I curious as to how people would rank the well-known composers on a '1' through '10' scale, not in terms of importance, but their own personal taste?
Vivaldi 8
Handel 9
J. S. Bach 10
Haydn 8
Mozart 10
Schubert 10
Beethoven 10
Schumann 8
Rossini 6
Mendelssohn 6
Chopin 8
Berlioz 9
Liszt 9
Wagner 10
Tchaikovsky 8
Mussorgsky 9
Dvorak 8
Verdi 8
Brahms 9
Bruckner 9
Debussy 8
Mahler 10
Sibelius 8
R. Strauss 9

Assuming the list of composers you gave are the ones we rank:

Beethoven 10
Liszt 10
Chopin 10
Brahms 10
J. S. Bach 10
Schubert 9
Tchaikovsky 9
Mozart 8
Schumann 8
Berlioz 8
Wagner 8
Handel 8
Mendelssohn 7
Mussorgsky 7
Bruckner 7
Mahler 6
Vivaldi 6
Verdi 5
Rossini 5
Dvorak 5
Sibelius 5
R. Strauss 5
Haydn 4
Debussy 4

I think this thread is a good way to go about it. I'm assuming 10 means you're pleased when just about anything from that composer enters your ear, 5-6 for 'I find his stuff so-so' or a has a few pieces you like, and 1 for not finding much of anything you can remotely stand:

J. S. Bach 10
Handel 10
Vivaldi 9
Rossini 7
Mussorgsky 7
Wagner 6
Tchaikovsky 6
Dvorak 6
Brahms 6
Haydn 5
Mahler 5
Mendelssohn 5
Schubert 5
Beethoven 5
Schumann 5
Berlioz 5
Liszt 5
Verdi 5
Mozart 4
Sibelius 4
Chopin 4
R. Strauss 3
Debussy 2

Bruckner NA

There are a few composers on this list that I appreciate:

Prokofiev 8
Ravel 8
Shostakovich 7

Blasphemy! Or did you mean Beethoven 50? I think we'll all forgive you if it was a simple typo. B)

Ah well. As you can see my interests seem to strattle the proper Classical Era. I love the Baroque, and have progressed my interests into the latter half of the 19th Century into the 20th. For many, Mozart and Beethoven are the epitome of Literary Music; for me, not so much. I'm currently trying to 'get' Mozart to very little avail. Beethoven is next on my list...

Bartok 9
V.Williams 7
Ravel 7
Shotakovich 7
Prokofiev 8

J. S. Bach 10
Beethoven 10
Mozart 10
Brahms 10
Schubert 10
Haydn 10
Bruckner 10
Messiaen 10
Boulez 10
Vivaldi 9
Händel 9
Dvorak 9
Schumann 9
Mahler 9
Tallis 8
Vaughan-Williams 8
Mendelssohn 8
Tchaikovsky 8
Berlioz 8
Wagner 8
Faure 8
R. Strauss 8
Debussy 7
Liszt 4

I find this difficult, so I'm going to one decimal place in order to split what would otherwise appear as equal preferences.

10.0 LvB (excellent in all departments)
9.0 Schubert (excellent in most departments)
8.0 Schumann (not quite so melodic as Schubert but otherwise as good)
7.7 Brahms (excellent orchestral, choral, slightly weaker in solo piano, chamber)
7.2 Chopin (excellent, but narrow focus)
7.0 Mozart (obviously exceptional, but some weak stuff and I find the classical style a bit lacking in substance)
6.5 Tchaikovsky (excellent melody and first class ballet, but lacks a certain something)
6.2 Wagner (brilliant orchestration, Tristan und Isolde, Lohengrin wow)
5.9 Mendelssohn (charming, elegant, good all round)
5.5 Liszt (first class piano but I'm not keen on all of it, outside of piano not my favourite)
5.3 Bach (obviously first rate, but I have gone off baroque)
5.2 Elgar (excellent typifier of English flavour)
5.1 Sibelius (some excellent symphony and tone poems, lacking in piano solo)
5.0 RVW (same as Elgar but with rather heavier style, and I generally prefer a lighter flavour)
4.9 Puccini (glorious)
4.8 Dvorak (excellent symphony and cello concerto)
4.8 Rachmaninov (first rate piano cons and symphs)
4.7 Berlioz (Symphony Fantastique is worth a million, plus Requiem)
4.5 Franck (small output, rather narrow, but high quality)
4.2 Handel (same as for Bach)
4.0 Mahler (some symphonies are good, but I'm not that wild about the rest of his output)
3.7 Smetana (tone poem, string quartet)
3.7 Bartok (still trying to work it out but I quite like some of it)
3.5 Bruckner (2 or 3 symphonies good, not impressed with much other)
3.3 Rimsky-Korsakov (I love Scheherazade and Russian Easter Festival)
3.2 Mussorgsky (Night on Bare/Bald Mountain wonderful, Pics @ Exhib brilliant)
3.1 Grieg (piano con excellent, Peer Gynt, holdberg suite lovely too)
3.0 Shostakovich (some symphonies are not bad, Festive o/t and Jazz suites good, rest am not keen on)
2.0 Ravel (some nice pieces, but not that keen overall)
1.5 Debussy (very over-rated, 90% I do not like)
1.5 Haydn (over-rated, some chamber OK, but I can't get through one symphony any longer, so pedestrian)
1.0 Stravinsky (virtually no appeal whatsoever)
-10.0 Anything atonal (worse than a nightmare)
...........

I hope you'll forgive some of my comments but pure numbers are a bit boring, and we all have our likes and dislikes. I wouldn't wish to be called "pretentious", but I have been listening to classical music for some years now and know what I like.


Topaz

Vivaldi 8
Handel 8
J. S. Bach 10
Haydn 4
Mozart (the real one) 3
Schubert 8
Beethoven 9
Schumann 8
Rossini 6
Mendelssohn 8
Chopin 6
Berlioz 9
Liszt 7
Wagner 7
Tchaikovsky 6.5
Mussorgsky 7
Dvorak 8
Verdi 7
Brahms 8
Bruckner 8
Debussy 8
Mahler 9
Sibelius 8
R. Strauss 8

Vivaldi 5
Handel 3
J. S. Bach 10
Haydn 6
Mozart 10
Beethoven 8
Chopin 8
Wagner 10
Tchaikovsky 7
Mussorgsky 9
Verdi 6
Brahms 4
Debussy 10
Mahler 10
Sibelius 10
Prokofiev 5
Ravel 5
Shostakovich 8
Bartok 9

And a few not yet mentioned in this thread:

Olivier Messiaen 9
Edgard Varese 10
Frank Zappa 10
John Zorn 10
Pierre Boulez 8

Palestrina 6
Vivaldi 7
Albinoni 8
Handel 8
J. S. Bach 9
Haydn 4
Mozart (the popular one) 3
Schubert 6
Beethoven 10
Schumann 8
J. Strauss 5
Mendelssohn 6
Chopin 5
Berlioz 7
Liszt 6
Tchaikovsky 9
Mussorgsky 7
Dvorak 8
Brahms 9
Bruckner 5
Debussy 6
Mahler 9
R. Strauss 9
Bartók 10
Schoenberg 6
Messiaen 8
Boulez 1

@Topaz: I see you mention Tchaikovsky for his ballets, I'm just curious if you have heard his symphonies. Because for me they have this "something" I think the ballets lack, I was just wondering if we are thinking of the same "something".

That's one of the reasons why I gave Tchaikovsky a 9 myself; his symphonies, especially 4, 5 and 6 are true achievements in symphonic literature. I'm sure Topaz's taste is just different, but Tchaikovsky's symphonies, piano sonatas and piano concertos definitely have that "something" for me.

I think there may be a confusion of terminology here. Linz originally asked " ... how people would rank the well-known composers on a '1' through '10' scale ...".

The word "rank" is ambiguous. It could mean "rank", as in order of preference, or "rate" as in "how much you like them in general terms".

I took the first interpretation, and hence I ranked the top composers in order of preference, with numbers to indicate roughly how much difference I see between them. This explains why I don't have 5 number 10s and five number 8s etc. Most others, it seems, have taken the second interpretation, but even so I'm surprised there are so many with the same score in some lists.

Regards my comment about Tchaikvosky, I can assure Saturnus that I have heard all of his symphonies, plus a lot of other material, many times. At one time he and Mozart were my overall favourities. But over time I have lost some of my former interest, as other composers have come along who now appear greater. I still rate him highly. I love all the ballets, S 4-6, Marche Slave, Serenade for Strings, Variations on a Rococo Theme, String Quartet No 3, and Piano Trio in A minor. However, while I still enjoy a lot of his work, in comparison with those composers higher up my list I do not think he compares quite so well in terms of depth and consistency.

A challenge: I have placed Tchaikovsky at No 7 in my list, which is high. Where exactly where would you place Tchaikovsky in your rank order? And why not higher, by saying what you find lacking (not merely that you like others more)? Indeed why not rank your favourite composers 1-10 in the normal conventional manner as I have done?

I'd like to ask Robert what score he would give the "fictitous Mozart" as he would see it. Incidentally why 6.5 for Tchaikovsky?

I see there's not much support here for Stravinsky. That's interesting.


Topaz

Topaz,

In giving scores to these composers (which I agree is really difficult) I tried to think of their greatest achievements. Unlike Beethoven, who had immense impact on musical history in virtually every form, I don't think one can say Mozart had any such lasting impact on any form of music. The saccharine safety of his music is perhaps its single greatest appeal. Beautiful for sure, often wonderfully scored, nimble, filigree work in music - all this, but not, I think, more than musical marzipan of a very high degree of sophistication. Music of the roccoco. And of those attributed to him (since a great number of other people can be shown to have had input into his final 'official' list of works - such as M. Haydn, Myslivececk, JM Kraus, etc etc etc.) one must try to be fair about who and what we are talking of.

If I can give a single but (to me) very revealing example or two -

1) Until the turn of the 20th century the Symphony No. 37 of Mozart was KV444. We know today that, in fact, this work is not by Mozart. It MAY be by Michael Haydn. But it's definitely not by Mozart. Is not this fact, in itself, amazing ? Setting aside the decline and fall of literally dozens of symphonies from the official Mozart lists (a staggering, almost unprecdented thing in the entire history of music) we pause on this single work, KV444, to see what it really tells us.

OK, if KV444 is a symphony wrongly attributed by 'experts' at the Mozarteum and elsewhere for over a century just how much DO we know of Mozart's symphonic ability, style and even his real symphonic career ? I think we need look no further than the few bars of KV444 (which he indisputably did write). I have an MIDI file of those bars but can't post it here.

Anyone who listens to that slow introduction is non-plussed by its badness. It is full of poor harmonisations. A rare glimpse, if you like, of the real Mozart. Or so I suggest.

Again, we could consider the 1 act Singspiel 'Der Schauspieldirektor', this written within weeks of the premiere, in Vienna during 1786 of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. How is it possible that Mozart was the composer of both these works. 'Der Schauspieldirektor' is not and never has been rated highly by any lover of Mozart's music. In fact, it's very poor. With the exception of the frothy Overture it's pallid stuff. And yet, of course, it was written in a very public context, premiered at Schonbrunn on the same day as a rival opera by Salieri. Here, surely, is Mozart's chance to shine. An occasion graced by visiting dignataires where German singspiel (favoured by the Emperor Joseph 2nd) was matched against Italian opera. But what a fiasco was THIS poor work.

I scored Mozart so low for these and a hundred other reasons. Frankly, there are hundreds of works attributed to him which it can be shown he never wrote.

It's pefectly true that showing who DID write these works is another issue - far more hard, in fact, than showing he, Mozart, did not. But, in any investigation we must first prove there is a thing worth studying before we can attempt to explain it. In the case of Mozart (virtually from the start of his musical career to the end) we just keep running in to major problems of attribution. And this siutation does not alter regardless of what period of his life and supposed career we are discussing.

At the same time I do credit Mozart (and those in his immediate circle) with the ability to create great/memorable arrangements and of the fact that he was a very talented pianist.
So I scored him on what I know is true, though I do not know him to be a genius composer. He is attributed with some of the greatest music of any century but I am convinced he never composed it. On piece after piece I think this can be shown true.

As far as Tchaikowsky is concerned, yes, I greatly admire various works by him. I really love his ballet music. His 1st Piano Concerto, his Serenade for Strings, his Overtures etc etc. These are all wonderful. And I rate him very highly as perhaps one of the very greatest melodists of all time. Having said this, there are many works where he simply does not seem to rise about the level of the ordinary. I think, as a whole, he merits more than a 6 but less than a 7. But I greatly like his most famous works. There are still works of his that I've never heard, including various songs. The Manfred Symphony does nothing for me. But I do like his symphonies as a whole. Specially the 4th and the 5th.

A hugely talented composer. But one quite capable of mediocre work also. At least that's my opinion of him now. I am sure I have much to learn.

For what it's worth I would rate Glazunov around the same score - 6.5

(Forgive me !)

Regards


























Introduction that Mozart indisputably DID write for this very work. They are appallingly bad. So bad, in fact, that it's amazing.



I'd like to ask Robert what score he would give the "fictitous Mozart" as he would see it. Incidentally why 6.5 for Tchaikovsky?

I see there's not much support here for Stravinsky. That's interesting.

You have nothing to apologize for, Robert; these are your opinions, which is what dictates our individual ranking. I place Liszt at 10 and others place him at 2; it's all opinion. Placing Beethoven below 5 is not allowed, though, under any circumstances and should require immediate banning from the forum . I respect your words about Tchaikovsky and admit that some of his works can be dull. But he has too many gems to rank lower than 6. The Seasons, his Violin Concerto, his Piano Sonatas (he wrote some?) Eugene Onegin opera, The Nutcracker, Romeo and Juliet overture, Capriccio Italien, Symphonies 4-6, Piano Concertos 1-3, and even his String Quartet No. 1: these, along with his other two famous ballets and some other orchestral works are all I've heard from him, but they're enough (for me) to raise him to #9 on my own list. I think in-depth exploration is required for all composers before any kind of judgment is made. I'd say 10 works (perhaps famous) from each composer should be heard before even making the list. And even then, they should survey as broadly as possible into every form the composer touched.

Hearing 10 Mozart piano concertos is enough for me to keep him at his current rank, along with his two fantasias and at least 5 piano sonatas. Or are they disputed too? If Mozart is allowed to have the Marriage of Figaro, Don Giovanni, the Rondos, the Serenades and the Ave Verum Corpus considered his own works, then his rank is sustained even more.