# Top 10 Greatest Composers of all time -- NY Times



## JohnG (Jan 22, 2011)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/arts/ ... f=homepage

Just read this -- not an endorsement but fun.


----------



## Vision (Jan 22, 2011)

No mention of Ravel. This troubles me..

Guess by "Greatest" he really means most popular.


----------



## Musicologo (Jan 22, 2011)

Not even a line about Tchaikowsky, Liszt, Schummann, Satie, Varèse, Rachmaninnoff, Scott Joplin, Stockhausen, Boulez or Scriabin... I'm stunned :o

And in any popularity contest Chopin would surpass Schubert or Brahms... place 4 would be his no doubt about it. 

So what was the criteria again?...


----------



## José Herring (Jan 22, 2011)

Musicologo @ Sat Jan 22 said:


> So what was the criteria again?...



Looks like he was pulling judgment directly from my freshman year music appreciation 101 class.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 22, 2011)

What is more shocking is, nothing about Lady Gaga!!!!


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 23, 2011)

Excellent. Some other pointless top 10 ideas:

Top 10 Elements Of The Periodic Table ("What?! No Aluminium!!!!!")

Top 10 Herbs ("What?!! No Sage?!!!")

Top 10 Parts Of The Internal Combustion Engine ("What?! No exhaust valve?!!!)

Top 10 Countries ("What?!! No Australia?!!!)

Top 10 Verbs ("What?!!! No Asking?!!!)


----------



## lux (Jan 23, 2011)

after reading "my top spot goes to Bach" i of course ran away from that page...


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 23, 2011)

Whether you agree with him or not, he makes good arguments for his choices. 

And clearly he is not going by popularity as Tchaikovsky is the most frequently performed composer of all _(Jay shudders)_

And BTW, Bach would be my number 1 also because all Western music as we know it rests on his sturdy shoulders.


----------



## rgames (Jan 23, 2011)

Seems there was a similar thread here a while back...

I also agree that Bach should not be in the top spot. However, you could argue that a lot of "classical" music owes a lot to his work, so maybe from that standpoint he deserves it. You could argue that the classical music chronomoter starts with Bach.

Obviously such top 10 lists are pointless but I've always felt that they really need to be written in two different contexts: refinement and revolution. Certain composers did wonderful work refining an existing style or aesthetic whereas others created a completely new one. I find it difficult to compare the two - it's really apples and oranges.

For example, Mozart certainly wrote great music. But he didn't (really) push music in a new direction; rather, he brought the classical age to its logical conclusion. His work was refinement, not revolution. I feel Mahler did the same for the romantics.

Beethoven, however, clearly pushed classical music in a new direction. And he created some stunning examples of the new style. Composers such as Stravinsky and Ravel did the same.

You could make a similar argument for other types of artists, or athletes, or scientists, or whatever. Sure, Newton and Einstein both had monumental achievements. But Newton laid a foundation for new physics whereas Einstein closed the loopholes in what already existed.

I think it's tough to compare those two types of achievement.

rgames


----------



## Alex Temple (Jan 23, 2011)

I always like reading well-reasoned articles like this, as pointless as the debate is. Even as one of the Mahler devotees he mentioned in his closing remarks, I can understand why he didn't make the list. The one composer represented here who I've never warmed up to is Schubert. It's probably time for me to give him another chance.


----------



## madbulk (Jan 23, 2011)

I haven't glanced yet. Trying to predict what NYT will list. My assumption is Beethoven is #1, but I got no problem with it being Bach.

EDIT: Not as any sort of argument about who the 10 should be, but more about predicting what a NYT column might likely say... I wrote down Tchaikovsky and Monteverdi, putting Brahams in my "No" column beside Haydn, Handel, Mahler and Chopin, and not thinking of Verdi at all. Still not.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 23, 2011)

There's also the distinction between "greatest" composer and "most influential" composer. 

Bach would still dominate for either of these categories, but Wagner would come in 2nd for "most influential".


----------



## Ryan Scully (Jan 23, 2011)

This was an enjoyable read - As stated in this thread, I don't fully agree with everything he has pointed out but he does backup his arguments well. I totally agree with Bach followed by Beethoven. If not for his far reaching influence over Western Music prior, I would nearly put Beethoven first myself..The pure genius illustrated through the 3 periods of Beethoven's compositional life are without comparison IMO. Interesting points about Schubert as well - I remember the first time I heard Gretchen at the Spinning Wheel in College and couldn't help but think what he could have accomplished had he not met such an untimely death(like many great composers...).


----------



## alphonse (Jan 23, 2011)

Berlioz o=< best french romantic


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jan 23, 2011)

Bernard Herrmann. That's right. And Stockhausen over Bartok. He blew minds and opened new avenues *

* :oops: :oops: ps. So did Bartok. This is hard!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jan 23, 2011)

As for #1, my feet say Mozart, my heart says Beethoven, and my brain says Bach.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 23, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Sun Jan 23 said:


> There's also the distinction between "greatest" composer and "most influential" composer.
> 
> Bach would still dominate for either of these categories, but Wagner would come in 2nd for "most influential".



Good point, Guy.

Some years ago I had a talk with a well known popular music producer here in Germany. While we talked about film music he said: " So you like Wagner very much". o-[][]-o


----------



## TheUnfinished (Jan 23, 2011)

alphonse @ Sun Jan 23 said:


> Berlioz o=< best french romantic


And he wins points for the sheer entertainment factor of his life! A proper old school genius.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 24, 2011)

I was once moderator of a top 100 greatest composers, works, etc

I remember advocating for Tchaikovsky being greater than Brahms, but I was out numbered on that forum. My conclusion was that Tchaikovsky's immense "popularity" hurts him more than anything as a serious composer, but that shouldn't be.


----------



## David Story (Jan 24, 2011)

*1000 Masterpieces. *

Let's hear the panorama of music. You may like Bach, Beethoven and Stravinsky. Or Gershwins, Beatles and MJ.

I stand by an inclusive definition: Heard around the world, and across time.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 24, 2011)

josejherring @ 22nd January 2011 said:


> Looks like he was pulling judgment directly from my freshman year music appreciation 101 class.



Ha! good one!

I kind of like these lists because they can be so provoking. I really admire Bartok and Berg, whom I perceive as having deployed a lot of complexity but preserved a fundamentally "musical" impulse. By that, I think I mean that their music preserves a kind of lodestone / anchor, comprised of melody and rhythm, that I view as having given rise in the mists of time to music as an idea and as something to which people willingly would listen.

To me, the absence of such an anchor condemns to tedium the work of many 20th century composers who fell so in love with analytical and non-musical rules. I find their music more enjoyable to read about than to hear, and predict that it will not stand the Test of Time. Which I still like as a measure of greatness.

These "numbers guys" remind me of the famous quotation about Wagner from Edgar Nye (via Mark Twain), that Wagner's music "is better than it sounds."

And just to digress, found a funny list of musical quotations / invective featuring this and many old favourites:

http://www.public.coe.edu/~wcarson/musicquotes.htm


----------



## futur2 (Jan 24, 2011)

JohnG @ Mon Jan 24 said:


> remind me of the famous quotation about Wagner from Edgar Nye (via Mark Twain), that Wagner's music "is better than it sounds."



that quote may sound like a nice bon mot but is plain utter bullshit


----------



## JohnG (Jan 24, 2011)

ok -- one is entitled to one's opinion.

how about this then:

_"He has an enormously wide repertory. He can conduct anything, provided it's by Beethoven, Brahms or Wagner. He tried Debussy's La Mer once. It came out as Das Merde."_ --Anonymous Orchestra Member on George Szell


----------



## futur2 (Jan 25, 2011)

JohnG @ Tue Jan 25 said:


> ok -- one is entitled to one's opinion.
> 
> how about this then:
> 
> _"He has an enormously wide repertory. He can conduct anything, provided it's by Beethoven, Brahms or Wagner. He tried Debussy's La Mer once. It came out as Das Merde."_ --Anonymous Orchestra Member on George Szell



don't know szell's debussy but this one is at least funnier :wink:


----------

