# Over Rated Top 50 Composers: Your Humble Opinion



## HarpsichordConcerto

The purpose of this thread is for you to express your humble opinion on which composer(s) you think are over rated in Talk Classical's Top 50 Composers list recently compiled. I have created a separate thread to encourage all members, irrespective of whether you participated at all in the voting of the list, to express your opinion.

Note:-
(1) This thread is *not* about attacking the merits of the list overall; its point system, its statistical credibility or any of that nature.
(2) This thread is *not* about attacking the merits of the individual composer(s) who you feel might be over rated in the list. Indeed, you might well enjoy the composer's oeuvre very much but feel the ranking has elevated him or not to point where you feel you might like to express your opinion about it.

Here is the top 50, in fact the top 54, as of today:-

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


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I'll start with one. I think Messiaen is too high. I think at #41 is over rated. I have several of his pieces, including his famous SQ which I suspect is probably the single piece that motivated many votes. I might well be wrong. But that's my opinion about Messiaen at #41.


----------



## Trout

Saint-Saens is about 10 places too high in my opinion.


----------



## Toddlertoddy

Chopin: everything he did had a piano in it. How about a little more variety?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Mozart is too damn high!


----------



## StevenOBrien

I personally think Dvorak is a little high, but that seems to be a matter of taste. He's a good composer, even though I've never personally found much to gain from his symphonies or chamber music, but higher than the likes of Chopin? Stravinsky? Ravel? Prokofiev? Shostakovich? Strauss? I don't really understand it.

Same with Faure and Vaughan Williams, but to a much lesser extent, and I don't know their music as well.

Then as HarpsichordConcerto said, Messiaen, for the same reasons. Janacek too.

J.C. Bach is a difficult one, as he's unfortunately not as well known as some of his contemporaries, so he won't appear on most Top 100 lists, but does he deserve his place here? In my opinion, he was the most important influences on Mozart's style, and he wrote some absolutely beautiful music that I have no doubt will see a revival in the near future. But even though I was one of the first to vote for him, I think he might be too high at this stage, but again, it's difficult to gauge.


----------



## neoshredder

So many are too high. Most of the 19th century stuff is too high.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Elgar is too damn high! He doesn't deserve to be on the list at all!


----------



## Sid James

Won't comment on whether Messiaen is 'too high,' but fact is he's one of the composers that got me into post-1945 music big time. So I see no problem with him at where he is in the list.

Overall I don't really care for these lists, I won't spoil the party, but the fact is that go out in the real world and Wagner would not get within the top ten of a 'general' list like this. He definitely would in opera, but that's a different realm, more specialised. Same as Chopin being in the top ten of a general list, he wouldn't make that (and he hasn't here), but he would make it easily in a piano-only list.

I can't comment further or I'll break the rules the OP has set up, which isn't my intention to do. But people who've been on this forum long enough know my opinion of Wagner, so no need to repeat it ad nauseum.


----------



## jani

Beethoven is too low he should be number ONE, Sibelius is too low, Chopin should be lower.


----------



## StevenOBrien

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Mozart is too damn high!


Oh yes. You're such a hipster, COAG. Please tell us more about your apparent difficulty with tonal music, how great your compositions are, and of course, your love for everything Ligeti. 

So why do you think he's too high, and who do you think would be better suited for the upper positions?


----------



## jani

StevenOBrien said:


> Oh yes. You're such a hipster, COAG. Please tell us more about your apparent difficulty with tonal music, how great your compositions are, and of course, your love for everything Ligeti.
> 
> So why do you think he's too high, and who do you think would be better suited for the upper positions?


He is jealous for Mozart, just like Salieri was ( Yeah, i know that the movie Amadeus has lots of fiction in it)


----------



## PetrB

I am curious if your 'top 54' is derived from a popular poll, stats on how many recordings of those composer's works are consumed and played on programs, etc.

From your list, I would delete:
11. Mendelssohn (and then that is a 'maybe')
15. Tchaikovsky
19. Shostakovich
20. Strauss, Richard
28. Bruckner
29. Saint-Saëns
30. Elgar
31. Fauré
32. Vaughan Williams
33. Rachmaninoff
34. Puccini
39. Grieg
45. Rimsky-Korsakov
49. Barber (another maybe, a meticulous craftsman Some of whose music I think quite fine, but not much of it.)
50. Bach, J.C.
51. Gluck
53. Scriabin
54. Ligeti - (my verdict is not yet in on this one, but I think far too much is made of this one, at least currently)

I'm not going to add more names to what, in a way, I think is a pointless exercise / amusement.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

StevenOBrien said:


> Oh yes. You're such a hipster, COAG. Please tell us more about your apparent difficulty with tonal music, how great your compositions are, and of course, your love for everything Ligeti.
> 
> So why do you think he's too high, and who do you think would be better suited for the upper positions?


*Ligeti* is better for the higher positions. No. 1 in particular. A lot of Mozart's work I think is quite predictable and not very interesting. His divertimenti quickly get boring, his early and middle concerti sound too similar and too typical of the classical era. A lot of his early works are poorly written and uninventive, his music is only good after the mid 1780s. It is also disappointing that he has not written very many good Sturm und Drang symphonies like Haydn. I don't see why his music is so special when there are so many more composers out there who have written so music that is so much better.


----------



## Sid James

ComposerOfAvantGarde, after those comments about Wolfie, I guarantee (well, almost!) you will be 'youtubed.' In other words, you will have at least half a dozen examples of 'The Great Wig's' music thrown in your face very shortly, in order to contradict what you say. Another opinion against your opinion backed up the THE SHEER FORCE OF YOUTUBE. 

Mark my words, it's gonna happen, sooner or later...always happens when a sacred cow is felled...it's as if we're in India or something...but I don't see wigs on the streets here as there are Brahman cows in Mumbai or wherever...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Sid James said:


> ComposerOfAvantGarde, after those comments about Wolfie, I guarantee (well, almost!) you will be 'youtubed.' In other words, you will have at least half a dozen examples of 'The Great Wig's' music thrown in your face very shortly, in order to contradict what you say. Another opinion against your opinion backed up the THE SHEER FORCE OF YOUTUBE.
> 
> Mark my words, it's gonna happen, sooner or later...always happens when a sacred cow is felled...it's as if we're in India or something...but I don't see wigs on the streets here as there are Brahman cows in Mumbai or wherever...


Mozart ain't that great. He just happened to become incredibly famous, his later works are good from about the mid 80s onwards but his early and middle works are really not that great compared to music of his contemporaries. Compare Mozart's symphony no. 19 to CPE Bach's Hamburg Symphony no. 1 in D major. I stick to my opinions and I am not changing them.


----------



## Lisztian

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Mozart ain't that great. He just happened to become incredibly famous, his later works are good from about the mid 80s onwards but his early and middle works are really not that great compared to music of his contemporaries. Compare Mozart's symphony no. 19 to CPE Bach's Hamburg Symphony no. 1 in D major. I stick to my opinions and I am not changing them.


I'm not a huge fan of Mozart myself, but I don't think that you can put too much stock into Mozart not being that great based on his earlier works when he was a) so young and b) still developing as a composer. You think his works from the mid 80's are good - from when he was about *30* years old...an age where many of the great composers had not written the works we know them for today. So with that in mind, how good do you think his later works are compared to the other greats? I think that's how you should judge a composer like that rather than condemn him for his younger efforts (which are considered consistently good-great by most classical music lovers, mind you).


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Lisztian said:


> I'm not a huge fan of Mozart myself, but I don't think that you can put too much stock into Mozart not being that great based on his earlier works when he was a) so young and b) still developing as a composer. You think his works from the mid 80's are good - from when he was about *30* years old...an age where many of the great composers had not written the works we know them for today. So with that in mind, how good do you think his later works are compared to the other greats? I think that's how you should judge a composer like that rather than condemn him for his younger efforts (which are considered consistently good-great by most classical music lovers, mind you).


His works from the mid 80s are good and he does show good use of harmony and counterpoint, but there are still other composers who were writing brilliant music as good as that in their 30s. Thomas Adès for example. He has written some absolutely terrific music back in the 1990s and early 2000s when he was around thirty years old (and younger)


----------



## crmoorhead

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> His works from the mid 80s are good and he does show good use of harmony and counterpoint, but there are still other composers who were writing brilliant music as good as that in their 30s. Thomas Adès for example. He has written some absolutely terrific music back in the 1990s and early 2000s when he was around thirty years old (and younger)


Thomas Ades might be an interesting one to watch in future decades, but you should probably check the stats with Mozart. Mozart's output was scary - over 600 pieces before the age of 35. He also wrote excellent music in every field. Thomas Ades writes in todays idiom, but Mozart perfected the idiom of his day as well as expanding it's boundaries. Mozart's stuff before he was 20 probably isn't that of a master, but it was still very well written. If Mozart had lived longer, I think that he would have undoubtedly topped Bach as the No. 1. I'd be interested to see if you can point to a composer that has written at least one masterpiece per year from the age of 25 to 35.

Of course, I do still place Beethoven and Bach above him. I also (thought I don't think you will agree) quite like Haydn.


----------



## Rapide

Prokofiev is too high. 

Not enough French composers on the list so far.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

crmoorhead said:


> Thomas Ades might be an interesting one to watch in future decades, but you should probably check the stats with Mozart. Mozart's output was scary - over 600 pieces before the age of 35. He also wrote excellent music in every field. Thomas Ades writes in todays idiom, but Mozart perfected the idiom of his day as well as expanding it's boundaries. Mozart's stuff before he was 20 probably isn't that of a master, but it was still very well written. If Mozart had lived longer, I think that he would have undoubtedly topped Bach as the No. 1. I'd be interested to see if you can point to a composer that has written at least one masterpiece per year from the age of 25 to 35.
> 
> Of course, I do still place Beethoven and Bach above him. I also (thought I don't think you will agree) quite like Haydn.


I do like Haydn. At least he was more consistent with the quality of his symphonies than Mozart.


----------



## crmoorhead

PetrB said:


> I am curious if your 'top 54' is derived from a popular poll, stats on how many recordings of those composer's works are consumed and played on programs, etc.


Eh? It's derived from the votes on this forum, don't you pay attention?



> From your list, I would delete:
> 11. Mendelssohn (and then that is a 'maybe')
> 15. Tchaikovsky
> 19. Shostakovich
> 20. Strauss, Richard
> 28. Bruckner
> 29. Saint-Saëns
> 30. Elgar
> 31. Fauré
> 32. Vaughan Williams
> 33. Rachmaninoff
> 34. Puccini
> 39. Grieg
> 45. Rimsky-Korsakov
> 49. Barber (another maybe, a meticulous craftsman Some of whose music I think quite fine, but not much of it.)
> 50. Bach, J.C.
> 51. Gluck
> 53. Scriabin
> 54. Ligeti - (my verdict is not yet in on this one, but I think far too much is made of this one, at least currently)
> 
> I'm not going to add more names to what, in a way, I think is a pointless exercise / amusement


Music is a pointless exercise/amusement.  But it is also useful to compile such lists to make recommendations to beginners. I found such lists quite useful when starting out. Maybe you did not, but many people do. No need to be a grump!

The list of composers you would delete from a top 50 list is very strange, but you are entitled to your opinion.


----------



## crmoorhead

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I do like Haydn. At least he was more consistent with the quality of his symphonies than Mozart.


Excellent! I thought he would have been too straight-laced for your tastes, but I suppose I was wrong.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

crmoorhead said:


> Excellent! I thought he would have been too straight-laced for your tastes, but I suppose I was wrong.


I like Haydn mainly for his symphonies and string quartets. His Sturm und Drang works surpass most of Mozart's symphonies.


----------



## neoshredder

But CPE Bach has better Sturm und Drang than Haydn.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> But CPE Bach has better Sturm and Drang than Haydn.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## MJongo

Mozart shouldn't be over Beethoven, and Messiaen should be higher. Which reminds me, I should probably vote on this...


----------



## neoshredder

Corelli not even on the list? Ridiculous.


----------



## quack

J. S. Bach is too low.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Well, I'm glad Stravinsky isn't in the top 10.


----------



## crmoorhead

Top 10 - No complaints other than I think that Mozart should be swiched with Beethoven. The others are maybe in a different order than I would place them, but nothing disagreeable.

Other comments:

Prokofiev, Chopin - too high IMO
Tchaikovsky, Liszt, R. Strauss - too low

Don't know enough about the BAch brothers, but I have never seen them highly rated elsewhere. I will be encouraged to try their works after this.

Elgar>Vaughan-Williams - Interesting.

Pleased to see Barber in the top 50. Also pleasant to see Schoenberg and Messiaen represented. I find Messiaen a very unique composer and am really getting into many of his compositions.


----------



## aleazk

Mendelssohn higher than Ravel???, I prefer Ligeti all my life instead of those boring classical era composers.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Well, I'm glad Stravinsky isn't in the top 10.


I'M NOT. :tiphat:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

aleazk said:


> Mendelssohn higher than Ravel???, I prefer Ligeti all my life instead of those boring classical era composers.


We need to start a group dedicated to *Ligeti.* Perhaps the *Ligeti Club?*


----------



## Sid James

crmoorhead said:


> ...I find Messiaen a very unique composer and am really getting into many of his compositions.


Well he was one of the composers that really got me into 20th century music big time, esp. music coming after 1945. Esp. his 'Quartet for the End of Time.' I heard it on radio and just clicked with it right there and then. I think he was unique, I totally agree there. He was in touch with the latest trends but did not jump onto various bandwagons, he just kept doing his own thing, expressing his own vision. I think he balanced tradition with innovation, directness of expression with complexity, and his own view of spirituality with the temporal/physical side of life, with nature and even the savage and erotic. His music has all these layers, its fascinating.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Handel is too low at #9. He should swap with Brahms.


----------



## neoshredder

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Handel is too low at #9. He should swap with Brahms.


A lot of Composers should swap with Brahms after that.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

*Ligeti* should swap with Bach


----------



## neoshredder

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> *Ligeti* should swap with Bach


He should swap with many others. The order should be...
1. Ligeti
2. Bach
3. Corelli.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> He should swap with many others. The order should be...
> 1. Ligeti
> 2. Bach
> 3. Corelli.


Looks good to me.


----------



## science

I don't believe that anyone on the list is or could be overrated; there are only underrated composers. 

Some time ago some musician from the pop/rock world said that after any concert given by a great musician, the audience should leave feeling like it's the greatest concert they ever saw. Now obviously they can't be right, but that's the feeling they should have, he said.

I think that's a great insight, a great way to look at these lists. If I spend ten hours listening to my favorite works by Mozart, I will feel at that moment that he must be my favorite composer. But if I spend ten hours listening to my favorite works by Beethoven, I will feel at that moment that he must be my favorite composer. But if I spend ten hours listening to my favorite works by Bach, I will feel at that moment that he must be my favorite composer. 

And if I spend ten hours listening to my favorite works by Brahms or Schubert or Liszt or Messiaen or Elgar or Stravinsky or Dvorak or Debussy or Fauré or Handel or Wagner or Saint-Saëns or Janacek or Mendelssohn or Ravel or Prokofiev or Vaughan Williams or Chopin or Haydn or CPE Bach or Gombert or Tallis or Glass or Josquin, I will feel at that moment that he is my favorite composer. 

I can't imagine listening to Rachmaninov looking for flaws, reasons to rank him above or below Mompou or Medtner or Tchaikovsky or Litolff or Berwald or Bax or Delius or Tavener or Britten or whatever. 

Well, so I think I understand why people don't like lists like that. 

In the end, of course, what it shows is something about us as a community. Were a different set of people to make such a list, Lennon and McCartney would be ranked #1, and a different set of people might have Duke Ellington at #1. I think I could go to my parents' church and get together a group of people who would put Bill and Gloria Gaither at #1. And of course somewhere there must be a group of people who would agree to put Ligeti at #1.


----------



## Toddlertoddy

Schoenberg is depressingly low. He "destroyed" (at least to some) music, come on people! Is that not "great" enough?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Toddlertoddy said:


> Schoenberg is depressingly low. He "destroyed" (at least to some) music, come on people! Is that not "great" enough?


"_Destroyed_ music?" I've never heard that before.


----------



## mmsbls

I've looked at the list and read all the posts in this thread several times. With perhaps a couple of exceptions people seem relatively content with the list and only mention one or a few composers they think are ranked much too high. My personal list would look different, but I have no strong issues with any composer's ranking. I would lower Elgar, Schoenberg,and Messiaen, but I think reasonable arguments could be made for their positions. Clearly early and late composers are sparsely represented, but I believe that reflects most classical listeners' views. 

This list like almost all lists was constructed from the views of a small subset of classical music listeners. A different set of TC members would create a different list, but if that group were selected at random, I suspect that the list would not differ greatly.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Moussorgsky did extremely well if we look at his placing/completed output ratio. His (musical) reputation rests on one opera, one piano suite, one tone poem and three song cycles which in duration amounts to about half of his completed output - yes, I like these works but I can't help thinking that these are slender pickings to warrant such a high rating. On the opposite side of this, Saint-Saens produced a large body of work that was impressive in a solid kind of way but rarely sprinkled with the type of gold-dust that makes it memorable, so I wouldn't rate him as highly either.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Toddlertoddy said:


> Schoenberg is depressingly low. He "destroyed" (at least to some) music, come on people! Is that not "great" enough?


We're not sadistic enough to evaluate greatness bent on destruction.


----------



## Sid James

Toddlertoddy said:


> Schoenberg is depressingly low. He "destroyed" (at least to some) music, come on people! Is that not "great" enough?


Then Wagner should be lower, cos he set the train rolling which led to extreme chromaticism...then atonality...then serialism...then the rest. WAGNER WAS THE DESTROYER - OR LIBERATOR? - OF MUSIC. Its your ideology which determines which way you see it, ultimately.



science said:


> ...
> And if I spend ten hours listening to my favorite works by Brahms or Schubert or Liszt or Messiaen or ... I will feel at that moment that he is my favorite composer.


I agree except I don't need to listen to a great composer's music for 10 hours for it to have that effect. It can be just one work of whatever length.



elgars ghost said:


> ...On the opposite side of this, Saint-Saens produced a large body of work that was impressive in a solid kind of way but rarely sprinkled with the type of gold-dust that makes it memorable, so I wouldn't rate him as highly either.


He was a great tunesmith, his tunes stick in my head as strongly as say Tchaikovsky's. But Saint-Saens' is not profound, but I think most times he did not aim to be that. A lot of the time he's clearly tongue in cheek. Like the 'Organ' symphony, dedicated to Liszt after his death, sounds more like some send up of the _Dies Irae _plainchant (in the final movement) than a solemn requiem (which clearly it is not). I like his whimsy, and he does deliver if one does not expect him to be as profound as Brahms or something. They're pretty much polar opposites (but even so, some conservatives at the time and even in early 20th century criticised Brahms as kind of lowbrow for his 'Hungarianisms,' those gypsy tunes that pop up all over the place, even in his 'serious' concertos & chamber works, etc.).


----------



## science

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> We're not sadistic enough to evaluate greatness bent on destruction.


Speak for yourself. I'm not sadistic enough to deprive myself of destruction!


----------



## peeyaj

Thank God, no one was complaining Schubert's placement on the list or I would scream* BLOODY MURDER!!*


----------



## science

peeyaj said:


> Thank God, no one was complaining Schubert's placement on the list or I would scream* BLOODY MURDER!!*


Do it anyway man, I love screaming.

Here, I'll help you get started. Schubert shouldn't be in the top 10. Probably top 20, maybe even top 15, but certainly not in the top 10, and it's just wrong to put him in the top 5. Just wrong. That spot ought to have belonged to Weber. Awesome works for clarinet. What did Schubert ever do for the clarinet? The Shepherd on the Rock? Please. Weber, top five every time. Schubert, maybe top 15.

I put a lot of work into that, so you owe me a good scream.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Schubert is better than Weber. Schubert for me should be about no. 11 and Weber should be about no. 93.


----------



## neoshredder

Yep Schubert is another one of those Romantic Composers that bore me to death. Hope that worked.


----------



## science

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Schubert is better than Weber. Schubert for me should be about no. 11 and Weber should be about no. 93.


I just want to hear one good scream. Can't you let me have that?

Here. Tell me who's better. Schubert or Ligeti? And give me reasons. Reasons might help peeyaj scream more memorably.


----------



## science

neoshredder said:


> Yep Schubert is another one of those Romantic Composers that bore me to death. Hope that worked.


_Preach it, brother! Amen! Hallelujah!_


----------



## neoshredder

Schubert does have one fault. He is tonal. Hard to overcome that deficiency.


----------



## science

neoshredder said:


> Schubert does have one fault. He is tonal. Hard to overcome that deficiency.


We can fix that for him, just put in at least one randomly selected accidental every measure--no, every single chord. That C-sharp is now a C-natural... and so on. Also, we can just delete whatever is the deepest note at any given moment. (Actually this does sound like fun. Vandalism. Destruction. Oh yeah, baby, yeah!) Probably would improve things a lot. Might make that awful Trout Quintet endurable at least.

Here was David Mahler's list of the top 50 composers.

1.	Ludwing van Beethoven (1770-1827 German)
2.	Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750 German)
3.	Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791 Austrian)
4.	Richard Wagner (1811-1883 German)
5.	Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina (1525-1594 Italian)
*6.	Franz Schubert (1797-1828 Austrian)*
7.	Josquin des Prez (1450-1521 Franco-Flemish)
8.	Johannes Brahms (1833-1897 German)
9.	Claude Debussy (1862-1918 French)
10.	Franz Josef Haydn (1732-1809 Austrian)
11.	Georg Frederic Handel (1685-1759 German-British)
12.	Giullame de Machaut (1300-1377 French)
13.	Claudio Monteverdi (1567-1743 Italian)
14.	Gustav Mahler (1860-1911 Austro-Hungarian)
15.	Igor Stravinsky (1882-1971 Russian)
16.	Robert Schumann (1810-1856 German)
17.	Pytor Il'yich Tchaikovsky (1840-1893 Russian)
18.	Fryderyk Chopin (1810-1849 Polish)
19.	Jean Sibelius (1865-1957 Finnish)
20.	Guillaume Dufay (1397-1474 Franco-Flemish)
21.	Antonin Dvorak (1841-1904 Czech)
22.	Dmitri Shostakovich (1906-1975 Russian)
23.	Giuseppe Verdi (1813-1901 Italian)
24.	William Byrd (1540-1623 English)
25.	Franz Liszt (1811-1886 Hungarian)
26.	Hector Berlioz (1803-1869 French)
27.	Bela Bartok (1881-1945 Hungarian)
28.	Jean-Philippe Rameau (1683-1764 French)
29.	Maurice Ravel (1875-1937 French)
30.	Anton Bruckner (1824-1896 Austrian)
31.	Sergey Prokofiev (1891-1953 Russian)
32.	Arnold Schoenberg (1874-1951 Austrian)
33.	Felix Mendelssohn (1809-1847 German)
34.	Richard Strauss (1864-1949 German)
35.	Christoph Willibald Gluck (1714-1787 German)
36.	Orlando de Lassus (1532-1594 Franco-Flemish)
37.	Henry Purcell (1659-1695 English)
38.	Tomas Luis de Victoria (1548-1611 Spanish)
39.	Modest Mussorgsky (1839-1881 Russian)
40.	Johannes Ockeghem (1410-1497 Franco-Flemish)
41.	Olivier Messiaen (1908-1992 French)
42.	Gyorgy Ligeti (1923-2006 Hungarian)
43.	Sergey Rachmaninov (1873-1943 Russian)
44.	Camille Saint-Saens (1835-1921 French)
45.	Karlheinz Stockhausen (1928-2007 Geman)
46.	Anton Webern (1883-1945 Austrian)
47.	Carl Maria Von Webern (1786-1826 German)
48.	Antonin Vivaldi (1678-1741 Italian)
49.	Alban Berg (1885-1935 Austrian)
50.	Thomas Tallis (1505-1585 English)

Here is David Mahler's list, corrected:

1.	Ludwing van Beethoven (1770-1827 German)
2.	Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750 German)
3.	Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791 Austrian)
4.	Richard Wagner (1811-1883 German)
5.	Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina (1525-1594 Italian)
6.	Robert Schumann (1810-1856 German)
7.	Josquin des Prez (1450-1521 Franco-Flemish)
8.	Johannes Brahms (1833-1897 German)
9.	Claude Debussy (1862-1918 French)
10.	Franz Josef Haydn (1732-1809 Austrian)
11.	Georg Frederic Handel (1685-1759 German-British)
12.	Giullame de Machaut (1300-1377 French)
13.	Claudio Monteverdi (1567-1743 Italian)
14.	Gustav Mahler (1860-1911 Austro-Hungarian)
15.	Igor Stravinsky (1882-1971 Russian)
*16.	Franz Schubert (1797-1828 Austrian)*
17.	Pytor Il'yich Tchaikovsky (1840-1893 Russian)
18.	Fryderyk Chopin (1810-1849 Polish)
19.	Jean Sibelius (1865-1957 Finnish)
20.	Guillaume Dufay (1397-1474 Franco-Flemish)
21.	Antonin Dvorak (1841-1904 Czech)
22.	Dmitri Shostakovich (1906-1975 Russian)
23.	Giuseppe Verdi (1813-1901 Italian)
24.	William Byrd (1540-1623 English)
25.	Franz Liszt (1811-1886 Hungarian)
26.	Hector Berlioz (1803-1869 French)
27.	Bela Bartok (1881-1945 Hungarian)
28.	Jean-Philippe Rameau (1683-1764 French)
29.	Maurice Ravel (1875-1937 French)
30.	Anton Bruckner (1824-1896 Austrian)
31.	Sergey Prokofiev (1891-1953 Russian)
32.	Arnold Schoenberg (1874-1951 Austrian)
33.	Felix Mendelssohn (1809-1847 German)
34.	Richard Strauss (1864-1949 German)
35.	Christoph Willibald Gluck (1714-1787 German)
36.	Orlando de Lassus (1532-1594 Franco-Flemish)
37.	Henry Purcell (1659-1695 English)
38.	Tomas Luis de Victoria (1548-1611 Spanish)
39.	Modest Mussorgsky (1839-1881 Russian)
40.	Johannes Ockeghem (1410-1497 Franco-Flemish)
41.	Olivier Messiaen (1908-1992 French)
42.	Gyorgy Ligeti (1923-2006 Hungarian)
43.	Sergey Rachmaninov (1873-1943 Russian)
44.	Camille Saint-Saens (1835-1921 French)
45.	Karlheinz Stockhausen (1928-2007 Geman)
46.	Anton Webern (1883-1945 Austrian)
47.	Carl Maria Von Webern (1786-1826 German)
48.	Antonin Vivaldi (1678-1741 Italian)
49.	Alban Berg (1885-1935 Austrian)
50.	Thomas Tallis (1505-1585 English)


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

science said:


> I just want to hear one good scream. Can't you let me have that?
> 
> Here. Tell me who's better. Schubert or Ligeti? And give me reasons. Reasons might help peeyaj scream more memorably.


Ugh. Schubert and his mediocre orchestrations, horribly singable melodies and predictable chord progressions. *Ligeti's* brilliantly colourful orchestrations, awkward melodies (most of the time) and otherworldly atonal harmonies!


----------



## science

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Ugh. Schubert and his mediocre orchestrations, horribly singable melodies and predictable chord progressions. *Ligeti's* brilliantly colourful orchestrations, awkward melodies (most of the time) and otherworldly atonal harmonies!


I can't tell you what that did for me. (Really, I can't. Would violate the terms of service.)


----------



## Very Senior Member

I would prefer to see the first three ranked as Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, in that order, but it's no big deal as I realise that opinions are bound to differ on this matter. It's nice to see Schubert take 4th place instead of Wagner who usually occupies this spot. I don't much care for Wagner but I don't deny him a place in the top 10 somewhere. To be fully honest, Wagner's music sounds like the kind of material many people will get fed up with after a while, maybe a few years at most. I liked it once but I find it mostly tedious now, being far too heavy-going. I'm delighted to see Schumann make it into the top 10. He is an excellent composer. I would prefer to see Mahler (10) and Tchaikovsky (15) swap places. Tchaikovsky is definitely a top 10 composer. Mahler by comparison doesn't do much for me. I find his range too narrow and I don't particularlly like many of his symphonies, which seem over-blown film music to me. The 11-20 positions seem broadly OK. I agree with Sibelius's ranking in the mid-20's. This seems to be a fairly consistent result across polls of this nature, but must come as a bit of a disappointment to the Sibelius "crowd" who normally go on about their man as though he's top 10 material. There doesn't appear to many Sibelians around T-C at present, but like the Wagnerians and Mahlerians they can be pretty tiring when they're on the loose. Purcell at No 35 is fully deserved. I agree that Mesiaen is over-rated at 41. There's nothing much there of any outstanding merit beyond the Quartet for the End of Time and the Turanglia Symphony. I'm happy with the position for Elgar being slightly ahead of Vaughan Williams but both within the to 50. On the whole, however, it's not a bad list, and to say that it has been produced by a smallish sample it's all the more interesting and credit due to those who have taken part.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

science said:


> I can't tell you what that did for me. (Really, I can't. Would violate the terms of service.)


_You mean to say..._


----------



## science

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> _You mean to say..._


Of course not, you dirty-minded commie. I meant something absolutely sublime. Illegal in most industrialized countries, but sublime in all of them.

*Peeyaj, where's my scream?*


----------



## neoshredder

I don't think Peeyaj is buying it.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

science said:


> Of course not, you dirty-minded commie. I meant something absolutely sublime. Illegal in most industrialized countries, but sublime in all of them.
> 
> *Peeyaj, where's my scream?*


I wasn't thinking of _anything_ dirty, sublime _definitely._ :tiphat:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

science said:


> Speak for yourself. I'm not sadistic enough to deprive myself of destruction!


Another bad day at school today with the school kids?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Very Senior Member said:


> I would prefer to see the first three ranked as Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, in that order, but it's no big deal as I realise that opinions are bound to differ on this matter. It's nice to see Schubert take 4th place instead of Wagner who usually occupies this spot. I don't much care for Wagner but I don't deny him a place in the top 10 somewhere. To be fully honest, Wagner's music sounds like the kind of material many people will get fed up with after a while, maybe a few years at most. I liked it once but I find it mostly tedious now, being far too heavy-going. I'm delighted to see Schumann make it into the top 10. He is an excellent composer. I would prefer to see Mahler (10) and Tchaikovsky (15) swap places. Tchaikovsky is definitely a top 10 composer. Mahler by comparison doesn't do much for me. I find his range too narrow and I don't particularlly like many of his symphonies, which seem over-blown film music to me. The 11-20 positions seem broadly OK. I agree with Sibelius's ranking in the mid-20's. This seems to be a fairly consistent result across polls of this nature, but must come as a bit of a disappointment to the Sibelius "crowd" who normally go on about their man as though he's top 10 material. There doesn't appear to many Sibelians around T-C at present, but like the Wagnerians and Mahlerians they can be pretty tiring when they're on the loose. Purcell at No 35 is fully deserved. I agree that Mesiaen is over-rated at 41. There's nothing much there of any outstanding merit beyond the Quartet for the End of Time and the Turanglia Symphony. I'm happy with the position for Elgar being slightly ahead of Vaughan Williams but both within the to 50. On the whole, however, it's not a bad list, and to say that it has been produced by a smallish sample it's all the more interesting and credit due to those who have taken part.


Thanks. Interesting read. What's your view on Handel at #9?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Thanks. Interesting read. What's your view on Handel at #9?


Handel at #9 is stupid. That spot belongs to Schoenberg. :angel:


----------



## neoshredder

Handel is top 5 imo.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> Handel is top 5 imo.


Well your opinion is *WRONG.*


----------



## neoshredder

His Concerti Grossi Op. 6 is very good. But I do have a bias slant towards Baroque.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> His Concerti Grossi Op. 6 is very good. But I do have a bias slant towards Baroque.


His Op. 6 _aren't bad._ You must hear the Australian Brandenburg Orchestra's recording of them if you haven't already. For me I would put Handel at about 15.


----------



## neoshredder

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> His Op. 6 _aren't bad._ You must hear the Australian Brandenburg Orchestra's recording of them if you haven't already. For me I would put Handel at about 15.


Yeah makes sense since your move away from tonality. Or so you say. I bet you still listen to it.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> Yeah makes sense since your move away from tonality. Or so you say. I bet you still listen to it.


I reluctantly listened to Liszt's Faust Symphony today, _but only so I could comment on it in the Listening Club_. I rarely listen to tonal music anymore apart from *Ligeti's* early works, but I still respect tonality.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

neoshredder said:


> His Concerti Grossi Op. 6 is very good. But I do have a bias slant towards Baroque.


We would need to vote harder to move your Avatar upwards. Mr Corelli deserves better!


----------



## Very Senior Member

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Thanks. Interesting read. What's your view on Handel at #9?


 I've been interested in classical music for several decades and Handel is one the very composers I have always held in high esteem. I think his No 9 position in the ranks is about right. That's where Goulding placed him, and the result appeared in the DDD "greatest composers" list. Most other polls I've seen have placed him somewhere close to this position. It's mostly for his oratorios and his keyboard and orchestral works that I like Handel. I'm not all that greatly fond of opera but I like it sufficiently to have developed a hot-list of about 20 favourites, and among these Giulio Cesare is one of the tops. If anyone hasn't got round yet to sampling Handelian opera I would suggest this is the one to get first. Listening to Handel one becomes quickly aware that he was one of the most gifted composers who ever lived. It hardly needs mention that Handel was the composer most admired by Beethoven, and that Mozart and Schubert were also big admirers, and one can't get any better recommendations than these.


----------



## peeyaj

@science, COAG and neoshredder

*BLOOOOOOOOODY MUUUURDEERRRRRR!!!!* All the three of you!!

Where is Artemis and Topaz when you need them!?


----------



## Renaissance

*2. Mozart* => Too High ! Maybe I am subjective giving the fact that Classical Era is not my thing. Let's say that the 5th position is good for him, and that to please his fans, because if it was for me... he would have been lower than Haydn. At least Haydn brought something new...

*4. Schubert* => I bit too high, but in the end he was a very prolific composer... and died too young and the number of works he left is tremendous.

*6. Wagner * => Too High, he is mostly the guy with the opera thing...I would place him on 20th position, maybe lower.

*11. Mendelssohn* => Too High for him. He was a conservative and he haven't brought new things. Indeed he was a very gifted musician but so was Saint Saens. This doesn't means much.

*12. Debussy * => I would place him in top 10, it is evident why. The same story with Ravel.

*14. Chopin* => Regarding the fact that he only composed for piano, his position is high too.

*20. Strauss, Richard* => It is only a personal matter, but I don't like this composer.

*21. Liszt * => He is a bit too low, a pianist of his caliber deserve more. And he was not only a pianist...

*33. Rachmaninoff *=> He should be on top 10 because he is no less good than Brahms was. At least with the piano.

*41. Messiaen
42. Janáček
43. Britten
44. Rossini* => All four are way too high to my taste. We still have many good baroque composers who fit here and they are not even mentioned ! Ex : *Corelli*, *Telemann*, *Frescobaldi* (he is too underrated considering the influence he had on baroque music).

PS : It is only my humble opinion, based on my taste. I am not an expert, but an amateur.


----------



## Vesteralen

If you read the OP on the thread in question you'll see that in spite of the *title* of the thread, it's really a list of *FAVORITES* - not a list of *GREATESTS*. How can I complain about other peoples' favorites? Should I argue that they aren't their favorites? They are or they aren't. There's no room to argue about it.

If somebody really wants to start a new thread on "Greatest" Composers, and everyone abides by the rules to honestly rate composers as to greatness regardless of who their favorites are, then we can have an argument.


----------



## NightHawk

*OVERRATED IN MY OPINION*

1. Bach
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Schubert
5. Brahms
6. Wagner
7. Haydn
8. Schumann
9. Handel
10. Mahler
11. Mendelssohn
12. Debussy
13. Dvořák
14. Chopin
15. Tchaikovsky
16. Stravinsky
17. Ravel
18. Prokofiev
19. Shostakovich
20. Strauss, Richard
21. Liszt
22. Bartók
23. Verdi
24. Monteverdi
25. Sibelius
26. Vivaldi
27. Berlioz
28. Bruckner
29. Saint-Saëns
30. Elgar
31. Fauré
32. Vaughan Williams
33. Rachmaninoff
34. PucciniDomenico
35. Purcell
36. Scarlatti,
37. Mussorgsky
38. Schoenberg
39. Grieg
40. Palestrina
41. Messiaen
42. Janáček
43. Britten
44. Rossini
45. Rimsky-Korsakov
46. Josquin
47. Berg
48. Bach, C.P.E.
49. Barber
50. Bach, J.C. (if 'Christoph, then yes, overrated, if Christian, then no, not overrated.
51. Gluck
52. Rameau
53. Scriabin
54. Ligeti[/QUOTE]

I know, not very discriminating of me - however, not all the composers I didn't redline would make my desert island list...many would drop like flies.


----------



## Jared

oh... if ever there was a thread designed to cause upset, heartache, tears and disagreement! 

I think I'll carefully back away from this one!! :lol:


----------



## Webernite

Can't believe people are saying Messiaen is too high. How is _41_ high?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Overall I don't really care for these lists, I won't spoil the party, but the fact is that go out in the real world and Wagner would not get within the top ten of a 'general' list like this.

Hmmm Sid... that's interesting. Perhaps you live in a different world than the rest of us. I come across more than my fair share of Wagner fans and fanatics. And then we have Phil G. Goulding's book:










Goulding wrote his book and created his list of the "50 Greatest Composers" based upon prominence in books on music history and other author's lists, radio airplay and audience requests from radio stations, and ticket sales. Using all this data, Goulding ranked Wagner 4th... It would seem perhaps that you are a bit deluded as to just how popular Wagner is... which may be understandable. We all know how data and reality itself can be skewed to fit one's own beliefs.

:tiphat:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Ligeti is better for the higher positions. No. 1 in particular. A lot of Mozart's work I think is quite predictable and not very interesting. His divertimenti quickly get boring, his early and middle concerti sound too similar and too typical of the classical era. A lot of his early works are poorly written and uninventive, his music is only good after the mid 1780s. It is also disappointing that he has not written very many good Sturm und Drang symphonies like Haydn. I don't see why his music is so special when there are so many more composers out there who have written so music that is so much better.

Clearly the result of a hearing impairment. So sad to have occurred at such a young age.


----------



## Ukko

As _@Vesteralen_ suggests above, the list looks more like a _favorites_ ranking then anything else. Josquin is not in the top 10? Messiaen is on the list? Quality is obviously not the main consideration.

My list of 'quality' wouldn't include a ranking, and wouldn't reach 50. I don't have 50 favorites either. I could probably contrive a list of composers who I find intolerable, but since I would consider that listing to be an admission of failure on my part, not theirs, it ain't happening.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

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

My Top Ten:

1. J.S. Bach
2. W.A. Mozart
3. L.v. Beethoven
4. R. Wagner
5. Schubert
6. Joseph Haydn
7. J. Brahms
8. G.F. Handel
9. P. Tchaikovsky
10. Richard Strauss

Not a huge disparity

TC's next ten reads:

11. Mendelssohn
12. Debussy
13. Dvořák
14. Chopin
15. Tchaikovsky
16. Stravinsky
17. Ravel
18. Prokofiev
19. Shostakovich
20. Strauss, Richard

Here's where my favorites begin to diverge:

11. G. Mahler (down from no. 10)
12. Robert Schumann (down from no. 8)
13. C. Debussy
14. C. Monteverdi (up from 25)
15. G. Verdi (up from 23)
16. Shostakovitch
17. Prokofiev
18. Rachmaninoff
19. Gluck
20. Biber

Seriously, from here on does it really matter? Is there a pressing debate as to whether Purcell, D. Scarlatti, Rameau, Dvořák, Fauré or Britten is the better composer? My only real problem with the list... with most lists of classical music that I have seen... including Goulding's... is that they are pretty much wholly dominated by music from approximately 1800 to 1930. Now certainly I love a great many composers of this era... but I certainly can't imagine a list of the 50 Greatest Painters of All Time" dominated by the period from Turner through Matisse with only one Renaissance painter and maybe 3 from the Baroque. Nor could I imagine such a survey of literature dominated by everything from Blake to Joyce with only Shakespeare making a showing for the Baroque and Dante, as a medieval author, not even in the running.

Again... I think perhaps the best way of creating such a survey would be to split it into eras: Medieval, Renaissance, etc...


----------



## NightHawk

Personally, I would say without hesitation that Haydn '_perfected the idiom_' of 18th Classicism, Mozart just took the perfected language and 'ran with the ball' - quite spectacularly, of course.



crmoorhead said:


> but Mozart perfected the idiom of his day as well as expanding it's boundaries......
> Of course, I do still place Beethoven and Bach above him. I also (thought I don't think you will agree) quite like Haydn.


----------



## DeepR

Scriabin should be much higher.
How could he be overrated at 53? What music have you listened to other than the Poem of Ecstasy?
Some of his earlier piano music is in a way the next level of Chopin. Besides that he was much more versatile than Chopin. And more innovative than Rachmaninoff and just as good at the piano. He innovated music pretty much independent of others.


----------



## science

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Another bad day at school today with the school kids?


I love my kids! (Well, 94.2 percent of them, last time I calculated.)

No, the only explanation is, this is _who I am_. If you don't understand the thrill of destruction, I'm not sure you're fully human.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Rapide said:


> Prokofiev is too high.


Tuh.

:10char:


----------



## crmoorhead

NightHawk said:


> Personally, I would say without hesitation that Haydn '_perfected the idiom_' of 18th Classicism, Mozart just took the perfected language and 'ran with the ball' - quite spectacularly, of course.


Sorry, I was a bit unclear here. What I mean to say is that he assimilated the styles of the day to perfection. Haydn did indeed epitomise the Classical idiom. Haydn himself said to Leopold Mozart: "I tell you before God, and as an honest man, your son is the greatest composer known to me by person and repute, he has taste and what is more the greatest skill in composition." By perfected I mean he did everything that was required of him and then, as you say, he 'ran with it', not that he was infuential in standardising the form in the manner that Haydn did.


----------



## Toddlertoddy

Overrated, Underrated

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


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I wonder how many people who voted Messiaen listened to the single piece that took him the longest period to compose, and with struggle for that matter, too. _Saint François d'Assise_, commissioned by the Paris Opera in 1971 and premiered in 1983. It runs for over 4.5 hours - Wagner style length!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

science said:


> I love my kids! (*well, 94.2 percent of them*, last time I calculated.)
> 
> no, the only explanation is, this is _who I am_. If you don't understand the thrill of destruction, I'm not sure you're fully human.


FAVOURITISM _AGAIN!!!_


----------



## Sid James

Renaissance said:


> ...
> *6. Wagner * => Too High, he is mostly the guy with the opera thing...I would place him on 20th position, maybe lower.
> 
> ...


I don't know about 20th, but I would not put him in the top ten of a general list, as I said before.

There's been a fair few conversations here on the ground between classical listeners of various types regarding The Ring cycle to be done in Melbourne next year. I've overheard some at concerts, but also been in these conversations with people I know. Most of them are not enthusiastic about going there to see/hear it. Maybe the locals (Melbournites) will go there. But here, away from there, the 'consensus' is why bother? I predict that it will not be financially successful, it'll be lucky to break even, imo. It's like various things that have not gotten off the ground here cos people aren't interested, basically. Like the guy who got Monteverdi, an opera of his premiered at Sydney Festival about 10 years back, and it was a flop (financially, not enough bums on seats).

But yeah, the 'cultural overlords' know better than us 'plebs.' So too do those who collect half a dozen or more Wagner cycles. They're the 'typical' classical listener (not).

& voting is for elections of politicians anyway. Composers are in another league to pollies, beyond the merely pragmatic, its art not dog eat dog. But on the internet, that's a different thing entirely. You can have your dog eat dog, or Wagner eats everything else.

Another rant over.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Sid James said:


> I don't know about 20th, but I would not put him in the top ten of a general list, as I said before.
> 
> There's been a fair few conversations here on the ground between classical listeners of various types regarding The Ring cycle to be done in Melbourne next year. I've overheard some at concerts, but also been in these conversations with people I know. Most of them are not enthusiastic about going there to see/hear it. Maybe the locals (Melbournites) will go there. But here, away from there, the 'consensus' is why bother? I predict that it will not be financially successful, it'll be lucky to break even, imo. It's like various things that have not gotten off the ground here cos people aren't interested, basically. Like the guy who got Monteverdi, an opera of his premiered at Sydney Festival about 10 years back, and it was a flop (financially, not enough bums on seats).
> 
> But yeah, the 'cultural overlords' know better than us 'plebs.' So too do those who collect half a dozen or more Wagner cycles. They're the 'typical' classical listener (not).
> 
> & voting is for elections of politicians anyway. Composers are in another league to pollies, beyond the merely pragmatic, its art not dog eat dog. But on the internet, that's a different thing entirely. You can have your dog eat dog, or Wagner eats everything else.
> 
> Another rant over.


I'm going to the Melbourne _Ring_. Will be a historical event as far as opera is concerned in this country -might well be in the headlines as "Financial Flop" and / or "Wagner Wankery" but I'll be part of it.


----------



## Sid James

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I'm going to the Melbourne _Ring_. Will be a historical event as far as opera is concerned in this country -might well be in the headlines as "Financial Flop" and / or "Wagner Wankery" but I'll be part of it.


Well enjoy it, I'm just saying I don't know anyone who is going, even fans of opera generally. Many people secretly believe what Rossini said - 'Wagner has wonderful moments but dreadful quarters of an hour.' But they are afraid to say it. Well, I'm not afraid to say it, here or in reality. I've found that when I say it, they agree. But the overall thing is we have to love Wagner's music, just cos we have to. But I'm not claiming this to be scholarly opinion, just based on my own experience here & now.


----------



## Couchie

#6 underrated, the rest are overrated.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Couchie said:


> #6 underrated, the rest are overrated.


Pfffft. Move no. 6 to no. 2 and no. 54 to no. 1 and that'll keep me happy for a few hours.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Sid... you seem more obsessed with Wagner than even Couchie.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

But yeah, the 'cultural overlords' know better than us 'plebs.' So too do those who collect half a dozen or more Wagner cycles. They're the 'typical' classical listener (not).

I have only 5 wagner _Ring_ Cycles (Marek Janowski, Herbert von Karajan, George Solti, Hans Knappertsbusch, and Clemens Krauss... I want the Keilberth Set... but its so damn expensive). I also have 6 versions of _Le Nozze di Figaro_, 3 or 4 _Traviatas_, a dozen of Beethoven's 9th, a dozen or so of Mahler's _Song of the Earth_, at least as many again of Strauss' _Four Last Songs_, and as much or more of the _Goldberg Variations_. Does that make me the "typical" classical listener? Perhaps not... but do I care? Is my goal as a classical listener to fit into some ideal "norm"?

Most opera aficionados are enamored of various singers and as a result often collect multiple copies of the same piece of music. Wagner... along with Mozart, Verdi, Handel, Richard Strauss, and a few others... is one of the towering figures of opera. The reality is that different performances... different soloists, singers, and conductors can make all the difference in the world. You have admitted as much yourself with regard to Schoenberg's Verklärte Nacht which you disliked in the full Romantic orchestral score as performed by Karajan and the Berlin Phil. but liked in the more stripped-down, Brahmsian version.


----------



## Rapide

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I wonder how many people who voted Messiaen listened to the single piece that took him the longest period to compose, and with struggle for that matter, too. _Saint François d'Assise_, commissioned by the Paris Opera in 1971 and premiered in 1983. It runs for over 4.5 hours - Wagner style length!


I have that DVD. It's quite enjoyable. But i was already too late when I started voting so I didn't vote for Messiaen.


----------



## Couchie

Sid James said:


> There's been a fair few conversations here on the ground between classical listeners of various types regarding The Ring cycle to be done in Melbourne next year. I've overheard some at concerts, but also been in these conversations with people I know. Most of them are not enthusiastic about going there to see/hear it. Maybe the locals (Melbournites) will go there. But here, away from there, the 'consensus' is why bother? I predict that it will not be financially successful, it'll be lucky to break even, imo. It's like various things that have not gotten off the ground here cos people aren't interested, basically. Like the guy who got Monteverdi, an opera of his premiered at Sydney Festival about 10 years back, and it was a flop (financially, not enough bums on seats).


Is it a fault of Wagner's music... or is it that a large segment of the opera-going public attends for a fancy night out with champagne at intermission and a four-night operatic journey as intensive as the _Ring _doesn't really suit that purpose as well as _La Boheme_? Why you choose to champion such people and not those who ardently love the music so greatly they fly to other continents just to witness it I don't fully understand. If popularity matters in music we shouldn't be listening to classical at all...


----------



## Sid James

Couchie said:


> Is it a fault of Wagner's music... or is it that a large segment of the opera-going public attends for a fancy night out with champagne at intermission and a four-night operatic journey as intensive as the _Ring _doesn't really suit that purpose as well as _La Boheme_? Why you choose to champion such people and not those who ardently love the music so greatly they fly to other continents just to witness it I don't fully understand. If popularity matters in music we shouldn't be listening to classical at all...


Man, I was just saying what's my experience. Other Australian members could have other, possibly contradictory experience. There could be legions of Wagnerites here, but if there are, I haven't met them. Maybe one or two over the decades, but that's hardly a lot. That's all I'm saying.

In any case for me the matter is academic. I'm just voicing an opinion that people on this forum are maybe afraid to voice. You can have your music on steroids, all of you can. You can have Wagner at No. 1. I don't give a toss. I admit he's a great innovator but that's it.

& incidentally, as for the Messiaen opera, he did much more than just opera. He only did that one opera. But his reputation rests largely on the _Quartet for the End of Time_, which is also long for a chamber work (about 1 hour), but it ain't music on steroids, with just four instruments he does a hell of a lot. But he was a Wagnerite amongst other things, and I think composers such as Messiaen refined Wagner's innovations and added to them. So I take that element of Wagner, however residual, but whoever likes his music can have the rest, ALL OF IT!


----------



## neoshredder

Not enough talk about Ligeti lately.


----------



## emiellucifuge

In the end nothing you have said is really valid. There are and will continue to be scores of people deeply moved by Wagners dramas; he is and will continue to be discussed in the history and theory books as a composer of great originality, innovation, but also of quality and force; opera houses do and will continue to stage his works, not only because they are artistically valuable, but because they do attract bums to seats (yes, Parsifal was sold out here for nearly all 9 performances).

So you can continue to spout all your biased anecdotal "evidence", but you will achieve nothing.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Sid... you seem more obsessed with Wagner than even Couchie.


----------



## aleazk

neoshredder said:


> Not enough talk about Ligeti lately.


Ligeti!.


----------



## Sid James

emiellucifuge said:


> In the end nothing you have said is really valid. There are and will continue to be scores of people deeply moved by Wagners dramas; he is and will continue to be discussed in the history and theory books as a composer of great originality, innovation, but also of quality and force; opera houses do and will continue to stage his works, not only because they are artistically valuable, but because they do attract bums to seats (yes, Parsifal was sold out here for nearly all 9 performances).
> 
> So you can continue to spout all your biased anecdotal "evidence", but you will achieve nothing.


I said experience, not evidence. But who cares? You should maybe draw some Wagnerites on this forum into line who go too far, have gone too far, but more in the past than now. Making insinuations such as people who do not like Wagner or think he's too long winded (which is the opinion of many classical listeners, a good deal of them), they say these people have ADHD or autism. What an insult, and how crude and primitive. One Wagnerite (not Couchie, I think) who seems to be not so active now said this.

But who cares? I can only go by example. I am not a Bach fanatic yet all classical listeners I have met personally over the years revere him to some degree. Not so with Wagner. But then again, I am 'spouting' bile, not Wagnerites who call the rest of us having ADHD or maybe retardation cos we can't value what they value.

Forget it, just forget it. I'd be surprised if you bought some of your fellow Wagnerites into line, but you won't. You are just as biased as I am, let's face it. I just admit it, you don't. It's the same old story.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

The one composer I am positively surprised to see him do quite "highly" in the Top 50 is Vivaldi, at #26 ahead of several Romantic heavy-weights such as Berlioz, Bruckner and Rachmaninoff. Considering how often Antonio's music gets poo-pooed here for being repetitively boring 300 times over for soloist and orchestra, that's an interesting result for one who was in fact, a very original composer.


----------



## Andreas

To me, there are two ways one could judge the greatness of a composer:

1. their purely technical skill
2. their general impact

Other than that, it's hard to make a statement on the quality of a composer other than one that is based entirely on personal preference and taste (nothing wrong with that, of course).

Mozart sure had a great impact on music and on later composers. If nothing else, he helped establish the symphony, the piano sonata and the string quartet as well as the sonata allegro form in general.

But does that say anything about Mozart's ability as a composer? For me, he went several steps back behind Bach in terms of harmonic and counterpuntal complexity. But everyone did, even Beethoven. It wasn't until Wagner that the evolution of music took the Next Big Step.

I'm not sure whether Bruckner, Mahler and Richard Strauss went beyond what Wagner had already achieved. But Schoenberg certainly did. And Wagner and Schoenberg are about equal in terms of the impact they had on the course of music.

If you combine the two criteria, skill and impact, the initial list comes pretty close to the truth. Now, if you only considered the raw technical ability, the sheer craftsmanship, the list would look a lot different.


----------



## neoshredder

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> The one composer I am positively surprised to see him do quite "highly" in the Top 50 is Vivaldi, at #26 ahead of several Romantic heavy-weights such as Berlioz, Bruckner and Rachmaninoff. Considering how often Antonio's music gets poo-pooed here for being repetitively boring 300 times over for soloist and orchestra, that's an interesting result for one who was in fact, a very original composer.


And that's without my votes. I think very highly of Vivaldi. But I guess no surprises of Corelli being forgotten in these games.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Sid, I cannot recall ever seeing someone call someone else a retard, or accusing them of having some mental disease, wagnerite or not. But I hope that I would apply my usual moral standards.

Yes, I am biased. It is impossible to hold an opinion without holding a bias. The quality of art is really a matter of opinion, therefore bias. 

You began to make judgements about the financial success and the attendance of Wagner productions, predicting that they would flop. Perhaps they might, but the long history of Wagner performance and successes (how about a 7 year waiting list for Bayreuth tickets?) provide enough examples of the opposite to render the failure of one production in Melbourne insignificant. An insignificance which you unfortunately blew out of proportion.


----------



## Very Senior Member

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> The one composer I am positively surprised to see him do quite "highly" in the Top 50 is Vivaldi, at #26 ahead of several Romantic heavy-weights such as Berlioz, Bruckner and Rachmaninoff. Considering how often Antonio's music gets poo-pooed here for being repetitively boring 300 times over for soloist and orchestra, that's an interesting result for one who was in fact, a very original composer.


 Vivaldi came in at position 20 on DDD's list, 22 in the "Kentucky" list, 30 in the "RBrittain" list last year, but was further down at No 37 in Goulding's list. So I don't think that #26 is all that surprising in this poll. I recall giving Vivaldi some support. Vivaldi, of course, offers a much more accessible alternative form of baroque to the far more rigourous style of Bach, et al, the latter not being to everyone's liking. I've been collecting Vivaldi for many years and now have virtually his entire output, which contains a good number of treasures.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Andreas said:


> To me, there are two ways one could judge the greatness of a composer:
> 
> 1. their purely technical skill
> 2. their general impact
> 
> Other than that, it's hard to make a statement on the quality of a composer other than one that is based entirely on personal preference and taste (nothing wrong with that, of course).
> 
> Mozart sure had a great impact on music and on later composers. If nothing else, he helped establish the symphony, the piano sonata and the string quartet as well as the sonata allegro form in general.
> 
> But does that say anything about Mozart's ability as a composer? For me, he went several steps back behind Bach in terms of harmonic and counterpuntal complexity. But everyone did, even Beethoven. It wasn't until Wagner that the evolution of music took the Next Big Step.
> 
> I'm not sure whether Bruckner, Mahler and Richard Strauss went beyond what Wagner had already achieved. But Schoenberg certainly did. And Wagner and Schoenberg are about equal in terms of the impact they had on the course of music.
> 
> If you combine the two criteria, skill and impact, the initial list comes pretty close to the truth. Now, if you only considered the raw technical ability, the sheer craftsmanship, the list would look a lot different.


This here tells us exactly WHY *LIGETI* SHOULD BE HIGHER


----------



## Couchie

Andreas said:


> To me, there are two ways one could judge the greatness of a composer:
> 
> 1. their purely technical skill
> 2. their general impact
> 
> Other than that, it's hard to make a statement on the quality of a composer other than one that is based entirely on personal preference and taste (nothing wrong with that, of course).
> 
> Mozart sure had a great impact on music and on later composers. If nothing else, he helped establish the symphony, the piano sonata and the string quartet as well as the sonata allegro form in general.
> 
> But does that say anything about Mozart's ability as a composer? For me, he went several steps back behind Bach in terms of harmonic and counterpuntal complexity. But everyone did, even Beethoven. It wasn't until Wagner that the evolution of music took the Next Big Step.
> 
> I'm not sure whether Bruckner, Mahler and Richard Strauss went beyond what Wagner had already achieved. But Schoenberg certainly did. And Wagner and Schoenberg are about equal in terms of the impact they had on the course of music.
> 
> If you combine the two criteria, skill and impact, the initial list comes pretty close to the truth. Now, if you only considered the raw technical ability, the sheer craftsmanship, the list would look a lot different.


I think Wagner and Mozart are going to be impossible to compare on "technical skill" as they were trying to achieve completely different things with their music, let alone Schoenberg and the rest given he's in a totally different tonal framework. And influence... Schoenberg was influenced by Wagner was influenced by Beethoven was influenced by Bach... was influenced by.... etc... good luck sorting that out. And who says these criteria are more important that any other... we should judge by how many dedicated societies the composer has I think...


----------



## Very Senior Member

Andreas said:


> If you combine the two criteria, skill and impact, the initial list comes pretty close to the truth. Now, if you only considered the raw technical ability, the sheer craftsmanship, the list would look a lot different.


 So what exactly is your point? You have defined "greatness" in terms acceptable to you, and conclude that the list comes close to the truth based on these considerations. That's all that matters, isn't it? I can't see why you complicate things by picking on just one of the two components of "greatness" and suggesting that the list would appear different if based on that single component "raw technical ability". In any event I find it very odd that you are suggesting that Mozart was significantly less gifted technically than J S Bach, based on the amount/complexity of the counterpoint each of them used. Baroque music and "classical" era music are different in this regard, and you wouldn't expect to see comparable use of counterpoint. By most peoples' reckoning Mozart was not just highly influential but was an extremely well gifted composer technically, which is why he never fails to be among the top 3 in polls.


----------



## Very Senior Member

Couchie said:


> ....And who says these criteria are more important that any other... we should judge by how many dedicated societies the composer has I think...


 Do you have any data on the number of societies there are for, say, each of T-C Top 10 composers, and does there exist any information on the number of members each one has? Of course, I know the answer, but I thought I'd give you the chance to flower.


----------



## Andreas

Very Senior Member said:


> So what exactly is your point? You have defined "greatness" in terms acceptable to you, and conclude that the list comes close to the truth based on these considerations. That's all that matters, isn't it? I can't see why you complicate things by picking on just one of the two components of "greatness" and suggesting that the list would appear different if based on that single component "raw technical ability".


The two criteria I named seem to me among the most objective. Lists like these always seem to claim some degree of objectivity. That is, if they are supposed to be more than just an aggregate of subjective opinions of taste.

I'm not saying that the criteria I named are the only valid ones, not at all. I'd personally rank composers also in terms of their spiritualness, their personality and their inventiveness, for instance.

But no one in this thread had so far indicated any specific criteria for their picks, so I thought I could throw that in.

I agree with you that it is difficult to compare different eras and different styles. To compare Bach's counterpoint to Palestrina's or to Wagner's or Ligeti's. Still, to me, the ability to write elaborate counterpoint is a good and somewhat measurable indicator of a composer's might.


----------



## Very Senior Member

Interesting though some of the comments are in this thread, it ought to be possible to infer from the actual voting that took place in the top 50 composer poll itself which composers are deemed by individual members to be either under or over rated according to how they voted in the poll. 

Assuming everybody who voted in the poll expresses their opinion here in this thread, then if one adds up the opinions in this thread for the composers deemed to be under rated and over-rated it should, mathematically speaking, replicate the rank order of the composers as they appear in the poll, since all of these individual opinions should cancel out in total and we would finish up with the status quo set of ranks. 

I accept that in practice there will be a divergence between the sample of members who voted in the top 50 composer poll and those members who now choose to vent their views on the appropriateness of the resulting ranks, in which case the self-cancelling mechanism may not be fully valid. However, provided the two samples of members are large enough and are drawn at random the divergence shouldn’t be large, and hence this discussion is probably not going to shed any interesting new light on the subject of the correct ranking of individual composers, whether it’s for Wagner or anyone else.


----------



## Very Senior Member

Andreas said:


> The two criteria I named seem to me among the most objective. Lists like these always seem to claim some degree of objectivity. That is, if they are supposed to be more than just an aggregate of subjective opinions of taste. I'm not saying that the criteria I named are the only valid ones, not at all. I'd personally rank composers also in terms of their spiritualness, their personality and their inventiveness, for instance. But no one in this thread had so far indicated any specific criteria for their picks, so I thought I could throw that in. I agree with you that it is difficult to compare different eras and different styles. To compare Bach's counterpoint to Palestrina's or to Wagner's or Ligeti's. Still, to me, the ability to write elaborate counterpoint is a good and somewhat measurable indicator of a composer's might.


 I wasn't questioning your two criteria. Based on your criteria, you seemed to accept the ranks of the composers as they are shown in the poll, even though no specific "greatness" criteria were asked to be used when the poll was set up. My question was why you then selected just one of your two criteria to argue that the rank list would be different if based on that alone. I couldn't see the point of this, as it doesn't say anything interesting given that greatness has to be assessed in the round. And besides that, I couldn't see any mileage in your arguing that Mozart is a lessser composer than Bach based on the amount of counterpoint each used. Mozart's music wouldn't have been "classical" if he had simply tried to out-do Bach in this regard. Mozart incorporated other musical features that Bach might have struggled with. The overall result is that Bach was great at baroque, and Mozart great at "classical", and "never the twain shall meet".


----------



## Vesteralen

Very Senior Member said:


> Interesting though some of the comments are in this thread, it ought to be possible to infer from the actual voting that took place in the top 50 composer poll itself which composers are deemed by individual members to be either under or over rated according to how they voted in the poll.
> 
> Assuming everybody who voted in the poll expresses their opinion here in this thread, then if one adds up the opinions in this thread for the composers deemed to be under rated and over-rated it should, mathematically speaking, replicate the rank order of the composers as they appear in the poll, since all of these individual opinions should cancel out in total and we would finish up with the status quo set of ranks.
> 
> I accept that in practice there will be a divergence between the sample of members who voted in the top 50 composer poll and those members who now choose to vent their views on the appropriateness of the resulting ranks, in which case the self-cancelling mechanism may not be fully valid. However, provided the two samples of members are large enough and are drawn at random the divergence shouldn't be large, and hence this discussion is probably not going to shed any interesting new light on the subject of the correct ranking of individual composers, whether it's for Wagner or anyone else.


I can only add to this that I very much doubt that more than maybe 15% of the contributors to this forum are really qualified to judge "greatness". Most of us, and I include myself in this, are only qualified to say what we like or don't like. I don't mean that 85% of us are musically ignorant, I'm just saying that our technical knowledge of musical composition is probably rudimentary at best. If a discussion veers toward the technical, most of us will look for authorities to quote rather than venture our toes into the complex world of original analysis.

So, in reality, it seems a bit presumptuous to even have a "Greatest" list. We can really only have "Favorites".


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Very Senior Member said:


> ... However, provided the two samples of members are large enough and are drawn at random the divergence shouldn't be large, and hence this discussion is probably not going to shed any interesting new light on the subject of the correct ranking of individual composers, whether it's for Wagner or anyone else.


Agree, good points. Although the sample size is not really large enough (and I am not going to attack my own thread / break my own rules as stated in post #1!), it is remarkably consistent in the overall rankings of say the top 10 and top 20 of the list, and even say, Vivaldi whom I mentioned earlier and your quotes of similar results from other type of polls, indicate that despite our smaller TC participation rate here, the list on the whole, I think, is not outrageous. This also comes from the fact that TC tends to have a Romantic bias in its membership preference compared with earlier periods.

The "best" part of this thread though, I admit, is to read who sppears to scream the loudest about any particular composer. Wagner again seems to take the crown. :lol:


----------



## science

Well, how useful would it be for me to argue that Cage is being treated unfairly? I fear to think how that would be received.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I haven't awarded any demerits to John Cage. Not yet ...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I haven't awarded any demerits to John Cage. Not yet ...


YOU DON'T NEED TO text


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The one composer I am positively surprised to see him do quite "highly" in the Top 50 is Vivaldi, at #26 ahead of several Romantic heavy-weights such as Berlioz, Bruckner and Rachmaninoff. Considering how often Antonio's music gets poo-pooed here for being repetitively boring 300 times over for soloist and orchestra, that's an interesting result for one who was in fact, a very original composer.

Yes... I was pleasantly surprised with regard to Vivaldi as well. He is indeed... along with Rachmaninoff, Puccini, Johann Strauss, Offenbach, Tchaikovsky... and to some extent, even Mozart... one of those composers that gets accused of being "lightweight"... as if every composer must sound like Mahler, Bruckner... or Wagner. I might also point out that Handel fared quite a bit better than I would have guessed considering that many of the old TC opera aficionados that championed him are no longer active... or didn't participate much in this poll.


----------



## crmoorhead

science said:


> Well, how useful would it be for me to argue that Cage is being treated unfairly? I fear to think how that would be received.


I like what Cage was about. He seemed a really fun guy.


----------



## Very Senior Member

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> The "best" part of this thread though, I admit, is to read who sppears to scream the loudest about any particular composer. Wagner again seems to take the crown. :lol:


 Undoudtedly correct. It was almost worth creating the thread as a device to fish out yet more pearls of wisdom on the Wagner issue from some quarters. I'm enthralled by all the new insights.


----------



## Couchie

Very Senior Member said:


> Do you have any data on the number of societies there are for, say, each of T-C Top 10 composers, and does there exist any information on the number of members each one has? Of course, I know the answer, but I thought I'd give you the chance to flower.


For Wagner:

http://www.richard-wagner-verband.de/english/index.html

For # of members, you could call the listed telephone numbers and ask them.

The rest: Don't have an international associating body. _Very telling. _


----------



## waldvogel

In my opinion, Vivaldi wouldn't rate as highly as the 26th best *Baroque* composer.


----------



## waldvogel

Looking at the list again, it would be interesting to make a histogram of the dates of the composers' deaths here. The list is almost entirely filled with composers who died between 1750 and 1950. I don't have a problem with this, since those dates - actually a tad earlier - roughly map out my favourite eras of Classical music. But for those who want something like representative fairness, the absence of Victoria and Gibbons and Schutz and Corelli and F. Couperin must be shocking. I love the music of the 19th century, but would gladly place all of the above on the list in exchange for the loss of Saint Saens, Rossini, Grieg, Rimsky-Korsakov, and Scriabin.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

In my opinion, Vivaldi wouldn't rate as highly as the 26th best Baroque composer.

Of course your opinion would be wrong.


----------



## neoshredder

StlukesguildOhio said:


> In my opinion, Vivaldi wouldn't rate as highly as the 26th best Baroque composer.
> 
> Of course your opinion would be wrong.


Way wrong.


----------



## waldvogel

StlukesguildOhio said:


> In my opinion, Vivaldi wouldn't rate as highly as the 26th best Baroque composer.
> 
> Of course your opinion would be wrong.


OK, here goes:

Bach
Handel
Telemann
F. Couperin
Rameau
Lully
Corelli
Torelli
Albinoni
Purcell
Stanley
Arne
Biber
Boyce
D. Scarlatti
G. Gabrieli
Monteverdi
Schutz
Buxtehude
Heineken
M.A. Charpentier
Praetorius
L. Couperin
Tartini
Sweelinck
Frescobaldi

There's 26, off the top of my head. None of them wrote endlessly repetitive and formulaic concertos. Well, Telemann did sometimes, but he could do other things too.


----------



## neoshredder

Some of those are Renaissance Composers. Gabrieli and Sweelinck for example. 
Here's my list.
1. Bach
2. Vivaldi
3. Handel
4. Corelli
5. Telemann
6. Rameau
7. Biber
8. Monteverdi
9. Purcecll
10. Buxtehude
11. Lully

The rest. But congrats on putting the effort in making a list of that many baroque composers.


----------



## tdc

Even if _Four Seasons_ was the only Concerto Vivaldi ever wrote I would rank him quite highly among the Baroque composers. The whole argument against Vivaldi that he wrote repetitive concertos only goes so far. I notice people who bring this point up never say anything against any of his Sinfonias, Choral Works, Sonatas, Operas etc. Many of which are 1st class works, well crafted, and highly original and innovative for their time - not to mention having a major influence on Bach. It seems many Vivaldi detractors over-look this other output, and Vivaldi's massive contributions and influence on the course of western music, when repeating this old worn out, and weak criticism.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Bach
Handel
Telemann
F. Couperin
Rameau
Lully
Corelli
Torelli
Albinoni
Purcell
Stanley
Arne
Biber
Boyce
D. Scarlatti
G. Gabrieli
Monteverdi
Schutz
Buxtehude
Heineken
M.A. Charpentier
Praetorius
L. Couperin
Tartini
Sweelinck
Frescobaldi

There's 26, off the top of my head. None of them wrote endlessly repetitive and formulaic concertos. Well, Telemann did sometimes, but he could do other things too.

Hmmm... Leaving aside J.S. Bach, Handel, and perhaps Rameau, I can't think of any piece composed by any of the remaining composers that resonates with as many people as the Four Seasons. Come to think of it... Boyce? Heineken (wasn't that a beer?), Stanley?... I can't think of the least bit of music by them and I'm fairly well versed in the Baroque. (You forgot Weiss, Zelenka, Scheidt, Alessandro Scarlatti, and Hasse... off the top of my head)

Vivaldi's concertos may have been formulaic... but the best ones are as good or better than anybody else' on that list with the exception of Bach. But it should be recognized that his concertos is what paid the bills. His vocal music... especially his operas... are what make him a major composer of the Baroque.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Vivaldi did after all think of himself as primarily an opera composer.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

JS Bach was perhaps the greatest composer who admired Vivaldi's music, studying them and transcribng them for solo keyboard to concerti arrangement, including the concerto for four harpsichords (BWV 1065). The "Italianess" in numerous of Bach's works for someone who never visited Italy is evidence of the esteem he had of Vivaldi's music, preferring the three-movement Vivaldian standard concerto format we take for granted (instead of the multi-movement Corellian format). Vivaldi wrote so many concerti because his original audiences found them very new and original for its time, and was central to the arts in making Italy the artistic capital of the world at that point in time. Italy was the place to be for any would-be composer and artist, and aristocrats from abroad were eager to seek out what were the latest. People always wanted new music, which was the reason why composers wrote so many pieces, "when next week came, there would be a new piece to perform".


----------



## Very Senior Member

Couchie said:


> For Wagner:
> 
> http://www.richard-wagner-verband.de/english/index.html
> 
> For # of members, you could call the listed telephone numbers and ask them.
> 
> The rest: Don't have an international associating body. _Very telling. _


Thanks for providing the above link in response to my question about the significance of the number of Wagner societies. As I indicated previously, I have seen this before, both on this Board and on others when the subject of Wagner's relative popularity has been raised.

I agree that there does appear to be a lot of Wagner societies around the world. Against this, there would appear to be none, or very few, for other major composers. However, I have always found this disparity to provide a very unconvincing indicator of the relative "greatness" of the top composers.

For a start, there is no indication of the number of members attached to any of these Wagner societies. You suggest that I might telephone the societies to enquire about membership details. Now, as you are probably aware if one asked the various secretariats for further information about membership numbers etc, I doubt very much that much progress would be made for various reasons.

Secondly, it is hardly incumbent on the likes of me to pursue enquiries of this nature, but rather those who put forward the suggestion in the first place that the number of Wagner societies is indicative of his relative greatness.

Third, the apparent lack of any internationally affiliated societies for other composers doesn't necessarily imply anything about the degree of favour or "greatness" which they possess relative to others. For example, I'm very keen on various composers but I doubt that I could be bothered to join any "society" that purported to act in their names in some way. I guess many other people might feel the same way.

Fourth, it's not clear what these Wagner societies actually exist for. For example, the number of Wagner supporters around the world might feel so outnumbered or threatned in some way by much bigger hoardes of supporters for other composers that they gang up looking for mutual support and comfort.

I make these comments not because I'm not in any way anti-Wagner. I'm perfectly happy to see him occupy a top 10 position in the pantheon of greatest composers, even though I'm not an especially big fan of opera or rather Wagner's brand of it. I've been around long enough to know what's what in this area. Rather, I'm truly puzzled why this argument about the number of societies seems so often to be dredged up in support of Wagner's alleged greatness when it seems so clearly to be such un-persuasive argument.


----------



## Couchie

Very Senior Member said:


> For a start, there is no indication of the number of members attached to any of these Wagner societies. You suggest that I might telephone the societies to enquire about membership details. Now, as you are probably aware if one asked the various secretariats for further information about membership numbers etc, I doubt very much that much progress would be made for various reasons.


I'm not aware. I generally find telephone conversations productive. The various reasons are?



Very Senior Member said:


> Secondly, it is hardly incumbent on the likes of me to pursue enquiries of this nature, but rather those who put forward the suggestion in the first place that the number of Wagner societies is indicative of his relative greatness.


You are no doubt intimidated by the sheer number of societies you would have to call. I'm going to have to say you're making my case for me.



Very Senior Member said:


> Third, the apparent lack of any internationally affiliated societies for other composers doesn't necessarily imply anything about the degree of favour or "greatness" which they possess relative to others. For example, I'm very keen on various composers but I doubt that I could be bothered to join any "society" that purported to act in their names in some way. I guess many other people might feel the same way.


Yet, Wagnerians *can* be bothered. Clearly there is some threshold of passion that a composer may invoke in its listeners that when crossed said listeners simply *must* devote part of their life to the study of the life and works of such composer. For lesser composers, no, their listeners cannot be bothered because they have more important things like vacuuming and yard work.



Very Senior Member said:


> Fourth, it's not clear what these Wagner societies actually exist for. For example, the number of Wagner supporters around the world might feel so outnumbered or threatned in some way by much bigger hoardes of supporters for other composers that they gang up looking for mutual support and comfort.


They exist for the study and appreciation of Wagner and his music. I think your premise is fairly ridiculous given the conventional rendering of Wagnerians as shameless, elitist, ***holes.



Very Senior Member said:


> I make these comments not because I'm not in any way anti-Wagner. I'm perfectly happy to see him occupy a top 10 position in the pantheon of greatest composers, even though I'm not an especially big fan of opera or rather Wagner's brand of it. I've been around long enough to know what's what in this area. Rather, I'm truly puzzled why this argument about the number of societies seems so often to be dredged up in support of Wagner's alleged greatness when it seems so clearly to be such un-persuasive argument.


Wagner got 'em! Bach... supposedly "god"... _*don't*_. Yet... God _does_. I'll let that speak for itself.


----------



## Very Senior Member

Couchie said:


> You are no doubt intimidated by the sheer number of societies you would have to call. I'm going to have to say you're making my case for me.


You keep getting it wrong, don't you. I'll give it to you once more: the onus is on you, not me or anyone else here, to tell us:

(a) how many members are represented by these world-wide Wagner societies

(b) how the number of Wagner societies, or preferably the number of members of Wagner societies, is remotely of significance in determining how great Wagner is in comparison with other major composers for whom no such similar societies exist.


----------



## Couchie

Very Senior Member said:


> You keep getting it wrong, don't you. I'll give it to you once more: the onus is on you, not me or anyone else here, to tell us:
> 
> (a) how many members are represented by these world-wide Wagner societies
> 
> (b) how the number of Wagner societies, or preferably the number of members of Wagner societies, is remotely of significance in determining how great Wagner is in comparison with other major composers for whom no such similar societies exist.


(a) 1,363,126 members total. Just finished calling them all a few minutes ago. Unfortunately I couldn't get a hold of a few of the German ones and the guy who answered the phone in Ljubljana couldn't speak English so this number may be too low.

(b) If a composer has more societies, or more members of such societies, he is a superior composer to a composer of fewer societies, or fewer members of such societies.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I'm not really reading what seems to be an argument between Couchie and Very Senior Member about Wagner, but I'll be on Couchie's side.


----------



## Very Senior Member

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I'm not really reading what seems to be an argument between Couchie and Very Senior Member about Wagner, but I'll be on Couchie's side.


 I can't force you read what is a very simple issue, but if it may help you understand it further I'm simply questioning the relevance of the number of "societies" devoted to a particular composer in helping to determine that composer's greatness relative to other composers.

A far as I'm aware, there is no obligation on people to join a "society" in order to engage in the appreciation of any composer's work. That being the case, the matter of societies is totally irrelevant and doesn't provide any useful yardstick on greatness.

In fact, I would have thought that someone like yourself, who ceaselessly preaches the virtues of the relative non-entity Ligeti (ramming it down any thread that takes your fancy), might have been rather more sympathetic to my suggestion that the number of societies is not very useful in indicating a composer's relative greatness. If you think otherwise, perhaps you could tell us how many international societies devoted to Ligeti you have come across.

But I have to admit that it doesn't bother me one iota that you're on "Couchie"'s side on this matter. In fact I wish luck cultivating your relationship. However, I won't be saying any more on this topic, apart from my quick riposte to Couchie below.


----------



## Very Senior Member

Couchie said:


> (a) 1,363,126 members total. Just finished calling them all a few minutes ago. Unfortunately I couldn't get a hold of a few of the German ones and the guy who answered the phone in Ljubljana couldn't speak English so this number may be too low.
> 
> (b) If a composer has more societies, or more members of such societies, he is a superior composer to a composer of fewer societies, or fewer members of such societies.


I take it from this that you haven't a clue on the number of members or the relevance to Wagner's greatness compared with others.


----------



## Couchie

Very Senior Member said:


> I take it from this that you haven't a clue on the number of members or the relevance to Wagner's greatness compared with others.


And now you have arrived at the point: We have **** all of knowing how to take a metric of "greatness".  Mine is no more stupid than what you proposed.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

The discussion above aboout societies above to indicate greatness has led me to think about a "better" indicator, that of monuments and museums alike dedicated to the composer. I think monuments and museums could be some but not absolute, indication of "greatness". For example, let's take Handel. He was the first composer (or any professional artist for that matter) to have a statue errected of him while he was still alive. There is also a Handel monument in Westminster Abbey (London), where is buried. And there is a Handel House Museum on Brook Street London, the composer's home for most of his life n London and now turned public Handel museum (next door to Jimi Hendrix's property).

So if you were to correlate physical monuments and museums alike with "greatness", I think there would be some positive correlation there. Beethoven House in Bonn, Wagner's Bayreuth, Mozart Museums, even Michael Haydn Museum at St. Peter's Monastry (Salzburg), Schönberg House in Mödling.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

For reference, this is the list as at the time of this post.

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


----------



## crmoorhead

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> The discussion above aboout societies above to indicate greatness has led me to think about a "better" indicator, that of monuments and museums alike dedicated to the composer.


I think that this is dependent on too many factors to be reliable. How about a series of focussed google searches on the full name of the composer plus the word 'composer' to distinguish between other people of that name?


----------



## Very Senior Member

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> The discussion above aboout societies above to indicate greatness has led me to think about a "better" indicator, that of monuments and museums alike dedicated to the composer. I think monuments and museums could be some but not absolute, indication of "greatness". For example, let's take Handel. He was the first composer (or any professional artist for that matter) to have a statue errected of him while he was still alive. There is also a Handel monument in Westminster Abbey (London), where is buried. And there is a Handel House Museum on Brook Street London, the composer's home for most of his life n London and now turned public Handel museum (next door to Jimi Hendrix's property).
> 
> So if you were to correlate physical monuments and museums alike with "greatness", I think there would be some positive correlation there. Beethoven House in Bonn, Wagner's Bayreuth, Mozart Museums, even Michael Haydn Museum at St. Peter's Monastry (Salzburg), Schönberg House in Mödling.


The number of monuments dedicated to a composer is probably a better indicator of greatness than the number of appreciation societies (which is about as unconvicing as things can get given that there's clearly no need to form societies in order to appreciate music), but there are still some major problems with monuments:

- The size of monuments varies enormously so that it would be necessary to decide how many "little" ones correspond to one "big" one.

- The placing of monuments, regardless of size, would have to be taken into account. Having achieved a spot inside Westminster Abbey (like Handel and Purcell) is probably worth a lot more than one placed in, say, the crypt of an off-the-beaten-track Spanish Monastery.

- The larger the number of countries over which any given number of monuments per composer is spread might indicate higher greatness than where all the monuments are concentrated in one country or within a specific location within that country. For example, 10 monuments placed in good positions in various major cities around the world might be worth than say 30 dotted around various spots of that composer's birthplace town/city when no other monuments exist.

- Monuments are a backward looking indicator of popular fame and esteem, i.e. reflecting largely the attitudes to particular individuals of societies far removed in time from the present one. The fame/popularity/esteem of a composer might have waxed or waned in the intervening period. The problem is made worse if planning restrictions exist which make it difficult to get rid of unwanted monuments or create new ones.

- Picking up further on the last point, in some cases the top physical locations for monuments have already been grabbed. I'm thinking for example of the Musicians' "Grove of Honor" in the Zentralfriedhof, Simmering, Vienna. All the best spots have already been grabbed by the Germans. One can hardly imagine any of that hallowed ground being interfered with to make way for some new composer "great".


----------



## Couchie

Number of monuments... LMFAO. By that metric, Kim Il-sung is the greatest political leader of all time.


----------



## Sid James

science said:


> Well, how useful would it be for me to argue that Cage is being treated unfairly? I fear to think how that would be received.


He's better than any composer of long Germanic operas anyway. No contest. Cage composed the longest piece in the world, it will go on for eternity. We are 'living' it here and now and it will go on FOREVER.

But seriously, its like there's different runners. Eg. sprinters and marathon runners. 'Greatness' does not equate to some epic cycle of operas that test the endurance of many classical listeners. Quantity does not necessarily equal quality.

But basically I don't care for fetishising, or lists, or building / supporting various agendas. So forget it, listeners who just go with what they like, cut the crapola and ideology, they have no place online building such lists. Well, I don't.


----------



## Lenfer

Rapide said:


> *1.* Prokofiev is too high.
> 
> *2.* Not enough French composers on the list so far.


1. I like Prokofiev.

2. I agree.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Bach and Beethoven are too high


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Bach and Beethoven are too high


No mention at all of the great Russian composer *Nikolai Yakovlevich Myaskovsky* (1881-1950) in the list! What disrespect!


----------



## Sid James

emiellucifuge said:


> Sid, I cannot recall ever seeing someone call someone else a retard, or accusing them of having some mental disease, wagnerite or not. But I hope that I would apply my usual moral standards.


Well it has happened on this forum. Or the other 'trick' of being targeted for not liking long works in general. Hence the ADHD thing. I'm not saying you did it, I remember a member here who is not that active now, I could probably find it but I do not want to potentially break rules (eg. slander another member).



> ...
> Yes, I am biased. It is impossible to hold an opinion without holding a bias. The quality of art is really a matter of opinion, therefore bias...


That's what I think, basically.



> ...
> You began to make judgements about the financial success and the attendance of Wagner productions, predicting that they would flop. Perhaps they might, but the long history of Wagner performance and successes (how about a 7 year waiting list for Bayreuth tickets?) provide enough examples of the opposite to render the failure of one production in Melbourne insignificant. An insignificance which you unfortunately blew out of proportion.


Look, the Melbourne ring can sell out, that could happen. Maybe I should not have made judgements about how it will sell. But what I'm saying is that Wagner's popularity at #6 is too high, that's what I think, he should be somewhere between 11-20.

But I think I'll stay out of this now. Its too controversial.


----------



## Lenfer

I was told if you say *Wagner* three times while looking in a mirror a *Couchie* will appear, so I try to avoid the subject. 

More seriously I think there is a "special" type of *Wagner* devotee that a lot of the success of a production relies on. I think it is the attendance of these fans that make or break a production. As mainstream as he is I'm sure the general public could name him *Wagner* in my opinion is pretty niche so I see were you both are coming from.

For example how many people who go to a *Wagner* production belong to a *Wagner* society? In my experience given I don't go to *Wagner* often quite a few more so than other composers. I hope my point is to muddled I'm quite sleepy.

:tiphat:


----------



## myaskovsky2002

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> No mention at all of the great Russian composer *Nikolai Yakovlevich Myaskovsky* (1881-1950) in the list! What disrespect!


I would loved giving you 10 likes

Nikolai


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

No mention at all of the great Russian composer Nikolai Yakovlevich Myaskovsky...

His first and middle names were actually "Modest Petrovich..."

And I believe you really spelled "Mussorgsky" wrong.

:devil:


----------



## Cnote11

Mussorgsky is fantastic. How dare anybody insult a Russian composer! What do you feel gives you the right, you amateur critics?


----------



## myaskovsky2002

StlukesguildOhio said:


> No mention at all of the great Russian composer Nikolai Yakovlevich Myaskovsky...
> 
> His first and middle names were actually "Modest Petrovich..."
> 
> And I believe you really spelled "Mussorgsky" wrong.
> 
> :devil:


Мусоргский

Is the way, I copied from my Khovanshina, a Russian disc

Мартин


----------



## Klavierspieler

Overrated:

Schubert (slightly)
Brahms (slightly)
Wagner
Haydn
Mahler
Ravel
R. Strauss
Liszt
Verdi
Vivaldi
Berlioz
Bruckner
Saint-Saens
Puccini
Rossini
Rimsky-Korsakov
Copland

Underrated:

Schumann (should be no. 1)
Chopin
Stravinsky
Shostakovich
Bartok
Sibelius
Elgar (quite)
Vaughan Williams
Grieg
Barber

_*Way*_ underrated:

Janacek
Britten 
Berg
Webern


----------



## beetzart

Take away the 4th and I see no point to Bruckner.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

What is it about Afro Pärt's music that puts him so highly and indeed over rated, right now over many much finer composers in the list? He hasn't yet made over 300 points.


----------



## Very Senior Member

beetzart said:


> Take away the 4th and I see no point to Bruckner.


The 4th is just about the only work of Bruckner that I quite like. I can listen to the 7th and 8th occasionally and not fidget around too much but it's harder work.


----------



## Very Senior Member

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> What is it about Afro Pärt's music that puts him so highly and indeed over rated, right now over many much finer composers in the list? He hasn't yet made over 300 points.


Pass. No idea.


----------



## Andreas

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> What is it about Arvo Pärt's music that puts him so highly and indeed over rated, right now over many much finer composers in the list? He hasn't yet made over 300 points.


Pärt did manage to create a distinct style, which, I presume, is never quite that easy to begin with. Also, his music is intensely spiritual in a way that all different kinds of people can relate to. Some may discard it as some new age scam, but others pray or meditate to it.

Neither of these two things make him a great composer, of course. And technically, his compostions are probably much below his abilities. But it seems he has overcome all striving. His music is more about a spiritual quest, and many people, secularized though as we've become, respond to it.

His music is not simply religious music or sacred music or even church music. Many composers could write that. Rather, Pärt's music feels like it's the very essence of his life as a believer. The only othe composer I could say that about is Bach.


----------



## aleazk

Klavierspieler said:


> Overrated:
> 
> Schubert (slightly)
> Brahms (slightly)
> Wagner
> Haydn
> Mahler
> _Ravel_
> R. Strauss
> Liszt
> Verdi
> Vivaldi
> Berlioz
> Bruckner
> Saint-Saens
> Puccini
> Rossini
> Rimsky-Korsakov
> Copland
> 
> Underrated:
> 
> Schumann (should be no. 1)
> Chopin
> Stravinsky
> Shostakovich
> Bartok
> Sibelius
> Elgar (quite)
> Vaughan Williams
> Grieg
> Barber
> 
> _*Way*_ underrated:
> 
> Janacek
> Britten
> Berg
> Webern


 is Ravel is one thing, that thing is not 'an overrated composer'.


----------



## Klavierspieler

aleazk said:


> is Ravel is one thing, that thing is not 'an overrated composer'.


Sorry.

Henc-henc-henc...


----------



## aleazk

Klavierspieler said:


> Sorry.
> 
> Henc-henc-henc...


meh, no problem... I can't blame you for having bad taste :devil:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

aleazk said:


> meh, no problem... I can't blame you for having bad taste :devil:


*Yes you can*


----------



## GGluek

I'd throw Vivaldi off the list entirely, but then I'm a small minority.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Andreas said:


> Pärt did manage to create a distinct style, which, I presume, is never quite that easy to begin with. Also, his music is intensely spiritual in a way that all different kinds of people can relate to. Some may discard it as some new age scam, but others pray or meditate to it.
> 
> Neither of these two things make him a great composer, of course. And technically, his compostions are probably much below his abilities. But it seems he has overcome all striving. His music is more about a spiritual quest, and many people, secularized though as we've become, respond to it.
> 
> His music is not simply religious music or sacred music or even church music. Many composers could write that. Rather, Pärt's music feels like it's the very essence of his life as a believer. The only othe composer I could say that about is Bach.


Thank you, member Andreas. Now qualifying just above Gershwin, Alessandro Scarlatti and Corelli. How repugnant!

51. Gluck
52. Rameau
53. Scriabin
54. Ligeti
55. Webern
56. Nielsen
57. Bizet
58. Lully
59. Copland
60. Villa-Lobos
61. Weber
62. Telemann
63. Satie
64. Strauss II, Johann
65. Adams
66. Glass
67. Gesualdo
68. Donizetti
69. Ives
70. Biber
71. Bellini
72. Tallis
73. Buxtehude
74. Machaut
75. Victoria
76. Respighi
77. Hummel
78. Haydn, Michael
79. Byrd
80. Borodin
81. Reich
*82. Pärt*
83. Holst
84. Delius
85. Scarlatti, Alessandro
86. Gershwin
87. Corelli


----------



## BurningDesire

Mozart is entirely too high. Not a bad composer at all, but nothing spectacular save for some of his later works. Nothing that elevates him above the likes of Haydn, nothing revolutionary enough for him to share the platform occupied by composers like Beethoven or Bach or Debussy or Chopin or Schoenberg or Cage. He's far from the only composer to be quite prolific, far from the only prodigious composer to ever live, and even so, being a prodigy doesn't make you better than anybody else. The only way he could be more over-rated would be if his name was Hans Zimmer or James Horner (who actually do suck, but are held in high regard).


----------



## neoshredder

GGluek said:


> I'd throw Vivaldi off the list entirely, but then I'm a small minority.


Yes and your opinion is WRONG!


----------



## BurningDesire

neoshredder said:


> Yes and your opinion is WRONG!


Pft and yours is right, with your assertion all the 19th Century masters are too high?


----------



## neoshredder

Masters of boredom? If I wanted that, I'll listen to Brahms or Mendelssohn. If I want real music, I'll listen to 18th or 20th century music.


----------



## BurningDesire

20th Century is great. 18th... its alright. Its not bad, but its no 19th Century.


----------



## neoshredder

1681-1780 is the most interesting era of Classical music. Followed by 1910-1990. Sorry if I left out some Ligeti music after 1990.


----------



## aleazk

neoshredder said:


> 1681-1780 is the most interesting era of Classical music. Followed by 1910-1990. Sorry if I left out some Ligeti music after 1990.


 Some of his best music!, the Hamburg Concerto, the Violin Concerto, several Piano Etudes, some songs.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

BurningDesire said:


> Mozart is entirely too high. Not a bad composer at all, but nothing spectacular save for some of his later works. Nothing that elevates him above the likes of Haydn, nothing revolutionary enough for him to share the platform occupied by composers like Beethoven or Bach or Debussy or Chopin or Schoenberg or Cage. He's far from the only composer to be quite prolific, far from the only prodigious composer to ever live, and even so, being a prodigy doesn't make you better than anybody else. The only way he could be more over-rated would be if his name was Hans Zimmer or James Horner (who actually do suck, but are held in high regard).


Your perspective is incorrect. Mozart "revolutionised" (to use your description) the Classical idiom.


----------



## neoshredder

Fine I'll include it to 2009.


----------



## SottoVoce

BurningDesire said:


> Mozart is entirely too high. Not a bad composer at all, but nothing spectacular save for some of his later works. Nothing that elevates him above the likes of Haydn, nothing revolutionary enough for him to share the platform occupied by composers like Beethoven or Bach or Debussy or Chopin or Schoenberg or Cage. He's far from the only composer to be quite prolific, far from the only prodigious composer to ever live, and even so, being a prodigy doesn't make you better than anybody else. The only way he could be more over-rated would be if his name was Hans Zimmer or James Horner (who actually do suck, but are held in high regard).


How is Bach even remotely close to revolutionary? By the end of his life (Art of Fugue, later cantanas, etc), he was writing in a contrapuntal style that was looking behind 100 or 200 years into Renaissance polyphony. He was also writing fugues, which were terribly out of style as everyone was beginning to transition into the galant era (Minuets, simple dances , etc).

What does a revolutionary have to do with being a good composer? People grossly equate the two. Mozart mastered the classical form and brought it to a transcendental level like no one did before, just like your "revolutionary" Bach did with the fugal process. Liszt did much more in terms of revolutionizing music, but you'd have to be insane to call him a better composer. Mozart was writing eternal pieces by the time he was 25. Some of his greater "later works" were written when he was under 30. There is no doubting his genius and his greatness at all, even if you admit that you don't like him. It'd be ridiculous to assume that he was nothing "spectacular"


----------



## BurningDesire

neoshredder said:


> 1681-1780 is the most interesting era of Classical music. Followed by 1910-1990. Sorry if I left out some Ligeti music after 1990.


LOL thats a great joke there :3


----------



## BurningDesire

SottoVoce said:


> How is Bach even remotely close to revolutionary? By the end of his life (Art of Fugue, later cantanas, etc), he was writing in a contrapuntal style that was looking behind 100 or 200 years into Renaissance polyphony. He was also writing fugues, which were terribly out of style as everyone was beginning to transition into the galant era (Minuets, simple dances , etc).
> 
> What does a revolutionary have to do with being a good composer? People grossly equate the two. Mozart mastered the classical form and brought it to a transcendental level like no one did before, just like your "revolutionary" Bach did with the fugal process. Liszt did much more in terms of revolutionizing music, but you'd have to be insane to call him a better composer. Mozart was writing eternal pieces by the time he was 25. Some of his greater "later works" were written when he was under 30. There is no doubting his genius and his greatness at all, even if you admit that you don't like him. It'd be ridiculous to assume that he was nothing "spectacular"


Bach's sense of counterpoint was brilliant, and his harmony was ahead of his time. Mozart writing "eternal" pieces? XD How dramatic. To me, his work tends to be dreadfully boring, because its all just plugged into formulas. There are exceptions such as his great operas, his late symphonies, some of his concerti and certain orchestral works. People put too much stock in age. So he mastered the generic forms of classical music by 25? So he composed great works before the age of 30? Who cares? If he lived to age 80 and he didn't start composing until his 30s, but he wrote the exact same music, would you be thinking any less of it? If not, then why is that something that should raise his work above that of artists like Beethoven or Chopin or Tchaikovsky? Its not an assumption, it is my researched claim that he isn't anything spectacular, save for certain instances. He was a great composer, but not anything reaching toward the greatest of all time.


----------



## BurningDesire

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Your perspective is incorrect. Mozart "revolutionised" (to use your description) the Classical idiom.


Yeah, keep telling yourself that, friend


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Mozart is entirely too high. Not a bad composer at all, but nothing spectacular save for some of his later works. Nothing that elevates him above the likes of Haydn, nothing revolutionary enough for him to share the platform occupied by composers like Beethoven or Bach or Debussy or Chopin or Schoenberg or Cage. He's far from the only composer to be quite prolific, far from the only prodigious composer to ever live, and even so, being a prodigy doesn't make you better than anybody else. The only way he could be more over-rated would be if his name was Hans Zimmer or James Horner (who actually do suck, but are held in high regard)

I'll have to disagree with you here. The TC poll places Mozart at no. 2... and that is where I would personally place him as well. Certainly Mozart composed a great deal of music that was merely good... or very good. But the amount of major works composed by him are more than a few. Among his major mature works I would include:

Motet in F for Soprano, "Exsultate, jubilate"
Symphony No. 25
Symphony No. 29 in A major
Symphony No. 35 in D major, "Haffner"
Symphony No. 36 in C major, "Linz"
Symphony No. 38 in D major, "Prague"
Symphony No. 39 in E-flat major
Symphony No. 40 in G minor
Symphony No. 41 in C major
Piano Concertos nos. 8-27
Violin Concertos 1-5
Four Horn Concertos
Concerto for Flute, Harp, and Orchestra
Flute Concerto
Concerto for Clarinet and Orchestra
Late Violin Sonatas (no. 17 onward)
Late String Quartets (Haydn Quartets, Hoffmeister Quartet, Prussian Quartets)
String Quintets nos. 2-6
Trio for Clarinet, Viola and Piano in E-flat major, "Kegelstatt"
Clarinet Quintet
Adagio and Rondo for Glass Harmonica, Flute, Oboe, Viola and Cello
Adagio in C for Glass Harmonica
Serenades nos. 6-13
Trio for Violin, Viola and Cello
Quintet for Piano and Winds
Mass No. 14 ("Missa brevis") in B-flat major
Mass No. 15 in C major, "Coronation"
Mass No. 17 in C minor, "Great"
Requiem Mass in D minor
Kyrie in D minor, K. 341
Ave verum corpus
The Concert Arias
_Zaide
Idomeneo
Die Entführung aus dem Serail
Der Schauspieldirektor
Le nozze di Figaro
Don Giovanni
Così fan tutte
Die Zauberflöte
La clemenza di Tito_

Undoubtedly I've forgotten any number of works. First and foremost, Mozart was a masterful composer of vocal music. He has a number of stunningly beautiful sacred choral works ending with the _Requiem_ that surely stands among the finest choral works ever penned. His Concert Arias amount to several discs of music often overlooked... but again among some of the most exquisite vocal music... the finest rivaling the best arias of his operas:





















This brings us to the operas. Mozart is recognized among opera fans as having composed many of the greatest operas ever penned. At least 7 of them rival or surpass anything of the era. The great four (_Le Nozze di Figaro, Don Giovanni, Cosi fan tutte, and Die Zauberflote_) build upon the innovations of Gluck and push opera even further in abandoning the Baroque tradition. Many would see Mozart as rivaling Wagner and Verdi among the greatest operatic composers.

But then he has so many other masterpieces: the Quintet for Piano and Winds, the Clarinet Quintet and the Clarinet Concerto, the last symphonies... especially nos. 40 & 41... and all those piano concertos. Mozart's achievements in this form are unsurpassed by anyone. Not even Beethoven's 5 great concertos amount to a greater achievement than Mozart's.

Mozart most assuredly deserves his renown.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

...it is my researched claim that he isn't anything spectacular...

More research, my friend.:lol:


----------



## BurningDesire

But does he deserve renown over all the many other great composers before, contemporary to him, and since his time? I really wouldn't mind so much if people didn't place him above EVERYONE.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Well... I wouldn't place him above J.S. Bach... but Bach is God!:lol:


----------



## mmsbls

BurningDesire said:


> But does he deserve renown over all the many other great composers before, contemporary to him, and since his time? I really wouldn't mind so much if people didn't place him above EVERYONE.


Your earlier posts suggested to me that you felt he was not a truly great composer. You felt he should not be placed on the same level as composers that the current TC list rank 38 (Schoenberg) and 138 (Cage). This post suggests that he could be considered great (say top 5) as long as he isn't considered the greatest (i.e. No. 1). I'm not sure if you are bothered that people place him No. 1 or that people think he's great.

I personally feel he's the greatest composer I know, but most polls I know do not place him first. The following lists, Goulding's 50 Greatest Composers, The DDD composer list, the top 500 composers from the Western Kentucky site, and a list averaging TC members' picks, all place him second behind Bach or third. The current TC list also places him second behind Bach.

Are you just bothered by people like myself who think he's the greatest or are you bothered when lists comprised in various ways place him in in the top 3.

Stlukes gave a good explanation of why I would rate him so highly (although he did leave off one of my favorite works - the Sinfonia Concertante). I know of no other composer to write such a vast amount of sublimely beautiful music. That's simply my opinion.

Obviously musical taste is subjective and no one must love or even like Mozart (heretical as that may be ). I assume you are well aware of the general view of Mozart in the classical community by composers, performers, conductors, and listeners. He is held, on average, as one of the 3 greatest composers ever. You, I think, do not feel that way. Fine. When my view differs from the vast majority of the classical musical community (as it has on a number of occasions), I wonder what I am missing. Why do I have a belief that differs so markedly with so many others?

I guess the question is, "Why do you _mind_ that people place him so highly?"


----------



## SottoVoce

BurningDesire said:


> Bach's sense of counterpoint was brilliant, and his harmony was ahead of his time. Mozart writing "eternal" pieces? XD How dramatic. To me, his work tends to be dreadfully boring, because its all just plugged into formulas. There are exceptions such as his great operas, his late symphonies, some of his concerti and certain orchestral works. People put too much stock in age. So he mastered the generic forms of classical music by 25? So he composed great works before the age of 30? Who cares? If he lived to age 80 and he didn't start composing until his 30s, but he wrote the exact same music, would you be thinking any less of it? If not, then why is that something that should raise his work above that of artists like Beethoven or Chopin or Tchaikovsky? Its not an assumption, it is my researched claim that he isn't anything spectacular, save for certain instances. He was a great composer, but not anything reaching toward the greatest of all time.


Brillant and revolutionary are two different things my friend, saying that his harmony was "ahead of his time" is very easy to say but very hard to back up - Bach's music is genius in it's own idioms; he used the forms and structures, most notably the tonal idiom, that existed years before him and brought them to a level that surpassed all music before it (psst like Mozart). Mozart's ability to mature artistically in so little time means that he was able, save his death, compose much more masterpieces than if he were to "take his time", so to speak. One could speak of Richard Strauss; although I love his earlier pieces, his later pieces show his full maturation as a composer, and because of this we only have 4 or 5 pieces at his greatest. I'm not sure there is any composer who had such a wide mastery of such diverse genres - there seems to be a Mozart masterpiece in any instrumentation. If you were to say that you simply didn't like Mozart, I'd be fine with that, but I think your position comes from a gross misunderstanding of what he was trying to achieve as an artist.


----------



## neoshredder

BurningDesire said:


> LOL thats a great joke there :3


Lets see. Beethoven? Alright. Still considered classical by many. 
Mendelssohn? Yawn
Schubert? yawn
Brahms? Even more Yawn
Wagner? Oh boy. Can't get worse than this. 
Bruckner? More boring music
Dvorak? Finally some hope for interesting music.
Tchaikovsky? Mixed bag
Debussy? Start of Modern music. Much improvement.
Stravinsky? Yay the Romantic Era is basically over.
Bartok? More great music. 
Shostakovich. Some good. Some bad.
And finally Ligeti and Schnittke. The best of Modern music.


----------



## Toddlertoddy

neoshredder said:


> Lets see. Beethoven? Alright. Still considered classical by many.
> Mendelssohn? Yawn
> Schubert? yawn
> Brahms? Even more Yawn
> Wagner? Oh boy. Can't get worse than this.
> Bruckner? More boring music
> Dvorak? Finally some hope for interesting music.
> Tchaikovsky? Mixed bag
> Debussy? Start of Modern music. Much improvement.
> Stravinsky? Yay the Romantic Era is basically over.
> Bartok? More great music.
> Shostakovich. Some good. Some bad.
> And finally Ligeti and Schnittke. The best of Modern music.


#opinion

I think we're all forgetting to add "in my opinion (which may differ from the majority's opinion)" in front of every single post.


----------



## neoshredder

Basically every post on this forum is opinion. What's the point of putting imo after every sentence?


----------



## Toddlertoddy

neoshredder said:


> Basically every post on this forum is opinion. What's the point of putting imo after every sentence?


Sorry, I meant adding it after every post in our heads.


----------



## Sid James

neoshredder said:


> Lets see. Beethoven? Alright. Still considered classical by many...


He wasn't Classical or Romantic era - he had his own unique category (or no category). He was the 'Beethoven' era. & he didn't wear a wig but had such an amazing, distinct hairstyle.



> ...
> Mendelssohn? Yawn
> Schubert? yawn
> ...


'Yawn' indeed. These guys had nothing interesting on top. No wigs and no leonine Beethoven hairdos. So they're boring.



> ...
> Brahms? Even more Yawn
> Wagner? Oh boy. Can't get worse than this.
> Bruckner? More boring music...


There's a beard, a neck-beard (with a stupid hat) and a baldie. Yes this is very bad indeed. Mega yawn material here.



> ...
> Dvorak? Finally some hope for interesting music.
> Tchaikovsky? Mixed bag...


Yeah but they're Victorian era beards - outdated and boring to the extreme.



> ...
> Debussy? Start of Modern music. Much improvement...


Patchy beard is better. Almost not a beard. Almost liberated from Victorian beard era.



> ...
> Stravinsky? Yay the Romantic Era is basically over.
> Bartok? More great music.
> Shostakovich. Some good. Some bad.
> And finally Ligeti and Schnittke. The best of Modern music.


Yes, THE BEST. Clean shaven guys are hottest. Trendy and new. These guys have the chops. & women are all over them.

So you are right (except for Beethoven, don't mess with that guy )...


----------



## Sofronitsky

Stravinsky is WAY too high in my opinion... Also move my pal Bruckner up a few


----------



## Andreas

Mozart was an outstanding composer of catchy melody-and-accompaniment music, rivaled only, perhaps, by Schubert.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Sid James said:


> 'Yawn' indeed. These guys had nothing interesting on top. No wigs and no leonine Beethoven hairdos...


Sid - Mendelssohn did have an extravagant comb-over (not too far removed from 'Big Ern' McCracken in 'Kingpin' - see below) and on some pics his sideys have become a 'nearly there' neck beard.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

I personally find very few problems with this list. For the most part I agree and can say that none of these composers are vastly overrated.


----------



## Turangalîla

In general, I think that the following are considerably higher than I would like them to be:

Dvorak
Sibelius
Vivaldi
Berlioz
Elgar, Elgar, ELGAR! (should be somewhere around #100, methinks )
Faure

Ligeti is far too low!!! How on earth is he below Elgar? I would also like the Second Viennese School to be higher in general, but I realize that they have a lot of opposition. Overall, there are too many late Romantics on here.


----------



## Krisena

I must admit I don't get the dislike for Wagner, Sibelius, Grieg and Mendelssohn that this forum has. Wagner and Sibelius have technical skills like mad and their music is so beautiful I don't know what more to say about them.

Maybe the differences in opinion are geographical, or maybe there's an age gap... or something...


----------



## Klavierspieler

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> In general, I think that the following are considerably higher than I would like them to be:
> 
> Dvorak
> Sibelius
> Vivaldi
> Berlioz
> Elgar, Elgar, ELGAR! (should be somewhere around #100, methinks )
> Faure
> 
> Ligeti is far too low!!! How on earth is he below Elgar? I would also like the Second Viennese School to be higher in general, but I realize that they have a lot of opposition. Overall, there are too many late Romantics on here.


COaG? You? A hijacker?


----------



## Turangalîla

^ You are very funny these days :lol:


----------



## Very Senior Member

Krisena said:


> I must admit I don't get the dislike for Wagner, Sibelius, Grieg and Mendelssohn that this forum has. Wagner and Sibelius have technical skills like mad and their music is so beautiful I don't know what more to say about them.
> 
> Maybe the differences in opinion are geographical, or maybe there's an age gap... or something...


I think maybe you are mis-reading this thread.

The people here who are expressing a dislike for composers such as Wagner, Sibelius etc are those who believe that these composers are over-rated in another thread, and hence these people are by definition a minority group. The "true" position - as represented by the voting in the other thread - is the opposite of what you perceive it be from this thread.

And vice versa for those composers deemed to under-rated by people in this thread vis-a-vis the listings in the other thread.

In other words, reading this this thread will simply confuse the hell out of anyone, so my advice would be not to bother, and definitely not to try any inferences from it, unless of course you can't be bothered to read the other thread and prefer to work out what's being concluded over there by inverting the conclusions here.


----------



## DeepR

Never mind.


----------



## Sequentia

This is always a funny exercise, so:



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> 4. Schubert
> 8. Schumann
> 9. Handel
> 11. Mendelssohn
> 13. Dvořák
> 15. Tchaikovsky
> 26. Vivaldi
> 27. Berlioz
> 29. Saint-Saëns
> 30. Elgar
> 33. Rachmaninoff
> 36. Scarlatti, Domenico
> 37. Mussorgsky
> 39. Grieg
> 44. Rossini
> 45. Rimsky-Korsakov
> 48. Bach, C.P.E.
> 50. Bach, J.C.
> 51. Gluck
> 52. Rameau


A list of the 10 greatest composers in history should look like this (no, it's not reflective of my taste):

1. Bach
2. Josquin
3. Brahms
4. Ockeghem
5. Haydn
6. Mozart
7. Beethoven
8. Wagner
9. Debussy
10. Bartók


----------



## neoshredder

Sequentia said:


> This is always a funny exercise, so:
> 
> A list of the 10 greatest composers in history should look like this (no, it's not reflective of my taste):
> 
> 1. Bach
> 2. Josquin
> 3. Brahms
> 4. Ockeghem
> 5. Haydn
> 6. Mozart
> 7. Beethoven
> 8. Wagner
> 9. Debussy
> 10. Bartók


Actually it is...
1. Ligeti
2. Bach
3. Beethoven
4. CPE Bach
5. Corelli
6. Bartok
7. Stravinsky
8. Vivaldi
9. Schnittke
10. Biber


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Final Results:

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
26. Antonio Vivaldi
27. Hector Berlioz
28. Anton Bruckner
29. Camille Saint-Saëns
30. Edward Elgar
31. Gabriel Fauré
32. Ralph Vaughan Williams
33. Sergei Rachmaninoff
34. Giacomo Puccini
35. Henry Purcell
36. Domenico Scarlatti
37. Modest Mussorgsky
38. Arnold Schoenberg
39. Edvard Grieg
40. Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina
41. Olivier Messiaen
42. Leoš Janáček
43. Benjamin Britten
44. Gioachino Rossini
45. Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov
46. Josquin des Prez
47. Alban Berg
48. Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach
49. Samuel Barber
50. Johann Christian Bach
51. Christoph Willibald Gluck
52. Jean-Philippe Rameau
53. Alexander Scriabin
54. György Ligeti
55. Anton Webern
56. Carl Nielsen
57. Georges Bizet
58. Jean-Baptiste Lully
59. Aaron Copland
60. Heitor Villa-Lobos
61. Carl Maria von Weber
62. Georg Philipp Telemann
63. Erik Satie
64. Johann Strauss II
65. John Adams
66. Philip Glass
67. Carlo Gesualdo
68. Gaetano Donizetti
69. Charles Ives
70. Heinrich Ignaz Franz Biber
71. Vincenzo Bellini
72. Thomas Tallis
73. Dieterich Buxtehude
74. Guillaume de Machaut
75. Tomás Luis de Victoria
76. Ottorino Respighi
77. Johann Nepomuk Hummel
78. Michael Haydn
79. William Byrd
80. Alexander Borodin
81. Steve Reich
82. Arvo Pärt
83. Gustav Holst
84. Frederick Delius
85. Alessandro Scarlatti
86. George Gershwin
87. Arcangelo Corelli
88. François Couperin
89. John Dowland
90. Hildegard von Bingen
91. César Franck
92. Heinrich Schütz
93. Krzysztof Penderecki
94. Paul Hindemith
95. Luigi Boccherini
96. Hugo Wolf
97. Marc-Antoine Charpentier
98. Bedřich Smetana
99. William Walton
100. Isaac Albéniz

All done. Me think perhaps Arvo Pärt doesn't deserve to be in the list.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Actually it is...
1. Ligeti
2. Bach
3. Beethoven
4. CPE Bach
5. Corelli
6. Bartok
7. Stravinsky
8. Vivaldi
9. Schnittke
10. Biber

Somehow I have my doubts that any reasonably well-informed classical music lover, musician, composer, or conductor would even begin to think of placing Ligeti among the ten greatest composers who ever lived (let alone at no. 1). Indeed, I doubt that even Ligeti... assuming he was not blessed with Richard Wagner's towering ego... would think to suggest something so absurd.

Personally I find all this Ligeti love among the hormone-ridden pre-pubescents to be rather cute. Not unlike the love for New Kids on the Block back in the day...


----------



## BurningDesire

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Actually it is...
> 1. Ligeti
> 2. Bach
> 3. Beethoven
> 4. CPE Bach
> 5. Corelli
> 6. Bartok
> 7. Stravinsky
> 8. Vivaldi
> 9. Schnittke
> 10. Biber
> 
> Somehow I have my doubts that any reasonably well-informed classical music lover, musician, composer, or conductor would even begin to think of placing Ligeti among the ten greatest composers who ever lived (let alone at no. 1). Indeed, I doubt that even Ligeti... assuming he was not blessed with Richard Wagner's towering ego... would think to suggest something so absurd.
> 
> Personally I find all this Ligeti love among the hormone-ridden pre-pubescents to be rather cute. Not unlike the love for New Kids on the Block back in the day...


because imagination and personality in spades aren't what makes a composer truly great. Its formulaic composition that is generic of the times you live in, thats the TRUE definition of art :3

Personally I find the Ligeti love a little more appealing than the necrophiliac fetishization of Mozart and Bach.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Unlike your nascent juvenile exploration of music and obsession with the _avant garde_, the era I "live" in is one in which I have access to and have explored everything from Byzantine Chant to Ligeti and beyond. My assessment of Ligeti and other composers (and don't get me wrong, there are works by Ligeti... and other contemporary composers... I quite admire) is based upon the experience of having listened to a great deal of music... and perhaps a refusal to be immediately and overly seduced by the latest experiments, be they Ligeti, Zappa, Hendrix or Princess Tutu.


----------



## BurningDesire

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Unlike your nascent juvenile exploration of music and obsession with the _avant garde_, the era I "live" in is one in which I have access to and have explored everything from Byzantine Chant to Ligeti and beyond. My assessment of Ligeti and other composers (and don't get me wrong, there are works by Ligeti... and other contemporary composers... I quite admire) is based upon the experience of having listened to a great deal of music... and perhaps a refusal to be immediately and overly seduced by the latest experiments, be they Ligeti, Zappa, Hendrix or Princess Tutu.


I may be young, but I too have listened to a great deal of music. I am not obsessed with the _avant-garde_, I am obsessed with music. I love living in an era where I can explore more music than any composer a hundred years ago could hope to explore, whether it be plainchant or a Cage chance piece or a Lady Gaga song or something by DJ Shadow. My assessment of both modern music and older works, in any idiom, is based on what I've listened to and studied. I'm not seduced by experiments, I fall in love with beautiful works of art, and I refuse to be dazzled by music where I can tell exactly where its going on first listening, just because its popular to raise that music and its composer on a ridiculous pedestal.

Also Princess Tutu isn't an artist. It is an animated series about a magical ballerina princess who fights evil, with a score of mostly 19th Century music. Its basically a fairy tale (albeit a very well-characterized, deep one), and thats not really something I'd call 'avant-garde'


----------



## trazom

BurningDesire said:


> and I refuse to be dazzled by music where I can tell exactly where its going on first listening, just because its popular to raise that music and its composer on a ridiculous pedestal.


That's the type of thinking that makes a lot of younger listeners so prejudiced/narrow-minded: assuming you can hear everything there is to appreciate in a classical work in one listen.


----------



## BurningDesire

trazom said:


> That's the type of thinking that makes a lot of younger listeners so prejudiced/narrow-minded: assuming you can hear everything there is to appreciate in a classical work in one listen.


I didn't say that, I said that I can tell where its going. As in, I can hum along with it and usually accurately predict the harmonic changes, where the cadence will come, what kinda cadence it is, how a sequence will play out, and its because the music is formulaic, so much of it does the exact same thing in the same ways. To me, thats pretty boring. There are many works in the 18th Century that break from that formulaic writing (even if its in a tiny way) or that are still expressive and full of personality despite that, but quite a few just aren't interesting because they all work the same way.


----------



## Nadia

Why would you rank composers anyway? 
I don't mean to insult anyone, but I find it pointless.
Music is an art. Art can not be evaluated in an absolute way, because art (in the broadest sense of the word), is defined by being relative. And music is the most abstract of all arts, so evaluating it's (or a composer's) "greatness" which is a very concrete and absolute value, seemes very unnecesary and wrong to me.
Composers can be evaluated in a subjective way, yet saying that any composer is over rated is not right. 
If Bach is someone's No.1 then he is not over rated to them. If Ligeti is someone's No.1 then Bach is terribly over rated!
We can not say that one composer is greater than the another one. That would be doing an absolute evaluation of a relative value. We can say that one composer has been more influential on the next generations than the another one. But even that is a relative evaluation based on our subjective likes and dislikes and current state of mind. That would make Beethoven more influential than anybody else and he would be followed by Wagner. But that is my subjective evaluation. Then we have our likes and dislikes, and they have nothing to do with absolute values because they are relative, abstract and subject to constant change. My list would look like this:
1) Liapunov (not even on the list)
2)Rimski-Korsakov and Liszt
3)Mussorgski and Scriabin
And probably no one will agree with me. My opinion is if a composer wrote thousands of worthless works and one masterpiece, he would be as great as those who wrote dozens of masterpieces. It's not quantity that matters, it's quality.
So, I hope I don't make anybody mad. 
Don't sue me, sue Mr. Immanuel Kant!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Nadia said:


> Why would you rank composers anyway?


If we didn't, then all the classical music discussion forum would be just dinosaurs, hipsters and what music we are currently listening to.


----------



## Nadia

I don't think so.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Nadia said:


> I don't think so.


I think so.


----------



## Nadia

Very well then.
Pametnija popušta!


----------



## Very Senior Member

Nadia said:


> Why would you rank composers anyway?
> I don't mean to insult anyone, but I find it pointless.


People engage in ranking of composers and their works because it's a fun thing to do; it focuses discussion on aspects of music of importance to many people; it's a way of discovering good music, especially for newcomers; it's a way of discovering other people's tastes (just as you have told us yours!); and a way of of making recommendations in manner that many people find easy to absorb.


----------



## kv466

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Mozart is too damn high!


In my experience there is no such thing as too high!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Very Senior Member said:


> People engage in ranking of composers and their works because it's a fun thing to do; it focuses discussion on aspects of music of importance to many people; it's a way of discovering good music, especially for newcomers; it's a way of discovering other people's tastes (just as you have told us yours!); and a way of of making recommendations in manner that many people find easy to absorb.


And for those of us who might have read similar lists, the consistency in the top 10 to 30 are also interesting to say the least.


----------



## emiellucifuge

BurningDesire said:


> I didn't say that, I said that I can tell where its going. As in, I can hum along with it and usually accurately predict the harmonic changes, where the cadence will come, what kinda cadence it is, how a sequence will play out, and its because the music is formulaic, so much of it does the exact same thing in the same ways. To me, thats pretty boring. There are many works in the 18th Century that break from that formulaic writing (even if its in a tiny way) or that are still expressive and full of personality despite that, but quite a few just aren't interesting because they all work the same way.


http://markdoran.net/new_page_15.htm



> As it happens, though, this isn't quite what Mozart writes. His version of the opening proceeds differently - but, as you will hear, still has several features in common with the 'obvious' continuation. In other words, the actual piece neither confirms our expectations nor ignores them altogether: instead, it _meaningfully_ _contradicts_ them:........
> 
> It can easily be heard that instead of delivering some form of the expected tonic triad F#-A-C#, Mozart chooses to contradict this harmonic Background by presenting the contrasting yet strongly related chord D-F#-A as a Foreground....


Nearly all great music contradicts expectations, Mozart is no exception. In fact he went on to contradict his listeners expectations much more often that his contemporaries - you cant fault him for being born in the 18th century! What you have said is really quite rubbish.


----------



## SminkiPinki

Gustav Mahler is the most turgidly depressing composer ever!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Try Schubert's _Winterreise_...

And I love them both!


----------



## beetzart

Overrated for me:

Handel
D Scarlatti 
Verdi
Stravinsky


----------



## Crudblud

Just a few notes typed as they come to me:

Messiaen, Ravel and Scriabin are far too low. Ligeti should be much higher as well.

Everyone above Mahler is far too high. Yes, yes, I get it, they were really influential, the quality of their writing will never be touched, they give you a transcendent experience every time you listen to them or whatever, they made you believe in love and truth and beauty again. I don't care. Also, I'm not saying Mahler is the best by this remark, there are a few I'd put above him as well. Also, Schubert, Beethoven and Wagner would have spots in the top 20, Haydn probably in the top 30.

There's no way Prokofiev belongs anywhere in the top 30. Same goes for Shosty.

What are Vaughan Williams, Vivaldi and Berlioz doing there in the first place?

Scarlatti should be much higher.

Berg should be much higher, although I'm surprised he's here and not Webern (who would be in the top 10 for certain).

Debussy is far too high.

Strauss and Liszt could stand to be moved up a few places.

Bartok should be much higher, as should Sibelius

Stravinsky should be in the 30s somewhere.

Mendelssohn, who I'm surprised didn't catch my eye earlier, is by far the most egregious case of overrating here.

Josquin should be booted out of there faster than you can say "migraine".


----------



## Vesteralen

Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Morons


----------



## Crudblud

I've heard of Morons, I'm not so familiar with the other three.


----------



## Vesteralen

uh........I didn't mean "you" personally.......it's a movie allu.....

oh, forget it


----------



## science

No more rhyming, I mean it!


----------



## Carpenoctem

neoshredder said:


> Actually it is...
> *1. Ligeti*
> 2. Bach
> 3. Beethoven
> 4. CPE Bach
> 5. Corelli
> 6. Bartok
> 7. Stravinsky
> 8. Vivaldi
> 9. Schnittke
> 10. Biber


Haha, what is up with Ligeti on this forum, you placed him as No.1 Composer of all time.

Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Mozart, Vivaldi, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Debussy are placed lower than Ligeti :lol:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Flavor of the month.


----------



## DeepR

Crudblud said:


> Just a few notes typed as they come to me:
> 
> Messiaen, Ravel and Scriabin are far too low. Ligeti should be much higher as well.


Nice to see some support for Scriabin, though, I'm afraid that if I hadn't provided a huge boost in points to Scriabin he would've ended up much lower.


----------



## BurningDesire

emiellucifuge said:


> http://markdoran.net/new_page_15.htm
> 
> Nearly all great music contradicts expectations, Mozart is no exception. In fact he went on to contradict his listeners expectations much more often that his contemporaries - you cant fault him for being born in the 18th century! What you have said is really quite rubbish.


Except it really isn't rubbish. Some of his stuff breaks our expectations, but quite a bit more just does what he always does, and that can be quite boring. Haydn's music is generally way more surprising, in a good way.


----------



## BurningDesire

science said:


> No more rhyming, I mean it!


Anybody want a peanut?


----------



## BurningDesire

Crudblud said:


> Just a few notes typed as they come to me:
> 
> Messiaen, Ravel and Scriabin are far too low. Ligeti should be much higher as well.
> 
> Everyone above Mahler is far too high. Yes, yes, I get it, they were really influential, the quality of their writing will never be touched, they give you a transcendent experience every time you listen to them or whatever, they made you believe in love and truth and beauty again. I don't care. Also, I'm not saying Mahler is the best by this remark, there are a few I'd put above him as well. Also, Schubert, Beethoven and Wagner would have spots in the top 20, Haydn probably in the top 30.
> 
> There's no way Prokofiev belongs anywhere in the top 30. Same goes for Shosty.
> 
> What are Vaughan Williams, Vivaldi and Berlioz doing there in the first place?
> 
> Scarlatti should be much higher.
> 
> Berg should be much higher, although I'm surprised he's here and not Webern (who would be in the top 10 for certain).
> 
> Debussy is far too high.
> 
> Strauss and Liszt could stand to be moved up a few places.
> 
> Bartok should be much higher, as should Sibelius
> 
> Stravinsky should be in the 30s somewhere.
> 
> Mendelssohn, who I'm surprised didn't catch my eye earlier, is by far the most egregious case of overrating here.
> 
> Josquin should be booted out of there faster than you can say "migraine".


D: whats wrong with Debussy and Prokofiev?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Crudblud said:


> Scarlatti should be much higher.


Such a rare support for Scarlatti here at TC (presumably you meant Domenico). For that, you are granted a HarpsichordConcerto gold star: :angel:


----------



## neoshredder

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Flavor of the month.


Hardly. He is legit.


----------



## Toddlertoddy

neoshredder said:


> Hardly. He is legit.


Or maybe your account has been hacked by CoAG. That sneaky person.


----------



## sullivan

The first 10 are most always in everyones top 20. Tchaikovsky needs to be in top 10. His piano concerto #1
in addition to his stage performances e.g. Swan Lake and Nutcracker and other serious work out classes Shubert, Brahms, Schuman and Mailer. My philosophy about music is complicated as I believe the great ones had to have original scores where in a second you can identify the composer. Second it must steer emotion and enjoyment. Third, a great composer must be muti-dimensional as in a concerto to an opera to a symphony. Mozart and Handle past this test. Johann Strauss II has to be in the top 50 perhaps top 20 or 30. His Die Fledermause without doubt the greatest opera ever composed. My top five in any order is Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Handle, Tchaikovsky


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Haydn at no. 7? I don't think Haydn is overrated at all, he is still underrated imo.


----------



## hpowders

Toddlertoddy said:


> Chopin: everything he did had a piano in it. How about a little more variety?


I'll let him know how you feel at my next seance.


----------



## hpowders

Schubert is way too high; the most over-rated composer in history. Higher than Brahms? I think not. I would put Handel in Schubert's place.

Wagner doesn't wear as well with me as he used to. He must be dropped a bit lower.


----------



## MagneticGhost

Schumann is way too high. I would put him 2nd Tier. Certainly below Debussy, Mahler, R Strauss and Shostakovich.

I would also like to see Elgar and VW a little higher. 
Maybe a spot should be made for an early English Master, Tallis, Byrd, Dowland, Dunstable.


----------



## hpowders

I wouldn't say Bach is over-rated, but at this supreme height, he must share the #1 position with Beethoven and Mozart.


----------



## Sonata

MagneticGhost said:


> Schumann is way too high. I would put him 2nd Tier. Certainly below Debussy, Mahler, R Strauss and Shostakovich.


I have to agree. I love Schumann's concertos and he has some other lovely music. However, I would definitely rate Shosty, Mahler, R. Strauss above him. Debussy, I think he's about even with Schumann to me.


----------



## GiulioCesare

This is an English-speaking forum. It shows.

Elgar, Vaughan-Williams and Barber shouldn't even be on the list.


----------



## Überstürzter Neumann

Mahler, Sibelius and Shostakovich.


----------



## hpowders

Lennart said:


> Mahler, Sibelius and Shostakovich.[/
> 
> No comment.


----------



## MagneticGhost

GiulioCesare said:


> This is an English-speaking forum. It shows.
> 
> Elgar, Vaughan-Williams and Barber shouldn't even be on the list.


There are many non-English people who rate Elgar extremely highly. Vladimir Ashkenazy springs to mind. You may not like him but to say it's simply down to race is ludicrous. I don't speak German, doesn't stop me rating Wagner. I don't speak Italian but I love Verdi etc etc.


----------



## hpowders

Based on the Enigma Variations, the Cello Concerto, the Violin Concerto, and some extraordinary chamber music such as the Violin Sonata in E minor and the Piano Quintet in A minor, Elgar deserves to be rated highly!


----------



## neoshredder

Really hard to decide what should and shouldn't be on the list. I'm not an opera fan. So Wagner and Verdi don't do anything for me. Not too fond of Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and Bartok either. But that could change in the future. Just can't get into it at the moment. Mahler and Bruckner are also tough for me due to the length. But they have their moments. Especially when I'm in a calm and focused state.


----------



## Bulldog

Elgar ahead of Scriabin? I'm crushed.


----------



## hpowders

Edward Elgar rocks!!


----------



## jim prideaux

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Elgar is too damn high! He doesn't deserve to be on the list at all!


thanks-often thought I was the only one with such a negative view of the man-where are Martinu and Walton?


----------



## hpowders

Walton's not bad. He wrote a heck of a violin concerto.


----------



## MagneticGhost

jim prideaux said:


> thanks-often thought I was the only one with such a negative view of the man-where are Martinu and Walton?


Actually there is far more negativity towards him than positivity. But I'm with you on the Martinu and Walton.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Schubert is way too high; the most over-rated composer in history.

Accck! Blasphemy! Blasphemy, I say! Surely you don't speak of Franz Schubert, the unrivaled composer of song, the man who created at least two of the greatest symphonies ever (surely better than any of Brahms), the man who penned the exquisite Impromptus, Arpeggione Sonata, and the music for Rosamunde, the author of the String Quintet in C, the Trout Quintet, the Death and the Maiden Quartet, the Rosamunde Quartet (among a slew of others that place him among the greatest composers of the genre), the lyrical genius of melody who in spite of his admiration of Beethoven, took the piano sonatas in a direction different from that of his great mentor, the composer of the great Octet, the piano and string trios, the Wanderer Fantasy, the violin sonata... this is the Schubert who is overrated?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I'm not a huge fan of Elgar. I far prefer Vaughan-Williams and Delius... but having said that, Elgar wrote some truly great choral works.


----------



## hpowders

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Schubert is way too high; the most over-rated composer in history.
> 
> Accck! Blasphemy! Blasphemy, I say! Surely you don't speak of Franz Schubert, the unrivaled composer of song, the man who created at least two of the greatest symphonies ever (surely better than any of Brahms), the man who penned the exquisite Impromptus, Arpeggione Sonata, and the music for Rosamunde, the author of the String Quintet in C, the Trout Quintet, the Death and the Maiden Quartet, the Rosamunde Quartet (among a slew of others that place him among the greatest composers of the genre), the lyrical genius of melody who in spite of his admiration of Beethoven, took the piano sonatas in a direction different from that of his great mentor, the composer of the great Octet, the piano and string trios, the Wanderer Fantasy, the violin sonata... this is the Schubert who is overrated?


Yes, thanks for narrowing it down, to avoid even the slightest chance of a possibility of mistaken identity!

I can now state with complete honesty, without any outside attempt at corrupting my decision and without the slightest chance of an error of identity, thanks to you, that:

YES!!! YES!!! HE'S THE ONE!!!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Looking at this list... the product of the TC members as a group... I find that it is not far from my own. Of the top 15 named, all except Schumann, Chopin, and Mendelssohn make my personal top 15... and they all make the top-20:

1. J.S.Bach (1)
2. W.A. Mozart (2)
3. L.v. Beethoven (3)
4. Franz Schubert (6)
5. J. Brahms (8)
6. R. Wagner (5)
7. Joseph Haydn (4)
8. Robert Schumann (17)
9. G.F. Handel (9)
10. Gustav Mahler (11)
11. F. Mendelssohn (18)
12. Claude Debussy (13)
13. Antonin Dvořák (12)
14. Frederic Chopin (20)
15. Piotr Tchaikovsky (10)

I have far more disagreements with the list from 16-50... but even then, a great many of my choices match up closely. Stravinsky, I will admit, is a personal failure on my part. I am still struggling to come to love him... an not merely "appreciate" him (although I do indeed love the Rite and several other works).

16. Stravinsky
17. Ravel
18. Prokofiev
19. Shostakovich
20. Strauss, Richard
21. Liszt
22. Bartók
23. Verdi
24. Monteverdi
25. Sibelius
26. Vivaldi
27. Berlioz
28. Bruckner
29. Saint-Saëns
30. Elgar
31. Fauré
32. Vaughan Williams
33. Rachmaninoff
34. Puccini
35. Purcell
36. Scarlatti, Domenico
37. Mussorgsky
38. Schoenberg
39. Grieg
40. Palestrina
41. Messiaen
42. Janáček
43. Britten
44. Rossini
45. Rimsky-Korsakov
46. Josquin
47. Berg
48. Bach, C.P.E.
49. Barber
50. Bach, J.C.
51. Gluck
52. Rameau
53. Scriabin
54. Ligeti

Areas of disagreement include Elgar and Purcell (Anglo bias? Certainly there are far better Baroque composers not on the list than Purcell). I love Barber... but he's definitely overrated here. The same with Scriabin, Janáček, Grieg, and Messiaen. I would place Alessandro Scarlatti (the father) above Domenico (as much as I love his keyboard sonatas). I would also question Mussorgsky... considering the truncated body of work. Names I would add include: Heinrich Ignaz Franz Biber, Jacques Offenbach, Guillaume Dufay, Carlo Gesualdo, Vincenzo Bellini
Gaetano Donizetti, Luigi Rodolfo Boccherini, Arcangelo Corelli, G.P. Telemann, Jules Massenet, Johann Strauss II, and Hildegard of Bingen.


----------



## Rachmanijohn

There's about 10 composers above Rachmaninoff who are overrated in my opinion.


----------



## ArtMusic

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> The purpose of this thread is for you to express your humble opinion on which composer(s) you think are over rated in Talk Classical's Top 50 Composers list recently compiled. I have created a separate thread to encourage all members, irrespective of whether you participated at all in the voting of the list, to express your opinion.
> 
> Note:-
> (1) This thread is *not* about attacking the merits of the list overall; its point system, its statistical credibility or any of that nature.
> (2) This thread is *not* about attacking the merits of the individual composer(s) who you feel might be over rated in the list. Indeed, you might well enjoy the composer's oeuvre very much but feel the ranking has elevated him or not to point where you feel you might like to express your opinion about it.
> 
> Here is the top 50, in fact the top 54, as of today:-
> 
> 1. Bach
> 2. Mozart
> 3. Beethoven
> 4. Schubert
> 5. Brahms
> 6. Wagner
> 7. Haydn
> 8. Schumann
> 9. Handel
> 10. Mahler
> 11. Mendelssohn
> 12. Debussy
> 13. Dvořák
> 14. Chopin
> 15. Tchaikovsky
> 16. Stravinsky
> 17. Ravel
> 18. Prokofiev
> 19. Shostakovich
> 20. Strauss, Richard
> 21. Liszt
> 22. Bartók
> 23. Verdi
> 24. Monteverdi
> 25. Sibelius
> 26. Vivaldi
> 27. Berlioz
> 28. Bruckner
> 29. Saint-Saëns
> 30. Elgar
> 31. Fauré
> 32. Vaughan Williams
> 33. Rachmaninoff
> 34. Puccini
> 35. Purcell
> 36. Scarlatti, Domenico
> 37. Mussorgsky
> 38. Schoenberg
> 39. Grieg
> 40. Palestrina
> 41. Messiaen
> 42. Janáček
> 43. Britten
> 44. Rossini
> 45. Rimsky-Korsakov
> 46. Josquin
> 47. Berg
> 48. Bach, C.P.E.
> 49. Barber
> 50. Bach, J.C.
> 51. Gluck
> 52. Rameau
> 53. Scriabin
> 54. Ligeti


Ligeti. Sooooo many composers I (and classical music listeners would in general) rank ahead of Ligeti.

Where is Jules Massenet? Not on the list? Goes to show those who compiled the list are not that well acquainted with classical music in general.


----------



## Guest

This whole thread, and the type of comments made by many contributors, would make a lot more sense if it was aimed at identifying any problems with the underlying methodology by which the top 50 composers were selected in the original poll, such that there might be good reason to believe that the rankings in that poll could be badly biased in some way. I realise of course that the OP asked only for comments on the list rather than the methodology used to produce it, but that could have been treated with the proper suspicion it deserves.

As it is, true to form, all that many people have done is state how their own (current) composer preferences differ from the set resulting from that poll. I hope it won't appear too insensitive but I must say that I don't find it very interesting to read what individual people happen to think about the list compared with their own preferences. This is not because I don't respect any of their views, but simply because it's not a particularly useful exercise in shedding any light on whether or not the original poll results have any validity as an indicator of composer preferences for the majority of listeners.

The reason why it's not a useful exercise is quite simple. It's that if all the people who have contributed to this thread were to participate in yet another composer preference poll, the chances are that this further poll would result in a similar set of ranks of composers compared with the original poll. In all probability, any further poll would still find Bach, Mozart and Beethoven occupying the top 3 positions, and the likes of Schubert, Brahms, Wagner, Haydn occupying the next tier, etc. Possibly this might quieten the members who habitually try to discredit the likes of Mozart and Schubert, but I rather fear not, so I guess we're just going to have to listen to all of their negative comment yet further. There would be expected to be greater variation the further down the list one goes, but outside the top 10 there is less interest anyway in the exact positions. Besides, the lower rankings in any poll of this nature are very likely to be poorly determined statistically, so there is hardly any merit in getting agitated about any particular positions below the top 15 or so. 

Another very curious thing about some of the comments I have spotted is that in a few cases certain members appear to have a very precise rank list of their favorite composers up to a very high number, e.g. top 30 or so. I find this kind of accuracy and certainty to be truly amazing. I would have thought that, unless you are lying on your death bed, most people's preferences among composers are in a constant state of flux, at least outside say the top 3-5 positions. Even stranger, some of these people who have such precise composer ranks embedded in their minds don't seem appear to be aware of basic things like the various names given to the transitional stage between the Classical and Romantic eras of music, which made me almost fall of my chair in bewilderment.


----------



## Anterix

Before I view the list I already knew Messiaen and Stravinsky would be way underrated.

I was right.


----------



## hpowders

I believe Stravinsky should be pushed up a few notches, but thoroughly understand he will never be a popular mainstream choice.


----------



## mmsbls

Partita said:


> This whole thread, and the type of comments made by many contributors, would make a lot more sense if it was aimed at identifying any problems with the underlying methodology by which the top 50 composers were selected in the original poll, such that there might be good reason to believe that the rankings in that poll could be badly biased in some way. I realise of course that the OP asked only for comments on the list rather than the methodology used to produce it, but that could have been treated with the proper suspicion it deserves.
> 
> As it is, true to form, all that many people have done is state how their own (current) composer preferences differ from the set resulting from that poll. I hope it won't appear too insensitive but I must say that I don't find it very interesting to read what individual people happen to think about the list compared with their own preferences. This is not because I don't respect any of their views, but simply because it's not a particularly useful exercise in shedding any light on whether or not the original poll results have any validity as an indicator of composer preferences for the majority of listeners.
> 
> The reason why it's not a useful exercise is quite simple. It's that if all the people who have contributed to this thread were to participate in yet another composer preference poll, the chances are that this further poll would result in a similar set of ranks of composers compared with the original poll. In all probability, any further poll would still find Bach, Mozart and Beethoven occupying the top 3 positions, and the likes of Schubert, Brahms, Wagner, Haydn occupying the next tier, etc. Possibly this might quieten the members who habitually try to discredit the likes of Mozart and Schubert, but I rather fear not, so I guess we're just going to have to listen to all of their negative comment yet further. There would be expected to be greater variation the further down the list one goes, but outside the top 10 there is less interest anyway in the exact positions. Besides, the lower rankings in any poll of this nature are very likely to be poorly determined statistically, so there is hardly any merit in getting agitated about any particular positions below the top 15 or so.
> 
> Another very curious thing about some of the comments I have spotted is that in a few cases certain members appear to have a very precise rank list of their favorite composers up to a very high number, e.g. top 30 or so. I find this kind of accuracy and certainty to be truly amazing. I would have thought that, unless you are lying on your death bed, most people's preferences among composers are in a constant state of flux, at least outside say the top 3-5 positions. Even stranger, some of these people who have such precise composer ranks embedded in their minds don't seem appear to be aware of basic things like the various names given to the transitional stage between the Classical and Romantic eras of music, which made me almost fall of my chair in bewilderment.


I agree just about completely with every statement here. The OP did ask not to have comments on the method of polling. I will simply say that the actual method used in this poll is different from that used in the vast majority of TC "greatest" polls. I doubt that the top 30 or so would change much with other members or polling methods (as long as enough people participated). The bottom 20 nor so would likely change more, and some would drop out of the list. Still the overall poll would look rather similar.


----------



## GreenMamba

ArtMusic said:


> Ligeti. Sooooo many composers I (and classical music listeners would in general) rank ahead of Ligeti.
> 
> Where is Jules Massenet? Not on the list? Goes to show those who compiled the list are not that well acquainted with classical music in general.


Why would you say that? We all have our own opinions. Someone who prefers Ligeti to Massenet isn't necessarily unacquainted with Classical music.


----------



## Anterix

Some very important thoughts stand out on this list:

There is a top composer. A number one. And he is Bach.

Brahms vs Wagner "querelle" has a winner: Brahms. Querelle over.

There is a thread going on about Schumann vs Mendelssohn. Solved: Schumann

Many composers didn't make it to the top 50. But it was important to reveal that Gluck, Rameau, Scriabin and Ligeti almost made it.


----------



## scratchgolf

Anterix said:


> Some very important thoughts stand out on this list:
> 
> There is a top composer. A number one. And he is Bach.
> 
> Brahms vs Wagner "querelle" has a winner: Brahms. Querelle over.
> 
> There is a thread going on about Schumann vs Mendelssohn. Solved: Schumann
> 
> Many composers didn't make it to the top 50. But it was important to reveal that Gluck, Rameau, Scriabin and Ligeti almost made it.


Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Fact

A .250 batting average will keep you employed if you play middle infield and have a decent glove.


----------



## mmsbls

As a general comment, there are no composers who are over- or under-rated on this list. The list is exactly correct (assuming the participants did the math correctly and voted honestly). The list gives the rating of composers as determined by the selection process and the participants (some of whom only participated for part of the process). A different process and different participants very well might produce a different list. In fact, even the identical process and participants might produce a different list at a later time.

Everyone who suggests that a given composer is over- or under-rated is simply saying that their preference differs from that generated by the participants at that time using that selection process. It is not even clear what it would mean to say that a composer is overrated in any remotely objective sense. Still it's fun (for some) to look at the collective results and suggest what they would change.



ArtMusic said:


> Ligeti. Sooooo many composers I (and classical music listeners would in general) rank ahead of Ligeti.
> 
> Where is Jules Massenet? Not on the list? Goes to show those who compiled the list are not that well acquainted with classical music in general.


In Goulding's book, Classical Music: The Greatest 50 Composers and Their 1000 Greatest Works, he does not include Massenet. Obviously, Goulding is not a perfect arbitrator of composer value, but given his background in writing the book, it would be a bit absurd to say he is "not that well acquainted with classical music in general."


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> As a general comment, there are no composers who are over- or under-rated on this list. The list is exactly correct (assuming the participants did the math correctly and voted honestly). The list gives the rating of composers as determined by the selection process and the participants (some of whom only participated for part of the process). A different process and different participants very well might produce a different list. In fact, even the identical process and participants might produce a different list at a later time.
> 
> Everyone who suggests that a given composer is over- or under-rated is simply saying that their preference differs from that generated by the participants at that time using that selection process. It is not even clear what it would mean to say that a composer is overrated in any remotely objective sense. Still it's fun (for some) to look at the collective results and suggest what they would change.


Fully agreed. It's in line with my previous post.

I would say that the simple fact is that many people have been responding to a thread that asks a question that makes little or no sense. Of course, it is very unlikely that most people's composer preferences will align exactly with the results in the poll, but this does not validate their either opinion that in cases where the differences are great this justifies them claiming that the composers in question are "underrated" or "overrated composers", as the case may be. It simply means that their own tastes do not align with the opinion established by the majority. A more appropriate type of comment would be something like: "_I realise that I'm out of line with the majority verdict but in my personal estimation composer X is higher/lower placed than shown on this list, but I do not suggest that composer X is thereby under or overrated"_.

A further dubious thing is that there was absolutely no need to set up this thread in the first place. This is because the divergences of opinion on the correct rankings of composers could presumably be easily deduced from the voting patterns that were manifested during the exercise whilst it was under way at the time of the poll. I have not looked back at the relevant thread but it must surely be self-evident from the votes cast which members thought which composers should be higher or lower than was actually the case based on the summation of all votes. Setting up this thread was tantamount to running a follow-up poll asking people to express an opinion on the rankings of composers on which they have already expressed an opinion. Now, a year or so later, many people who were not involved in the process at the beginning have been getting involved, muddying the waters yet further by suggesting modifications to votes in a poll that is now closed, making it all quite surreal.

The fact is that there is no such thing as an "underrated" or "overrated" composer except in the head of the individuasl whose views are much out of line with the majority, and even then it is incorrect use of terminology to describe a difference of opinion in this way.


----------



## Cheyenne

Reading through this thread was great. Where did hilarious discussions like this go?



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Personally I find all this Ligeti love among the hormone-ridden pre-pubescents to be rather cute. Not unlike the love for New Kids on the Block back in the day...





BurningDesire said:


> Personally I find the Ligeti love a little more appealing than the necrophiliac fetishization of Mozart and Bach.


You've all grown too civil!


----------



## ArtMusic

mmsbls said:


> In Goulding's book, Classical Music: The Greatest 50 Composers and Their 1000 Greatest Works, he does not include Massenet. Obviously, Goulding is not a perfect arbitrator of composer value, but given his background in writing the book, it would be a bit absurd to say he is "not that well acquainted with classical music in general."


I was comparing Massenet with Ligeti in that ranking. For your information, Massenet sells more records, concerts than Ligeti today ... and I'm not even quoting a damn book. Just observe the general market. Empirically.


----------



## Mahlerian

ArtMusic said:


> I was comparing Massenet with Ligeti in that ranking. For your information, Massenet sells more records, concerts than Ligeti today ... and I'm not even quoting a damn book. Just observe the general market. Empirically.


Here's a dump of miscellaneous information for your empirical viewing pleasure.

Decca's Massenet Edition (23 discs, $72) is ranked #131,975 in Amazon's music charts. Warner's Ligeti Project set (5 discs, $33) is ranked #56,514...

ArkivMusic lists over 1300 recordings of Massenet's works in contrast to 174 of Ligeti, _but_ more than 500 of them are single arias, and 355 of them are the Meditation from Thais, which lasts under six minutes. Massenet is therefore drawing from a wider pool of works (here excerpts are counted), whereas most of the Ligeti works counted are whole pieces.

Of course, these two composers sell to different audiences, so it's not as if one group is a subset of the other.


----------



## ArtMusic

Mahlerian said:


> Here's a dump of miscellaneous information for your empirical viewing pleasure.
> 
> Decca's Massenet Edition (23 discs, $72) is ranked #131,975 in Amazon's music charts. Warner's Ligeti Project set (5 discs, $33) is ranked #56,514...
> 
> ArkivMusic lists over 1300 recordings of Massenet's works in contrast to 174 of Ligeti, _but_ more than 500 of them are single arias, and 355 of them are the Meditation from Thais, which lasts under six minutes. Massenet is therefore drawing from a wider pool of works (here excerpts are counted), whereas most of the Ligeti works counted are whole pieces.
> 
> Of course, these two composers sell to different audiences, so it's not as if one group is a subset of the other.


You guys crack me up.


----------



## joen_cph

Also, most of Massenet´s many works have fallen into complete oblivion and only exist in very rare, old recordings (if any), whereas new, supplementary recordings of almost all of Ligeti´s works keep popping up nowadays.

(this from someone who likes both composers and own a good deal of Massenet too).


----------



## mmsbls

ArtMusic said:


> I was comparing Massenet with Ligeti in that ranking. For your information, Massenet sells more records, concerts than Ligeti today ... and I'm not even quoting a damn book. Just observe the general market. Empirically.


I may have misunderstood you. I thought you were simply saying that Massenet should have been in the top 50, and the fact that he was not indicates the participants are not that well acquainted with classical music. If you simply were saying that Massenet should be ahead of Ligeti, my comment is not relevant since neither Massenet nor Ligeti make Goulding's top 50.

Several years ago I would have thought it was obvious that Massenet was a much more popular composer than Ligeti. Now I am much less certain who is more popular. Maybe a poll of every person who intentionally listens to classical music regularly would place Massenet over Ligeti. Maybe not. I really don't know. I am hardly an expert, but I honestly don't think it's obvious.

By the way, I enjoy Massenet's music more than Ligeti's, but I would place Ligeti significantly higher than Massenet on such a poll.


----------



## Anterix

Charles Ives, for one, should be up there on that list...


----------



## ArtMusic

The original poll for the top 50 sounds like fun.

*Can I kindly ask if members here might be interested in doing a poll for 2014 Talk Classical's Most Favorite Composers* or something to that effect?


----------



## hpowders

Anterix said:


> Charles Ives, for one, should be up there on that list...


Absolutely!! His 4 symphonies, Concord Piano Sonata and Three Places In New England are magnificent works!

Where's the justice? The repetitive king Schubert is all the way up there and a true creative genius like Ives doesn't even make the list!!!


----------



## mmsbls

ArtMusic said:


> The original poll for the top 50 sounds like fun.
> 
> *Can I kindly ask if members here might be interested in doing a poll for 2014 Talk Classical's Most Favorite Composers* or something to that effect?


Given that there are many threads on TC asking for people's votes on top composers, I'm sure you would get many people interested. The real question is what process to use in determining the list. We have used a number of quite different methods in compiling lists. You might want to post in this thread to get feedback.


----------



## Mahlerian

mmsbls said:


> Given that there are many threads on TC asking for people's votes on top composers, I'm sure you would get many people interested. The real question is what process to use in determining the list. We have used a number of quite different methods in compiling lists. You might want to post in this thread to get feedback.


If the same method as before is used, the results would at least reflect how the (voting) TC membership has changed since the previous round.


----------



## Anterix

The top 50 list would have to accept at least, lets say, 500 composers... And even so many injustices would be committed.


----------



## guy

How is Mozart higher than Beethoven?! Yes, he could improvise like crazy and compose entire pieces in his head (or so the legends say). But were his best compositions better than the greatest of Beethoven's? If so, what ones? Enlighten me.


----------



## Anterix

guy said:


> How is Mozart higher than Beethoven?! Yes, he could improvise like crazy and compose entire pieces in his head (or so the legends say). But were his best compositions better than the greatest of Beethoven's? If so, what ones? Enlighten me.


The problem with this list is that it makes a series.

Beethoven is second to none! But Mozart is second to none also! And so is Bach! And all the others. And others not listed.


----------



## guy

Anterix said:


> The problem with this list is that it makes a series.
> 
> Beethoven is second to none! But Mozart is second to none also! And so is Bach! And all the others. And others not listed.


Is this list an averaged list of everyone's favourites? Like where they give each composer a certain amount of votes and it all gets summed up and put into a giant list?


----------



## Anterix

I have no idea, but it would be good to know...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Another very curious thing about some of the comments I have spotted is that in a few cases certain members appear to have a very precise rank list of their favorite composers up to a very high number, e.g. top 30 or so. I find this kind of accuracy and certainty to be truly amazing. I would have thought that, unless you are lying on your death bed, most people's preferences among composers are in a constant state of flux, at least outside say the top 3-5 positions.

This is largely true... but I suspect that those who have listened to classical music for a good many years might just have a few more composers set in stone... to a certain extent.

Of my own personal Top 15...

1. J.S. Bach
2. W.A. Mozart
3. L.v. Beethoven
4. Joseph Haydn
5. Richard Wagner
6. Franz Schubert
7. Richard Strauss
8. Johannes Brahms
9. G.F. Handel
10. Piotr Tchaikovsky
11. Gustav Mahler
12. Antonin Dvorak
13. Claude Debussy
14. Gabriel Fauré
15. Maurice Ravel

... a few names have risen or fallen one or two places over the years... but all remain composers that are essential to me.

The remaining 35 (nos. 16-50) are far more fluid. I would suggest that the majority would always remain within my favorite 100... but certainly I can easily imagine losing Delius or Josquin des Prez or Telemann for another worthy composer who has caught my ear at the moment.


----------



## hpowders

I would say Bach, Mozart and Beethoven must be considered in a first place tie. Persuasive arguments can be made for each of these three being number one and I couldn't really argue against any of these three super-great composers.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Also, most of Massenet´s many works have fallen into complete oblivion and only exist in very rare, old recordings (if any), whereas new, supplementary recordings of almost all of Ligeti´s works keep popping up nowadays.

Hmmm... it would appear that you pulled that one out of... well, I'll leave that to you:







Here are just a few of the Massenet recordings... of music "fallen into complete oblivion"... that are currently in print.






Yep... lost completely into oblivion.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

How is Mozart higher than Beethoven?! Yes, he could improvise like crazy and compose entire pieces in his head (or so the legends say). But were his best compositions better than the greatest of Beethoven's? If so, what ones? Enlighten me.

There is no way to enlighten you until you come to appreciate the merits of vocal music. There are strong arguments to be made in favor of either composer. The strongest arguments in favor of Mozart are:

1. The Piano Concertos
2. The Operas
3. The Choral music and other vocal works (Concert Arias, etc...)
4. The vast range of genre in which he produced unsurpassed works


----------



## hpowders

Nobody is higher than Beethoven. Bach and Mozart weren't deaf. Otherwise, I would call it a 3 way tie for first.


----------



## guy

StlukesguildOhio said:


> How is Mozart higher than Beethoven?! Yes, he could improvise like crazy and compose entire pieces in his head (or so the legends say). But were his best compositions better than the greatest of Beethoven's? If so, what ones? Enlighten me.
> 
> There is no way to enlighten you until you come to appreciate the merits of vocal music.


I don't not appreciate vocal music. It can be just as good as instrumental music. I just don't like the concept of it. That's like saying I hate the pope's personality because I'm atheist.


----------



## trazom

hpowders said:


> Nobody is higher than Beethoven. Bach and Mozart weren't deaf. Otherwise, I would call it a 3 way tie for first.


What does that have to do with their music? Beethoven didn't die at 35, either. Since we are judging them based on extra-musical circumstances.


----------



## joen_cph

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Also, most of Massenet´s many works have fallen into complete oblivion and only exist in very rare, old recordings (if any), whereas new, supplementary recordings of almost all of Ligeti´s works keep popping up nowadays.
> 
> Hmmm... it would appear that you pulled that one out of... well, I'll leave that to you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are just a few of the Massenet recordings... of music "fallen into complete oblivion"... that are currently in print.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... lost completely into oblivion.


Of course the opera public wants their modern recordings, and admittedly that repertoire is probably quite well covered. You list 9x _Werther_s, 5x _Manon_s and 3x _Thais_. But I was mainly referring to Massenet´s large production of other works - oratorios, stage music, instrumental music, songs, and perhaps I should have made it clear. None of them are above, though there´s a ballet music CD, taken from the operas (I´m aware of one recording of his complete piano works, EMI, and there are scattered recordings of orchestral works and _melodies_).

It´s unlikely that we will see a lot of oncoming recordings of a good deal of the operas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operas_by_Massenet

but not at least
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Jules_Massenet :

Louise de Mézières - 1862
David Rizzio - 1863
Marie-Magdeleine - 1873
Ève - 1875
Narcisse - 1877
La Vierge - 1880
Biblis - 1886
La Terre Promise - 1900

Le carillon - 1892
Cigale - 1904
Espada - 1908

Première suite d'orchestre - 1867
Scènes hongroises - 1870
Scènes pittoresques - 1874
Scènes dramatiques - 1875
Scènes napolitaines - 1876
Scènes de féerie - 1881
Scènes alsaciennes - 1882
Fantasy for cello and orchestra - 1897
Piano Concerto - 1902
Ouverture de concert
Overture to Racine's Phèdre
Sarabande espagnole

Les érinnyes (containing the famous Élégie) - 1873
Un drame sous Philippe II - 1875
La vie de bohème - 1876
L'Hetman - 1877
Notre-Dame de Paris - 1879
Michel Strogoff - 1880
Nana-Sahin - 1883
Théodora - 1884
Le crocodile - 1900
Phèdre - 1900
Le grillon du foyer - 1904
Le manteau du roi - 1907
Perce-Beige et les sept gnomes - 1909
Jérusalem - 1914

Song Collections (....)


----------



## ArtMusic

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Also, most of Massenet´s many works have fallen into complete oblivion and only exist in very rare, old recordings (if any), whereas new, supplementary recordings of almost all of Ligeti´s works keep popping up nowadays.
> 
> Hmmm... it would appear that you pulled that one out of... well, I'll leave that to you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are just a few of the Massenet recordings... of music "fallen into complete oblivion"... that are currently in print.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... lost completely into oblivion.


Right on! Million dollar singers and stars on the opera stage. Where are they singing Ligeti????


----------



## dgee

duplicate due to bad interent


----------



## dgee

These guys have gotta be worth a million, dontcha reckon ;-)


----------



## Anterix

Do you think it's possible a modern composer make it to the, let's say, top10 on a list like this?
I think it's impossible because of style/aesthetics. Modern styles/aesthetics seams public unfriendly. Also pre baroque music, except maybe for Palestrina. 

Modern doesn't get there. Neo classical/romantic also doesn't get there because is cliche. 

So this list, as it seams to be conceived tend to be static. Is the likes of mass public static on baroque, classicism and romantism? Is that saying static on tonalism?


----------



## joen_cph

> Right on! Million dollar singers and stars on the opera stage. Where are they singing Ligeti????


If the dollar says it all, we should all hasten away immediately from here and join the pop music crowds.
Time will tell whether "_Le Grand Macabre_" becomes a lasting classic.


----------



## violadude

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Personally I find all this Ligeti love among the hormone-ridden pre-pubescents to be rather cute. Not unlike the love for New Kids on the Block back in the day...




Oh yes, I'm sure all of the great musicians that have praised his work and judged it to be a very important contribution to musical history are all hormone-ridden pre-pubescents


----------



## Guest

hpowders said:


> I would say Bach, Mozart and Beethoven must be considered in a first place tie. Persuasive arguments can be made for each of these three being number one and I couldn't really argue against any of these three super-great composers.


Agreed. Purely as a matter of polling results that I have seen, it's difficult to split these three composers, and I don't think it is worth it. Speaking personally, they are my top 3 composers. At various times I have favored each of them in a different order. I have now concluded that they each as good as each other in slightly different ways.

I would suggest a similar treatment for a second tier of composers whose names generally appear in composer polls but in a slightly different order each time. These are Schubert, Brahms, Wagner, Haydn.

I understand that you don't care for Schubert but I happen to like his work. I recognise that Schubert tended occasionally to be a composer who didn't know quite when to stop writing, but I'm of the view that this is partly down to the fact that much of his output was not edited for a buying audience, and in any case he was an expansive much looser type of composer, not like Beethoven who wrote more tightly and very efficiently by extracting all nuances, whereas for development Schubert would tend to change key and introduce a new theme/melody. In addition, of course, Schubert died far too young to allow him to go over his previous work in order to tidy it up, even if he had been inclined to do so which he probably wouldn't have done anyway given his temperament.

Next down, I'd suggest that a third tier exits from most polls comprising: Handel, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Debussy, Stravinsky, Mendelssohn, Ravel, and possibly Liszt and Mahler although these two latter are a bit iffy. I admit that the distinction between the second third tier is not always clear-cut, with occasional overlap. Beyond these afore-mentioned composers, things get rather more uncertain as to typical ranking by the polls, but there are many more really great composers not far behind these.

I guess I'm fortunate in having tastes very much in line with what these polls tend to tell us. However, I'm by no means stuck with just these composers. Quite often I don't play any of their works for weeks on end, and instead might have a few days "bash" with various others like Monteverdi, or Telemann, Purcell, or Britten, Elgar, Walton, or Barber or any one of dozens of others. Occasionally, I tend to get involved in minimalism and sometimes atonal works of various kinds. I'm not fussy. I love it all. That's the nice thing about having a large collection, namely it gives you the chance to come back in a different mood/frame of mind and re-try what may not have appealed quite so much previously.


----------



## violadude

BurningDesire said:


> Personally I find the Ligeti love a little more appealing than the necrophiliac fetishization of Mozart and Bach.


Oh yes, I'm sure all the great musicians that have praised Mozart and Bach and claimed them as their favorite composers are necrophilliacs


----------



## hpowders

violadude said:


> Oh yes, I'm sure all the great musicians that have praised Mozart and Bach and claimed them as their favorite composers are necrophilliacs


In that case, I will proudly wear the necrophilliac button!


----------



## Cheyenne

ArtMusic said:


> The original poll for the top 50 sounds like fun.
> 
> *Can I kindly ask if members here might be interested in doing a poll for 2014 Talk Classical's Most Favorite Composers* or something to that effect?


God no! After a ban or five, nearly twenty angry arguments and two murders we'd only have another nearly meaningless list.


----------



## hpowders

Partita said:


> Agreed. Purely as a matter of polling results that I have seen, it's difficult to split these three composers, and I don't think it is worth it. Speaking personally, they are my top 3 composers. At various times I have favored each of them in a different order. I have now concluded that they each as good as each other in slightly different ways.
> 
> I would suggest a similar treatment for a second tier of composers whose names generally appear in composer polls but in a slightly different order each time. These are Schubert, Brahms, Wagner, Haydn.
> 
> I understand that you don't care for Schubert but I happen to like his work. I recognise that Schubert tended occasionally to be a composer who didn't know quite when to stop writing, but I'm of the view that this is partly down to the fact that much of his output was not edited for a buying audience, and in any case he was an expansive much looser type of composer, not like Beethoven who wrote more tightly and very efficiently by extracting all nuances, whereas for development Schubert would tend to change key and introduce a new theme/melody. In addition, of course, Schubert died far too young to allow him to go over his previous work in order to tidy it up, even if he had been inclined to do so which he probably wouldn't have done anyway given
> Next down, I'd suggest that a third tier exits from most polls comprising: Handel, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Debussy, Stravinsky, Mendelssohn, Ravel, and possibly Liszt and Mahler although these two latter are a bit iffy. I admit that the distinction between the second third tier is not always clear-cut, with occasional overlap. Beyond these afore-mentioned composers, things get rather more uncertain as to typical ranking by the polls, but there are many more really great composers not far behind these.
> 
> I guess I'm fortunate in having tastes very much in line with what these polls tend to tell us. However, I'm by no means stuck with just these composers. Quite often I don't play any of their works for weeks on end, and instead might have a few days "bash" with various others like Monteverdi, or Telemann, Purcell, or Britten, Elgar, Walton, or Barber or any one of dozens of others. Occasionally, I tend to get involved in minimalism and sometimes atonal works of various kinds. I'm not fussy. I love it all. That's the nice thing about having a large collection, namely it gives you the chance to come back in a different mood/frame of mind and re-try what may not have appealed quite so much previously.


Yes. Schubert never "got" to me. I find it foolish to attempt to rate Beethoven, Mozart and JS Bach numerically. The wise thing to do IMO is simply rate them equally at the very summit of Mt. Olympus.


----------



## GreenMamba

guy said:


> I don't not appreciate vocal music. It can be just as good as instrumental music. I just don't like the concept of it. That's like saying I hate the pope's personality because I'm atheist.


Out of curiosity, what do you mean "concept of"? Is that different from just saying you don't like the way it sounds?


----------



## Guest

hpowders said:


> Yes. Schubert never "got" to me. I find it foolish to attempt to rate Beethoven, Mozart and JS Bach numerically. The wise thing to do IMO is simply rate them equally at the very summit of Mt. Olympus.


As I said, I am in agreement with you on the problem of rating of Beethoven, Mozart and Bach. Although I once thought that I could do so, the fact is that I can no longer separate them in terms of overall personal appeal, and I cannot possibly believe that there is any remotely acceptable way of distinguishing between their relative greatness objectively. They are co-equals in my book. Before your recent arrival, there have been so many debates here about the relative greatness of Mozart and Beethoven that proves nothing but the fact that some people must be gluttons for punishment.

I can understand why some people may not like Schubert. I am not sure that he was anything like as fully occupied with complying with standard form and structure, as was Beethoven. His music is rather long-winded at times, mainly because of the repetition he put into several works and assuming of course that they are all taken. Some of his melodies can sound rather too sugary sweet after a few listens. I think now that quite a lot of his acclaimed lieder can be rather tedious as there is so much that sounds very similar to other songs. Quite a bit of the piano part of many songs is often simplistic, merely repeating common chords. In addition, some of the vocal lines show little variation, unlike the later song writing of composers like Schumann, Liszt, and Brahms. As for his highly acclaimed String Quintet D 956, it has sometimes been criticised for being over long to sustain the material in it, with poor linking of material between the various movements, despite containing some extremely good bits. The same applies to his Octet, the "Trout" Quintet, and above all his Symphony No 9 that is too long and requires such a lot of strenuous effort, especially from the strings.

Despite all this, I still like Schubert a great deal. He was a very early favorite and I can hardly bring myself round to making the comments above. I don't mean to be too harsh, as I still reckon that he was very highly gifted and wrote a lot of very good material. For me, he is up there very close to the top, and I would have no hesitation in recommending him for a top 6 position. The truth is however that, after a long "fling" which lasted for several years, I am now less inclined to pick out a work by Schubert. I guess I have become a bit tired of it, partly I suppose because it is so distinctive. There is a limit to how many times one may wish to listen to something like, for example D 956, despite the fact I have eight highly rated versions to select from, or D 960 of which I have even more versions. In fact, I have all of Schubert's works, often in at least triplicate, so great was my enthusiasm at one time.

All of which goes to show that one's tastes can and do change, given enough time, and that even once very highly rated composers can slip down one's personal preference league after perhaps paying a little too much early idolatry.


----------



## Mahlerian

ArtMusic said:


> Right on! Million dollar singers and stars on the opera stage. Where are they singing Ligeti????


Well, Ligeti is more known as an instrumental/orchestral composer than vocal, but his choral "Lux Aeterna" is frequently enough performed.

For example, in Bristol and in Köln.


----------



## hpowders

Partita said:


> As I said, I am in agreement with you on the problem of rating of Beethoven, Mozart and Bach. Although I once thought that I could do so, the fact is that I can no longer separate them in terms of overall personal appeal, and I cannot possibly believe that there is any remotely acceptable way of distinguishing between their relative greatness objectively. They are co-equals in my book. Before your recent arrival, there have been so many debates here about the relative greatness of Mozart and Beethoven that proves nothing but the fact that some people must be gluttons for punishment.
> 
> I can understand why some people may not like Schubert. I am not sure that he was anything like as fully occupied with complying with standard form and structure, as was Beethoven. His music is rather long-winded at times, mainly because of the repetition he put into several works and assuming of course that they are all taken. Some of his melodies can sound rather too sugary sweet after a few listens. I think now that quite a lot of his acclaimed lieder can be rather tedious as there is so much that sounds very similar to other songs. Quite a bit of the piano part of many songs is often simplistic, merely repeating common chords. In addition, some of the vocal lines show little variation, unlike the later song writing of composers like Schumann, Liszt, and Brahms. As for his highly acclaimed String Quintet D 956, it has sometimes been criticised for being over long to sustain the material in it, with poor linking of material between the various movements, despite containing some extremely good bits. The same applies to his Octet, the "Trout" Quintet, and above all his Symphony No 9 that is too long and requires such a lot of strenuous effort, especially from the strings.
> 
> Despite all this, I still like Schubert a great deal. He was a very early favorite and I can hardly bring myself round to making the comments above. I don't mean to be too harsh, as I still reckon that he was very highly gifted and wrote a lot of very good material. For me, he is up there very close to the top, and I would have no hesitation in recommending him for a top 6 position. The truth is however that, after a long "fling" which lasted for several years, I am now less inclined to pick out a work by Schubert. I guess I have become a bit tired of it, partly I suppose because it is so distinctive. There is a limit to how many times one may wish to listen to something like, for example D 956, despite the fact I have eight highly rated versions to select from, or D 960 of which I have even more versions. In fact, I have all of Schubert's works, often in at least triplicate, so great was my enthusiasm at one time.
> 
> All of which goes to show that one's tastes can and do change, given enough time, and that even once very highly rated composers can slip down one's personal preference league after perhaps paying a little too much early idolatry.


My dislike of Schubert is not for lack of trying. I am absolutely familiar with all his symphonies, great piano sonatas, string quartets, string quintet, song cycles, 2 piano trios, piano music for 4 hands, impromptus, Wanderer Fantasie, etc;

The only performance of any Schubert work that I can tolerate is the 9th Symphony with Solti leading the VPO.


----------



## spradlig

Who are some composers who you think _aren't_ overrated?



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> The purpose of this thread is for you to express your humble opinion on which composer(s) you think are over rated in Talk Classical's Top 50 Composers list recently compiled. I have created a separate thread to encourage all members, irrespective of whether you participated at all in the voting of the list, to express your opinion.
> 
> Note:-
> (1) This thread is *not* about attacking the merits of the list overall; its point system, its statistical credibility or any of that nature.
> (2) This thread is *not* about attacking the merits of the individual composer(s) who you feel might be over rated in the list. Indeed, you might well enjoy the composer's oeuvre very much but feel the ranking has elevated him or not to point where you feel you might like to express your opinion about it.
> 
> Here is the top 50, in fact the top 54, as of today:-
> 
> 1. Bach
> 2. Mozart
> 3. Beethoven
> 4. Schubert
> 5. Brahms
> 6. Wagner
> 7. Haydn
> 8. Schumann
> 9. Handel
> 10. Mahler
> 11. Mendelssohn
> 12. Debussy
> 13. Dvořák
> 14. Chopin
> 15. Tchaikovsky
> 16. Stravinsky
> 17. Ravel
> 18. Prokofiev
> 19. Shostakovich
> 20. Strauss, Richard
> 21. Liszt
> 22. Bartók
> 23. Verdi
> 24. Monteverdi
> 25. Sibelius
> 26. Vivaldi
> 27. Berlioz
> 28. Bruckner
> 29. Saint-Saëns
> 30. Elgar
> 31. Fauré
> 32. Vaughan Williams
> 33. Rachmaninoff
> 34. Puccini
> 35. Purcell
> 36. Scarlatti, Domenico
> 37. Mussorgsky
> 38. Schoenberg
> 39. Grieg
> 40. Palestrina
> 41. Messiaen
> 42. Janáček
> 43. Britten
> 44. Rossini
> 45. Rimsky-Korsakov
> 46. Josquin
> 47. Berg
> 48. Bach, C.P.E.
> 49. Barber
> 50. Bach, J.C.
> 51. Gluck
> 52. Rameau
> 53. Scriabin
> 54. Ligeti


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

spradlig said:


> Who are some composers who you think _aren't_ overrated?


And Telemann? He should be in there too.


----------



## GreenMamba

spradlig said:


> Who are some composers who you think _aren't_ overrated?


That list is of the Top 50 (or 54) TC composers. It's not a list of overrated composers, it's the list we're supposed to be comparing our tastes to.


----------



## spradlig

I guess I don't understand what the question is.



GreenMamba said:


> That list is of the Top 50 (or 54) TC composers. It's not a list of overrated composers, it's the list we're supposed to be comparing our tastes to.


----------



## Winterreisender

In my opinion, Mendelssohn and Dvorak are too high. Don't get me wrong, they are both very solid romantic composers, but I feel there are others who are more important and influential in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## GreenMamba

spradlig said:


> I guess I don't understand what the question is.


I think the list you responded to above was the original list of "best" composers. Your post above made it look like you thought it was someone's list of overrated composers, i.e., that he didn't like any of them. Maybe I misinterpreted.


----------



## Morimur

Bruckner.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Blancrocher

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Bruckner.
> 
> Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Only by those like myself who love him. However--everyone else underrates him!


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Beethoven is two spots too low, ok *maybe* I can accept Bach as #1, begrudgingly  Bach and Beethoven could be interchangeable, I suppose. However, I don't get how Mozart is rated above Beethoven. Mozart's top 5 for sure, maybe top 3, but higher than Beethoven? Nah.

Also, I think Mahler has to be higher than Schumann.


----------



## Vesteralen

After a long time thinking about it and countless threads devoted to the subject of GREATNESS, I have decided to slightly alter my long-held stance on this subject.

Rather than saying that *No One *is qualified to judge greatness, I now hold that *EVERYONE *is qualified to judge greatness.

Hence, whoever are your FAVORITE composers are also THE GREATEST composers to you (and you alone) and to me (and me alone).

So, I will now hold that Nielsen, Barber, Vaughan Williams, Novak, Brahms, Schumann, Haydn and Monteverdi and the three A's (Arnold, Alwyn and Alfven) are the 10 greatest composers, and nothing anyone can say otherwise will change my point of view. 

After all if someone's music gives you pleasure, how can that not be great? And, if another person's music does not give you pleasure, well then, how can they be great?

I will now be content to inhabit a lunatic world of my own invention and I will leave each of you to inhabit yours.

  

(Smilies provided in case someone still takes all this serioiusly)


----------



## shangoyal

Ahh, what a delightful thread, honestly.


----------



## PetrB

shangoyal said:


> Ahh, what a delightful thread, honestly.


Fantasy football league, but '_fantasy art (music) league_' instead... go figure ;-)


----------



## DiesIraeCX

PetrB said:


> Fantasy football league, but '_fantasy art (music) league_' instead... go figure ;-)


Haha, it is all a bit silly, but hey, even _The New York Times_' Anthony Tommasini gave into it once. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/arts/music/23composers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Not to say these lists, rankings, etc. bear any fruit, because they clearly don't! For any practical purposes, they're merely exercises in futility.


----------



## Guest

Toddlertoddy said:


> Chopin: everything he did had a piano in it. How about a little more variety?


Exactly. He did NOTHING for the Moog synthesizer even.


----------



## Bulldog

If I had my druthers, I'd replace Purcell/CPE Bach/JC Bach with Froberger, Buxtehude and Scheidemann.


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> Fantasy football league, but '_fantasy art (music) league_' instead... go figure ;-)


Fantastic thread idea, PetrB. But we're all dying to know - who's your first round draft pick?


----------



## hpowders

After listening and falling asleep once again to the content of his symphonies, I nominate Carl Nielsen as one of the most over-rated composers of all time.


----------



## shangoyal

PetrB said:


> Fantasy football league, but '_fantasy art (music) league_' instead... go figure ;-)


Yeah, Ludwig Van! Ludwig Van! Ludwig Van!


----------



## Celloissimo

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Bruckner.
> 
> Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


We can't be friends.


----------



## trazom

DiesIraeVIX said:


> However, I'll never understand how Mozart is rated above Beethoven. Mozart's top 5 for sure, maybe top 3, but higher than Beethoven? Nah.
> 
> Also, I think Mahler has to be higher than Schumann.


it's not THAT hard to accept if you know most of their output really well. The author from New York times article you posted even said that Mozart's work in opera gives him an edge, and he only puts Beethoven second because of a sentimental, boyish attachment he has to that composer ("survives bad performances"). I'm guessing he hasn't heard one of the late quartets or piano sonatas performed badly.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

trazom said:


> it's not THAT hard to accept if you know most of their output really well. The author from New York times article you posted even said that Mozart's work in opera gives him an edge, and he only puts Beethoven second because of a sentimental, boyish attachment he has to that composer ("survives bad performances"). I'm guessing he hasn't heard one of the late quartets or piano sonatas performed badly.


You're right, my statement was perhaps a bit exaggerated. Mozart is actually one of my favorite composers, Mozart's 40th and Requiem is what introduced me to classical music. That being said, I'm not sure how you got "he only puts Beethoven second because of a sentimental boyish attachment he has to that composer" from this:
_
" Still, I'm going with Beethoven for the second slot. Beethoven's technique was not as facile as Mozart's. He struggled to compose, and you can sometimes hear that struggle in the music. But however hard wrought, Beethoven's works are so audacious and indestructible that they survive even poor performances.

I had an epiphany about Beethoven during the early 1980s when I heard the composer Leon Kirchner conduct the Harvard Chamber Orchestra. He began with a Piston symphony, a fresh, inventive Neo-Classical piece from the 1950s. "La Mer" by Debussy came next, and Kirchner, who had studied with Schoenberg and had a Germanic orientation, brought weighty, Wagnerian intensity to this landmark score, completed in 1905. The Debussy came across as more modern than the Piston.

After intermission Peter Serkin joined Kirchner for a performance of Beethoven's Fourth Piano Concerto that brought out the mysticism, poetic reverie and wildness of the music. *The Beethoven sounded like the most radical work in the program by far: unfathomable and amazing. I'm giving Beethoven the second slot, and Mozart No. 3.*"_

I think the key to Tommasini's selection of Beethoven over Mozart is in that final 3rd paragraph, it seems.

I do think it's ultimately futile to discuss who's music was "better" as that is impossible, I do however think that it's possible to determine who the more influential, innovative and revolutionary composer. I don't think there's any doubt that that distinction goes to Beethoven. Mozart perfected the Classical music language, Beethoven decided to change what classical music meant by creating a new language and cast a huge shadow over the entire 19th century musical landscape. Please don't misunderstand me, though, I'm not saying that innovation or influence are the *only* ways to determine who's "better". But in my selection, it's what would nudge Beethoven over Mozart.


----------



## trazom

DiesIraeVIX said:


> You're right, my statement was perhaps a bit exaggerated. Mozart is actually one of my favorite composers, Mozart's 40th and Requiem is what introduced me to classical music. That being said, I'm not sure how you got "he only puts Beethoven second because of a sentimental boyish attachment he has to that composer" from this.


I got it from all the vague, sometimes cliche adjectives that kept popping up while reading him wax lyrical on the struggles you can supposedly hear in the music. I see struggles in his notes and manuscripts with endless revisions. I don't know how you hear this in the composition. and this, which I quoted in my previous post: "But however hard wrought, Beethoven's works are so audacious and indestructible that they survive even poor performances." Would he describe all of his piano, violin and cello sonatas this way and do they all survive bad performances? As for how 'radical' a piece sounds, that varies--in my opinion--with each listener, and can change depending on the context and performance.



DiesIraeVIX said:


> I do however think that it's possible to determine who the more influential, innovative and revolutionary composer. I don't think there's any doubt that that distinction goes to Beethoven. Mozart perfected the Classical music language, Beethoven decided to change what classical music meant by creating a new language and cast a huge shadow over the entire 19th century musical landscape. Please don't misunderstand me, though, I'm not saying that innovation or influence are the *only* ways to determine who's "better". But in my selection, it's what would nudge Beethoven over Mozart.


can you? I thought this topic has been argued among musicologists for years and none of them have reached a universal consensus that I know. You didn't really specify which kind of influence and innovation you were talking about. In what genres, which pieces within those genres, which techniques specifically, and then how much of what was done in that piece has never been done before. Then which pieces by every other composer after him was influenced by his work and not the work of some other composer. And THEN this is after you figure out how much Beethoven himself was influenced by composers before him, and how much credit of 'influence' you're willing to assign them. Unless it's too obvious to be a coincidence, or the composer says in his own words that "yes, this part was an hommage to so and so," it's not possible to quantify and compare something subject to interpretation like 'influence" with that much accuracy. And it only gets more difficult with more modern composers who have the option of drawing from a wider range of music.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

If I say that Haydn was more influential than Saint-Saens, do I really have to prove it? Really?


----------



## trazom

DiesIraeVIX said:


> If I say that Haydn was more influential than Saint-Saens, do I really have to prove it? Really?


That seems like a false equivalency to me. Is a comparison between the influence of Haydn and Saint-Saens the same as a comparison between the influence of Mozart and Beethoven? One group lived in much closer time periods, composed in similar genres, and about equal representation in the concert repertoire.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

I understand that Haydn isn't to Saint-Saens as Beethoven is to Mozart, that's not my point. You brought up musicology, specific techniques, specific kinds of influence and innovations, and genres, etc. etc. My point is that to say a certain composer is more influential (innovative, revolutionary, etc) isn't necessarily a claim that inherently necessitates cold hard "proof".

And with regards to the Beethoven-Mozart topic, I would nudge Beethoven above Mozart in terms of influence mainly because Beethoven was the composer who is "widely considered the composer who bridged the Classical and Romantic eras"(link). I do use "nudge" because I do admit they were both wildly influential and very close to each other, I admitted my first post was mistaken.

Christos Hatzis:

"…because of his non-conformity. He was not concerned with social (structural) norms and he pursued musical semantics in pure isolation, reinventing from scratch even things that he and others already knew."

Andrew Staniland:

"Beethoven is still the poster-child of the romanticized genius-composer. Unlike composers before him, he struggles mightily against established norms. He was a brave and relentless innovator. Mozart had perfect craft, but he did not fight and innovate like Beethoven. As my teacher Gary Kulesha often says, Mozart was the last great composer who did not struggle. Mozart, Haydn, and Brahms, are all great. But Beethoven is the most influential."

These are of course only opinions, but I guess I'm trying to say that I didn't just randomly make up some view that nobody agrees with.


----------



## trazom

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I understand that Haydn isn't to Saint-Saens as Beethoven is to Mozart, that's not my point. You brought up musicology, specific techniques, specific kinds of influence and innovations, and genres, etc. etc.
> my point is that to say a certain composer is more influential (innovative, revolutionary, etc) isn't necessarily a claim that inherently necessitates cold hard "proof".


Yes, but you originally said you thought it was possible to determine which composer was more influential. That there was no doubt who was more influential. I said why I thought comparisons of influence were dubious/ impossible to determine, depending on too many variables to determine. If you try to argue that one composer is more influential than another(which I wouldn't) and have nothing to back it up but your own assertions, that it's self-evident(with no evidence) then it's just empty rhetoric.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

trazom said:


> Yes, but you originally said you thought it was possible to determine which composer was more influential. That there was no doubt who was more influential. I said why I thought comparisons of influence were dubious/ impossible to determine, depending on too many variables to determine. If you try to argue that one composer is more influential than another(which I wouldn't) and have nothing to back it up but your own assertions, that it's self-evident(with no evidence) then it's just empty rhetoric.


See the above post, it's clearly not *empty* rhetoric since it's a view that quite a few people hold. I'd bring up the same example, to say that Haydn is more influential than Saint-Saens isn't empty rhetoric, precisely because it's quite a commonly held view. I'll reiterate, regardless of the countless times I've read that Beethoven influenced the entire 19th century like no other. My opinion is that since he radically changed classical music and ushered in the Romantic era is what makes Beethoven more influential in my book (and quite a few other's books, too)


----------



## trazom

DiesIraeVIX said:


> See the above post, it's clearly not *empty* rhetoric since it's a view that quite a few people hold. I'd bring up the same example, to say that Haydn is more influential than Saint-Saens isn't empty rhetoric, precisely because it's quite a commonly held view.


I agree it's a view quite a few people hold, not that that means it's correct; but you said you thought it was possible to determine who was more influential and I said why I thought it wasn't possible. Saying 'it's a commonly held view' and it's 'possible to determine who's more influential' are two different things.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

trazom said:


> I agree it's a view quite a few people hold, not that that means it's correct; but you said you thought it was possible to determine who was more influential and I said why I thought it wasn't possible. Saying 'it's a commonly held view' and it's 'possible to determine who's more influential' are two different things.


Well, then I admit that "determine" was a poor choice of words. Determine has the connotation of arriving at an empirically proven answer and that's mistaken.


----------



## shangoyal

Great to see Schumann in the Top 10. I'll take him any day and let go hundreds of Mendelssohns and Dvoraks. Maybe thousands of Dvoraks.


----------



## jdcbr

Amen, brother! He would not even make my top 100.
This is in response to an early entry about Messiean.


----------



## QuietGuy

Stravinsky needs to be much higher. He should be right up there with Bach and Mozart.


----------

