GMG's Top 10 Composers

[Henk]

Res ipsa loquitur. It has finally become clear that you use words with meanings very different from those found in the dictionary. "Rationality" and "logic" clearly mean something else to you and you seem justified in that exceptionalism. Accordingly: end of discussion.

Yes, I just tried to explain what I mean with the terms to clear up the discussion. It's quite disappointing for me that you now say that I didn't discuss in a fair way and protect and justify your own position in this way.

Henk

[Florestan]

what is real and false Art.

That is the question.

Do you have an objective answer?

[bhodges]

My ten from this list.  (I'm another Janáček fan, but I realize the point is to have the list parallel to the one from The New York Times.)

Bartók
Berg
Britten
Bruckner
Ives
Ligeti
Mahler
Ravel
Shostakovich
R. Strauss

--Bruce

[Bulldog]

1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Mozart
4. Wagner
5. R. Strauss.

Plz, it's such a sorrow to see Bach lower than Brahms...

Yes, that is kind of perverse.  If this was a top 5 list, Brahms would be nowhere near Bach or Beethoven.

[Todd]

but many folks can argue that subjectively she's better than the Kantor.

This I would like to see.

[Florestan]

If this was a top 5 list, Brahms would be nowhere near Bach or Beethoven.

And the reason is...

[Bulldog]

And the reason is...

That's how I remember it from past polls of this type.  It's not a reflection of my level of regard for Brahms.

My ten were:

Bach
Bartok
Beethoven
Brahms
Chopin
Dvorak
Mahler
Mozart
Schumann
Shostakovich

[Florestan]

That's how I remember it from past polls of this type.  It's not a reflection of my level of regard for Brahms.

Oh I see. I took your remark to be exactly that: a reflection of your level of regard for Brahms. Now that you explained it I apologize for having misunderstood you.

[Henk]

My ten:

Bach
Beethoven
Chopin
Debussy
Handel
Mendelssohn
Mozart
Ravel
Rossini
Stravinsky

[Bulldog]

Oh I see. I took your remark to be exactly that: a reflection of your level of regard for Brahms. Now that you explained it I apologize for having misunderstood you.

And I apologize for not writing a clear posting.

[MishaK]

Yes, I just tried to explain what I mean with the terms to clear up the discussion. It's quite disappointing for me that you now say that I didn't discuss in a fair way and protect and justify your own position in this way.

Your previous comment was worthy of the most, shall we say, "profound" moments of Sean. I've been through these discussions before and they lead nowhere. If you think there is no such thing as even an approximation of objectivity (even if the ideal is unattainable) or that there is more than one form of logic, or that you are entitled to personal definitions of abstract concepts, then discussion is futile, as we will just be talking past each other. Unless, of course, you didn't express yourself clearly in the preceding post and you meant to say something else entirely. I'll leave that up to you to clarify. But I don't want to derail this thread too much into discussions of logical fallacies (tautology is one of them, BTW).

To clarify: I never said that the "influence" or "importance" of a composer can be objectively verified down to the most minute differences in each case. I do find, however, that Boulez's dictum gives a general broad guideline that is quite helpful and which (surprise!) in most cases matches general informed consensus anyway. It just provides a slightly more analytical basis for what we might generally guess is correct through our hunches. E.g., everyone can agree that Bach is vastly more influential and important to the history of music than Martinu. But determining whether Martinu is really any less important than, say, Hindemith is probably impossible in any meaningful way, though both of them are unquestionably vastly more important than Frederick the Great. Boulez's test is of course completely useless in determining the worthiness of living composers, as his test is by nature retrospective from a future point that post-dates a given composer's major works by a considerable amount of time in order to assess their influence.

[Florestan]

I do find, however, that Boulez's dictum gives a general broad guideline that is quite helpful and which (surprise!) in most cases matches general informed consensus anyway. It just provides a slightly more analytical basis for what we might generally guess is correct through our hunches. E.g., everyone can agree that Bach is vastly more influential and important to the history of music than Martinu. But determining whether Martinu is really any less important than, say, Hindemith is probably impossible in any meaningful way, though both of them are unquestionably vastly more important than Frederick the Great.

Musically speaking, yes. Historically, though, not even Bach was THAT influential as Frederick the Great. 

(I'm splitting hairs, I know --- but I trust that you, as a lawyer, will forgive me...  )

[Henk]

I admit I have mixed things up a bit, as I am studying the philosophy of knowledge theoretician Arnold Cornelis.

[Henk]

Unless, of course, you didn't express yourself clearly in the preceding post and you meant to say something else entirely. I'll leave that up to you to clarify. But I don't want to derail this thread too much into discussions of logical fallacies (tautology is one

This motivated me to start a new thread in which I clarify what I was thinking about.

Read about the philosophy of Arnold Cornelis here:
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,17866.msg483248.html#msg483248

Henk

[laredo]

That is the question.

Do you have an objective answer?

Obviously no, but that's the key point. We are here to post our favourite works and composers and everybody respect all tastes and choices but the Truth is unique. I  don't believe I am the depositary of truth, indeed i change ideas many times in a week! I just really believe that the argumentation and the dialogue are essentials in order to understand better what is the real art.

[Florestan]

Obviously no, but that's the key point. We are here to post our favourite works and composers and everybody respect all tastes and choices but the Truth is unique. I  don't believe I am the depositary of truth, indeed i change ideas many times in a week! I just really believe that the argumentation and the dialogue are essentials in order to understand better what is the real art.

Agreed.

[Cato]

The struggle to obtain objectivity depends upon many things, but a large factor is simply experience.

If I want an opinion on whether I should spend time listening to e.g. Busoni's operas, I would most likely turn to someone who A. has heard Busoni's operas, B. knows the operas of other composers, and C. is not biased against opera as an art form.

The more experienced the person is, the more likely (but this is not a guarantee by any means!) will the opinion be valid.  It will still necessarily contain subjectivity, but perhaps the balance will tip in favor of objectivity.

Our likes and dislikes rest upon a myriad of factors, many of which will be unique to that individual: e.g. where and when one was born, whether one was fed applesauce or apricots or both at an early age, and even "potty-training" might be crucial a la Herr Doktor Freud.

As for experience with classical music NOT being a guarantee of anything...

I once knew a 20-something "teacher" (he was dreadful, and eventually went on to become a principal, at which position I assume he was even more dreadful), who spat venom at me one day, for he had heard Schoenberg's  Gurrelieder emanating from my German II class.

"I hate classical music!  I just hate it!  My parents tried to get me to like it when I was a kid: they dragged us to all these concerts and it was the most boring stuff!  I don't know why anybody likes that XXXX!"   

Kinderconcerts as childhood trauma!  The point is that his opinion on classical music could hardly be relied upon, despite his experience with the works!

[Henk]

Yes, that is kind of perverse.  If this was a top 5 list, Brahms would be nowhere near Bach or Beethoven.

Exactly. He is in many top ten lists, but not in many top 5 lists maybe. So these outcomes can't just be appropriate to rank composers as the outcome of who's considered the greatest composer.

So if you want that as a result, you have to work with weights. The poll tool doesn't support this.

Henk

[nigeld]

Interesting non-baroque tilt to the GMG list (excepting Bach obviously)

No-one else put Vivaldi in their top ten and only two others included Handel.  I'm surprised.

Give me Handel over Haydn all day long!!


Nice thread

[karlhenning]

. . . As for experience with classical music NOT being a guarantee of anything...

I once knew a 20-something "teacher" (he was dreadful, and eventually went on to become a principal, at which position I assume he was even more dreadful), who spat venom at one me one day, for he had heard Schoenberg's  Gurrelieder emanating from my German II class.

"I hate classical music!  I just hate it!  My parents tried to get me to like it when I was a kid: they dragged us to all these concerts and it was the most boring stuff!  I don't know why anybody likes that XXXX!"   

Kinderconcerts as childhood trauma!  The point is that his opinion on classical music could hardly be relied upon, despite his experience with the works!

Well, and we can only dream that his parents took him to "endure" Schoenberg as a child! ; )