Your Top 10 Favorite Composers

[North Star]

No. How can such ranking even exist? There are no objective methods to rank art to my knowledge.

There are some (e.g. influence), but they have their limits, as e.g. circumstances affect influence, and in any case, there's little point in trying to measure who was more influential, Beethoven or Haydn, in order to name one of the two 'better' on account of that.

Sure, many. So did Rameau. What are the works that put Ravel above Rameau? Piano Concerto in G Major? If so, would we appreciate it as much as we do had Ravel not composed Bolero?

I'm not going to say which pieces "put Ravel above Rameau", but I suggest you listen to both Piano Concertos, the Piano Trio, L'Enfant et les Sortilèges, the songs, Miroirs, the String Quartet, Gaspard, Violin Sonata, Sonata for Violin & Cello, and Introduction et Allegro for harp, flute, clarinet & string quartet. Bolero is a delightful piece too, but your question is pretty much equal to asking whether we would appreciate Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, Ninth Symphony, the late Quartets and Piano Sonatas, had he not composed Für Elise.

I picked Haydn because his one of those composer on almost everyne's list. Baroque composers instead of Renaissance composers because of personal preferences.

That underlined bit might be significant.

My point is these lists tell mostly about our cultural environment. The problem here is that we tend to take these lists as quasi-objective ranks of composers rather than what they really are.

No, these lists tell mostly about our personal preferences. If that means that 17th century Baroque isn't represented all that extensively, that doesn't necessarily mean the cultural environment is biased against it more strongly than it is against other bygone eras.

[chadfeldheimer]

So you would like to see an objective ranking of all the greatest composers? I don't think that degree of objectivity is possible to achieve in as subjective a field as culture.

So you think rating music or composers is 100% subjective and not objectifiable at all? I see that in a less distinct/binary way. A 100% objective ranking of the greatest composers also imo is not possible (of course), but at least I think there are criteria that would allow objectifying such kind of ranking at least to some degree. I'm thinking about criteria like influence on later generations of composers or inventions of compositional techniques. If there weren't such criteria, disciplinces like musicology wouldn't be worth a penny and a symphony of farts (forgot which member brought this one) or the latest Britney Spears album had the same musical value as say "Le Sacre Du Printemps" or "Die Winterreise". Musicology isn't of course no exact discipline like mathematics or physics, but even medicine is not.

[chadfeldheimer]

There are some (e.g. influence), but they have their limits, as e.g. circumstances affect influence, and in any case, there's little point in trying to measure who was more influential, Beethoven or Haydn, in order to name one of the two 'better' on account of that.

Didn't see that before posting my last post. I'm glad you see things more differentiated, than I first thought you would.

[71 dB]

Buxtehude had huge influence on Bach and Handel. C.P.E. Bach had huge infuence on Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. Wagner is said to be the most influencial composer ever. Do we look at the influence of all composers equally? What does the level of influence to have with how much we enjoy the music? I don't think J. S. Bach was as influencial as his music is enjoayable.

No, these lists tell mostly about our personal preferences. If that means that 17th century Baroque isn't represented all that extensively, that doesn't necessarily mean the cultural environment is biased against it more strongly than it is against other bygone eras.

How do you define "bygone"? Haydn isn't "bygone" just yet, but Zelenka definitely is? Never realised the eras have an expiration date.

My taste is just as "biased" as yours. What is the point of comparing those two? These lists tell us how rebellious we are against the cultural influencies. So the title of this thread should be "How rebellious your taste is?"

[71 dB]

If there weren't such criteria, disciplinces like musicology wouldn't be worth a penny and a symphony of farts (forgot which member brought this one) or the latest Britney Spears album had the same musical value as say "Le Sacre Du Printemps" or "Die Winterreise".

The funny thing is that for many Britney Spears has (much) more musical value than Stravinsky.

[chadfeldheimer]

Buxtehude had huge influence on Bach and Handel. C.P.E. Bach had huge infuence on Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. Wagner is said to be the most influencial composer ever. Do we look at the influence of all composers equally? What does the level of influence to have with how much we enjoy the music? I don't think J. S. Bach was as influencial as his music is enjoayable.

Enjoyability of course is a much criterium which is much more difficult to objectify.

[Madiel]

71 dB, you seem to have imported some notion of equity and fairness that simply has no place in a list of favourite composers. Quota systems might be all very well in some areas, but as far as I know no-one has ever suggested that anti-discrimination law ought to extend to the music that people like.

Nor can it be logically argued that the level of artistic achievement throughout the ages has been objectively constant. We celebrate particular eras precisely because they stand out to us from other eras.

Now, undoubtedly what stands out to us is dictated to a large extent by the values of our own culture. So there may well be things that we, in our culture, don't tend to think are all that fabulous that some other culture before or after ours thought/will think is top notch. But then they'll play down some other things that we do think are fabulous.

What they won't do is mark out a timeline of history and insist that artistic appreciation is doled out evenly across the centuries.

[chadfeldheimer]

The funny thing is that for many Britney Spears has (much) more musical value than Stravinsky.

I guess that would be for other criteria than influence or invention, or? 

[71 dB]

71 dB, you seem to have imported some notion of equity and fairness that simply has no place in a list of favourite composers.

That's why I have been avoiding making these lists. I gain nothing with the lists, but equity and fairness is lost, as you elegantly put it.

Quota systems might be all very well in some areas, but as far as I know no-one has ever suggested that anti-discrimination law ought to extend to the music that people like.

Do you do every dumb thing not prohibited by the law?

Nor can it be logically argued that the level of artistic achievement throughout the ages has been objectively constant. We celebrate particular eras precisely because they stand out to us from other eras.

Stand out in what way? We choose subjectively the criteria of "standing out". C.P.E Bach was celebrated in the 18th century, then ignored in the 19th century and then "discovered again" in the 20th century. Similar fluctuation happenened to his father. Why? Because each century chose the different criteria for "standing out". Why would our criteria be any "better"? Maybe we have learned to avoid some mistakes made by earlier generations, but it only means the generations to come are likely to have better criteria than we have now.

Now, undoubtedly what stands out to us is dictated to a large extent by the values of our own culture. So there may well be things that we, in our culture, don't tend to think are all that fabulous that some other culture before or after ours thought/will think is top notch. But then they'll play down some other things that we do think are fabulous.

Yes, unless they are wiser than us.

What they won't do is mark out a timeline of history and insist that artistic appreciation is doled out evenly across the centuries.

How can you know that?

[Madiel]

No, I did not say equity and fairness is lost. I said it had no place.

People sometimes put such notions in places they simply don't belong. I once encountered a person who reasoned that in order to avoid being sexist one should be bisexual. Which is just muddle-headed.  A commitment to equality does not extend to something as personal and subjective as to which music or people you are attracted to, because the entire point is to be personal and subjective. Personal preferences aren't getting in the way of any higher, more desirable outcome.

As to "how can you know that"... I can know it because no logical human being operates in such a "logical" fashion.

[Mirror Image]

The funny thing is that for many Britney Spears has (much) more musical value than Stravinsky.

But these are people that have no taste or any clue about music. We (the classical community) justly ignore them and you should, too. Please don't ever put these two in the same sentence again!

[71 dB]

No, I did not say equity and fairness is lost. I said it had no place.

Really? That's unfortunate!

But these are people that have no taste or any clue about music. We (the classical community) justly ignore them and you should, too. Please don't ever put these two in the same sentence again!

Sorry, but that statement makes you look like an elitistic jackass. Yes, I agree most of these people have no taste or clue about music. Should we despise them or try to understand them? Will they ever find Stravinsky if we keep calling them clueless morons? No wonder they find people who listen to classical music elitistic.

I don't know many songs by Britney Spiers. Those I know are crap in my opinion apart from one song, which I like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzU9OrZlKb8

That is well produced and structurally efective dance pop written by Kesha, who I consider extremely talented and who is my favorite pop artist (currently unfortunately in legal shit and unable to release new music).

I don't tell you what to put in the same sentence so could you stop making those silly demands thank you. 

[Mirror Image]

Sorry, but that statement makes you look like an elitistic jackass. Yes, I agree most of these people have no taste or clue about music. Should we despise them or try to understand them? Will they ever find Stravinsky if we keep calling them clueless morons? No wonder they find people who listen to classical music elitistic.

I don't know many songs by Britney Spiers. Those I know are crap in my opinion apart from one song, which I like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzU9OrZlKb8

That is well produced and structurally efective dance pop written by Kesha, who I consider extremely talented and who is my favorite pop artist (currently unfortunately in legal shit and unable to release new music).

I don't tell you what to put in the same sentence so could you stop making those silly demands thank you. 

Sounds like you're inserting whatever words you want into my initial post. Where did I call the people who listen to Brittney Spears morons? Also, I love the part where you called me an 'elitist jackass' for having an opinion that differs from yours. Name-calling must be your new specialty? Anyway, if I sound elitist, then I suppose the same people who think pop music is the bee's knees and won't deviate on their opinion could be considered elitist as well. We're all elitists in some form or another.

P.S. You calling many of the songs you heard from Brittney Spears 'crap' only reinforces my opinion that we're all elitists in some way or form.

[Florestan]

Does "favorite" mean "best"?

Should we refrain from listing our favorites when asked to?

No to both, if you ask me.

[Mirror Image]

Does "favorite" mean "best"?

Should we refrain from listing our favorites when asked to?

No to both, if you ask me.

I don't like lists of 'bests' as I don't believe there are any bests when it comes to music, there's only our preferences and what we get gratification from.

[Florestan]

I don't like lists of 'bests'

Neither do I, but the thread is about "top 10 favorite composers"

as I don't believe there are any bests when it comes to music,

There aren´t any bests when it comes to anything --- there are only favorites.

there's only our preferences and what we get gratification from.

Precisely.

[71 dB]

Sounds like you're inserting whatever words you want into my initial post. Where did I call the people who listen to Brittney Spears morons? Also, I love the part where you called me an 'elitist jackass' for having an opinion that differs from yours. Name-calling must be your new specialty? Anyway, if I sound elitist, then I suppose the same people who think pop music is the bee's knees and won't deviate on their opinion could be considered elitist as well. We're all elitists in some form or another.

I don't think you need to defend yourself this much. I said you look like an elitist jackass. I don't think you are one. I agreed with you quite a bit, so I wouldn't say your opinion differs from my opinion. The way you express it differs, however.

Most people like pop music because it is force-fed to them while alternatives are kept "secret". These people think we are trying to be better than other people we listen to classical music because of that. My message to all people is we all can expand our taste and learn to enjoy all kind of music. It's not dramatic to listen to "something different". Anyone can listen to Stravinsky and enjoy it. All without any elitism. We can also enjoy some pop tunes without being dumb, because sometimes fun and easy entertainment is what we want.

Classical music is like French cuisine, pop music is like strawberries and ice-cream for dessert.

P.S. You calling many of the songs you heard from Brittney Spears 'crap' only reinforces my opinion that we're all elitists in some way or form.

Come on man! If this isn't crap then I don't what is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CduA0TULnow

[North Star]

What does the level of influence to have with how much we enjoy the music?

Nothing.

How do you define "bygone"? Haydn isn't "bygone" just yet, but Zelenka definitely is? Never realised the eras have an expiration date.

Much the same way as the dictionaries do: belonging to the past, like Dutilleux, Boulez, Wagner, or Josquin. The times are gone, but some of the art will remain.

My taste is just as "biased" as yours.

I'm glad you have realized this.

What is the point of comparing those two?

Nothing.

[71 dB]

I'm glad you have realized this.

Yes, long ago, long ago... 

[71 dB]

My favorites lately have been Weinberg, Schumann, C.P.E. Bach, F. Couperin plus "contemporary stuff" such as Schwantner. That's the kind of list I can give...