Yes, a Top Ten List - Composers

[ramseytheii]

The music critic for the New York Times, Anthony Tommasini, recently compiled his list of top 10 (dead) composers in Western music history.  The list was made partly out of fun, and partly to test himself on how well he could advocate for his favorites.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/arts/music/23composers.html

I thought I would have a little fun myself, though such a list may properly be deemed "out of character," and type up my own.  I hope you do the same, I would love to see what people think.

He listed his in order of importance, but I am going to skirt that and list them alphabetically according to last name.

1. J.S. Bach
2. Bela Bartok
3. Ludwig van Beethoven
4. Frederic Chopin
5. Claude Debussy
6. F.J. Haydn
7. Gustav Mahler
8. Olivier Messiaen
9. Arnold Schoenberg
10. Richard Wagner

Walter Ramsey

[aintgotnorhythm]

I agree with the usual suspects, i.e. Bach, Chopin, Beethoven, but struggle with a top 10 list that doesn't include Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich or Sibelius (I think I have read somewhere that the Shostakovich 5th symphony and Sibelius violin concerto are the most performed classical pieces from the 20th century). Also it's a piano forum after all so why not Rachmaninov?

[retrouvailles]

I agree with the usual suspects, i.e. Bach, Chopin, Beethoven, but struggle with a top 10 list that doesn't include Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich or Sibelius (I think I have read somewhere that the Shostakovich 5th symphony and Sibelius violin concerto are the most performed classical pieces from the 20th century). Also it's a piano forum after all so why not Rachmaninov?

The number one reason that I can think of why Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich, Sibelius, and Rachmaninoff were not included is because they were nowhere near as innovative and groundbreaking as most of the composers on the present list, which I actually really like (Ramsey's list, I mean, not so much Tommasini's). Tchaik et. al. wrote very good music, though, but this is something that many composers do. Not all composers knew how to break ground, though, and make their music sound good and enjoyable at the same time (some people will argue against Schoenberg in that respect).

[john11inc]

Well, no list is going to please everyone.  I'm certainly not a fan of that one.  Also, I'm not really sure what the criteria are.  Is it favorite composers, or most "important" composers, or some mixture of the two?  I actually have objections to the majority of this list, if we are talking about "importance", which is the only thing that can really be dissected beyond personal taste:

1. J.S. Bach

Bach is surely not as "important" as Handel, considering his work would have been unknown to a huge number of other "important" composers, whereas Handel's would be well-known.  I do prefer Bach, but Handel was much more influential during the period in which music was actually still being influenced, to a great degree, by Baroque music.

2. Bela Bartok

Bartok is an iconoclast, and his music is far more one-dimensional than Stravinsky's, and far less influential.  Choosing Bartok en lieu of Stravinsky is so illogical that I can't possibly think it's anything other than an oversight.  Stravinsky, Dufourt, Cage, Xenakis and Schoenberg (and Ives and Babbitt and Reich and Webern and Stockhausen etc. etc. etc.) are almost certainly the most influential composers of the 20th century, so to include Bartok and exclude four of those five is criminal.

3. Ludwig van Beethoven

This I can't argue very strongly against, although I would say that Schubert, if we're talking solely about innovation, deserves the spot, if only one of them can have it.

4. Frederic Chopin

Liszt is probably the most influential composer of the Romantic Era, so to choose between Chopin and Liszt makes me think again it would have to be sheer oversight to select Chopin.  Again, I am not commenting on quality of music, but Liszt is extremely important.  Chopin was just good at what he did.

5. Claude Debussy

I would say this is correct, if we must select between Ravel, Faure and Debussy.

6. F.J. Haydn

I would say this is correct in a way, and completely backwards in another.  Haydn shaped the Classical era, but Mozart shaped everything else.

7. Gustav Mahler

This name has absolutely no right to a list this exclusive.  If anything, Mahler should be on a reverse of this list, as he taught kids it was alright to take a step backward.  By far the worst inclusion.

8. Olivier Messiaen

Messiaen's role in music is extremely complex, and I have no doubt in my mind that the person who compiled this list does not understand it.  In that sense, I suppose my objection to this name being included is more epistemological than factual.  What is almost certainly Messiaen's great legacy is his list of students and championing of then-contemporary music, not his actual music, in the sense of how much he changed the landscape of music to come.  Even his sparse list of "innovations" is vastly overstated.

9. Arnold Schoenberg

This can't really be argued with.  However, Stravinsky deserves this spot more than Schoenberg.

10. Richard Wagner

This one doesn't even make sense to me.  I am unsure as to why he's on this list, so I can't argue with why that reasoning is stupid.  If we're talking about Expressionism, motivic writing and harmonic innovations, we should be talking about Berg and Scriabin, not Wagner.

[gyzzzmo]

Pretty much the same as john11inch commented, except i'd definitely choose Mozart instead of Haydn because Mozart's music has been so much more influentual. And i would probably Rachmaninov instead of Wagner.

[thalbergmad]

2. Bela Bartok

FMR

[mephisto]

10. Richard Wagner

This one doesn't even make sense to me.  I am unsure as to why he's on this list, so I can't argue with why that reasoning is stupid.  If we're talking about Expressionism, motivic writing and harmonic innovations, we should be talking about Berg and Scriabin, not Wagner.

That's a pretty childiss comment IMO. A lot of the 20th century music is influenced by Wagner. I don't even feel like I have to defend him. Wagner stands pretty much as one of the most important composers of all time.

[john11inc]

A lot of the 20th century music is influenced by Wagner.

Such as?

I don't even feel like I have to defend him.

And yet. . .

Wagner stands pretty much as one of the most important composers of all time.

Because?

[mephisto]

Such as?


And yet. . .


Because?

Just grow up.

[thalbergmad]

He could prove to you in 3 pages of maths that he has.

Thal

[scottmcc]

I read that series of articles in the NY Times as well, and was most interested in the little videos that accompanied.  I had no idea that Mr Tomassini was such an accomplished musician himself.  Anyway, these kind of lists are by definition problematic, especially when one tries to create an all-inclusive list as opposed to a list of "what composers do you like to listen to the most?"

so anyway, here's Mr Tomassini's list again, with my brief notes:

1. Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750).
I definitely agree with him being on the list, but my personal taste puts him behind Beethoven.  But I certainly can't deny his influence across the sphere of classical music, and it is no surprise to see him placed at the top.

 2. Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827),
I really can't imagine a world without Beethoven's music.  He was a true genius, and in my book is the number one.

3. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756 — 91).
While I like his music, and certainly it is quite popular and well-known, I personally find it less interesting than the music of Haydn, who I would have substituted here.

4. Franz Peter Schubert (1797-1828).
Agreed.  He might have even ranked higher had he lived longer and really had a chance to develop his style.  Still, one has to look no further than the Wanderer fantasy to see true musical genius.

5. Claude Achille Debussy (1862 — 1918),
Much as I love his music, I would have ranked him a little lower, but I certainly see his import as a transitional figure between the romantic and modern eras.  

6. Igor Stravinsky (1882 — 1971),
I don't really care for much of his music that much, but I see why he is on this list in terms of his influence on modern music, and I must say that once in a while I listen to the Rite of Spring and even enjoy it.  But I have to be in a very specific mood for that.

7. Johannes Brahms (1833 — 97).
On my list, Brahms would have ranked much higher, probably just behind Bach and Beethoven.  I just can't get enough of his music, especially the late piano pieces.

8. Giuseppe Verdi (1813 — 1901),
I'm not big on Opera so I really don't see this choice.  I think I would have even split opera into a different list to give more space for non-opera figures on this list.  But clearly on the list of composers of operas, he is at the top, and I can't forget his other works such as the Requiem although I don't see that as being worthy of the top 10.

9. Richard Wagner (1813 — 83),
I actually agree with this choice, if we are leaving primarily opera composers on the list.  I say this because I think that in terms of social importance, not just musical importance, Wagner is a terribly influential figure, whose legacy continues to this day.  Just try to tell a Wagnerian that he's not worthy of your list and see how strong the cult's sway is.

10. Bela Bartok (1881 — 1945)
I disagree with this choice, as I dislike just about every bit of his music I've heard.  I realize that he was an influential figure on 20th century music, but that doesn't mean i have to like him.  If I had to pick another 20th century composer to fit his place, I probably would choose Prokofiev, but if I could pick any composer, the list would be much longer.  

Anyway, it was an interesting series of articles and I like that Mr Tomassini actually analyzed his choices in depth, as opposed to just presenting his list as the one-and-only authoritative guide.

[john11inc]

Just grow up.

That's an answer?

Also, I misunderstood this thread.  I thought the list Ramsey posted was the one in the article, which I didn't bother looking at.  From Tommasini's list, I would definitely remove Brahms and Verdi, along with the others.  I'd make two lists: one for pre-1900, and one for after 1900, when music as a whole became so much more fractured.  My lists would probably be, in chronological order:

Prez
Machaut
Monteverdi
Handel
Haydn
Mozart
Schubert
Beethoven
Meyerbeer
Liszt


Schoenberg
Webern
Stravinsky
Hindemith
Ives
Babbitt
Xenakis
Cage
Feldman
Dufourt

However, lists like these exclude people like Nadia Boulanger, Felix Mendelssohn, Claudio Abbado, Pierre Boulez, Henri Pousseur, David Tudor, Nicolai Rimsky-Korsakov, Olivier Messiaen or Alfred Schlee, whose impacts on music were enormous, but not necessarily by merit of their compositions.  Rochberg, Prokofiev, Gershwin, Ablinger, Reich, Takemitsu, Ferneyhough, Scriabin, Debussy and Berio are the honorary mentions for the second list.  Quite a number of them, but I stand by my original.

[ahinton]

A lot of the 20th century music is influenced by Wagner. I don't even feel like I have to defend him. Wagner stands pretty much as one of the most important composers of all time.

Such as?

Well, surely the early works of Schönberg, Berg and even (albeit to a consdierably lesser extent) Webern, certain aspects of the music of Mahler, other Austro-Germanic composers such as Schmidt, Schre(c)ker, Korngold, Zemlinsky and various lesser figures (including Wagner's own son), Richard Strauss, even to a small extent Skryabin (albeit more in terms of certain of his ambitions than in the sound of most of his music) - and a number of French composers including Debussy, even if some of them were consciously seeking to try to escape from the very pervasiveness of that influence; whether and to what extent the Wagner influence continues into and beyond the middle of the 20th century is certainy arguable, but that's still quite a lot from its earlier years to be going on with, I'd say -and then there's always those odd quotes in Shostakovich's final symphony which, whatever they may signify (and who knows?!), must surely count for something here?

Best,

Alistair

[pianowolfi]

Well yeah. You can make up many top ten lists and many other competitive lists and many more best of/fastets/most difficult etc. lists

But it's not the point of music.

Sometimes I need a full 4 hour session of listening intently to Sorabji. Sometimes I need 5 Minutes listening to Bach. Etc.

We can't compare sports to music. It's just impossible.

"Who can play op 10,2 at 200 bpm? Omg he/she must be the best"

Musicians try to live up to sportsmen's criteria. It will after all lead to nothing but bullshit.

[thalbergmad]

Very harsh for Wolfi.

Must have had a puncture

Thal

[pianowolfi]

Very harsh for Wolfi.

Must have had a puncture

Thal

Haha 

Of course in another sense you can compare music very well with sports, and I love it, but that wasn't the point here.

[john11inc]

early works of Schönberg

Mahler

Schmidt, Schreker, Korngold, Zemlinsky

lesser figures

Richard Strauss

Sure, but this is unimportant music.  Influencing unimportant music doesn't make someone important.  Schoenberg would be just as obscure as Zemlinsky if it wasn't for the music he wrote in direct defiance to Wagner's effusive melodicism.

even to a small extent Skryabin (albeit more in terms of certain of his ambitions than in the sound of most of his music)

How do we know the influence of such emotive evocation was inspired by Wagner, when it could have come from any number of sources, or have even been original?  I'm honestly asking, as I'm not aware of Scriabin ever having spoken about Wagner past the technical aspects of plucking an errant chord here and there from him, which can hardly count as considerable "influence".

Debussy

Oh come off it, now.  Razor-thin, and if anything, the absolute opposite.  Debussy's music was in direct opposition to the heavy-handed Austro-Germanic romanticism of the late 19th Century.

-and then there's always those odd quotes in Shostakovich's final symphony which, whatever they may signify (and who knows?!), must surely count for something here?

Not unless Rossini should be on this list as well.

[mephisto]

Sure, but this is unimportant music. 

Yeah, Mahler and Richard Strauss is unimportant music

[richard black]

Why no Bellini in anyone's list?

[ahinton]

Why no Bellini in anyone's list?

Well, at least Bellini was in Liszt's list, was he not? - and I should know, having arranged the Norma Fantasy for viola and double bass as my Après une lecture de Liszt (yes, I openly admit to having no longer any sense of which to take leave)...

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

Why no Bellini in anyone's list?

Maybe because many of us aren't as familiar with non-piano music as we should be?

Anyway this is my list, just from the top of my head:

Bach
Beethoven
Brahms
Wagner
Debussy
Messiaen
Scriabin
Prokofiev
Schubert
Stravinsky

[thalbergmad]

Maybe because many of us aren't as familiar with non-piano music as we should be?

I expect that is true, however there must be well over 500 piano transcriptions so that I have developed a love for his music, without listening to any of it played as it was originally conceived.

Thal

[countrymath]

Luca Turilli
Scorpions
Elton John
Chopin
Alan Jackson
Beethoven
Mozart
Billy Joel
Alanis Morissete
Justin Bieber

[ahinton]

Luca Turilli
Scorpions
Elton John
Chopin
Alan Jackson
Beethoven
Mozart
Billy Joel
Alanis Morissete
Justin Bieber

So Sir Reginald Kenneth Dwight and the Americanadian Alanis Morrisette (two "r"s, one "s" and two "t"s as in Elliott Carter, if that's OK with you) are "composers"? Well, one learns something new every day on pianostreet!

Best,

Alistair

[emilye]

1. W. A. Mozart
2. L. van Beethoven
3. J. S. Bach
4. F. Chopin   F. Liszt
5. S. Rachmaninov
8. J. Brahms
9. A. Scriabin
10. M. Ravel

[sevencircles]

Groundbreaking composers

1. Beethoven

2. Schoenberg

3.Heinrich Biber-just bacouse I heard about him recently. Polytonality and toneclusters in the 17 century and it sounds great too. Earliest in music history as far as I know. Correct me if you think I am wrong.

4.Stravinsky.

5. Debussy

6. Haydn

7. Bartok-Propably the first western composer that really understood (and used in tastefull way) the eastern rhythms. Correct me if you think I am wrong.

8. Xenakis

9. Buxtehude-propably Bach´s biggest influence. He doesn´t get the credit he deserves even if Bach was a better composer

10. Liszt-possible the second most groundbreaking composer for the piano after Beethoven.



 

[mephisto]

I expect that is true, however there must be well over 500 piano transcriptions so that I have developed a love for his music, without listening to any of it played as it was originally conceived.

Thal

Probably correct. I love his melodies.

[richard black]

The reason I suggested Bellini is because he was one of the original ground-breakers for the romantic movement (along with Berlioz and Liszt - the Liszt of the orchestral music at least as much as of the piano pieces). Norma was premiered in 1831: without it, it would be nearly impossible to imagine much of the music of Chopin, Verdi, Puccini and the many other followers of the high romantic tradition. The more I study his music, the more stunningly original I find him.

[countrymath]

So Sir Reginald Kenneth Dwight and the Americanadian Alanis Morrisette (two "r"s, one "s" and two "t"s as in Elliott Carter, if that's OK with you) are "composers"? Well, one learns something new every day on pianostreet!

Best,

Alistair

The last two was just to fill the list.

[ahinton]

The last two was just to fill the list.

But the last two on your list were Alanis Morissete[sic] and Justin Bieber and I didn't mention the latter in my observation on it whereas I did refer to Sir Reginald Kenneth (Hercules, if you please) Dwight who was not one of "the last two"; in any case, are you really otherwise unable to come up with as many as ten without resorting to such "fillings"? And given that your last two are both of Canadian origin, should anything in particular be read into that fact?

Best,

Alistair

[aintgotnorhythm]

What is ground-breaking in this context?

a) coming up with, say, the first polyphonic atonal post-modern minimalist work to feature rhythms from Outer Mongolia, but known only to an elite few

or

b) coming up with instantly recognisable and accessible works that 100's or more years later strike a chord with a wide audience

I would tend to go with (b).

Maybe Rossini should be in after all, along with Strausses R & J, Beethoven, Offenbach, Orff, Vivaldi, Rodrigo, Verdi and Handel?

[john11inc]

Why no Bellini in anyone's list?

I was shuffling between Bellini, Berlioz and Meyerbeer, but ultimately went with Meyerbeer because he was more directly associated with what we now view as the height of the Romantic Era.

What is ground-breaking in this context?

a) coming up with, say, the first polyphonic atonal post-modern minimalist work to feature rhythms from Outer Mongolia, but known only to an elite few

or

b) coming up with instantly recognisable and accessible works that 100's or more years later strike a chord with a wide audience

Or neither.

[thalbergmad]

I know I am going to be placed up against a wall and machine gunned by those here with vastly superior knowledge to my own, but if we are talking about those directly associated with the romantic movement, why not have Paganini in the list??

Thal

[musicluvr49]

I don't like the idea of having a "Best Composers" list. Just because there are so many things that could mean. Do you mean most influential composers? Most loved composers? Composers with the most beautiful music? And in all those categories, there could be many different opinions.

[john11inc]

I know I am going to be placed up against a wall and machine gunned by those here with vastly superior knowledge to my own, but if we are talking about those directly associated with the romantic movement, why not have Paganini in the list??

Thal

I wouldn't include Paganini on the grounds that, while he certainly extended violin repertoire and performance practice, that's really all he did, other than come up with some catchy tunes.  That just doesn't qualify him, in my mind, given the narrow field of music he had influence over.  Liszt did not influence only piano music, but all music, and in very serious ways.  Without Liszt, there's no telling what music after him would be like.  I don't think you can say the same about Paganini, except that there would be a lot less pieces based on his Caprice No. 24.  But that's just me; people can make their own lists based on whatever criteria they want, which might not be wide-spread influence, the only thing that I feel can be quantified.

[john11inc]

Yeah, Mahler and Richard Strauss is unimportant music

Tell us how they're important.  I'm particularly interested in a defense of Strauss.

[ahinton]

I'm particularly interested in a defense of Strauss.

I know that you didn't put that question to me, but what about listening to Salome - a work which Busoni (who was not a great admirer of Strauss as a rule) once described as "a throw of genius"? - and, if that experience still leaves Strauss indefensible for you, then there nothing more to be said or done, I imagine!

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

Tell us how they're important.  I'm particularly interested in a defense of Strauss.

LISTEN TO MUSIC

[ch101]

the top ten composers in my aspect and not in any particular order
bach chopin tchaikovsky liszt rachmaninoff beethoven mozart schumann handel