and medium - i.e., how much they re-imagine both the subjects they treat and the aesthetics of their peculiar arts (poetry or prose).


How much did "they re-imagine both the subjects they treat and the aesthetics of their peculiar arts?" The short answer is: a lot. Hamlet fundamentally transformed drama from a medium focused on external conflicts in an objective world to internal conflicts within a subjective world, in large part by subverting the expectations of what the revenge tragedy was, and the breadth/depth of subjects it broaches is testified by the enormous variety of readings it's been given over the centuries. Don Quixote similarly brought the novel into the modern world by satirizing the idealistic chivalric romances in order to bring both realism and a sense of internal life into the world and characters of literature. We owe the entire 19th century novel to what Cervantes started. Blake is one of the only secular authors to conceive an entire mythology that he then utilized as a dense, philosophical allegory for human life and thought; and his melding of philosophy, poetry, and illustrations are not unlikely Wagner's melding of philosophy, music, and drama, though arguably much more dense and arguably even more original (if not as influential because few authors would ever have the chutzpah or imagination to try such a thing).


----------



## KenOC

PlaySalieri said:


> I believe it is the most played VC in the concert hall though I cant back that up as there seem to be no stats. I base it on my experience of attending concerts in the last 30 years looking through concert schedules etc - the Bruch VC seems to appear more than any other unless my memory is wrong.
> 
> It was also voted no 1 in 1996 on Classic FM.


Bruch is _among _the most performed, at least in the US. Here's how often four popular violin concertos were programmed among major US orchestras in the 2016-2017 season:

Tchaikovsky - 19 times
Beethoven - 16
Bruch - 14
Brahms - 12


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

PlaySalieri said:


> How does one explain though - if there is nothing inherently great about a single piece of music compared to others - how it is that all the polls look remarkably similar. On what is this consensus based?


All human brains look remarkably similar, and considering it's people using their brains to vote in polls, we shouldn't be surprised to see similarities in those polls. Completely different brains would find all of it just noise. At least, I know none of my pets ever shared my taste in music.


----------



## Bulldog

KenOC said:


> On the old Amazon forum, at least, Bruch didn't make the grade. But he's big on the FM around here!


What is "FM"?............


----------



## KenOC

Bulldog said:


> What is "FM"?............


I'm struggling with that being a serious question or not.


----------



## PlaySalieri

KenOC said:


> Bruch is _among _the most performed, at least in the US. Here's how often four popular violin concertos were programmed among major US orchestras in the 2016-2017 season:
> 
> Tchaikovsky - 19 times
> Beethoven - 16
> Bruch - 14
> Brahms - 12


Thanks - I think Bruch is probably more popular in the UK.


----------



## fluteman

KenOC said:


> Bruch is _among _the most performed, at least in the US. Here's how often four popular violin concertos were programmed among major US orchestras in the 2016-2017 season:
> 
> Tchaikovsky - 19 times
> Beethoven - 16
> Bruch - 14
> Brahms - 12


Bruch wrote only three pieces that remain famous and routinely-performed: the G minor violin concerto, the Scottish Fantasy for violin and orchestra and the Kol Nidre for cello and orchestra. Also, his total output was rather small. I assume that is why his name is not often mentioned with the other "great" composers of the 19th century. But those are three great pieces, in my opinion.


----------



## Bulldog

KenOC said:


> I'm struggling with that being a serious question or not.


Yes, my question was serious; I have no idea what it stands for, and I don't think I've ever seen it used here on TC.

I suppose it could mean FM radio, but you wrote "FM around here" so I assumed you were referring to TC.


----------



## KenOC

Sorry! Yes, FM radio since that's where broadcast classical music is found.


----------



## PlaySalieri

fluteman said:


> Bruch wrote only three pieces that remain famous and routinely-performed: the G minor violin concerto, the Scottish Fantasy for violin and orchestra and the Kol Nidre for cello and orchestra. Also, his total output was rather small. I assume that is why his name is not often mentioned with the other "great" composers of the 19th century. But those are three great pieces, in my opinion.


Yes - the Scottish Fantasy is a phenomenal piece. Bruch really sounds like a major composer in those pieces but his other works are not that good.


----------



## mmsbls

Partita said:


> ...
> Expert opinion
> 
> This is an elusive term. There is no single list of greatest composers that encapsulates the collective view of all experts. Experts in any area can normally be counted upon to have a range of opinions, and I would thought have none more so than in the area of relevance to ranking of classical composers.
> 
> I believe that there is no such thing as "expert opinion". All that can be said is that there is range of "expert opinions" which can vary widely in terms of which composers are rated the best and in what order. Which opinion among many is best or correct is anyone's guess.
> 
> As for Phil Goulding's list, as you have acknowledged, it was not based on his own personal opinion of the greatest composers, but on his assessment of what he believed experts had collectively written about composers. Obviously, therefore, his rankings are based on his opinion of what he believed was the consensus opinion of experts. Hence, by definition his list was based on his opinion. Someone else could easily have produced a different list based on the same or possibly different set of expert opinions.


I think we may actually agree more than we disagree. You mention in another post:



Partita said:


> It's consensus opinion that matters exclusively.


Absolutely, and that is why is I said so in my post (i.e. "a collective assessment of experts"). Of course, individual experts will vary in their assessments, but the collective or consensus view of a large number of experts can average out the variance yielding a less biased overall assessment.

Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any such collective assessment by experts. Goulding's accomplishment was to provide an estimate of that collective assessment. It's perhaps the closest thing of which I'm aware to such an assessment. That's why I found his book so valuable to me.



Partita said:


> Likeability
> 
> I prefer to use the term "long term preference", but it's the same thing. I believe this is better because it reflects the opinions of a large body of people who are the actual consumers of the product. They know best what's worth listening to, rather than what they might told is the best by some unknown bunch of so-called "experts" whose tastes in music may be completely different.
> 
> Market Measures
> 
> You didn't mention it but there's a third approach to measuring greatness. It's what might termed the "market solution". The market in this case comprises the consumers of the music and the artists who make decisions on what to produce, and how much of it. It's nothing other than the result of the interplay of the forces of "supply" and "demand", in this case producing data that can be examined in order to help determine relative greatness, e.g. size of CD lists, as discussed earlier.


Yes, market measures are another way to assess popularity/likability. I see all 3 methods as similar but based on a different set of individual opinions.

1) Experts have a level of knowledge and experience that the vast majority of us do not. They will base their assessment on a wider range of composers and their music, a better knowledge of which composers influenced others, and likely a better knowledge of composer innovations.

2) Likability based on relatively knowledgeable listeners has the advantage of coming from a group roughly like many TC members. The TC lists are probably decent approximations of this method. The disadvantage is that some lists have only a modest number of participants and the participants often appear selectively biased (e.g. I believe TC opera buffs tend to participate less often). I have participated in many of these lists, but my knowledge has grown significantly since my initial efforts. I suspect, like myself, other members may be relatively ignorant of various areas of classical music.

3) Market measures can be a very nice way to assess likability. Unfortunately, just as TC members have limitations when evaluating composers, the general classical music listening public likely has even greater limitations. One only has to look at the TC response when a top 100 list from a radio station is posted. It's clear many here find such lists laughable.

So all three methods have advantages and disadvantages. Each method would require a significant number of people participating, and that is difficult with all but the market measures. I think it depends on what one is looking for in such a list. I find the expert opinion and TC type lists (with high participation) useful, but I find market measures less useful to me.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> Unfortunately, just as TC members have limitations when evaluating composers, the general classical music listening public likely has even greater limitations.


Seriously, mmsbls? I've found that even the best internet discussion fora, and TC is a very good one, consist in significant part of a small group of like-minded people validating each others' opinions and ganging up on occasional dissenters, most of whom abandon ship after not too long, voluntarily or otherwise. Their greatest value lies in contributions from individual knowledgeable posters, not in polls or opinions shaped by groupthink.

I would value a properly designed poll of the general classical music listening public on any classical music issue vastly ahead of a poll of TC members. As smart and knowledgeable as all of you are.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> How much did "they re-imagine both the subjects they treat and the aesthetics of their peculiar arts?" The short answer is: a lot. Hamlet fundamentally transformed drama from a medium focused on external conflicts in an objective world to internal conflicts within a subjective world, in large part by subverting the expectations of what the revenge tragedy was, and the breadth/depth of subjects it broaches is testified by the enormous variety of readings it's been given over the centuries. Don Quixote similarly brought the novel into the modern world by satirizing the idealistic chivalric romances in order to bring both realism and a sense of internal life into the world and characters of literature. We owe the entire 19th century novel to what Cervantes started. Blake is one of the only secular authors to conceive an entire mythology that he then utilized as a dense, philosophical allegory for human life and thought; and his melding of philosophy, poetry, and illustrations are not unlikely Wagner's melding of philosophy, music, and drama, though arguably much more dense and arguably even more original (if not as influential because few authors would ever have the chutzpah or imagination to try such a thing).


Of these, only Blake strikes me as having done in poetry something comparable to what Wagner did in music-drama. The others, I'd say, were visionary in substance more than in medium; _Hamlet_ and _Don Quixote_ didn't re-imagine the art of poetry or prose in the way that _Tristan_ and the subsequent operas expanded the vocabulary of music.

Blake, I suppose, may be the ultimate visionary - or eccentric - in all the arts. I'd use the latter word to describe him, but not Wagner, due to Blake's lesser impact and influence on his medium (the art of poetry) and on the culture in general. Given your obvious knowledge of literature, though, I won't claim any definitiveness for these judgments.


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> Seriously, mmsbls? I've found that even the best internet discussion fora, and TC is a very good one, consist in significant part of a small group of like-minded people validating each others' opinions and ganging up on occasional dissenters, most of whom abandon ship after not too long, voluntarily or otherwise. Their greatest value lies in contributions from individual knowledgeable posters, not in polls or opinions shaped by groupthink.
> 
> I would value a properly designed poll of the general classical music listening public on any classical music issue vastly ahead of a poll of TC members. As smart and knowledgeable as all of you are.


There certainly is some group think on threads, and some probably do abandon threads due to peer pressure. I've taken part in many TC polls, and I have not been aware of people validating others' opinions or others abandoning their viewpoints due to pressure. Most polls have people vote and little discussion on the threads so there is not much chance of people feeling pressured. Perhaps you feel that members have already had their views shaped by a small group of like-minded members before they enter polls, but I have never had that feeling. Maybe I'm wrong.

When I wrote that sentence I was thinking about a completely different issue. In my view, one of the greatest aspects of TC is the knowledge and discussions about modern/contemporary and early music. Polls include composers and works from those eras. In my experience, the general listening public knows about and appreciates such music vastly less than members at TC. I would love to learn that I am wrong in that respect about the general listening public.

So each group has advantages and disadvantages for polling. I believe my interests would be better served by a TC poll while others might be better served by a general listener poll.


----------



## Littlephrase

Woodduck said:


> Of these, only Blake strikes me as having done in poetry something comparable to what Wagner did in music-drama. The others, I'd say, were visionary in substance more than in medium; _Hamlet_ and _Don Quixote_ didn't re-imagine the art of poetry or prose in the way that _Tristan_ and the subsequent operas expanded the vocabulary of music.
> 
> Blake, I suppose, may be the ultimate visionary - or eccentric - in all the arts. I'd use the latter word to describe him, but not Wagner, due to Blake's lesser impact and influence on his medium (the art of poetry) and on the culture in general. Given your obvious knowledge of literature, though, I won't claim any definitiveness for these judgments.


I'd assert that _Don Quixote_'s impact and influence on the Western novel is equal, if not greater than, Wagner's influence on music and drama. Cervantes practically invented the modern novel, which in my estimation is tantamount to forging a new vocabulary.


----------



## Woodduck

Littlephrase1913 said:


> I'd assert that _Don Quixote_'s impact and influence on the Western novel is equal, if not greater than, Wagner's influence on music and drama. Cervantes practically invented the modern novel, which in my estimation is tantamount to forging a new vocabulary.


i haven't read _Don Quixote_, but from what I can glean, its influence on later writers was considerable in terms of its themes and narrative richness. Quixote became an almost mythical archetype of idealism and inspired many later writers. The novel's style seems to have been inventive, among other things using various Spanish dialects. But was it's style _influential?_ How did it affect the style of other writers? What does "tantamount to forging a new vocabulary" mean? Did Cervantes use words or construct sentences, paragraphs and chapters in a way that caused other writers to question, revise and enrich their own styles? Is there an equivalent in his structure and use of language to the innovations in musical structure and the relationship of music to drama in Wagner - the quasi-symphonic motivic textures, the dramatically symbolic manipulation and transformation of leitmotifs, the freedom from conventional form, the liberation of melody from symmetrical patterning, the pushing of harmony to its tonal extremes, and the close illumination of text through continuous musical narrative - that changed the way opera was conceived and written, and fertilized the music of even highly dissimilar composers throughout Europe?

It's this _stylistic_ influence I've asked about. I don't know what might be "tantamount" in Cervantes to Wagner's re-envisioning of music as a dramatic "stream of consciousness", but I do know that aspects of the _modern_ modern novel - its use of interior monologue, dislocations of temporal reality, and recurring motifs both thematic and linguistic - found direct inspiration in Wagner. Marcel Proust, George Moore, James Joyce, and Virginia Woolf all made their debt known. Music inspired by writers is commonplace, but literary style and content inspired by a composer? I know of no second instance of that.


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> Seriously, mmsbls? I've found that even the best internet discussion fora, and TC is a very good one, consist in significant part of a small group of like-minded people validating each others' opinions and ganging up on occasional dissenters, most of whom abandon ship after not too long, voluntarily or otherwise. Their greatest value lies in contributions from individual knowledgeable posters, not in polls or opinions shaped by groupthink.
> 
> I would value a properly designed poll of the general classical music listening public on any classical music issue vastly ahead of a poll of TC members. As smart and knowledgeable as all of you are.


If I have interpreted your comment correctly, I think there is much truth in what you state above oncerning the membership make-up of TC discussions in threads such as this.

It is clear that there are many members of TC who like to participate in forum polls and games. Presumably they see some value in empirical testing procedures of this sort, rather than merely engaging in general banter regarding the best works/composers based on "expert" opinion.

Yet, they have hardly shown up in this thread to express their views on the merits of polls and other empirical measures. With only very limited support from a tiny handful of people, I have found myself in the awkward position of promoting and defending the basis (not the detail) of what they have been doing on a large scale elsewhere on TC.

I'm not entirely surprised. Discussions of this sort tend mainly to attract a hard core of people who are anti-empirical, finding such methods to be vulgar and unreliable. Instead, they focus attention on the intrinsic qualities of the music as judged by themselves and a few others whom they consider to be experts. The danger of this is that the views of "experts" are by no means uniform, and some could be highly biased. One has only to look around TC to find evidence of one or two self-appointed "experts" whose views are somewhat extreme in some areas.

On the other hand, supporters of empirical measures either do not join in at all or tend to drop out quickly. I guess the main reasons are that they are afraid of being ganged up against by the cabal, or they cannot be bothered to argue over something that seems not worth discussing. To them it is obvious that greatness is neither a permanent nor an intrinsic feature of any composer's reputation but one that depends entirely on the views of audiences.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Of these, only Blake strikes me as having done in poetry something comparable to what Wagner did in music-drama. The others, I'd say, were visionary in substance more than in medium; _Hamlet_ and _Don Quixote_ didn't re-imagine the art of poetry or prose in the way that _Tristan_ and the subsequent operas expanded the vocabulary of music.
> 
> Blake, I suppose, may be the ultimate visionary - or eccentric - in all the arts. I'd use the latter word to describe him, but not Wagner, due to Blake's lesser impact and influence on his medium (the art of poetry) and on the culture in general. Given your obvious knowledge of literature, though, I won't claim any definitiveness for these judgments.


I'd very much say that Hamlet and Don Quixote re-imagined the art of drama and the novel; as for poetry and prose, blank verse was relatively young in Shakespeare's day and he, along with John Milton a bit later, is universally credited for bringing it to its artistic fruition (a fantastic study on this Shakespeare's Metrical Art by George T. Wright). Plus, Shakespeare's inventiveness with language, which, even more than poetry, was his real "medium," hardly needs to to be defended. With Don Quixote it's difficult to comment on its prose having not read it in Spanish, but, as Littlephrase said, its impact on the novel form, and its status as being "the first modern novel," should be enough of a testament to how visionary it was.

As for Blake, I think he's appreciated now more as a visionary than he was in his own time, in large part because the critical vocabulary necessary to discuss what he was doing simply wasn't available in his own time. We needed the likes of Carl Jung and 19th and 20th century's revolutions in psychology to understand Blake's visions of how gods, devils, heavens, hells, etc. were all just manifestations of our psyches. Blake actually did have an impact on poetry, but it was only through other later visionaries like Shelley, Dante Rossetti, Yeats, Eliot, Merrill, and especially the Beat poets and songwriters of the 50s and 60s. Essentially, Blake was most influential to the generations over a century after his death than to the next generation. Plus, it could be argued that Blake essentially prefigured the rise of the graphic novel in the 20th century as a substantial artistic medium in itself, not unlike how Wagner prefigured the use of film soundtracks.

FWIW, I'd highly recommend you endeavor to read Don Quixote. Despite its age, and despite its reputation for being of great importance, it's also just a thoroughly enjoyable read that's not the slightest bit stuffy or difficult in the way some "great literature" can be. Though it may be difficult to understand its originality without immersing yourself in Medieval romances beforehand, and because its influence has been so thoroughly disseminated throughout the storytelling arts over the centuries, it hasn't lost its power to entertain.


----------



## fluteman

Partita said:


> If I have interpreted your comment correctly, I think there is much truth in what you state above oncerning the membership make-up of TC discussions in threads such as this.
> 
> It is clear that there are many members of TC who like to participate in forum polls and games. Presumably they see some value in empirical testing procedures of this sort, rather than merely engaging in general banter regarding the best works/composers based on "expert" opinion.
> 
> Yet, they have hardly shown up in this thread to express their views on the merits of polls and other empirical measures. With only very limited support from a tiny handful of people, I have found myself in the awkward position of promoting and defending the basis (not the detail) of what they have been doing on a large scale elsewhere on TC.
> 
> I'm not entirely surprised. Discussions of this sort tend mainly to attract a hard core of people who are anti-empirical, finding such methods to be vulgar and unreliable. Instead, they focus attention on the intrinsic qualities of the music as judged by themselves and a few others whom they consider to be experts. The danger of this is that the views of "experts" are by no means uniform, and some could be highly biased. One has only to look around TC to find evidence of one or two self-appointed "experts" whose views are somewhat extreme in some areas.
> 
> On the other hand, supporters of empirical measures either do not join in at all or tend to drop out quickly. I guess the main reasons are that they are afraid of being ganged up against by the cabal, or they cannot be bothered to argue over something that seems not worth discussing. To them it is obvious that greatness is neither a permanent nor an intrinsic feature of any composer's reputation but one that depends entirely on the views of audiences.


Well, yes, I agree with all of that, except the more perceptive posters here at TC and in this thread are perfectly well aware that some of the things they are saying are not capable of objective proof. That doesn't mean those comments are worthless. If you have read Flaubert's Madame Bovary and the work of Proust, Joyce, Mann and other important modern novelists, I think the importance and influence of the former on the latter will be clear to you. This isn't a brilliant, unique insight on my part. This is the way art works.

Wilkie Collins did much to establish the genre of the detective novel with his novel The Moonstone, leading directly to Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot, George Simenon's Inspector Maigret, and an endless stream of novels, movies and TV shows that continue unabated to the present day. No, I can't prove that. But if you haven't already, read those books, and watch those movies and TV shows, and tell me what you think.

Similarly, in music, one can identify many leading works that have had a profound long-term impact, some of which haven been but many of which haven't been mentioned in this thread. That's fine. What I find disingenuous and silly is when someone pretends that some specific ranking, such as that presented in the first post in this thread, has some objective validity. Even worse is when people start to take TC polls seriously, as bad science is worse than no science. My suggestion of the ArkivMusic ranking is a modest one, and I repeatedly conceded it is imperfect. Yet it was attacked by TC's resident purveyor of polls, that are arguably entertaining but lack any objective validity, on the not especially valid ground that Wagner in particular is underestimated.

A far more insightful thesis, in my opinion, was advanced by Woodduck (though I had already suggested it), that a ranking focused solely on music may not reflect Wagner's considerable importance as a dramatist, and in fact in Wagner's case, his music and his drama must be considered together. I agree, and think it is an important point. But I can't prove it, and have no objective data at hand to support it. And neither does Woodduck, apparently, though without a doubt he is a knowledgeable fan of Wagner. There is nothing wrong with any of that.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

It's helpful to ask one's self what is the point, at all, of rankings, tier-lists, or any similar endeavors? The point, as I see it, is not to establish some kind of "score" in the "who's better?" Super Bowl of music; nor is the point to even establish "greatness" in any objective sense, as if merely putting numbers next to names on paper (or on digital blank spaces in the case of the internet) somehow makes something innately subjective--even if it's a collective subjectivity--like art objective to begin with; rather, I'd argue that the point is merely to create a kind of "recommendation list" for new and future listeners. It's a way of saying "this the music and these are the composers that we have enjoyed, perhaps you'll enjoy them too." As Hippocrates said: ars longa, vita brevis (art is long, life is short), and especially with a genre like classical music that's existed for centuries, in which there would be enough material for countless lifetimes of non-stop listening, it's easy for any newcomer to feel overwhelmed with the amount of choices. Any "list" therefore serves as a guide. As we mature in our listening and experience it's easier to "go off the map" and explore composers, eras, genres, forms, etc. to our heart's content--and, indeed, it's even recommended given that that's how we find many obscure and hidden gems that speak to us personally, even if they don't speak universally to everyone--but before then it's good to have the knowledge and security that you're traveling where millions of others have traveled and found comfort, pleasure, and even solace.


----------



## Fabulin

It's a merit-minded legacy contest. People like to champion the memory of those who they think _deserve _to be the most popular. Why humans want the most skilled among them to be the most popular, I hope, is logical.


----------



## DavidA

fluteman said:


> Well, yes, I agree with all of that, except the more perceptive posters here at TC and in this thread are perfectly well aware that some of the things they are saying are not capable of objective proof. That doesn't mean those comments are worthless. *If you have read Flaubert's Madame Bovary and the work of Proust, Joyce, Mann and other important modern novelists,* I think the importance and influence of the former on the latter will be clear to you. This isn't a brilliant, unique insight on my part. This is the way art works.
> 
> Wilkie Collins did much to establish the genre of the detective novel with his novel The Moonstone, leading directly to Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot, George Simenon's Inspector Maigret, and an endless stream of novels, movies and TV shows that continue unabated to the present day. No, I can't prove that. But if you haven't already, read those books, and watch those movies and TV shows, and tell me what you think.
> 
> Similarly, in music, one can identify *many leading works* that have had a profound long-term impact, some of which haven been but many of which haven't been mentioned in this thread. That's fine. What I find disingenuous and silly is when someone pretends that some specific ranking, such as that presented in the first post in this thread, has some objective validity. Even worse is when people start to take TC polls seriously, as bad science is worse than no science. My suggestion of the ArkivMusic ranking is a modest one, and I repeatedly conceded it is imperfect. Yet it was attacked by TC's resident purveyor of polls, that are arguably entertaining but lack any objective validity, on the not especially valid ground that Wagner in particular is underestimated.
> 
> A far more insightful thesis, in my opinion, was advanced by Woodduck (though I had already suggested it), that a ranking focused solely on music may not reflect Wagner's considerable importance as a dramatist, and in fact in Wagner's case, his music and his drama must be considered together. I agree, and think it is an important point. *But I can't prove it, and have no objective data at hand to support it. * And neither does Woodduck, apparently, though without a doubt he is a knowledgeable fan of Wagner. There is nothing wrong with any of that.


We must realise just what a rarified world we inhabit when we talk like this. Most people have never read Flaubert's Madame Bovary and the work of Proust, Joyce, Mann, et al, and frankly I don't blame them. As Mark Twain once said, "A classic is something everyone wants to have read but nobody wants to read!" Most folk haven't read them and couldn't care less about them. Agatha Christie - well maybe! Wagner? Who's he? Oh the guy who wrote the helicopter music? They might have got an idea of Mozart through the movie Amadeus. But nothing else. So when we talk of effect let's remember how narrow the direct effect is, even thought the effect might come through in things like movie scores, etc..


----------



## Xisten267

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Not disputing that Wagner's dramas were a game changer for music, but I think you undersell the importance of Mozart's innovations. One need only to listen to a heavy dose of baroque opera, listen to some Gluck, and then to Mozart to hear just how far Mozart developed the genre. It's hard to imagine that Wagner's own innovations would've been possible without Mozart's elevation of opera to something approaching a fully hybridized genre in which the drama and music were of equal importance, and in which the two were so intricately intertwined. Even as much as I love Handel's operas, much of the time I feel I could enjoy them just as much if I weren't following along to the libretto. The same can't be said for Mozart. *Gluck was obviously important for facilitating that change in direction as well, but in a very rough form that has little of the brilliance and spark of genius* that's in Mozart's mature operas.


I don't know what makes you say this. My point was that the influence of Mozart's innovations in opera were limited to it's genre and thus weren't as broad as those of Wagner in my vision, but I understand that Mozart expanded the ideas introduced by Gluck in his operatic reforms, and that his operas are influential and popular.

About what is in bold: aren't _you_ somehow underrating the figure of Gluck with such statement?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'd very much say that Hamlet and Don Quixote re-imagined the art of drama and the novel; as for poetry and prose, blank verse was relatively young in Shakespeare's day and he, along with John Milton a bit later, is universally credited for bringing it to its artistic fruition (a fantastic study on this Shakespeare's Metrical Art by George T. Wright). Plus, Shakespeare's inventiveness with language, which, even more than poetry, was his real "medium," hardly needs to to be defended. With Don Quixote it's difficult to comment on its prose having not read it in Spanish, but, as Littlephrase said, its impact on the novel form, and its status as being "the first modern novel," should be enough of a testament to how visionary it was.
> 
> As for Blake, I think he's appreciated now more as a visionary than he was in his own time, in large part because the critical vocabulary necessary to discuss what he was doing simply wasn't available in his own time. We needed the likes of Carl Jung and 19th and 20th century's revolutions in psychology to understand Blake's visions of how gods, devils, heavens, hells, etc. were all just manifestations of our psyches. Blake actually did have an impact on poetry, but it was only through other later visionaries like Shelley, Dante Rossetti, Yeats, Eliot, Merrill, and especially the Beat poets and songwriters of the 50s and 60s. Essentially, Blake was most influential to the generations over a century after his death than to the next generation. Plus, it could be argued that Blake essentially prefigured the rise of the graphic novel in the 20th century as a substantial artistic medium in itself, not unlike how Wagner prefigured the use of film soundtracks.
> 
> FWIW, *I'd highly recommend you endeavor to read Don Quixote.* Despite its age, and despite its reputation for being of great importance, it's also just a thoroughly enjoyable read that's not the slightest bit stuffy or difficult in the way some "great literature" can be. Though it may be difficult to understand its originality without immersing yourself in Medieval romances beforehand, and because its influence has been so thoroughly disseminated throughout the storytelling arts over the centuries, it hasn't lost its power to entertain.


I read 100 pages of it 30 years ago - I bailed out at the point where Quixote was starting to become aware that stories were circulating about his adventures.

Maybe in my maturity I am ready to tackle this book again. I would not want to go through those first 100 pages again though.


----------



## chu42

PlaySalieri said:


> who was popular 100 years ago in serious classical music and is now ignored?


Rubinstein and Moszkowski were the "Rachmaninov" of their time. Their concerti are not popular in the slightest today.


----------



## tdc

Allerius said:


> I don't know what makes you say this. My point was that the influence of Mozart's innovations in opera were limited to it's genre and thus weren't as broad as those of Wagner in my vision.


But it has already been pointed out that Mozart's operas inspired Tchaikovsky to compose (not just operas, but to compose), Michael Nyman has stated that everything he composed is based off inspiration he got from _The Marriage of Figaro_. Charles Rosen suggests the revolutionary kind of counterpoint used in _The Magic Flute_, which was pioneered by Mozart had a certain clarity and reduced dissonance and was influential on Beethoven's harmonic language. I am sure there are many more examples of the wide influence of Mozart's operatic music.

Wagner was certainly impactful in a number of areas as well, but his innovations (not influence) were limited to opera, further I cannot detect anything philosophical in his works that in my view is really constructive or that has had any real lasting value on society. Others have done better work with some of the concepts he touched on (such as Jung). There are certainly concepts he touched on that were in the air at the time that were influential, yes, but his contributions in themselves don't represent anything to me other than the ramblings of an overly complex mind. I find more philosophical value in some works based on excerpts of religious texts - and I'm not even religious. Further his librettos lack the poetic beauty found in the Norse mythology that inspired them and also in much of the Bible itself for that matter. Arguably his biggest contribution to music are orchestral excerpts extracted from his operas.

Sure I agree he had a good degree of influence on things like film scores, but the same can be said for a multitude of other composers. Like it or not, most music that is listened to today is much shorter in duration than a Wagner opera, so in this sense I feel his innovations were put to better use by Debussy who was able to effectively apply aspects of them into large and small scale works which stand on their own as pure music.


----------



## fluteman

DavidA said:


> We must realise just what a rarified world we inhabit when we talk like this. Most people have never read Flaubert's Madame Bovary and the work of Proust, Joyce, Mann, et al, and frankly I don't blame them. As Mark Twain once said, "A classic is something everyone wants to have read but nobody wants to read!" Most folk haven't read them and couldn't care less about them. Agatha Christie - well maybe! Wagner? Who's he? Oh the guy who wrote the helicopter music? They might have got an idea of Mozart through the movie Amadeus. But nothing else. So when we talk of effect let's remember how narrow the direct effect is, even thought the effect might come through in things like movie scores, etc..


That's fine. If you plow through my lengthy, boring posts, you'll notice that in many areas I'm a popular culture fan too. Notice the detective novel example I gave. My references to Apocalypse Now and Jaws, two great movies of their genre and era, and Fantasia, a true all time classic. (Alas, the same cannot be said about the novel Jaws. But the author of that novel, Peter Benchley, is the son of Robert Benchley, one of the greatest and funniest humorists in all American history. Check him out if you haven't already.) Classical music is my main interest, but there's no reason to be a snob about it.


----------



## fluteman

tdc said:


> But it has already been pointed out that Mozart's operas inspired Tchaikovsky to compose (not just operas, but to compose), Michael Nyman has stated that everything he composed is based off inspiration he got from _The Marriage of Figaro_. Charles Rosen suggests the revolutionary kind of counterpoint used in _The Magic Flute_, which was pioneered by Mozart had a certain clarity and reduced dissonance and was influential on Beethoven's harmonic language. I am sure there are many more examples of the wide influence of Mozart's operatic music.
> 
> Wagner was certainly impactful in a number of areas as well, but his innovations (not influence) were limited to opera, further I cannot detect anything philosophical in his works that in my view is really constructive or that has had any real lasting value on society. Others have done better work with some of the concepts he touched on (such as Jung). There are certainly concepts he touched on that were in the air at the time that were influential, yes, but his contributions in themselves don't represent anything to me other than the ramblings of an overly complex mind. I find more philosophical value in some works based on excerpts of religious texts - and I'm not even religious. Further his librettos lack the poetic beauty found in the Norse mythology that inspired them and also in much of the Bible itself for that matter. Arguably his biggest contribution to music are orchestral excerpts extracted from his operas.
> 
> Sure I agree he had a good degree of influence on things like film scores, but the same can be said for a multitude of other composers. Like it or not, most music that is listened to today is much shorter in duration than a Wagner opera, so in this sense I feel his innovations were put to better use by Debussy who was able to effectively apply aspects of them into large and small scale works which stand on their own as pure music.


I've made or alluded to some of your points here in my own posts in this thread, so I'm obviously not about to argue with you. But before we belittle Wagner's achievements on grounds like these, I think we should remember that in the mid-19th century, as now, it was a lot easier to be a Meyerbeer, giving audiences what they wanted and expected, than to explore new territory like a Wagner. I respect the artistic pioneers who didn't take the easy road.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> But it has already been pointed out that Mozart's operas inspired Tchaikovsky to compose (not just operas, but to compose), Michael Nyman has stated that everything he composed is based off inspiration he got from _The Marriage of Figaro_. Charles Rosen suggests the revolutionary kind of counterpoint used in _The Magic Flute_, which was pioneered by Mozart had a certain clarity and reduced dissonance and was influential on Beethoven's harmonic language. I am sure there are many more examples of the wide influence of Mozart's operatic music.


Except for the Rosen example, you've cited no specific influence of Mozart's music on the music of others. "Inspiration" isn't the same thing. People can be deeply inspired by others, yet do something entirely unrelated. To my ears, neither Tchaikovsky's nor Nyman's work owes any significant debt to Mozart's, except in those moments when Tchaikovsky is being consciously "neoclassical" (and scarcely even then).



> Wagner was certainly impactful in a number of areas as well, but his innovations (not influence) were limited to opera...


Not exactly. His ideas of musical form and expression arose in the _context_ of opera - in other words, they were inspired by theatrical conceptions - but they were inherently musical qualities which were not only immensely varied and original, but migrated easily and widely to other genres (see below). Some of them can be heard in his one major orchestral work, the _Siegfried idyll._



> Further his librettos lack the poetic beauty found in the Norse mythology that inspired them and also in much of the Bible itself for that matter.


Librettos are librettos, not literature - they're made for music - so those comparisons mean little. Wagner's texts nonetheless do exhibit more literary imagination than most librettos, according to many German speakers. Do you speak German and know German literature? I don't, but even I can appreciate the diversity of literary style that Wagner brings to the libretti of his varied works (e.g., the poetic style of _Meistersinger_ is quite distinct from that of the _Ring,_ which is again unlike that of _Parsifal_).



> Arguably his biggest contribution to music are orchestral excerpts extracted from his operas.


I wouldn't try to extract a single "biggest contribution" from music as rich, complex and varied as Wagner's, but there's quite a bit to choose from: the quasi-symphonic motivic textures, the dramatically symbolic manipulation and transformation of leitmotifs, the freedom from conventional formal procedures, the extension of melody to span long structures, the liberation of melody from symmetrical patterning, the pushing of harmony to its tonal extremes, the construction of long, coherent paragraphs out of ambiguous harmony which nonetheless rest on carefully plotted key schemes, the close illumination of text through continuous musical narrative, the slowing of musical exposition (not tempo, but the exposition of material) to a rate approximating "real life," the elevation of music's sensual and visceral, above its intellectual, appeal, to an unprecedented degree, bringing to a climax the Romantic ideal of music as expression...

Such music posed challenges to conventional musical thinking which other composers, and not only opera composers, could not ignore, whatever they chose to do with what they heard. As it turned out, many very different composers did a great many things with it, and much subsequent music - operatic and non-operatic - is simply unthinkable without Wagner. Composers and performers were not in doubt about his disruptive and intimidating presence and his looming shadow. I'm frankly shocked that so many participants in this discussion are not merely in doubt, but insistently so.


----------



## PlaySalieri

tdc said:


> But it has already been pointed out that Mozart's operas inspired Tchaikovsky to compose (not just operas, but to compose), Michael Nyman has stated that everything he composed is based off inspiration he got from _The Marriage of Figaro_. Charles Rosen suggests the revolutionary kind of counterpoint used in _The Magic Flute_, which was pioneered by Mozart had a certain clarity and reduced dissonance and was influential on Beethoven's harmonic language. I am sure there are many more examples of the wide influence of Mozart's operatic music.
> 
> Wagner was certainly impactful in a number of areas as well, but his innovations (not influence) were limited to opera, further I cannot detect anything philosophical in his works that in my view is really constructive or that has had any real lasting value on society. Others have done better work with some of the concepts he touched on (such as Jung). There are certainly concepts he touched on that were in the air at the time that were influential, yes, but his contributions in themselves don't represent anything to me other than the ramblings of an overly complex mind. I find more philosophical value in some works based on excerpts of religious texts - and I'm not even religious. Further his librettos lack the poetic beauty found in the Norse mythology that inspired them and also in much of the Bible itself for that matter. Arguably his biggest contribution to music are orchestral excerpts extracted from his operas.
> 
> Sure I agree he had a good degree of influence on things like film scores, but the same can be said for a multitude of other composers. Like it or not, most music that is listened to today is much shorter in duration than a Wagner opera, so in this sense I feel his innovations were put to better use by Debussy who was able to effectively apply aspects of them into large and small scale works which stand on their own as pure music.


Schoenberg was also influenced by Mozart


----------



## DavidA

fluteman said:


> That's fine. If you plow through my lengthy, boring posts, you'll notice that in many areas I'm a popular culture fan too. Notice the detective novel example I gave. My references to Apocalypse Now and Jaws, two great movies of their genre and era, and Fantasia, a true all time classic. (Alas, *the same cannot be said about the novel Jaws. * But the author of that novel, Peter Benchley, is the son of Robert Benchley, one of the greatest and funniest humorists in all American history. Check him out if you haven't already.) *Classical music is my main interest, but there's no reason to be a snob about it.*


Agreement about the novel, Jaws! Needed Spielberg to bring it to life. Absolutely agree about classical music. I think the snobbery and one-upmanship is off-putting. I have actually been put off listening to a certain composer by the vain and reverend worship given him in some quarters on TC. Then I thought that this guy was just a composer and when his music is on my turntable he's my servant to entertain me not some object of pseudo-worship! And same with the rest of them. Great geniuses, but their music is there to serve us. And that is our gain!


----------



## mikeh375

DavidA said:


> Agreement about the novel, Jaws! Needed Spielberg to bring it to life. Absolutely agree about classical music. I think the snobbery and one-upmanship is off-putting. I have actually been put off listening to a certain composer by the vain and reverend worship given him in some quarters on TC. *Then I thought that this guy was just a composer and when his music is on my turntable he's my servant to entertain me not some object of pseudo-worship! And same with the rest of them. Great geniuses, but their music is there to serve us. And that is our gain!*


Crikey Dave, I never think about it like that!..I suppose it's ultimately true though.. I personally just think about writing primarily as a form of self expression. The listener comes second from my perspective. DIVISION,....CLEAR THE HOUSE...(sorry too much Brexit)..


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Allerius said:


> I don't know what makes you say this. My point was that the influence of Mozart's innovations in opera were limited to it's genre and thus weren't as broad as those of Wagner in my vision, but I understand that Mozart expanded the ideas introduced by Gluck in his operatic reforms, and that his operas are influential and popular.


OK, this we can agree on.



Allerius said:


> About what is in bold: aren't _you_ somehow underrating the figure of Gluck with such statement?


I don't think so. I've listened to Gluck. I like Gluck. I respect the innovations he introduced; but I don't return to Gluck with the same awe that I do with Mozart, do I expect most people given how rarely Gluck is performed by comparison. If we were to make a comparison, it's not unlike DW Griffith's legacy in film compared to that of Welles or Hitchcock; yes, Griffith introduced most of the techniques that Welles and Hitch would refine and master, but how many regularly return to Birth of a Nation or Intolerance the way they do to Vertigo or Citizen Kane?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

PlaySalieri said:


> I read 100 pages of it 30 years ago - I bailed out at the point where Quixote was starting to become aware that stories were circulating about his adventures.
> 
> Maybe in my maturity I am ready to tackle this book again. I would not want to go through those first 100 pages again though.


Translation can make a huge difference. Some go for literal accuracy over readability and humor. I think Edith Grossman's is currently the most highly recommended translation for the latter, so you might check it out if you decide to give it another go.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Such music posed challenges to conventional musical thinking which other composers, and not only opera composers, could not ignore, whatever they chose to do with what they heard. As it turned out, many very different composers did a great many things with it, and much subsequent music - operatic and non-operatic - is simply unthinkable without Wagner. Composers and performers were not in doubt about his disruptive and intimidating presence and his looming shadow. I'm frankly shocked that so many participants in this discussion are not merely in doubt, but insistently so.


Ah, Woodduck, if I were to be brutally honest, I might point out that tdc's comments about Wagner and others like them, though sometimes expressed in unduly harsh and belittling ways in the heat of debate, aren't as inconsistent with the first three sentences of yours I've quoted here, and most if not all of the other pro-Wagner arguments you've made here, as you imply with the final sentence. Art is a big thing. To boldly venture down certain artistic paths is to leave others unexplored. Chopin, Mendelssohn, Schumann and Brahms went down some of those other paths.


----------



## annaw

tdc said:


> But it has already been pointed out that Mozart's operas inspired Tchaikovsky to compose (not just operas, but to compose), Michael Nyman has stated that everything he composed is based off inspiration he got from _The Marriage of Figaro_. Charles Rosen suggests the revolutionary kind of counterpoint used in _The Magic Flute_, which was pioneered by Mozart had a certain clarity and reduced dissonance and was influential on Beethoven's harmonic language. I am sure there are many more examples of the wide influence of Mozart's operatic music.
> 
> *Wagner was certainly impactful in a number of areas as well, but his innovations (not influence) were limited to opera, further I cannot detect anything philosophical in his works that in my view is really constructive or that has had any real lasting value on society. Others have done better work with some of the concepts he touched on (such as Jung). There are certainly concepts he touched on that were in the air at the time that were influential, yes, but his contributions in themselves don't represent anything to me other than the ramblings of an overly complex mind.* I find more philosophical value in some works based on excerpts of religious texts - and I'm not even religious. Further his librettos lack the poetic beauty found in the Norse mythology that inspired them and also in much of the Bible itself for that matter. Arguably his biggest contribution to music are orchestral excerpts extracted from his operas.
> 
> Sure I agree he had a good degree of influence on things like film scores, but the same can be said for a multitude of other composers. Like it or not, most music that is listened to today is much shorter in duration than a Wagner opera, so in this sense I feel his innovations were put to better use by Debussy who was able to effectively apply aspects of them into large and small scale works which stand on their own as pure music.


I, personally, find the philosophy that Wagner conveys through his librettos to be one of the most enjoyable things in his operas - the operas are dramaturgically very good and they make you think. I feel that many other operas (both famous and not so famous) are lacking this quality because, although they might teach you/remind you of some moral principles, these themes usually don't get nearly as complex and psychological as Wagner's. For example, Tristan's monologue in the beginning of T&I 3rd act is one of the most interesting parts of the opera just because of the Schopenhauerian philosophy.

Of course Wagner wasn't a philosopher and opera probably wouldn't have been the most effective way of presenting new philosophical ideas and thoughts, but the mere fact that different philosophical ideas have such a big role in his operas, and he manages to present them truthfully (Feuerbach in the Ring or Schopenhauer in _Tristan_) together with wonderful music, makes his operas outstanding and distinguishes him from other composers.

Also, I would say that Wagner's philosophical thought can be quite clearly understood, at least to some extent, from his operas. Otherwise Nietzsche wouldn't have become so critical about the philosophy in his operas (he especially disliked _Parsifal_ and wasn't a huge fan of the Ring, however he loved _Tristan_ and _Die Meistersinger_) but it wouldn't be fair to compare him with Kant or Hegel.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Ah, Woodduck, if I were to be brutally honest, I might point out that tdc's comments about Wagner and others like them, though sometimes expressed in unduly harsh and belittling ways in the heat of debate, aren't as inconsistent with the first three sentences of yours I've quoted here, and most if not all of the other pro-Wagner arguments you've made here, as you imply with the final sentence. Art is a big thing. To boldly venture down certain artistic paths is to leave others unexplored. Chopin, Mendelssohn, Schumann and Brahms went down some of those other paths.


I've read this three times and I still don't know what you're saying or why you're saying it. My post was intended, generally, to address the amazing (to me) incomprehension exhibited by several people here of the dimensions of Wagner's presence in the musical thought of contemporary and subsequent composers, and specifically to refute some statements by tdc. Do you think I'm incorrect in any particular? Has my effort to describe relevant features of his music missed some necessary point, or simply fallen into a black hole of incomprehension?

With regard to Wagner's work, I and a very few other people with greater-than-average knowledge have been staring into that hole on this forum for years, and the insistent skepticism and outright resistance I refer to in my last sentence is real and never ceases to baffle me. It wouldn't be so frustrating if I were a lone voice in the wilderness, but the scholarship on Wagner is vast; my remarks are generally little more than distillations of widely held knowledge and opinion accumulated over a century and a half (although this is sometimes more coincidence than paraphrase on my part).

Your first sentence is too nonspecific to be useful, and your last three make an apparently unrelated point which is, besides, rather obvious. I don't know what would be a meaningful response to any of it, so I'll stop talking now.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> I've read this three times and I still don't know what you're saying or why you're saying it. My post was intended, generally, to address the amazing (to me) incomprehension exhibited by several people here of the dimensions of Wagner's presence in the musical thought of contemporary and subsequent composers, and specifically to refute some statements by tdc. Do you think I'm incorrect in any particular? Has my effort to describe relevant features of his music missed some necessary point, or simply fallen into a black hole of incomprehension?
> 
> With regard to Wagner's work, I and a very few other people with greater-than-average knowledge have been staring into that hole on this forum for years, and the insistent skepticism and outright resistance I refer to in my last sentence is real and never ceases to baffle me. It wouldn't be so frustrating if I were a lone voice in the wilderness, but the scholarship on Wagner is vast; my remarks are generally little more than distillations of widely held knowledge and opinion accumulated over a century and a half (although this is sometimes more coincidence than paraphrase on my part).
> 
> Your first sentence is too nonspecific to be useful, and your last three make an apparently unrelated point which is, besides, rather obvious. I don't know what would be a meaningful response to any of it, so I'll stop talking now.


What I meant is, the Wagner critiques one reads here from your "foes", even ones so basic as he was only a composer of operas and that people no longer want to sit through four-hour operas, really don't refute and are not inconsistent with the reasons for Wagner's importance that you cite. And as you readily acknowledge, Wagner wrote music a specific way for specific dramatic purposes, and almost always for a specific program set forth with a libretto and staging as well as music. This had a profound impact on how he handled thematic development, harmony, phrasing, rhythm, pacing and orchestration, among other things. That's why I so strongly agree with you about the inseparability of Wagner's music and his drama. This cohesiveness or unity of music and drama is central to Wagner's importance, in my opinion (and not just my opinion, right?). He was the first major composer to use this cohesiveness to such effect and with such a high level of sophistication, with a full symphony orchestra, large numbers of singers, large scale staging and, of course, large-scale heroic stories and large themes, love, death, triumph, loss. I think most here get that.

You don't have to repeatedly explain all that or defend Wagner just because other composers of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries also did important but very different things (many specialized in abstract, non-programmatic music mostly or entirely), which is really what the critiques boil down to. As I have said, art is big, too big for any one artist to cast his shadow over. That Wagner's art is not all-encompassing doesn't diminish its greatness.

My examples only seem to confuse you, but here's one last, perhaps as far from Wagner's Ring as one can get: Stravinsky's L'Histoire du soldat. A simple, traditional folk tale for three actors and one or more dancers, and what is really only some incidental music, and not much of it, for seven instruments. So, a multimedia dramatic production, like Wagner's Ring. Except everything about it is small. And, small and brief as it is (one could even say, minimalist), it is episodic rather than cohesive (intentionally so), and so the anti-Ring in every way. But to me, just as important as Wagner's Ring in its way. As are Chopin's Mazurkas and Nocturnes, and Debussy's Preludes, Images and Arabesques. Art is big enough to encompass the small as well as the big, and the abstract as well as the programmatic. So you need not always jump to the defense of Wagner. He doesn't need it.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> What I meant is, *the Wagner critiques one reads here* from your "foes", even ones so basic as he was only a composer of operas and that people no longer want to sit through four-hour operas, *really don't refute and are not inconsistent with the reasons for Wagner's importance that you cite.*


Then why are these "critiques" offered as if they were arguments? Which of them are "critiques," anyway, and which merely impressions and useless defenses of personal taste? It isn't terribly clear what some of them are arguments for or against. Sometimes they just seem to be ill-informed attempts to diminish Wagner's achievement and influence (e.g., comparing opera librettos to the Icelandic Eddas and the Bible); other times they look suspiciously like nothing more than objections to my presuming to know something (which should hardly be a surprise to anyone on this forum) or outright personal insults. Are you aware that in this thread the discussion of Wagner's influence began with my modest remark that I'd be happy to put Wagner in fourth place among the West's musical geniuses? I didn't expect to fight about it, or even think it something that justified a strenuous refutation, but that's what it got, and uninformed things began to be said. When that happens I try to say informed things.

I guess I'm naive enough to believe that people who form opinions will also welcome some information on which to base them, and that the exchange of knowledge is something we do here. Silly me.



> And as you readily acknowledge, Wagner wrote music a specific way for specific dramatic purposes, and almost always for a specific program set forth with a libretto and staging as well as music. This had a profound impact on how he handled thematic development, harmony, phrasing, rhythm, pacing and orchestration, among other things. That's why I so strongly agree with you about the inseparability of Wagner's music and his drama. This cohesiveness or unity of music and drama is central to Wagner's importance, in my opinion (and not just my opinion, right?). He was the first major composer to use this cohesiveness to such effect and with such a high level of sophistication, with a full symphony orchestra, large numbers of singers, large scale staging and, of course, large-scale heroic stories and large themes, love, death, triumph, loss. I think most here get that.


You can add the above to my (not exhaustive) enumeration of Wagner's musical procedures in post #364. I'm sure some here understand some of these things. I don't know what "most" understand. Most don't say anything. I don't assume, I merely respond.



> You don't have to repeatedly explain all that or defend Wagner *just because* other composers of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries also did important but very different things (many specialized in abstract, non-programmatic music mostly or entirely), which is really what the critiques boil down to. As I have said, art is big, too big for any one artist to cast his shadow over. *That Wagner's art is not all-encompassing doesn't diminish its greatness.*


I haven't said anything "just because" of anything any other composer did or didn't do, or assumed that Wagner did everything. That would be stupid, wouldn't it? I'm very well aware of what other composers did. And if I repeatedly explain anything it's because I get uncomprehending or irrelevant responses. The debate is over the extent of Wagner's influence. Obviously many don't see it where I (and many others better-informed than I) do. I try to say where I see it, and in cases where my first-hand knowledge is slight, where those better-informed others have seen it.



> My examples only seem to confuse you,


Your examples (which examples? of what? influence?) don't confuse me. What you read into my statements and assume about my intentions _does_ confuse me, since my intentions are really quite straightforward.



> but here's one last, perhaps as far from Wagner's Ring as one can get: Stravinsky's *L'Histoire du soldat.* A simple, traditional folk tale for three actors and one or more dancers, and what is really only some incidental music, and not much of it, for seven instruments. So, a multimedia dramatic production, like Wagner's Ring. Except everything about it is small. And, small and brief as it is (one could even say, minimalist), it is episodic rather than cohesive (intentionally so), and so the anti-Ring in every way. But to me, *just as important as Wagner's Ring in its way.*


In what way? Important how? It's a striking piece and a fine example of Stravinsky's aesthetic, but since influence is the issue here, what was the influence of that one work?



> As are Chopin's Mazurkas and Nocturnes, and Debussy's Preludes, Images and Arabesques.


Each of them, as "important" as the _Ring?_ Again, what was the effect of each of those works on music at the time and afterward that entitles them to the position you assign them? If you want to say that Stravinsky and Chopin and Debussy _as composers_ were highly influential, well - _of course_ they were.



> Art is big enough to encompass the small as well as the big, and the abstract as well as the programmatic. *So* you need not always jump to the defense of Wagner.


That's an illogical connection, a non sequitur. There is no "so."



> He doesn't need it.


No dead person "needs" defending, but ideas about people do. Wagner is a composer who lives on as a sort of real-life fictional creation. His mystique distorts and conceals as much as it reveals. He provokes considerable hostility and resistance even while his operas inspire massive devotion and sell out houses whenever they're mounted. People who know his works intimately and people who know almost nothing about them still fight about him and them. Some think his music is sublime, some think it's evil and corrupting. This was all true in Wagner's lifetime, and it's all still true a century and a half later, despite his secure place in the canon (and who cares whether he's #4 or #7 in TC polls?). "Wagnerism" is no longer a topic of debate in high-class salons (what other composer has an "ism" attached to his name?), but if being talked and written about - positively, negatively, or neutrally - constitutes a form of influence, Wagner still takes the prize for that particular form. It's the old boy himself, not people like me, who keep his mystique alive.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> It's the old boy himself, not people like me, who keep his mystique alive.


Right. So there is a lot less need to defend Wagner, or to defend yourself and your comments about Wagner, than you sometimes seem to think.



Woodduck said:


> It isn't terribly clear what some of them are arguments for or against. Sometimes they just seem to be ill-informed attempts to diminish Wagner's achievement and influence (e.g., comparing opera librettos to the Icelandic Eddas and the Bible); other times they look suspiciously like nothing more than objections to my presuming to know something (which should hardly be a surprise to anyone on this forum) or outright personal insults.


Your comments are usually articulate, knowledgeable, and perceptive, but you really lose me with a comment like this. You must realize saying things like this only makes people angry and defensive, and therefore can only get in the way of giving them a better understanding of Wagner's music, rather than helping them understand it better, which you are capable of doing, and have done in several of your posts in this thread.



Woodduck said:


> In what way? Important how? It's a striking piece and a fine example of Stravinsky's aesthetic, but since influence is the issue here, what was the influence of that one work?


L'Histoire is a masterpiece of the kind of minimalist, fast-paced, episodic theater that dominates in today's multimedia environment, outside of a few pockets of traditional live theater like the opera. Ever notice that even the hide-bound, made for tourists Broadway musicals these days seldom have a full symphony orchestra in the pit, or even a scaled-down one, but instead, a handful of musicians like the seven in L'Histoire, or even fewer? Many things like that can be traced in part back to Stravinsky.


----------



## Bulldog

I think it's clear by now that market measures are the most reliable way to rank composers or works for that matter. Numbers and facts, although not perfect, are concrete assessments.


----------



## DavidA

mikeh375 said:


> Crikey Dave, I never think about it like that!..*I suppose it's ultimately true though..* I personally just think about writing primarily as a form of self expression. The listener comes second from my perspective. DIVISION,....CLEAR THE HOUSE...(sorry too much Brexit)..


Off course it is true. Of course, that doesn't mean the composer has to write with this in mind but of course if no-one wants to listen it's a bit of a waste of time apart from your own enjoyment in expressing yourself. As a creative artist you can only write what is inside you - you write it and people either want to listen or not. Same with writing prose / poetry and all the arts. Of course, it is my privilege to have so many genius talented 'servants' on my shelf - both the composers and the artists who perform when put on the turntable. But they are not an object of some sort of reverence but enjoyment. I'm just listening to Yuja Wang playing the very highbrow 'Tea for Two' from the Prom Concert - audio only I might add!


----------



## DavidA

fluteman said:


> You don't have to repeatedly explain all that or defend Wagner just because other composers of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries also did important but very different things (many specialized in abstract, non-programmatic music mostly or entirely), which is really what the critiques boil down to. As I have said, art is big, too big for any one artist to cast his shadow over. That Wagner's art is not all-encompassing doesn't diminish its greatness.
> 
> .


I must confess nothing has put me off Wagner more than this constant so-called 'defending' of the man and his works and making him out to be something he was not. He was a musical genius and a clever man but wanting elsewhere. I'm having a bit of a Wagner phase at the moment and put on Siegfried last night (my least favourite of the Ring because I find the bully-boy 'hero' hard to take) and enjoyed it thoroughly, listening to Act 3 and the amazing orchestral effects Wagner produces, even though I think the final duet outstays its welcome a bit. Just put enjoy the thing for what it is - an opera - a fairy tale - a fantasy. With some superb music. Great! Why all the huffing and puffing?


----------



## tdc

edit - I don't feel like having another long debate on this topic.


----------



## tdc

………………......………...


----------



## PlaySalieri

Wagner was a musical genius.

A literary one too?

Surely Wagner ought to have found a genius to do his librettos, just as Mozart did with Da Ponte.


----------



## annaw

tdc said:


> I think it is valid to criticize Wagner's librettos since that is part of what your argument for his cultural impact is based. You suggest Wagner's influence was based not just on his music, but on his musical dramas as a whole. I am pointing out that those librettos don't offer much of significance in the way of poetry or philosophy. I think the importance of the non-musical aspects of his work is quite minimal, perhaps even having a somewhat negative impact.


I find them enjoyable - they're not Goethe or Schiller, but then again, I'm not sure whether I even can say anything about Wagner's librettos as I don't speak German and the general 'flow' of the poem certainly plays an important role in evaluating how good it is. I think it was Kaufmann who talked about Wagner librettos in one article where he said that Wagner actually started pretty much inventing 'new' words to use in his librettos (Kaufmann: "his has alliteration and all these games Wagner loved to play, like nine-syllable words that I've never heard put together, because sometimes he wanted to express things in a way that probably was never done before.") Wagner didn't innovate philosophy or literature, but opera libretto itself - when you compare his librettos with Mozart's they are (in my opinion) more psychological, complex and certainly less repetitive (don't take this the wrong way, I also enjoy Mozart's operas a lot  !). I don't say that psychological and complex librettos hadn't been written earlier, but maybe just not to that extent.


----------



## annaw

tdc said:


> edit - I don't feel like having another long debate on this topic.


Sorry, I managed to post my comment without seeing you had deleted yours. The goal of my previous certainly wasn't to initiate any debate, but just to share my personal opinion.


----------



## PlaySalieri

annaw said:


> I find them enjoyable - they're not Goethe or Schiller, but then again, I'm not sure whether I even can say anything about Wagner's librettos as I don't speak German and the general 'flow' of the poem certainly plays an important role in evaluating how good a poem is. I think it was Kaufmann who talked about Wagner librettos in one article where he said that Wagner actually started pretty much inventing 'new' words to use in his librettos (Kaufmann: "his has alliteration and all these games Wagner loved to play, like nine-syllable words that I've never heard put together, because sometimes he wanted to express things in a way that probably was never done before.") Wagner didn't innovate philosophy or literature, but opera libretto itself - when you compare his librettos with Mozart's they are (in my opinion) *more psychological, complex* and certainly less repetitive (don't take this wrong, I also enjoy Mozart's operas a lot  !). I don't say that psychological and complex librettos hadn't been written earlier, but maybe just not to that extent.


Well I guess Wagner was trying to do something different.

Mozart's operas had to sell and justify their existence economically in a way that perhaps Wagner's did not.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> I must confess nothing has put me off Wagner more than this constant so-called 'defending' of the man and his works and making him out to be something he was not. He was a musical genius and a clever man but wanting elsewhere. I'm having a bit of a Wagner phase at the moment and put on Siegfried last night (my least favourite of the Ring because I find the bully-boy 'hero' hard to take) and enjoyed it thoroughly, listening to Act 3 and the amazing orchestral effects Wagner produces, even though I think the final duet outstays its welcome a bit. Just put enjoy the thing for what it is - an opera - a fairy tale - a fantasy. With some superb music. Great! Why all the huffing and puffing?


If people discussing Wagner put you off his music, stay away from discussing him. Simple, no?

But I see that you're still listening to his music and claiming to enjoy it. Guess you haven't been put too far off...

Huffing and puffing indeed.


----------



## Woodduck

Bulldog said:


> I think it's clear by now that market measures are the most reliable way to rank composers or works for that matter. Numbers and facts, although not perfect, are concrete assessments.


Concrete assessments of what? All you're saying is that popularity is a concrete assessment of popularity.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DavidA said:


> I must confess nothing has put me off Wagner more than this constant so-called 'defending' of the man and his works and making him out to be something he was not. He was a musical genius and a clever man but wanting elsewhere. I'm having a bit of a Wagner phase at the moment and put on Siegfried last night (my least favourite of the Ring because I find the bully-boy 'hero' hard to take) and enjoyed it thoroughly, listening to Act 3 and the amazing orchestral effects Wagner produces, even though I think the final duet outstays its welcome a bit. Just put enjoy the thing for what it is - an opera - a fairy tale - a fantasy. With some superb music. Great! Why all the huffing and puffing?


I must confess I've always been extremely befuddled by people who are "turned off" some artist/composer/band because of the fans of that artist/composer/band. It's easy enough to stay away from/out of discussions about them, so you never have to interact with said fans if you don't want to; and even barring that, why would any fans affect your opinions on someone's music to begin with? The two things have nothing to do with each other.

For Wagner, I don't even know exactly what you're talking about. What are "his fans" making him out to be other than a musical genius? I guess you might say an "artistic genius," but that artistry was, in itself, intricately tied to his music, so that would rather be splitting hairs. As for "huffing and puffing," clearly some music has the ability to affect some people deeply. It was CS Lewis who said of his experience encountering Wagner that:


> "The sky had turned round. Pure 'Northernness' engulfed me: a vision of huge, clear spaces hanging above the Atlantic in the endless twilight... and almost at the same moment I knew that I had met this before, long, long ago... There arose at once, almost like heartbreak, the memory of Joy itself, the knowledge that I had once had what I had now lacked for years, that I was returning at last from exile and desert lands to my own country... I stared round that dusty school-room like a man recovering from unconsciousness... and at once I knew (with fatal knowledge) that to have [that sense] again was the supreme and only important object of desire."


Now, you can call that "huffing and puffing" and whatever adjectives all you want, but, really, so what? So you don't share them, that's perfectly fine; but I find much more objectionable than the fact that some people have such experiences is that others try to deride, belittle, and demean such experiences and (often) the artists/works capable of evoking them. Lots of people are profoundly moved by art and artists that I may think ranges from awful to great (but not that great), but never have I thought it a duty to convince them of how silly they are for feeling how they do, nor to "put the artist in their place" for being able to provoke such "undeserved" worship. Artists and art that's capable of doing that is rare enough as it is, and I'd think people who genuinely love art would be appreciative of it even if they don't share the same devotion.

I will say that Wagner is something of a strange case as I'm not sure there's another composer that's so "worshiped" by some and almost ignored by others. Perhaps that's due to the fact that he did focus on opera and there are plenty of listeners who simply have no interest in the genre and thus have a gap in their understanding of just how important he was. While Wagner is one of my favorite composers I don't quite share Woodduck's level of fanaticism--I reserve that almost exclusively for Mozart, personally--yet I typically find myself agreeing with his "defenses" against people who try to diminish his importance and influence, especially since such things are as close as music gets to being a matter of fact rather than subjective. Anyone who doesn't think Wagner is in contention for that 4th spot due to influence/importance is, I'd argue, ignorant to some degree on music history. You can be educated and disagree that he definitely deserves that spot--there are certainly other worthy candidates--but to not think he's worthy at all displays far more bias than anyone arguing fervently that he deserves it.


----------



## DavidA

PlaySalieri said:


> Wagner was a musical genius.
> 
> A literary one too?
> 
> Surely Wagner ought to have found a genius to do his librettos, just as Mozart did with Da Ponte.


The fact is that Wagner was imo a far greater musician than he was a librettist. But of course he wanted to create 'total works of art'. Harvey Sachs I think sums it up when he says, Wagner 'wanted to be the greatest composer ever, the greatest poet in the German language (he wrote his own libretti, parts of which are awful), and the greatest master of stagecraft in the world.' As Wagner had no doubts about his genius in all fields I don't think it would have occurred to him to even have allowed anyone to even help him edit his libretti. Hence they lack the tautness we find in the best of (eg) Verdi's libretti, which is the result of the libretto going back and forth from librettist to composer several times. Wagner was a musical genius but few outside his band of most fervent admirers would rate him as a literary genius.


----------



## DavidA

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I must confess I've always been extremely befuddled by people who are "turned off" some artist/composer/band because of the fans of that artist/composer/band. It's easy enough to stay away from/out of discussions about them, so you never have to interact with said fans if you don't want to; and even barring that, why would any fans affect your opinions on someone's music to begin with? The two things have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> For Wagner, I don't even know exactly what you're talking about. What are "his fans" making him out to be other than a musical genius? I guess you might say an "artistic genius," but that artistry was, in itself, intricately tied to his music, so that would rather be splitting hairs. As for "huffing and puffing," clearly some music has the ability to affect some people deeply. It was CS Lewis who said of his experience encountering Wagner that: Now, you can call that "huffing and puffing" and whatever adjectives all you want, but, really, so what? So you don't share them, that's perfectly fine; but I find much more objectionable than the fact that some people have such experiences is that others try to deride, belittle, and demean such experiences and (often) the artists/works capable of evoking them. Lots of people are profoundly moved by art and artists that I may think ranges from awful to great (but not that great), but never have I thought it a duty to convince them of how silly they are for feeling how they do, nor to "put the artist in their place" for being able to provoke such "undeserved" worship. Artists and art that's capable of doing that is rare enough as it is, and I'd think people who genuinely love art would be appreciative of it even if they don't share the same devotion.
> 
> I will say that Wagner is something of a strange case as I'm not sure there's another composer that's so "worshiped" by some and almost ignored by others. Perhaps that's due to the fact that he did focus on opera and there are plenty of listeners who simply have no interest in the genre and thus have a gap in their understanding of just how important he was. While Wagner is one of my favorite composers I don't quite share Woodduck's level of fanaticism--I reserve that almost exclusively for Mozart, personally--yet I typically find myself agreeing with his "defenses" against people who try to diminish his importance and influence, especially since such things are as close as music gets to being a matter of fact rather than subjective. Anyone who doesn't think Wagner is in contention for that 4th spot due to influence/importance is, I'd argue, ignorant to some degree on music history. You can be educated and disagree that he definitely deserves that spot--there are certainly other worthy candidates--but to not think he's worthy at all displays far more bias than anyone arguing fervently that he deserves it.


You're probably right. Just I was pretty shocked that people could have this sort of attitude where they believe that a certain composer has an almost divine infallibility and others who do not share their opinions and fanaticism (to use your term) for him are somehow lesser human beings and are of lesser understanding. I was also shocked that to even question the content of the works themselves was viewed as a form of heresy and led me to investigations which have actually confirmed my opinions. I take more kindly to people's 'defences' if points which are a matter of dispute (and they are disputed even among Wagnerian scholars I have read) are not argued so dogmatically. Not trying to criticise you or anyone else but trying to explain my position. 
As to the importance of Wagner, it doesn't matter to me in the slightest whether he is put in first or last place - or any other composer for that matter - in the opinion of others. I don't believe I have argued whether Wagner should be put in fourth spot or not so I don't know why you're implying I have 'ignorance' in this matter. I have certainly been well educated (something I'd thankful for) but I enjoy the music I like - and am thankful I enjoy a whole range of music without getting myself worked up about such things. I'd advise everyone else to do the same. What does it matter anyway? It's music - wonderful entertainment - so enjoy it guys! Wagner included!


----------



## Bulldog

Woodduck said:


> Concrete assessments of what? All you're saying is that popularity is a concrete assessment of popularity.


Expert responses and/or TC polls are opinions that take a backseat to market data. Of course, this is all for fun so it doesn't make much difference what methods are used.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> The fact is that Wagner was imo a far greater musician than he was a librettist. But of course he wanted to create 'total works of art'. Harvey Sachs I think sums it up when he says, Wagner 'wanted to be the greatest composer ever, the greatest poet in the German language (he wrote his own libretti, parts of which are awful), and the greatest master of stagecraft in the world.' As Wagner had no doubts about his genius in all fields I don't think it would have occurred to him to even have allowed anyone to even help him edit his libretti.


How do you know that Harvey Sachs accurately states Wagner's ambition "in all fields"? Answer: you don't know. You don't even state your (his) view coherently; first you tell us what Wagner (according to him) "wanted to be," then you tell us that (according to you) he had "no doubts" about what he actually was. That fish story sure got bigger with the retelling.

Even as a longtime student of Wagner, I could not claim to know whether Wagner, in his heart of hearts, "wanted to be" the greatest of all writers in the German language. I do know that he was not a stupid man, and that he had a deep appreciation for his literary heritage. As for being the greatest composer, you yourself have quoted elsewhere a statement by him calling Mozart the greatest genius of all time and in all the arts, and Wagner once said of himself that unless he had a great dramatic theme to inspire him, he was no better than competent as a composer. I can tell you further that his experience in mounting the Bayreuth festival was not such as to encourage in him any illusions about the supremacy of his "stagecraft." In fact, it caused him to say that now that he had invented the invisible orchestra, he wished he could invent the invisible stage. (Wagnerian humility? Who would have imagined...?) Furthermore, it would not "have occurred to him to even have allowed anyone to even help him edit his libretti," not because of some exaggerated notion that he was the German Shakespeare, but because he was conceiving his libretti and music as a unified whole and knew, as any great artist knows, that no one else could possibly have collaborated with him in realizing his visions. This doesn't mean that his work is perfect in all particulars, but it's an excellent clue to its unquestionable integrity.

A little more research might present you with the challenge of having to be more objective and give the much-reviled Wagner some credit for something besides concocting decent "entertainments."

But you would not welcome that challenge. You've talked a great deal about Wagner on the forum. Sadly, much of what you've stated about him is stuff you don't know to be true, but are pleased to call your "opinion," and much of that opinion - as here - concerns what you conceive to be Wagner's defective character and, by clear implication, the excessive adulation of people who appreciate his work and speak from real knowledge of it. How terrible it would be to have to moderate your cherished opinions in the face of facts! I don't expect you to do that, but you really ought at least to tell us how you think your scorn and derision advance any conversation that anyone has been having, or wants or needs to have, about Wagner's work. And you need to explain how you expect it to do anything but annoy and outrage people seriously interested in music, or to encourage other determined naysayers who harbor the same baffling impulses as yourself.

This unfortunate business inspires me to reflect that the proportion of pernicious baiting and trolling on this forum is discouragingly high. Putting people down for their love of art and their desire to express and share that love is one of the most pernicious forms I can think of. It's the very opposite of what a forum of this kind is designed for, and ought to be about.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> it would not "have occurred to him to even have allowed anyone to even help him edit his libretti," not because of some exaggerated notion that he was the German Shakespeare, but because he was conceiving his libretti and music as a unified whole.


Yes. And that was the key innovation and departure from the great opera composers who preceded him. So great a departure, that the operas of Mozart or Rossini seem to belong to an entirely different art form. And as I've said, the idea of music being part of a fully integrated multimedia presentation, routine today and probably much easier to bring about than during the 19th century due to modern technology, owes much, in my opinion, to Wagner. You don't have to be a musicologist to see and hear it. Max Steiner and Wolfgang Korngold both came from Vienna and brought a dramatic approach to music inspired by Wagner (and Mahler) directly to Hollywood.

All of the above doesn't mean you can't rank Wagner wherever you want, and enjoy sitting through Meistersingers or despise it. You can be one of those fanatics who travels around the world to attend Ring cycles, or not. I'm not. But I was aware of his importance long before I noticed these strange online Wagner battles that seem to get vicious and personal for no reason.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> I was aware of his importance long before I noticed these strange online Wagner battles that seem to get vicious and personal for no reason.


There may be no (good) reason, but there are causes. Among composers, Wagner, being grandly ambitious, complex, controversial, and burdened with conflicting interpretations of his work and historical accretions, is an obvious target for self-styled iconoclasts, people who think there's some cachet in toppling, or simply taking swipes at, cultural monuments. These are generally people with a need to prove themselves exceptionally smart, sophisticated or skeptical of the "common wisdom," and one of their cruder techniques is to scorn or mock those who revere and extol artists and works of commonly conceded greatness. The mockery may be indirect, taking the shape of minimizing the achievements of the composer in question and the perceptiveness of his admirers by implication, or it may consist of direct personal characterizations of the composer's fans as "obsessive" or "fanatics" or "cultists." Typically, any move one makes to reject and denounce such characterizations is taken as evidence of their correctness, and the more one objects and defends oneself and one's views, the more one is accused of irrational and excessive devotion, in a truly vicious circle.

I consider these people the equivalent of graffiti "artists" who deface public property and imagine that their form of self-expression deserves public display. We've had a number of these "smarties" here on the forum, and Wagner isn't their only target; Beethoven, Chopin and Schubert - cultural icons one might think secure in their reputations - have come in for heavy and uninformed knocking. Some of the knockers no doubt believe that they're offering reasonable musical criticism, but when they decline to back up their judgments with anything substantial and refuse to respond to challenges or to consider real information when it's offered, we have reason for suspicion. The ultimate proof of impure motives, though, is the personal characterizations they level at the composer's admirers. Anyone who resorts to this forfeits any claim to respect for his views.

I suggest that we need to beware of false equivalency when we talk about "vicious and personal battles," over Wagner or any other subject. But that caution is often not in evidence on this forum, where I have found the moderators depressingly unwilling or unable to make the necessary distinctions in instances of this sort of behavior, and far too willing to take the easy road and lay blame indiscriminately. It's apparently acceptable for a member blithely to belittle someone who speaks "too often" or "too admiringly" about a subject, but it's considered "insulting" or "chiding" to call that member out for his offensive behavior and tell him to take his negative attitudes elsewhere.

Is it really possible to speak too admiringly of cultural icons whose work has inspired profound love and extensive scholarly investigation for centuries, and who virtually define Western culture for those who care to investigate them? Perhaps it is. But criticism of great achievements should be undertaken with care and even trepidation, lest we sow senseless strife, undermine the very raison d'etre of the forum, and make fools of ourselves.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> There may be no (good) reason, but there are causes. Among composers, Wagner, being grandly ambitious, complex, controversial, and burdened with conflicting interpretations of his work and historical accretions, is an obvious target for self-styled iconoclasts, people who think there's some cachet in toppling, or simply taking swipes at, cultural monuments. These are generally people with a need to prove themselves exceptionally smart, sophisticated or skeptical of the "common wisdom," and one of their cruder techniques is to scorn or mock those who revere and extol artists and works of commonly conceded greatness. The mockery may be indirect, taking the shape of minimizing the achievements of the composer in question and the perceptiveness of his admirers by implication, or it may consist of direct personal characterizations of the composer's fans as "obsessive" or "fanatics" or "cultists." Typically, any move one makes to reject and denounce such characterizations is taken as evidence of their correctness, and the more one objects and defends oneself and one's views, the more one is accused of irrational and excessive devotion, in a truly vicious circle.
> 
> I consider these people the equivalent of graffiti "artists" who deface public property and imagine that their form of self-expression deserves public display. We've had a number of these "smarties" here on the forum, and Wagner isn't their only target; Beethoven, Chopin and Schubert - cultural icons one might think secure in their reputations - have come in for heavy and uninformed knocking. Some of the knockers no doubt believe that they're offering reasonable musical criticism, but when they decline to back up their judgments with anything substantial and refuse to respond to challenges or to consider real information when it's offered, we have reason for suspicion. The ultimate proof of impure motives, though, is the personal characterizations they level at the composer's admirers. Anyone who resorts to this forfeits any claim to respect for his views.
> 
> I suggest that we need to beware of false equivalency when we talk about "vicious and personal battles," over Wagner or any other subject. But that caution is often not in evidence on this forum, where I have found the moderators depressingly unwilling or unable to make the necessary distinctions in instances of this sort of behavior, and far too willing to take the easy road and lay blame indiscriminately. It's apparently acceptable for a member blithely to belittle someone who speaks "too often" or "too admiringly" about a subject, but it's considered "insulting" or "chiding" to call that member out for his offensive behavior and tell him to take his negative attitudes elsewhere.
> 
> Is it really possible to speak too admiringly of cultural icons whose work has inspired profound love and extensive scholarly investigation for centuries, and who virtually define Western culture for those who care to investigate them? Perhaps it is. But criticism of great achievements should be undertaken with care and even trepidation, lest we sow senseless strife, undermine the very raison d'etre of the forum, and make fools of ourselves.


Well, DavidA, with whom you have had some heated disagreements, just told us he enjoyed listening to Act 3 of Siegfried. Maybe that will inspire others to do the same. Isn't that what's really important?


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Well, DavidA, with whom you have had some heated disagreements, just told us he enjoyed listening to Act 3 of Siegfried. Maybe that will inspire others to do the same. Isn't that what's really important?


Oh, I'm sure others will find our resident Wagner vandal's enjoyment of the composer he claims he's been "put off" thoroughly inspiring. Self-contradictory horse pucky is almost as inspiring as the spirit of slack-jawed, glassy-eyed moral neutrality that makes conversation on this forum so reinforcing to one's faith in the goodness of human nature.


----------



## Couchie

DavidA aspires to damn Wagner with faint praise. We don't let that happen here.


----------



## DavidA

fluteman said:


> Well, DavidA, with whom you have had some heated disagreements, just told us he enjoyed listening to Act 3 of Siegfried. Maybe that will inspire others to do the same. Isn't that what's really important?


Oh man, actually enjoying the music comes a poor second in some people's imaginations! :lol:

Btw, don't tell anyone, but I actually enjoyed the immolation scene from Gotterdamerung last night as well. But please keep that under wraps!


----------



## DavidA

Couchie said:


> DavidA aspires to damn Wagner with faint praise. We don't let that happen here.


You guys are hilarious! :lol:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DavidA said:


> You're probably right. Just *I was pretty shocked that people could have this sort of attitude where they believe that a certain composer has an almost divine infallibility and others who do not share their opinions and fanaticism (to use your term) for him are somehow lesser human beings and are of lesser understanding. I was also shocked that to even question the content of the works themselves was viewed as a form of heresy and led me to investigations which have actually confirmed my opinions.* I take more kindly to people's 'defences' if points which are a matter of dispute (and they are disputed even among Wagnerian scholars I have read) are not argued so dogmatically. Not trying to criticise you or anyone else but trying to explain my position.
> As to the importance of Wagner, it doesn't matter to me in the slightest whether he is put in first or last place - or any other composer for that matter - in the opinion of others. I don't believe I have argued whether Wagner should be put in fourth spot or not so I don't know why you're implying I have 'ignorance' in this matter. I have certainly been well educated (something I'd thankful for) but I enjoy the music I like - and am thankful I enjoy a whole range of music without getting myself worked up about such things. I'd advise everyone else to do the same. What does it matter anyway? It's music - wonderful entertainment - so enjoy it guys! Wagner included!


I would be shocked by such things too, if they happened, but I'm actually not seeing them on this forum. I'm not sure I've seen anyone suggest any composer was infallible--that would mean they think that everything they wrote was a masterpiece--nor that those who don't share their fanatacism are lesser human being with lesser understanding. Nor have I seen where "questioning" is viewed as "heresy." What I _have_ seen often, however, is pushback when opinions are stated as facts, and, even more common, falsities (or very biased perceptions of factual matters) stated as facts. As for arguing points dogmatically, I actually think that's the best way to argue as long as one's mind is open to being changed by new information and facts. It's the process of putting one's beliefs to a trial by fire, and if they survive (without the need for biased rationalization), then they're probably solid. Of course, there are ways to argue dogmatically without being unpleasant about it.

As for your second paragraph, I do want to clarify that my last paragraph--about ranking Wagner, the ignorance of some, etc.--was not directed at you, but was just a general commentary on this thread and discussion. As for "Just enjoy the music," that's certainly fine advice, but surely when anyone comes to a forum like this we're looking to do more (or, perhaps, something else besides) just enjoying music. Part of that is sharing our enjoyment with others, and that can be difficult when some seem intent on tearing down the works and composers we enjoy, or, as I said, belittling/demeaning our experiences. Such things make this--the forum experience--needlessly unpleasant because of the inherent negativity.


----------



## fluteman

Eva Yojimbo said:


> As for "Just enjoy the music," that's certainly fine advice, but surely when anyone comes to a forum like this we're looking to do more (or, perhaps, something else besides) just enjoying music. Part of that is sharing our enjoyment with others, and that can be difficult when some seem intent on tearing down the works and composers we enjoy, or, as I said, belittling/demeaning our experiences. Such things make this--the forum experience--needlessly unpleasant because of the inherent negativity.


When members here post, "Modern music is bad", "Atonal music is bad", "20th century music is worse than 19th century music", or "Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Boulez and Cage are bad", all of which have been said here repeatedly, the problem I have with all that is not that they are belittling or demeaning my experiences, as I am not seeking validation for my tastes and opinions, or comfort in numbers. The problem is, they are not adding anything productive to the discussion. While for me, I far prefer posts that say "XYZ is good", as at least then I can investigate XYZ and maybe I will like it too, if you insist on doing "XYZ is bad" posts, at least tell me why, so I can learn something and reading your post will not have been a waste of my time.

But when a poster says, "Wagner isn't one of my favorite composers because he specialized in operas, and listening to or watching operas isn't my favorite thing, especially ones that are four hours long", that may not be the most profound comment in TC history, but it is a legitimate comment of greater than trivial significance, unlike a simple "Wagner is bad". Such comments are evidence of how theatrical and musical performance conventions and tastes have changed since the 19th century. Those comments really aren't demeaning or belittling either of Wagner's music, or those for whom Wagner is the most important composer in history, or fourth, or certainly no lower than sixth, or .... ;-)


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

fluteman said:


> When members here post, "Modern music is bad", "Atonal music is bad", "20th century music is worse than 19th century music", or "Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Boulez and Cage are bad", all of which have been said here repeatedly, the problem I have with all that is not that they are belittling or demeaning my experiences, as I am not seeking validation for my tastes and opinions, or comfort in numbers. The problem is, they are not adding anything productive to the discussion. While for me, I far prefer posts that say "XYZ is good", as at least then I can investigate XYZ and maybe I will like it too, if you insist on doing "XYZ is bad" posts, at least tell me why, so I can learn something and reading your post will not have been a waste of my time.
> 
> But when a poster says, "Wagner isn't one of my favorite composers because he specialized in operas, and listening to or watching operas isn't my favorite thing, especially ones that are four hours long", that may not be the most profound comment in TC history, but it is a legitimate comment of greater than trivial significance, unlike a simple "Wagner is bad". Such comments are evidence of how theatrical and musical performance conventions and tastes have changed since the 19th century. Those comments really aren't demeaning or belittling either of Wagner's music, or those for whom Wagner is the most important composer in history, or fourth, or certainly no lower than sixth, or .... ;-)


I think we essentially agree. I know people use forums like these for a diverse range of purposes. I think people like you and I enjoy positive recommendations, productive discussions, and enlightening posts to mere statements of opinion. Though I recognize that many value forums like this precisely because it allows them a place to express their opinions. However, I also think opinions can be expressed in ways that are more (or, is frequently and sadly the case, less) respectful of others with differing opinions, especially when it comes to the negative variety. Indeed, the quote you mention about Wagner in your second paragraph is an ideal way of offering such an opinion.

Over the years I've also become much more immune to those who are vociferously negative about things that are very important to me; but I also remember when I was much younger and impressionable how I would often take such things personally, so I'm mindful of those who may still do so and I've worked at finding ways to express my negative opinions in ways that I hope and feel is respectful to those who may (passionately) love the things I don't. I know there are some of certain political persuasions who think all this is endemic of the snowflake-ifying of recent generations, but I just look at it as learning how to not be an ***.


----------



## Blancrocher

fluteman said:


> When members here post, "Modern music is bad", "Atonal music is bad", "20th century music is worse than 19th century music", or "Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Boulez and Cage are bad", all of which have been said here repeatedly, the problem I have with all that is not that they are belittling or demeaning my experiences, as I am not seeking validation for my tastes and opinions, or comfort in numbers. The problem is, they are not adding anything productive to the discussion.


I want to agree with you, but in my experience hearing persuasive articulations of why a given work I happen to admire is worthless from someone who knows _way_ more about music than I ever will is far more maddening--the lazy denunciations are very easy for me to ignore!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Blancrocher said:


> I want to agree with you, but in my experience hearing persuasive articulations of why a given work I happen to admire is worthless from someone who knows _way_ more about music than I ever will is far more maddening--the lazy denunciations are very easy for me to ignore!


A good way to restore sanity is to understand that knowledge can't and doesn't justify preferences (knowledge pertains to facts; preferences do not), it just helps in better articulating what our preferences happen to be.


----------



## Xisten267

tdc said:


> But it has already been pointed out that Mozart's operas inspired Tchaikovsky to compose (not just operas, but to compose), Michael Nyman has stated that everything he composed is based off inspiration he got from _The Marriage of Figaro_. *Charles Rosen suggests the revolutionary kind of counterpoint used in The Magic Flute, which was pioneered by Mozart had a certain clarity and reduced dissonance and was influential on Beethoven's harmonic language.* I am sure there are many more examples of the wide influence of Mozart's operatic music.


I think you've made a fine point here. I admit I've never heard of this revolutionary counterpoint pioneered by Mozart before, and am quite interested in reading Rosen's book now. In my defense, I must say that in the sources I have at my disposal, that include books such as Ziegler's "Music: The Definitive Visual History", Bourne's "Opera: The Great Composers and Their Masterworks", Pahlen's "The Opera", Massin's "History of Western Music", DK's "The Complete Classical Music Guide" and others, plus magazines, an opera collection, and wikipedia, it is never cited. In the english wikipedia page for _Die Zauberflöte_ the words "counterpoint" and "contrapuntal" doesn't even appear, and I don't remember having seem this important influence on Beethoven being discussed in Thayer's "The Life of Beethoven" also (although the book makes it clear that _Die Zaublerflöte_ seemed to be the Beethoven's favorite opera by Mozart).


----------



## Xisten267

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't think so. I've listened to Gluck. I like Gluck. I respect the innovations he introduced; but I don't return to Gluck with the same awe that I do with Mozart, do I expect most people given how rarely Gluck is performed by comparison. If we were to make a comparison, it's not unlike DW Griffith's legacy in film compared to that of Welles or Hitchcock; yes, Griffith introduced most of the techniques that Welles and Hitch would refine and master, but how many regularly return to Birth of a Nation or Intolerance the way they do to Vertigo or Citizen Kane?


I listened to Gluck's _Orfeo ed Euridice_ and to Mozart's _Idomeneo_ yesterday to compare them. In terms of rhythmic vivacity, melodic invention, and variety of texture I must say I clearly prefer Mozart's opera, but at least in one aspect Gluck has the upper hand for me: form.

Gluck's _Orfeo_ (as other of his late operas) doesn't have those IMO damned _secco_ recitatives that abound in most operas before Wagner, and I love the fact that he uses a progressive continuous, fluid musical line in it (them) instead of the usual opera structure divided into fragmentary musical numbers and recitatives. And to be fair with the composer, I must say that I really like the second and third acts of his first reform opera, and that I've been impressed with the chorus of the Furies since the first time I listened to his _Orfeo_.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Allerius said:


> I listened to Gluck's _Orfeo ed Euridice_ and to Mozart's _Idomeneo_ yesterday to compare them. In terms of rhythmic vivacity, melodic invention, and variety of texture I must say I clearly prefer Mozart's opera, but at least in one aspect Gluck has the upper hand for me: form.
> 
> Gluck's _Orfeo_ (as other of his late operas) doesn't have those IMO damned _secco_ recitatives that abound in most operas before Wagner, and I love the fact that he uses a progressive continuous, fluid musical line in it (them) instead of the usual opera structure divided into fragmentary musical numbers and recitatives. And to be fair with the composer, I must say that I really like the second and third acts of his first reform opera, and that I've been impressed with the chorus of the Furies since the first time I listened to his _Orfeo_.


Secco recitatives don't bother me in the least; I dare say that I even enjoy them when there's some thought given to their composition, as Mozart did. I'd also suggest it's telling when you suggest there's much to recommend Mozart's Idomeneo over Gluck's Orfeo given that Idomeneo, while a superb opera in its own right, typically isn't considered to be in the same class as Figaro, Don G., Cosi, or Flute. Still, I can appreciate the reasons you give for preferring Orfeo formally. Perhaps if I shared your dislike for secco recitatives I'd agree more strongly, but one thing I love about Mozart's opera is how well he matched other musical forms to the content.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> Different institutes give different results. Maximilian Schich, Doheum Park, Arram Bae & Juyong Park from University of Texas and Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) performed statistical research analysis on 63,679 CDs of music and 13,981 composers from the period of 1500~2015, created a map showing their network of influence and ranked them in terms of influence on music history.
> https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-015-0039-z
> _"In the composer-composer network JS Bach has the highest degree, k=1,551, approximately 103 times that of average degree k¯¯¯=15.1, followed by WA Mozart with k=1,086."_
> 
> The list went like
> https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-015-0039-z/tables/1
> 
> 1. Bach (k =1551)
> 2. Mozart (k =1086)
> 3. Handel
> 4. Brahms
> ...
> 
> View attachment 123355


I think that these are interesting correlations, but they don't (and don't pretend to) measure influence. They do measure popularity and correlations between placements of composers in CDs, as was explained in the site:

"Each centrality can be interpreted as representing distinct composer characteristics: The bipartite degree represents a composer's popularity; the projected degree represents a composer's compatibility with others; the eigenvector centrality is a generalization of the degree that considers the quality of connections (e.g. whether a composer tends to be paired with other prominent composers); the betweenness centrality measures how often a composer acts as an intermediary between two composers. Periods are abbreviated: Baroque (B), Classical (C), Romantic (R), and Modern (M)."

It would have been a bit weird to have the results of Verdi or Tchaikovsky as being more influential composers than Beethoven, Wagner, Debussy or Stravinsky, wouldn't it?


----------



## fluteman

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I think we essentially agree. I know people use forums like these for a diverse range of purposes. I think people like you and I enjoy positive recommendations, productive discussions, and enlightening posts to mere statements of opinion. Though I recognize that many value forums like this precisely because it allows them a place to express their opinions. However, I also think opinions can be expressed in ways that are more (or, is frequently and sadly the case, less) respectful of others with differing opinions, especially when it comes to the negative variety. Indeed, the quote you mention about Wagner in your second paragraph is an ideal way of offering such an opinion.
> 
> Over the years I've also become much more immune to those who are vociferously negative about things that are very important to me; but I also remember when I was much younger and impressionable how I would often take such things personally, so I'm mindful of those who may still do so and I've worked at finding ways to express my negative opinions in ways that I hope and feel is respectful to those who may (passionately) love the things I don't. I know there are some of certain political persuasions who think all this is endemic of the snowflake-ifying of recent generations, but I just look at it as learning how to not be an ***.


Yes, expressing one's opinions politely and respectfully is a good idea for many reasons, not least of which is that it is far more likely those opinions will get serious consideration. I'd like to think I can ignore nastiness directed at me if there is something buried within it worth considering, but like anyone else, I won't put up with it for long. In other words, don't be an ***.

The fundamental problem with these Wagner debates is that you have people on both sides feeling they are not being treated with respect. A pro-Wagnerite might feel that great art worthy of the careful study and profound respect he gives it is being spray-painted with graffiti (Woodduck's metaphor), while an anti-Wagnerite, or less enthusiastic pro-Wagnerite, might feel he is being treated with condescension and as an ignorant dummy who should read a few books before he dares say anything about the love duet in Siegfried. I think both have good points to make, but you do have to wade through a lot of invective that need not be there.


----------



## DavidA

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I would be shocked by such things too, if they happened, but I'm actually not seeing them on this forum. I'm not sure I've seen anyone suggest any composer was infallible--that would mean they think that everything they wrote was a masterpiece--nor that those who don't share their fanatacism are lesser human being with lesser understanding. Nor have I seen where "questioning" is viewed as "heresy." What I _have_ seen often, however, is pushback when opinions are stated as facts, and, even more common, falsities (or very biased perceptions of factual matters) stated as facts. *As for arguing points dogmatically, I actually think that's the best way to argue as long as one's mind is open to being changed by new information and facts*. It's the process of putting one's beliefs to a trial by fire, and if they survive (without the need for biased rationalization), then they're probably solid. Of course, there are ways to argue dogmatically without being unpleasant about it.
> 
> As for your second paragraph, I do want to clarify that my last paragraph--about ranking Wagner, the ignorance of some, etc.--was not directed at you, but was just a general commentary on this thread and discussion. As for "Just enjoy the music," that's certainly fine advice, but surely when anyone comes to a forum like this we're looking to do more (or, perhaps, something else besides) just enjoying music. Part of that is sharing our enjoyment with others, and that can be difficult when some seem intent on tearing down the works and composers we enjoy, or, as I said, belittling/demeaning our experiences. Such things make this--the forum experience--needlessly unpleasant because of the inherent negativity.


Well of course, you maybe have committed the heresy of questioning certain things. Never mind - it's only opera - fantasy - fiction! There are far greater things in the world to get steamed up about. As for arguing dogmatically the problem is that there are certain things we cannot be dogmatic about and certain people insist on being dogmatic about them. This to me is living in a bubble and a failure to see there are two sides of the argument. I have engaged in running discussion groups and one thing I have tried to get across to people is the difference between fact and opinion. There are some people who haven't actually grasped the fact that their own opinions are not necessarily facts. 
Your second paragraph is a contradiction of what you actually say in that in any discussion there are various points of view and any point of view can bring in both negative and positive. If we are discussing a certain composers ranking there will be both positive and negative comments as to whether he deserves the particular ranking. Unfortunately the people who you have labelled as having a certain 'fanatical' appreciation tend to get very offended at what they perceive as 'negative' comments and this makes things difficult. So please, if we're going to have discussion it must be two way. In any case, how on earth could a comment on TC that (eg) a libretto is too long possibly belittle an experience of music you are 'fanatical' about? If someone says to me Figaro is rubbish I will just put it on the CD player and enjoy it all the more because I believe that person is wrong in their comment. I ask perfectly secure in what I like and enjoy. If people honestly believe they are so right then why the insecurity? Just get on and enjoy the music.


----------



## DavidA

fluteman said:


> Yes, expressing one's opinions politely and respectfully is a good idea for many reasons, not least of which is that it is far more likely those opinions will get serious consideration. I'd like to think I can ignore nastiness directed at me if there is something buried within it worth considering, but like anyone else, I won't put up with it for long. In other words, don't be an ***.
> 
> The fundamental problem with these Wagner debates is that you have people on both sides feeling they are not being treated with respect. A pro-Wagnerite might feel that great art worthy of the careful study and profound respect he gives it is being spray-painted with graffiti (Woodduck's metaphor), while an anti-Wagnerite, or less enthusiastic pro-Wagnerite, might feel he is being treated with condescension and as an ignorant dummy *who should read a few books before he dares say anything about the love duet in Siegfried.* I think both have good points to make, but you do have to wade through a lot of invective that need not be there.


Correction - he should read the right books which say the 'correct' things before he dares say anything about the love duet in Siegfried. :lol:

The fact is there is lots of literature out there which says a variety of contradictory things!


----------



## DavidA

To me Mozart is as great a revolutionary as Wagner wrt opera if you consider the leap forward that Figaro made to what went before it. True the form is still there but it is expanded beyond belief and the characterisation is now such that it has never perhaps been surpassed in its humanity. In fact the three da Ponte operas represent a vast leap forward in opera as great as anything else that has been seen. And of course Zauberflaute stands on its own as an entertainment whose music lifts it into a lofty sphere far beyond its incomprehensible (to all but freemasons) libretto. When I listen to Handel's operas I am swept away by the beauty of the music but the characters are wooden. With Mozart the characters come alive as never before. Quite incredible Just listening to the soprano / tenor duet in Cosi - Mozart's music convinces you this is serious even though you know the guy is play acting. Or is he? Quite astonishing!


----------



## DavidA

Allerius said:


> It would have been a bit weird to have the results of *Verdi* or Tchaikovsky as being more influential composers than Beethoven, Wagner, Debussy or Stravinsky, wouldn't it?


'We are talking about Beethoven. Before such a name we all prostrate ourselves reverently!' (G Verdi)


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> *The fundamental problem* with these Wagner debates is that *you have people on both sides* *feeling* they are not being treated with respect. A pro-Wagnerite *might **feel *that great art worthy of the careful study and profound respect he gives it is being spray-painted with graffiti (Woodduck's metaphor), while an anti-Wagnerite, or less enthusiastic pro-Wagnerite, *might feel* he is being treated with condescension and as an ignorant dummy who should read a few books before he dares say anything about the love duet in Siegfried. I think *both have good points to make*, but you do have to wade through a lot of invective that need not be there.


Let's all burst into song here: 




Wiping away my tears, let me suggest that there is no "fundamental problem with these Wagner debates," but several problems with them, and with forum debates (which might better be described as wrangles) in general. A common problem is that many people won't distinguish between feelings and facts, or act as if facts are unimportant or expendable when their feelings are at stake. When you create a caricature of a "pro-Wagnerite" faction that somehow makes people _feel_ that they need to do something as ridiculous as "read a few books before they dare say anything about the love duet in Siegfried," and when you posit two factions which "both have good points to make," you are (no doubt inadvertantly) perpetuating the illusory and destructive notion that factionalism is tolerable in the pursuit of knowledge, and you are siding with the one of your two factions that gives primacy to "feelings." The questions of whether or not anyone is offering anything of objective value, and whether or not it's offered in good faith, seem not to be important to you. What's "fundamental" to you is that some people "might feel."

A little while back I started a thread in which I hoped to explore the presence of religious ideas in Wagner's _Parsifal._ Aware that any mention of religion arouses "feelings," I tried to steer the discussion in a productive way while allowing people the latitude to approach it in different ways. The thread nevertheless attracted three members who thought that their "feelings" about the subject were more important than looking into it as I had tried to frame it. What they "felt" the need to do was to mock the composer and the very idea that religion should play a part in his thought or work, and to express their basic scorn for those who would take the subject seriously. I strongly recommend that you look at that thread and see what people's "feelings" are worth in a discussion initiated with the most serious and sincere of intentions. Note particularly that my attempts to keep the conversation focused and my rejection of attempts to undermine it resulted in me and lovers of Wagner in general being labeled with the usual insulting epithets: "fanatic," "obsessive", and the like. Apparently _our_ "feelings" about having things we care about stupidly disparaged don't matter any more to those motivated by "feelings" than does the pursuit of real knowledge.

I've been dealing for years with certain people's "feelings'' about Wagner, which they've "felt" like throwing, grenade-fashion, into whatever discussions involving Wagner they can find. Having to read a "both sides" defense of their boastful ignorance and their negatory tactics, as if they were somehow equivalent to my own store of knowledge and understanding and my own joy in sharing it, makes me "feel" like puking.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Let's all burst into song here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiping away my tears, let me suggest that there is no "fundamental problem with these Wagner debates," but several problems with them, and with forum debates (which might better be described as wrangles) in general. A common problem is that many people won't distinguish between feelings and facts, or act as if facts are unimportant or expendable when their feelings are at stake. When you create a caricature of a "pro-Wagnerite" faction that somehow makes people _feel_ that they need to do something as ridiculous as "read a few books before they dare say anything about the love duet in Siegfried," and when you posit two factions which "both have good points to make," you are (no doubt inadvertantly) perpetuating the illusory and destructive notion that factionalism is tolerable in the pursuit of knowledge, and you are siding with the one of your two factions that gives primacy to "feelings." The questions of whether or not anyone is offering anything of objective value, and whether or not it's offered in good faith, seem not to be important to you. What's "fundamental" to you is that some people "might feel."
> 
> A little while back I started a thread in which I hoped to explore the presence of religious ideas in Wagner's _Parsifal._ Aware that any mention of religion arouses "feelings," I tried to steer the discussion in a productive way while allowing people the latitude to approach it in different ways. The thread nevertheless attracted three members who thought that their "feelings" about the subject were more important than looking into it as I had tried to frame it. What they "felt" the need to do was to mock the composer and the very idea that religion should play a part in his thought or work, and to express their basic scorn for those who would take the subject seriously. I strongly recommend that you look at that thread and see what people's "feelings" are worth in a discussion initiated with the most serious and sincere of intentions. Note particularly that my attempts to keep the conversation focused and my rejection of attempts to undermine it resulted in me and lovers of Wagner in general being labeled with the usual insulting epithets: "fanatic," "obsessive", and the like. Apparently _our_ "feelings" about having things we care about stupidly disparaged don't matter any more to those motivated by "feelings" than does the pursuit of real knowledge.
> 
> I've been dealing for years with certain people's "feelings'' about Wagner, which they've "felt" like throwing, grenade-fashion, into whatever discussions involving Wagner they can find. Having to read a "both sides" defense of their boastful ignorance and their negatory tactics, as if they were somehow equivalent to my own store of knowledge and understanding and my own joy in sharing it, makes me "feel" like puking.


You talk about facts, knowledge and ignorance and make fun of my repeated use of the word "feelings". I guess I could have used the word "humors", British spelling "humours", as it is used here:

But notwithstanding all our endeavours to fix a standard of taste, and reconcile the discordant apprehensions of men, there still remain two sources of variation, which are not sufficient indeed to confound all the boundaries of beauty and deformity, but will often serve to produce a difference in the degrees of our approbation or blame. *The one is the different humours of particular men; the other, the particular manners and opinions of our age and country.* The general principles of taste are uniform in human nature: where men vary in their judgments, some defect or perversion in the faculties may commonly be remarked; proceeding either from prejudice, from want of practice, or want of delicacy; and there is just reason for approving one taste, and condemning another. *But where there is such a diversity in the internal frame or external situation as is entirely blameless on both sides, and leaves no room to give one the preference above the other; in that case a certain degree of diversity in judgment is unavoidable, and we seek in vain for a standard, by which we can reconcile the contrary sentiments. *

Hume, Of the Standard of Taste. Here, not only do we obviously have differences in "particular humours of particular men" in this forum, but "the particular manners and opinions of our age and country" differ markedly from those of Wagner's age and country, and perhaps also between posters here, who come from different backgrounds and all over the world. Therefore, you err in insisting aesthetic questions such as those of this thread can be reduced to facts and knowledge. The position of some here that opera is not their primary interest, and in particular they do not wish to sit through a four-hour one, and for these and similar reasons, Wagner's work is not quite as important to them as it is to you, ultimately has nothing to do with facts or knowledge, and everything to do with feelings or humours, and that is perfectly legitimate. Puke if you must, but no artist is all important to everyone for all time. Art doesn't work that way.

And I think Wagner would be gratified that virtually all of his work is regularly performed, whereas only one or maybe two of Meyerbeer's arias occasionally make it into recital programs. I also think he would understand why opera doesn't occupy the same central role in our musical culture as it did in his time.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> you err in insisting aesthetic questions such as those of this thread can be reduced to facts and knowledge.


That isn't what I've done. What I've done is distinguish between people who are _clearly interested in facts, respect them, and seek understanding_, and people who just want to give their "opinions" and express their "feelings" without regard for whether their opinions and feelings are based in anything real. At the extreme - a not uncommon extreme, I find - they will insist on their "right to an opinion" in a manner that implies that anyone trying to offer real information is insulting them and deserves to be mocked and vilified. I could provide many examples of this, but will avoid naming names, since big brother may be watching out for the poor little grenade throwers whose "feelings" could be hurt.



> The position of some here that opera is not their primary interest, and in particular they do not wish to sit through a four-hour one, and for these and similar reasons, Wagner's work is not quite as important to them as it is to you, ultimately has nothing to do with facts or knowledge, and everything to do with feelings or humours, and that is perfectly legitimate.


If these people you're making excuses for don't want to sit through a four-hour opera, that's an honorable choice. Let them not sit through it, but instead pursue interests they prefer. What isn't an honorable choice is to insert themselves into serious discussions in order to tell everyone that they're not interested in the subject or don't take it seriously, and to disparage the composer, the opera, and the people who care enough to be having a serious discussion. Their last resort, when their thoughtless or offensive behavior is called out, is the very one you've employed: to pretend that it all comes down to "feelings" and "humours," and that we all have a a perfect right to express ours, no matter how offensive to facts or persons.

The _best_ thing I can credit you with here is a failure to pay attention to how discussions of Wagner (and other subjects) frequently develop. Just go to the opera forum, look up Wagner, and watch the contributions of a certain member who sniffs out Wagner discussions the way a mosquito smells blood, is crudely explicit in his insistence that Wagner was a semi-competent, confused, wicked clown who created racist, tedious (but entertaining!) operas which the rest of us are fools for taking seriously, and responds to all objections to his gleeful disruptions with pleas that he's "just expressing his opinion" and can't we all just be friends.

The _worst_ thing I can credit you with is a deliberate refusal to acknowledge that there's such a thing as dishonest and offensive conversation. But I think you're too smart not to know that it's a real thing, and that it happens here.


----------



## DavidA

fluteman said:


> You talk about facts, knowledge and ignorance and make fun of my repeated use of the word "feelings".
> 
> .


You must realise that to certain folks 'facts' are their own opinions, 'knowledge' is what they have come to believe and 'ignorance' is what is possessed by anyone who doesn't agree with them.


----------



## mikeh375

DavidA said:


> Off course it is true. Of course, that doesn't mean the composer has to write with this in mind but of course if no-one wants to listen it's a bit of a waste of time apart from your own enjoyment in expressing yourself. As a creative artist you can only write what is inside you - you write it and people either want to listen or not. Same with writing prose / poetry and all the arts. Of course, it is my privilege to have so many genius talented 'servants' on my shelf - both the composers and the artists who perform when put on the turntable. *But they are not an object of some sort of reverence but enjoyment. I*'m just listening to Yuja Wang playing the very highbrow 'Tea for Two' from the Prom Concert - audio only I might add!


This is something a lot of established composers would do well to understand imv. I've always understood that the composer may have to entertain if success is to be pursued and won and I did that professionally (somewhat cynically at times, but also necessary given the genre I was working in), by writing at a standard far short of what I can personally do in terms of pure music. I've also met some considerable arrogance, especially in formative years, from some composers who did not have a listeners perspective on what music actually is to them, the composers believing they and their work were somehow special.

The ubiquity of composers and music, good and bad (especially bad) on the internet alone, along with the cheapening of music commercially (again, thanks to the internet), has quite probably had a detrimental effect on composers and music's efficacy along with devaluing their worth. It seems to me that the composer is still enduring a fall from the admiring grace bestowed in the previous (mechanical/digital reproduction free) centuries that surely can't get any lower..(can it?).


----------



## DavidA

mikeh375 said:


> This is something a lot of established composers would do well to understand imv. I've always understood that the composer may have to entertain if success is to be pursued and won and I did that professionally (somewhat cynically at times, but also necessary given the genre I was working in), by writing at a standard far short of what I can personally do in terms of pure music.* I've also met some considerable arrogance, especially in formative years, from some composers who did not have a listeners perspective on what music actually is to them, the composers believing they and their work were somehow special.*
> 
> The ubiquity of composers and music, good and bad (especially bad) on the internet alone, along with the cheapening of music commercially (again, thanks to the internet), has quite probably had a detrimental effect on composers and music's efficacy along with devaluing their worth. It seems to me that the composer is still enduring a fall from the admiring grace bestowed in the previous (mechanical/digital reproduction free) centuries that surely can't get any lower..(can it?).


It certainly is unbelievable arrogance in the part of these guys to discount the listener. Even the greats like Bach, Mozart and Beethoven (at least in the beginning) wrote for an audience in mind. If the purpose of the music is to communicate then not to write with an audience in mind that appears utterly futile


----------



## Fabulin

DavidA said:


> It certainly is unbelievable arrogance in the part of these guys to discount the listener. Even the greats like Bach, Mozart and Beethoven (at least in the beginning) wrote for an audience in mind. If the purpose of the music is to communicate then not to write with an audience in mind that appears utterly futile


There is a good quote by Bernard Herrmann concerning this (4:09+):


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DavidA said:


> Well of course, you maybe have committed the heresy of questioning certain things. Never mind - it's only opera - fantasy - fiction! There are far greater things in the world to get steamed up about. As for arguing dogmatically the problem is that there are certain things we cannot be dogmatic about and certain people insist on being dogmatic about them. This to me is living in a bubble and a failure to see there are two sides of the argument. I have engaged in running discussion groups and one thing I have tried to get across to people is the difference between fact and opinion. There are some people who haven't actually grasped the fact that their own opinions are not necessarily facts.


First, if you're going to make a point to bring up the "facts" and "opinions" dichotomy and argue that there are things one shouldn't be dogmatic about because "there are two sides of the argument," it's probably not good that, just prior to that, you've offered the rather dogmatic "it's only opera - fantasy - fiction!" statement, as if that were a fact as opposed to your "opinion(ated)" value judgment, to which exists other "sides of the argument" that feel that such "only" reductions utterly fail to capture the profundity of the experiences they've had with the medium. One can "only" anything, and doing so is always, in itself, nothing but an opinion. Second, I'd argue it's a fundamental fact that people can be (and are) dogmatic about anything and everything; whether they should be is another matter, and is also dictated more by opinions rather than facts. There's also "two sides" on that issue too.



DavidA said:


> Your second paragraph is a contradiction of what you actually say in that in any discussion there are various points of view and any point of view can bring in both negative and positive. If we are discussing a certain composers ranking there will be both positive and negative comments as to whether he deserves the particular ranking. Unfortunately the people who you have labelled as having a certain 'fanatical' appreciation tend to get very offended at what they perceive as 'negative' comments and this makes things difficult. So please, if we're going to have discussion it must be two way. In any case, how on earth could a comment on TC that (eg) a libretto is too long possibly belittle an experience of music you are 'fanatical' about? If someone says to me Figaro is rubbish I will just put it on the CD player and enjoy it all the more because I believe that person is wrong in their comment. I ask perfectly secure in what I like and enjoy. If people honestly believe they are so right then why the insecurity? Just get on and enjoy the music.


I don't see how my second paragraph contradicts anything I said. People can be ignorant about a subject, and they can project that ignorance into factual matters. Some of these issues are, indeed, about facts, some are about opinions, and some are about opinions regarding factual matters. To make the distinction, whether Wagner is a good composer is purely opinion (at least until there is some universal definition of "good" that defines the term in factual matters); whether Wagner was a 19th century composer is fact; whether Wagner was influential is a factual matter that's difficult to precisely quantify, and as such opinions concerning it can be more or less educated. This third category is not unlike doctor's "opinions" about what treatments patients should receive; the correct treatment is a factual matter that's unknown, and thus we value educated opinions because they're more likely to be correct than uneducated ones.

People frequently fail to distinguish what type of discussion they're in, and will mistake opinions for facts, or not recognize that the given subject is a factual matter in which educated opinions are innately more valuable, etc. So while, yes, you can have "multiple points of view" on factual matters, this doesn't mean they're all equally valuable or educated. Multiple points of view of purely subjective matter is fine (and expected), but hackles are raised more when the factual matters are treated as just opinions, or when opinions are treated as facts. To bring this around to this discussion, yes, a composer's "ranking" may be subjective and allow for many points of view, but when we move to discussing criteria for that ranking that is about factual issues like influence, those multiple points of view are not all equally educated and valuable, and some can be flat-out wrong. But even when it does come to "matters of opinion," there are still ways--as I've discussed above--of expressing one's opinions without being offensive. I manage to do it all the time. If you find that people are getting offended by your negative comments, then perhaps you should consider how you're expressing them and ways in which you could say the same thing but in a less offensive matter.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> The _worst_ thing I can credit you with is a deliberate refusal to acknowledge that there's such a thing as dishonest and offensive conversation. But I think you're too smart not to know that it's a real thing, and that it happens here.


Sure. But when people are accused of ignorance, they often feel offended, and they often respond in angry and offensive ways. That's not a good idea, but it is human nature. If that's what the opera forum is like, I will never even look at it. The worst thing I can credit you with is a deliberate refusal to acknowledge that when people don't want to sit through four-hour operas, there is potentially more going on than a lack of interest or desire to take a subject seriously, though no doubt that is sometimes the case. There has been a profound change in the nature and role of performance art in western culture from the 19th century to today, well beyond changes specifically relating to music. Ironically, I think that impacts Wagner more than other 18th and 19th century opera composers, due to the cohesiveness of Wagner's concepts and their development over long spans of time. I've performed Wagner's music in the orchestra, and while there are no real technical challenges, it is exhausting to maintain the focus needed to stay with his slow thematic development. Other opera composers have a much more episodic approach and string tuneful arias together that can be lifted out of context and presented separately to great effect. Verdi is probably the best at this approach. It was therefore no surprise to me that in the ArkivMusic list I compiled, Wagner was second to Verdi among the opera specialists. Verdi is excellent sliced, diced and highlighted. That serves today's audiences, who are used to shorter, faster-paced, episodic performance art.

Your debate opponents are not so always articulate or edifying, but when DavidA says he enjoys listening to Act 3 of Siegfried but the love duet is too long, what that says to me is when you try to slice, dice and highlight Wagner, you can lose an important aspect of his overall concept, and his dramatic pacing makes less sense. It's still great music, but chopping it into short, digestible pieces works less well than highlighting, say, Verdi or Puccini.

And so, as an outsider to the Wagner wars, I see how you and the more conventional music lover of today would view Wagner very differently. But I can't and won't take your side, which I find surprising, as you are a former performing musician, aren't you? All performing musicians, certainly professional ones trying to make a living, understand the importance of communicating with their audience. Dismissing the audiences of today as ignorant because for the most part they won't sit through four-hour operas (even those who take a serious interest in music), underestimates the audiences of today and gets you nowhere.


----------



## DavidA

Eva Yojimbo said:


> First, if you're going to make a point to bring up the "facts" and "opinions" dichotomy and argue that there are things one shouldn't be dogmatic about because "there are two sides of the argument," it's probably not good that, just prior to that, *you've offered the rather dogmatic "it's only opera - fantasy - fiction!" statement, as if that were a fact as opposed to your "opinion(ated)" value judgment, *to which exists other "sides of the argument" that feel that such "only" reductions utterly fail to capture the profundity of the experiences they've had with the medium. One can "only" anything, and doing so is always, in itself, nothing but an opinion. Second, I'd argue it's a fundamental fact that people can be (and are) dogmatic about anything and everything; whether they should be is another matter, and is also dictated more by opinions rather than facts. There's also "two sides" on that issue too.
> 
> I don't see how my second paragraph contradicts anything I said. People can be ignorant about a subject, and they can project that ignorance into factual matters. Some of these issues are, indeed, about facts, some are about opinions, and some are about opinions regarding factual matters. To make the distinction, whether Wagner is a good composer is purely opinion (at least until there is some universal definition of "good" that defines the term in factual matters); whether Wagner was a 19th century composer is fact; whether Wagner was influential is a factual matter that's difficult to precisely quantify, and as such opinions concerning it can be more or less educated. This third category is not unlike doctor's "opinions" about what treatments patients should receive; the correct treatment is a factual matter that's unknown, and thus we value educated opinions because they're more likely to be correct than uneducated ones.
> 
> People frequently fail to distinguish what type of discussion they're in, and will mistake opinions for facts, or not recognize that the given subject is a factual matter in which educated opinions are innately more valuable, etc. So while, yes, you can have "multiple points of view" on factual matters, this doesn't mean they're all equally valuable or educated. Multiple points of view of purely subjective matter is fine (and expected), but hackles are raised more when the factual matters are treated as just opinions, or when opinions are treated as facts. To bring this around to this discussion, yes, a composer's "ranking" may be subjective and allow for many points of view, but when we move to discussing criteria for that ranking that is about factual issues like influence, those multiple points of view are not all equally educated and valuable, and some can be flat-out wrong. But even when it does come to "matters of opinion," there are still ways--as I've discussed above--of expressing one's opinions without being offensive. I manage to do it all the time. If you find that people are getting offended by your negative comments, then perhaps you should consider how you're expressing them and ways in which you could say the same thing but in a less offensive matter.


Everything I say in that line is an opinion. Sorry, I tend to credit the readers with the intelligence to see that, without constantly stating it. besides, how would you describe opera in which people sing instead of talk to the accompaniment of an orchestras? Real life? If you can find anything wrong with the terms that it is 'fantasy and fiction' then I would like to hear what the objection is. I believe Lord of the Rings is fantasy and fiction too and is marketed as such. Your problem is you are trying to split hairs with semantics to try and booster some argument of your own which I cannot see. Are educated opinions more correct than uneducated ones? When Trevor Roper was deceived by the Hitler diaries and archeologists by the Piltdown Man hoax? Not always. Yes, I have inhabited the lofty realms of higher education but I have not always found wisdom there. 
I can't see what point you're trying to make in your second paragraph as this is exactly the point I am making. There are multiple points of view. Just take the voluminous literature that has been written on the composer most under discussion and there are multiple and often contradictory opinions about the so-called 'facts' by 'learned' people - all of whom would claim to have some degree of scholarship - who have had essays, books, etc published and reviewed. Yet we have people who tell us that there is only be one point of view that is valid- their own - and take offence at any opinion other than their own being expressed, even when that opinion is held by scholars.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

fluteman said:


> Sure. But when people are accused of ignorance, they often feel offended, and they often respond in angry and offensive ways. That's not a good idea, but it is human nature. If that's what the opera forum is like, I will never even look at it. The worst thing I can credit you with is a deliberate refusal to acknowledge that when people don't want to sit through four-hour operas, there is potentially more going on than a lack of interest or desire to take a subject seriously, though no doubt that is sometimes the case. There has been a profound change in the nature and role of performance art in western culture from the 19th century to today, well beyond changes specifically relating to music. Ironically, I think that impacts Wagner more than other 18th and 19th century opera composers, due to the cohesiveness of Wagner's concepts and their development over long spans of time. I've performed Wagner's music in the orchestra, and while there are no real technical challenges, it is exhausting to maintain the focus needed to stay with his slow thematic development. Other opera composers have a much more episodic approach and string tuneful arias together that can be lifted out of context and presented separately to great effect. Verdi is probably the best at this approach. It was therefore no surprise to me that in the ArkivMusic list I compiled, Wagner was second to Verdi among the opera specialists. Verdi is excellent sliced, diced and highlighted. That serves today's audiences, who are used to shorter, faster-paced, episodic performance art.
> 
> Your debate opponents are not so always articulate or edifying, but when DavidA says he enjoys listening to Act 3 of Siegfried but the love duet is too long, what that says to me is when you try to slice, dice and highlight Wagner, you can lose an important aspect of his overall concept, and his dramatic pacing makes less sense. It's still great music, but chopping it into short, digestible pieces works less well than highlighting, say, Verdi or Puccini.
> 
> And so, as an outsider to the Wagner wars, I see how you and the more conventional music lover of today would view Wagner very differently. But I can't and won't take your side, which I find surprising, as you are a former performing musician, aren't you? All performing musicians, certainly professional ones trying to make a living, understand the importance of communicating with their audience. Dismissing the audiences of today as ignorant because for the most part they won't sit through four-hour operas (even those who take a serious interest in music), underestimates the audiences of today and gets you nowhere.


I completely understand why many people would have trouble sitting through Wagner's operas; and that's far from just "today's audiences," as I'm closer to being a "today's audience" and can easily marathon Der Ring without getting bored/distracted, while my parents/aunts/uncles/grandparents would never be caught dead near any performance that required 4-hours of their undivided attention. As understandable as that preference is, I also think it's a bit myopic when someone who has a clear bias against such time-intensive works and artists begins arguing that they're overrated or undeserving of their praise merely due to that bias. There are artists in all mediums and genres that I am innately biased against for any number of reasons, and in such cases I don't feel qualified to comment on their status one way or the other. On the other hand, if it's an artist whose work is similar enough to others that I do like, then at least I feel I have some basis for comparison in saying why I like one rather than the other. What's worse, though, is that when people take that bias and assume negative things about factual matters relating to importance/influence. To make an analogy, you can hate Shakespeare all you want, but to then try to argue from that hatred to saying that he wasn't important/influential is, indeed, pure ignorance.

FWIW, I don't think "ignorance" should be offensive, since we are all ignorant about many things. That's just a commentary on the amount of things there is to know. Being ignorant is no sin, but being ignorant and yet arrogantly confident in one's opinions is one of the more annoying traits a human can possess. Sadly, that combination seems all-too-common given the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Why would someone who is innately biased against Wagner's long operas to begin with, and potentially ignorant about their importance/influence think it a good idea to jump into serious discussions about such things to begin with only to belittle, degrade, denigrate, and whatever adjectives you want to use, the composer, works, and those who do take it seriously? I generally don't even like commenting on artists/works I don't like in general, especially in threads where people are seriously discussing them, but what the heck is the point of doing so repeatedly? What's the reason for continually injecting such negativity into such discussions? At least on a subject like this where the entire point is to debate "tiers" and who's better/worse, deserving/not, I can understand it; but in a thread specifically started to discuss certain aspects of that composer and those works?


----------



## DavidA

fluteman said:


> Sure. But when people are accused of ignorance, they often feel offended, and they often respond in angry and offensive ways. That's not a good idea, but it is human nature. If that's what the opera forum is like, I will never even look at it. The worst thing I can credit you with is a deliberate refusal to acknowledge that when people don't want to sit through four-hour operas, there is potentially more going on than a lack of interest or desire to take a subject seriously, though no doubt that is sometimes the case. There has been a profound change in the nature and role of performance art in western culture from the 19th century to today, well beyond changes specifically relating to music. Ironically, I think that impacts Wagner more than other 18th and 19th century opera composers, due to the cohesiveness of Wagner's concepts and their development over long spans of time. I've performed Wagner's music in the orchestra, and while there are no real technical challenges, it is exhausting to maintain the focus needed to stay with his slow thematic development. Other opera composers have a much more episodic approach and string tuneful arias together that can be lifted out of context and presented separately to great effect. Verdi is probably the best at this approach. It was therefore no surprise to me that in the ArkivMusic list I compiled, Wagner was second to Verdi among the opera specialists. Verdi is excellent sliced, diced and highlighted. That serves today's audiences, who are used to shorter, faster-paced, episodic performance art.
> 
> Your debate opponents are not so always articulate or edifying, but when DavidA says he enjoys listening to Act 3 of Siegfried but the love duet is too long, what that says to me is when you try to slice, dice and highlight Wagner, you can lose an important aspect of his overall concept, and his dramatic pacing makes less sense. It's still great music, but chopping it into short, digestible pieces works less well than highlighting, say, Verdi or Puccini.
> 
> And so, as an outsider to the Wagner wars, I see how you and the more conventional music lover of today would view Wagner very differently. But I can't and won't take your side, which I find surprising, as you are a former performing musician, aren't you? All performing musicians, certainly professional ones trying to make a living, understand the importance of communicating with their audience. *Dismissing the audiences of today as ignorant because for the most part they won't sit through four-hour operas (even those who take a serious interest in music), underestimates the audiences of today and gets you nowhere.*


The use of this term 'ignorance' when someone doesn't share your enthusiasm for something is really tragic. It actually comes from a mindset that doesn't see that there are other aspects to people other than the ones we ourselves enjoy. My wife is a highly educated woman with six professional qualifications she has picked up over the years. Yet she doesn't share my enthusiasm for opera. Is she ignorant? No! Is she unmusical? No! She has two diplomas in music from a leading academy. Just that her interests in music lie elsewhere. So I would respectfully urge people to stop using this sort of attempted put down on other people on TC. It really just proves the rule that when you point a finger at others three are pointing back at you.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DavidA said:


> Everything I say in that line is an opinion. Sorry, I tend to credit the readers with the intelligence to see that, without constantly stating it. besides, how would you describe opera in which people sing instead of talk to the accompaniment of an orchestras? Real life? If you can find anything wrong with the terms that it is 'fantasy and fiction' then I would like to hear what the objection is. I believe Lord of the Rings is fantasy and fiction too and is marketed as such. Your problem is you are trying to split hairs with semantics to try and booster some argument of your own which I cannot see. Are educated opinions more correct than uneducated ones? When Trevor Roper was deceived by the Hitler diaries and archeologists by the Piltdown Man hoax? Not always. Yes, I have inhabited the lofty realms of higher education but I have not always found wisdom there.
> I can't see what point you're trying to make in your second paragraph as this is exactly the point I am making. There are multiple points of view. Just take the voluminous literature that has been written on the composer most under discussion and there are multiple and often contradictory opinions about the so-called 'facts' by 'learned' people - all of whom would claim to have some degree of scholarship - who have had essays, books, etc published and reviewed. Yet we have people who tell us that there is only be one point of view that is valid- their own - and take offence at any opinion other than their own being expressed, even when that opinion is held by scholars.


The problem with not "constantly stating" something is an opinion is precisely that people don't know if you intend the statement as an opinion or, indeed, think it factual. You yourself has stated that people confuse the two, so why would you assume that they would assume you meant it as one or the other?

No fiction is "real life," but that's hardly the point I was making. Art can have profound effects on people in part because it invites reflections on real life, and often by departing from "real life" it can highlight aspects of the way "real life" seems as we experience more so than just presenting "real life" anyway (I recently wrote about this in the "opera is stupid" thread). The issue wasn't that you're calling it "fantasy and fiction," but rather it was the "only" qualifier, which is innately meant to belittle its value. Indeed, your constant mantra of it all being "just entertainment" is innately belittling to something that clearly means more to some people than being mere entertainment. You obviously know this, and yet continue to state such things as if they were facts, which equally suggests that people are somehow wrong or foolish for appreciating them on any deeper level. You want to "credit readers with the intelligence to see" that you're just offering opinions, but you should credit yourself with the intelligence to understand how such comments come across to people with "different points of view."

I'm not trying to "split hairs." You brought up the "fact" and "opinion" dichotomy; I elaborated on where the problems lie when people start getting the two mixed up. Educated opinions are more likely to be correct on matters of fact where the answers are not certainly known. Bringing up examples of where experts were fooled doesn't mean anything; the issue in such cases is probabilities, not binaries of who was wrong/right. Your doctor can be wrong about your diagnosis, but he is undoubtedly more likely to be right than Random Joe on the street.

I'm sure there are points of dispute even within the literature among experts on factual matters. There is such in the sciences as well. Yet there are also matters of fact that aren't disputed that most all experts agree on. Noting that the former disputes exist doesn't negate that there are points of widespread expert agreement as well, and some people love to use their bias to cherry-pick the parts that fit their own perspective.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DavidA said:


> The use of this term 'ignorance' when someone doesn't share your enthusiasm for something is really tragic. It actually comes from a mindset that doesn't see that there are other aspects to people other than the ones we ourselves enjoy. My wife is a highly educated woman with six professional qualifications she has picked up over the years. *Yet she doesn't share my enthusiasm for opera. Is she ignorant? No! *Is she unmusical? No! She has two diplomas in music from a leading academy. Just that her interests in music lie elsewhere. So I would respectfully urge people to stop using this sort of attempted put down on other people on TC. It really just proves the rule that when you point a finger at others three are pointing back at you.


Actually, that depends. If she doesn't know anything about opera, hasn't read anything about it, hasn't listened to much of it, then she is demonstrably ignorant about opera. Ignorance isn't a universal binary of you are/aren't, it's a spectrum that applies to any subject that one can know anything about.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> And so, as an outsider to the Wagner wars, I see how you and the more conventional music lover of today would view Wagner very differently. But I can't and won't take your side, which I find surprising, as you are a former performing musician, aren't you? All performing musicians, certainly professional ones trying to make a living, understand the importance of communicating with their audience. Dismissing the audiences of today as ignorant because for the most part they won't sit through four-hour operas (even those who take a serious interest in music), underestimates the audiences of today and gets you nowhere.


Where are you getting any of this? When Have I ever said a word about "audiences of today" and what they can sit through? And what do you think my "side" is? I didn't know there were "sides."

I was talking about proper argumentation and forum conduct. I don't know what you're talking about, but you seem to be talking to someone else.


----------



## DavidA

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Actually, that depends. If she doesn't know anything about opera, hasn't read anything about it, hasn't listened to much of it, then she is demonstrably ignorant about opera. Ignorance isn't a universal binary of you are/aren't, it's a spectrum that applies to any subject that one can know anything about.


I see it's pointless trying to discuss anything with someone like you as you employ the 'ignorance' argument again. I can see you are one of those who cannot see that there is another point of view and that highly intelligent people can see things differently to you. Never mind. Just leave it. Else we go round the merry-go-round.


----------



## DavidA

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The problem with not "constantly stating" something is an opinion is precisely that people don't know if you intend the statement as an opinion or, indeed, think it factual. You yourself has stated that people confuse the two, so why would you assume that they would assume you meant it as one or the other?
> 
> No fiction is "real life," but that's hardly the point I was making. Art can have profound effects on people in part because it invites reflections on real life, and often by departing from "real life" it can highlight aspects of the way "real life" seems as we experience more so than just presenting "real life" anyway (I recently wrote about this in the "opera is stupid" thread). The issue wasn't that you're calling it "fantasy and fiction," but rather it was the "only" qualifier, which is innately meant to belittle its value. Indeed, your constant mantra of it all being "just entertainment" is innately belittling to something that clearly means more to some people than being mere entertainment. You obviously know this, and yet continue to state such things as if they were facts, which equally suggests that people are somehow wrong or foolish for appreciating them on any deeper level. You want to "credit readers with the intelligence to see" that you're just offering opinions, but you should credit yourself with the intelligence to understand how such comments come across to people with "different points of view."
> 
> I'm not trying to "split hairs." You brought up the "fact" and "opinion" dichotomy; I elaborated on where the problems lie when people start getting the two mixed up. Educated opinions are more likely to be correct on matters of fact where the answers are not certainly known. Bringing up examples of where experts were fooled doesn't mean anything; the issue in such cases is probabilities, not binaries of who was wrong/right. Your doctor can be wrong about your diagnosis, but he is undoubtedly more likely to be right than Random Joe on the street.
> 
> I'm sure there are points of dispute even within the literature among experts on factual matters. There is such in the sciences as well. Yet there are also matters of fact that aren't disputed that most all experts agree on. Noting that the former disputes exist doesn't negate that there are points of widespread expert agreement as well, and *some people love to use their bias to cherry-pick the parts that fit their own perspective*.


As you are doing here - but sadly you appear to be unaware of it.


----------



## fluteman

Eva Yojimbo said:


> At least on a subject like this where the entire point is to debate "tiers" and who's better/worse, deserving/not, I can understand it; but in a thread specifically started to discuss certain aspects of that composer and those works?


Yes, I've been looking at online classical music discussion groups since 2004, so as you can imagine, the points you make in your post are not lost to me. But when I see the type of debating you describe, I don't read it, I click away. A good example is the attempt to find anti-Jewish themes in Wagner's operas, including by some serious musicologists. Now, Wagner was in the "When you need a scapegoat, blame the Jews" camp, but no more so than many of his contemporaries in the arts. Were it not for the actively pro-Nazi views of some of his descendants, and the performance of his music in Nazi Germany long after his death, would we still be reading those musicological essays? I think not.

This is actually a good example of the basis for one of my foundation beliefs, i.e., that though it is often beneficial to read scholarly research about music, in the first instance music must speak for itself to the listener. Among other things, scholarly research is not always worthwhile. Great music like Wagner's always is. So, debate over scholarship usually doesn't interest me. This thread, with its discussion of ranking, did interest me, in no small part due to my social science background. I wondered if it was possible to analyze objective data in a meaningful way on this topic. I think my conclusion is, it is, but only to a limited extent.


----------



## MaxKellerman

DavidA said:


> As you are doing here - but sadly you appear to be unaware of it.


As opposed to highlighting one small portion of someone's response and ignoring the rest of it of course.


----------



## fluteman

Fabulin said:


> There is a good quote by Bernard Herrmann concerning this (4:09+):


Thanks for that. All of it is well worth listening to.


----------



## DavidA

MaxKellerman said:


> As opposed to highlighting one small portion of someone's response and ignoring the rest of it of course.


As you are doing off course!


----------



## DavidA

Fabulin said:


> There is a good quote by Bernard Herrmann concerning this (4:09+):


I was interested to read about Hermann in Andre Previn's book, 'No Minor Chords', in that he was apparently a man who constantly assumed the worst. Well worth a read.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DavidA said:


> I see it's pointless trying to discuss anything with someone like you as you employ the 'ignorance' argument again. I can see you are one of those who cannot see that there is another point of view and that highly intelligent people can see things differently to you. Never mind. Just leave it. Else we go round the merry-go-round.


What argument did I employ other than to define what ignorance actually was and to suggest that there's actually nothing wrong with being ignorant as long as one is humble? This seems like a blatant cop-out to avoid addressing the issue at hand.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DavidA said:


> As you are doing here - but sadly you appear to be unaware of it.


Again, accusations and insults but a complete lack of evidence supporting them and an avoidance of the issues being discussed. I'm sensing a pattern here.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DavidA said:


> As you are doing off course!


Well now that's a flat-out lie: He quoted and responded to the entirety of your one-sentence response!


----------



## mmsbls

Please return to the thread topic rather than commenting on each other.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Well now that's a flat-out lie: He quoted and responded to the entirety of your one-sentence response!


It does help one's sanity to keep a list of members on this board not worth replying to. My advice to you is make one and stick to your ignore mode when you see them post.

You can disagree with people and debate with reasonable people who hold opposing views and feel you are involved in something constructive - but there are a few whose chief posting characteristic is hostility.

Cross them out - and be a happy poster on TC.


----------



## Ethereality

I don't believe there is really an objective top 3, as in Beethoven, Bach, Mozart. Much of this placing is due to traditional expectation instead of open analysis. Sure, these composers do place close to the top, but there are composers due to tradition who are much more deserving of the recognition and overpraise these composers get, such as Haydn, Dvorak, Monteverdi, Prokofiev, Mahler. I don't know if humanity (consensually) is caught up to fair objective judgement.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Ethereality said:


> I don't believe there is really an objective top 3, as in Beethoven, Bach, Mozart. Much of this placing is due to traditional expectation instead of open analysis. Sure, these composers do place close to the top, but there are composers due to tradition who are much more deserving of the recognition and overpraise these composers get, such as Dvorak, Prokofiev, Haydn, Mahler, Monteverdi. I don't know if humanity (consensually) is caught up to fair objective judgement.


So why then would Dvorak place higher than Mozart Bach Beethoven, in your opinion?

Let's have some fair objective comment.


----------



## Ethereality

Well I don't believe in an _objective_ top 3, since I don't know if humanity is caught up to fair objective judgment or what that entails, but as for Dvorak, for any composer you first need to view them through all varieties of lenses in order to assess them to the best fit of their niche. The issue with Romantic composers for instance, is many listeners compare them improperly with the Classical niche which is based foundationally on an extraverted comparative _flow,_ rather than moreso beginning to base itself on a introverted reflection of impressions and loftier developments, and inherently not yet moved into a much more multi-layered, multi-dimensional category, even though traditional _aesthetic_ comparison has these Romantic aspects built in too. Classical is more easily discernible and interpretable in its philosophy from the get go, hence yes more objectifiable. But that has no bearing on the_ quality_ of it. It only seems to have bearing on the _popularity_ or _ability_ to be widely judged. This would just be my preliminary statement, if I had to start out, because this opens a deeper subject. Similar to a requirement for university, you can understand any subject, but one needs to meet the requirements and that takes time. Thus certain composers take more exploration, time and experience than they're typically given to properly understand, hence many not establishing the proper connection with say Dvorak to judge him as thoroughly as they easily can Bach or Beethoven's more straightforward approach. Hence why there can not be an objective top 3. At each tier you'd start crossing into completely new artforms altogether, and the current top 3 are only somewhat closer to a pseudo-scientific comprehension due to it excluding all these other artforms. That's not objectivity.


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> I don't believe there is really an objective top 3, as in Beethoven, Bach, Mozart. Much of this placing is due to traditional expectation instead of open analysis. Sure, these composers do place close to the top, but there are composers due to tradition who are much more deserving of the recognition and overpraise these composers get, such as Haydn, Dvorak, Monteverdi, Prokofiev, Mahler. I don't know if humanity (consensually) is caught up to fair objective judgement.


The problem with denying the validity of a judgment on grounds that it isn't objective is finding an objective reason for proposing an alternative. Can you support _objectively_ your proposal of those other composers as possible equals or superiors to the "big three" ?


----------



## fluteman

Ethereality said:


> Well I don't believe in an _objective_ top 3, since I don't know if humanity is caught up to fair objective judgment or what that entails [ .... ]


As we seem to be starting this thread over again, I'll predict that the only possible conclusion, again, will be that "fair objective judgment" isn't entirely possible for a topic like composer ranking, as you have already said. I'll skip ahead and say that I and a few others here have suggested how objective rankings could be constructed, albiet ones limited in context, significance, and of course, accuracy. Others probably had better ideas than I did. Then we can argue about Mozart and Wagner for a while.


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> The problem with denying the validity of a judgment on grounds that it isn't objective is finding an objective reason for proposing an alternative. Can you support _objectively_ your proposal of those other composers as possible equals or superiors to the "big three" ?


Something more objective than the current argument, yes. But certainly nothing that everyone else claims it is at this point. The topic matter is much too complex to be taken so definitively, and it takes a while for truly participating parties to flesh out and come to similar understandings.



fluteman said:


> As we seem to be starting this thread over again, I'll predict that the only possible conclusion, again, will be that "fair objective judgment" isn't entirely possible for a topic like composer ranking, as you have already said. I'll skip ahead and say that I and a few others here have suggested how objective rankings could be constructed, albiet ones limited in context, significance, and of course, accuracy. Others probably had better ideas than I did. Then we can argue about Mozart and Wagner for a while.


And what did you suggest?


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> Something more objective than the current argument, yes. But certainly nothing that everyone else claims it is at this point. The topic matter is much too complex to be taken so definitively, and it takes a while for truly participating parties to flesh out and come to similar understandings.


What's the "current argument," and who are "everyone else" and "truly participating parties"? Never mind "similar understandings." What are _your _understandings? Why do you think that Haydn, Dvorak, Monteverdi, Prokofiev and Mahler (all great composers, no doubt), each one's work taken as a whole, are equal or superior to Bach, Mozart and Beethoven? Who else would you propose for that distinction? Even a partial answer would be helpful, if your suggestions are to be taken at all seriously.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Ethereality said:


> Well I don't believe in an _objective_ top 3, since I don't know if humanity is caught up to fair objective judgment or what that entails, but as for Dvorak, for any composer you first need to view them through all varieties of lenses in order to assess them to the best fit of their niche. The issue with Romantic composers for instance, is many listeners compare them improperly with the Classical niche which is based foundationally on an extraverted comparative _flow,_ rather than moreso beginning to base itself on a introverted reflection of impressions and loftier developments, and inherently not yet moved into a much more multi-layered, multi-dimensional category, even though traditional _aesthetic_ comparison has these Romantic aspects built in too. Classical is more easily discernible and interpretable in its philosophy from the get go, hence yes more objectifiable. But that has no bearing on the_ quality_ of it. It only seems to have bearing on the _popularity_ or _ability_ to be widely judged. This would just be my preliminary statement, if I had to start out, because this opens a deeper subject. Similar to a requirement for university, you can understand any subject, but one needs to meet the requirements and that takes time. Thus certain composers take more exploration, time and experience than they're typically given to properly understand, hence many not establishing the proper connection with say Dvorak to judge him as thoroughly as they easily can Bach or Beethoven's more straightforward approach. Hence why there can not be an objective top 3. At each tier you'd start crossing into completely new artforms altogether, and the current top 3 are only somewhat closer to a pseudo-scientific comprehension due to it excluding all these other artforms. That's not objectivity.


You assume listeners who select Bach Beethoven Mozart dont select Dvorak because they have not made a "proper connection"

how do you know what connection these who did not vote for Dvorak have established?

You could make that argument about any composer.

Which really means it is no argument at all. It only tells me you prefer Dvorak to the big 3.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Ethereality said:


> Something more objective than the current argument, yes. But certainly nothing that everyone else claims it is at this point. The topic matter is much too complex to be taken so definitively,* and it takes a while for truly participating parties to flesh out and come to similar understandings.*
> 
> And what did you suggest?


LOL - where have you been? We have been thrashing this out since 2010 and still have Bach Beethoven and Mozart at the top


----------



## Ethereality

PlaySalieri said:


> You assume listeners who select Bach Beethoven Mozart dont select Dvorak because they have not made a "proper connection"
> 
> how do you know what connection these who did not vote for Dvorak have established?
> 
> You could make that argument about any composer.
> 
> Which really means it is no argument at all. It only tells me you prefer Dvorak to the big 3.


Try to read more deeply if you can, because I don't think you understood my post in the least. Romanticism garnered a different philosophy about music, meter, timing and construction, and did not even attempt to compose like past composers. To assume there's a comparison or a top 3, is like saying listening to music is better than doing science. They're different categories of great things. You can't measure a scientific method against music that doesn't fit into that method, while people have attempted this with Beethoven and Bach, trying to fit other composers into a formula made for them, like an IQ test.



Woodduck said:


> What's the "current argument," and who are "everyone else" and "truly participating parties"? Never mind "similar understandings." What are _your _understandings? Why do you think that Haydn, Dvorak, Monteverdi, Prokofiev and Mahler (all great composers, no doubt), each one's work taken as a whole, are equal or superior to Bach, Mozart and Beethoven? Who else would you propose for that distinction? Even a partial answer would be helpful, if your suggestions are to be taken at all seriously.


Fair enough. My perspective is personally based on the larger patterns of logic and evidence I notice in musical trends, but I don't have my data ready to be presented yet. This is obviously something I would need to spend some greater time on.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Ethereality said:


> Try to read more deeply if you can, because I don't think you understood my post in the least. Romanticism garnered a different philosophy about music, meter, timing and construction, and did not even attempt to compose like past composers. To assume there's a comparison or a top 3, is like saying listening to music is better than reading books.


Are you saying we should rank romantic composers against each other - but not have an overall table of ranking across all eras?

I still dont know what you are getting at - and neither does anybody else. Maybe you will answer Wooduck's last post because you just appear to be rambling without defining what you are talking about.

no it is not like saying music is better than reading books


----------



## Woodduck

PlaySalieri said:


> LOL - where have you been? We have been thrashing this out since 2010 and still have Bach Beethoven and Mozart at the top


In fact, I think we've been thrashing it out since 1910.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Ethereality said:


> Try to read more deeply if you can, because I don't think you understood my post in the least. Romanticism garnered a different philosophy about music, meter, timing and construction, and did not even attempt to compose like past composers. To assume there's a comparison or a top 3, is like saying listening to music is better than doing science. They're different categories of great things. You can't measure a scientific method against music that doesn't fit into that method, while people have attempted this with Beethoven and Bach, trying to fit other composers into a formula made for them, like an IQ test.
> 
> Fair enough. My perspective is personally based on the larger patterns of logic and evidence I notice in musical trends, *but I don't have my data ready to be presented yet.* This is obviously something I would need to spend some greater time on.


OK - when you have the data in a format ready to present - come back to this discussion.

There are already people who wont take part in rankings as they don't see it as valid or meaningful.

If that is your view - you don't need any data to justify it so save yourself a lot of time and trouble.


----------



## fluteman

Ethereality said:


> And what did you suggest?


You can look at my post 145 or hammeredklavier's post 250. My approach was rather simplistic, the study cited by hammered probably better, but such proposals (I think there was one other even earlier in this thread than mine) are alone in this thread in being based upon objective data, whatever one thinks of the resulting rankings.


----------



## tjohn97atcl

Based on innovation, influence and timelessness I think it's undisputed that Beethoven remains in tier 1(even more so than Mozart).


----------

