Page 6 of 31 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 453

Thread: Composer Tier List

  1. #76
    Senior Member chu42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    At the beginning of this thread you said "I decided to have a little fun and create a composer tier list. Factors that went in included innovation, influence, and timelessness, with a little bit of personal bias going in—overall it's not that serious of a list."

    Nothing about popularity there. Add that to your criteria, and it's pretty remarkable that you could come up with these rankings at all. What does it all really mean?
    Timelessness=popularity. How well a composer sticks into the mind of the public in the past and the present. The music of any number of forgotten composers may have been well-written, creative, or intelligent, but if it is gone it is nothing.

    And don't worry about why I came up with the list in the first place, just act like a normal forum member and quibble over these subjective and somewhat arbitrary tier rankings. Sometimes you just gotta have a bit of fun, even if it's not all too conducive of the art itself.

    And if it seems a waste of time, you can let it be. It's just harmless fun—this sort of list didn't affect my appreciation of these guys anyhow; I have favorites on every tier save F.
    Last edited by chu42; Aug-25-2019 at 19:32.

  2. Likes Mifek liked this post
  3. #77
    Senior Member Woodduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    14,059
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chu42 View Post
    Timelessness=popularity. How well a composer sticks into the mind of the public in the past and the present. The music of any number of forgotten composers may have been great, but if it is gone it is nothing.

    And don't worry about why I came up with the list in the first place, just act like a normal forum member and quibble over these subjective and somewhat arbitrary tier rankings. Sometimes you just gotta have a bit of fun, even if it's not all too conducive of the art itself.

    And if it seems a waste of time, you can let it be. It's just harmless fun—this sort of list didn't affect my appreciation of these guys anyhow; I have favorites on every tier save F.
    Timelessness and popularity are not the same thing at all. But OK, if we're just having fun, I'll have a little fun and point out that, based on their statements and actions, Liszt, Brahms, Bruckner, Verdi, Mahler, Reger, Wolf, Puccini, Franck, Massenet, Chausson, Debussy, D'Indy, Rimsky-Korsakov, Sibelius, Strauss, Schoenberg and a very long list of other composers would definitely have put Wagner in category "S," and some of them may have been tempted to make the trio in category "S+" a quartet. Apparently they were hearing something...
    Last edited by Woodduck; Aug-25-2019 at 20:03.

  4. Likes ManateeFL, OperaChic, Allerius and 1 others liked this post
  5. #78
    Senior Member chu42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hammeredklavier View Post
    I can't believe putting one of JS Bach's biggest idols in F with Nietzsche, an amateur.
    Magnificat Fugues are direct precursors to the Well-Tempered Clavier:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yxp...6A6FC306C8E317

    and Hummel should be in A~B.

    Hummel piano concertos:
    Op.85: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYr7z1RYgaM
    Op.89: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm6dxBKAFag
    Op.113: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdGily3s9kA
    24 Etudes Op.125, 24 Preludes Op.67



    This was written in the same year as Beethoven's Eroica and became inspiration for Chopin's 4th Ballade, which would be written like 37 years later. Listen from 4:00


    Early Romanticism, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, Schubert ( at least in keyboard genres ) wouldn't have been possible without Hummel:
    https://www.earlymusicamerica.org/fi...er07Hummel.pdf
    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f4f...7a332fd117.pdf
    Pachelbel is of high quality. I already explained why I jokingly put him in F. He would be C at best because of the (undeserved) obscurity of his other works.

    I'm well aware of Hummel's quality, I have performed his very concerti. Doesn't change public opinion about him, which is next to nothing. He could stand to be a higher up due to his influence, however.

    What I don't get is the idea that Mendelssohn etc.. would not have been possible without a predecessor like Hummel. Mendelssohn wasn't great because he was influenced by Hummel, he was great because he was a genius. If Hummel didn't exist then Mendelssohn's music would be different, but would it be worse...? You're basically telling me that if Mendelssohn was born before Hummel he would've not produced anything of value. There's always a great who came before. Hummel is in debt to Clementi, Haydn, Bach, Monteverdi, Tallis...it goes on to almost ad infinitum. The only complete original composer is the one who invents his own music without listening to others first.

  6. #79
    Senior Member chu42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    Well, OK, if we're just having fun, I'll have a little fun and point out that, based on their statements and actions, Liszt, Brahms, Bruckner, Verdi, Mahler, Reger, Wolf, Puccini, Franck, Massenet, Chausson, Debussy, D'Indy, Rimsky-Korsakov, Sibelius, Strauss, Schoenberg and a very long list of other composers would definitely have put Wagner in category "S," and some of them may have been tempted to make the trio in category "S+" a quartet. Apparently they were hearing something...
    Now that is a fun response.

    But we can scratch out Brahms and Verdi. Brahms secretly liked Wagner's music but to put him in S is something he would not do. Not sure why Verdi was listed there at all...

    And you fail to mention that there are an equal if not higher amount of critics and ccomposers from the 19th/early 20th century who would've put Wagner in F tier. Every Jewish composer, that's for sure, along with both Schumanns, von Bülow, Hanslick, every opera buffa composer, the list goes on....

    And it's not fair to assume composers who came after Wagner would've rated him S because that's the direction music went. Would it be fair of me to assume that almost every Classical, Gallant, and Baroque composer would've despised Wagner as a degenerate?

    Not sure what's the fuss about Wagner about being high A tier instead of S tier. He's a great if you ask me, but to elevate his influence to S tier is to devalue the influence of Liszt, Schönberg and Stravinsky.

    And why's the disagreement over timelessness here? The tastes of the public change through time, so the ability of music to stay within public taste (i.e.popularity) through periods of time is a measure of how timeless a work is. This goes for any kind of art. What's your definition of timelessness?
    Last edited by chu42; Aug-25-2019 at 20:10.

  7. #80
    Partita
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mifek View Post
    I mean polls that involve as many voters as possible, so they are more likely to reflect the opinion of general publicity (rather than a view of a relatively small group of devoted fans or professionals).


    This is ok, but you should be aware that TC is not representative neither for the general population nor for a much smaller group of people who consider themselves "music lovers". In other words, it is not difficult to notice that such composers like Brahms, Mahler, Vaughan Williams, Schönberg or Fauré (not to mention Schnittke, Lutosławski, Josquin, Hildegard, etc) receive disproportionately higher ratings on TC, while there is also another group of composers (including Tchaikovsky, Chopin and Vivaldi, among others) who seem to be significantly less valued by the TC community than by the "general public". I am not saying this is "good" or "bad". All I'm saying is that we need to keep in mind that such a difference does exist.


    Here are two examples:
    https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-l...rs-of-all-time
    https://www.thetoptens.com/greatest-...cal-composers/

    Just go on the street and ask your average Joes which two of the four composers (Brahms, Schubert, Chopin and Tchaikovsky) they like the most. Asking 20 people should be enough. Unless you live in Germany or Austria, you will get Chopin and Tchaikovsky winning this poll by a large margin.
    As I stated previously, I accept that the opinions of people who come to classical music forums such as this probably differ in the aggregate from those of more casual listeners of classical music.

    However, reference to the opinions of what "average Joes" think was not relevant at the time I made my comment which you picked up on. The OP was talking about the construction of "tiers" of composers based on factors such as influence, innovation etc. He said that his choices were part-influenced by his own preferences, but he did not say that his choices were influenced by his understanding of the opinions of "average Joes".

    My comment in post #34 regarding the "general popularity" of certain composers was clearly in the context of forum based polls, as you will see if you care to go back to re-read what I wrote in that post. As ought to be perfectly clear, I was not referring to the opinions of "average Joes".

    Regarding my opinion that the forum-based rating of Brahms and Schubert suggests that they could be included in their own group, I think you will see that this is the case if you care to delve into the detailed results of the last main favourite composer poll (Top 10 composers). This took place in February 2019, and you participated in it, along with many others. If you care to look at the detailed results, I think you will find that there were far more votes for each of Brahms and Schubert than there were for Chopin, Tchaikovsky, and Rachmaninov. As far as I can recall, the same results occurred in several previous T-C polls.
    Last edited by Partita; Aug-25-2019 at 20:20.

  8. #81
    Senior Member BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    473
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    A lot of the questions I'd have about placements have already been addressed by others, and so I won't bring them up again, but here are two questions I'd like you to answer:

    Why is Rachmaninoff in S tier? (should be in low A / high B)
    Why would you put Faure in low B tier? (should probably be in A tier, or at least high B tier)
    Last edited by BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist; Aug-25-2019 at 20:17.
    Casual composer, pianist, music enthusiast

  9. Likes pjang23 liked this post
  10. #82
    Senior Member chu42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Partita View Post
    As I stated previously, I accept that the opinions of people who come to classical music forums such as this probably differ in the aggregate from those of more casual listeners of classical music.

    However, reference to the opinions of what "average Joes" think was not relevant at the time I made my comment which you picked up on. The OP was talking about the construction of "tiers" of composers based on factors such as influence, innovation etc. He said that his choices were part-influenced by his own preferences, but he did not say that his choices were influenced by his understanding of the opinions of "average Joes".

    My comment in post #34 regarding the "general popularity" of certain composers was clearly in the context of forum based polls, as you will see if you care to go back to re-read what I wrote in that post.

    Regarding my opinion that the forum-based rating of Brahms and Schubert suggests that they could be included in their own group, I think you will see that this is the case if you care to delve into the detailed results of the last main favourite composer poll (Top 10 composers). This took place in February 2019, and you you participated in it, along with many others. If you care to look at the detailed results I think you will find that there were far more votes for each of Brahms and Schubert than there were for Chopin, Tchaikovsky, and Rachmaninov. As far as I can recall, the same result occurred in previous polls.
    Perhaps I didn't specify properly, but my understanding was that timelessness is soldered to the public's ability to appreciate works over time. The present public opinion of a hundred year old work is certainly a measure of it's timelessness. This isn't applicable to newer works where the culture of today is not significantly different from the culture of the time of composition.

    This definition of timelessness goes for any kind of art, literature, film, etc.

  11. #83
    Senior Member chu42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist View Post
    A lot of the questions I'd have about placements have already been addressed by others, and so I won't bring them up again, but here are two questions I'd like you to answer:

    Why is Rachmaninoff in S tier? (should be in low A / high B)
    Why would you put Faure in low B tier? (should probably be in A tier, or at least high B tier)
    Objectively, you will not be able to find public/academic consensus that Fauré is as great or as popular as Rachmaninov.

    Subjectively, Fauré's music is beautiful but to my ears it doesn't seem as or as consistently moving. He didn't always orchestrate his own music and his piano works are not nearly as complex or well-crafted. With that being said, his music is still very intelligent in its own right.

    Based on his later works I could definitely see him veering towards Scriabin in rank. Rachmaninov isn't going anywhere though, he's too much of a giant pretty much everywhere.

  12. Likes Mifek liked this post
  13. #84
    Partita
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chu42 View Post
    Perhaps I didn't specify properly, but my understanding was that timelessness is soldered to the public's ability to appreciate works over time. The present public opinion of a hundred year old work is certainly a measure of it's timelessness. This isn't applicable to newer works where the culture of today is not significantly different from the culture of the time of composition.

    This definition of timelessness goes for any kind of art, literature, film, etc.
    So, by "timelessness" you meant the public's ability to appreciate works over time, or what might perhaps be more aptly called "lasting popularity".

    It's still not clear what you mean by "public". I had assumed initially, perhaps wrongly, that you meant the opinions of that segment of the population whose main interest in the music area is classical music, rather than the largest possible coverage that includes just about anyone who may happen to like a piece of classical music but whose knowledge and familiarity with classical music beyond that is non-existent.

    Since the results will be highly sensitive with respect to one's definition of the relevant audience, it's not surprising that some confusion has emerged in some of the discussion so far. If your intended audience coverage is very wide, then it seems to involve a very complex set of weightings in order to do justice to all of the considerations you list. Personally, I wouldn't know where to start. If on the other hand your intended audience is very much narrower, the simplest solution might be to look at poll based results. There have been many of these, all saying much the same thing each time.

  14. Likes Woodduck liked this post
  15. #85
    Senior Member Woodduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    14,059
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chu42 View Post
    Now that is a fun response.

    But we can scratch out Brahms and Verdi. Brahms secretly liked Wagner's music but to put him in S is something he would not do. Not sure why Verdi was listed there at all...
    Brahms was conflicted about Wagner because their artistic philosophies were so different and because their followers made such a fuss (which Brahms came to regret somewhat). But he knew very well what a huge game-changer Wagner was, studied his music eagerly, and even wanted to attend the Bayreuth festival, avoiding it only so as not to provoke a scene. In private, he once half-jokingly called himself "the best of Wagnerians."

    Verdi, asked about Wagner late in life, expressed the highest admiration for him, and said of Tristan und Isolde that he stood in awe of it, almost unable to believe that it was composed by a human being. Add to that the undeniable influence of Wagner in transforming Verdi's own operatic style, beginning in the 1850s when Wagner's works began to be heard in Italy.

    Neither Verdi nor Brahms was given to hyperbole, so their tributes are significant.

    And you fail to mention that there are an equal if not higher amount of critics and ccomposers from the 19th/early 20th century who would've put Wagner in F tier. Every Jewish composer, that's for sure, along with both Schumanns, von Bülow, Hanslick, every opera buffa composer, the list goes on....
    Equal if not higher? Where do you get that information? I'll wager any amount that you're way off. And why would you assume that Jewish composers would rate Wagner's music poorly? Mahler's fanatical devotion to it is legendary; he said, ""There are only him [Beethoven] and Richard [Wagner] — and after them, nobody" (I assume that "nobody" included even himself). Mahler was keenly aware of Wagner's antisemitic statements, but as a musician he knew what he was hearing. Schoenberg attended every Wagner performance he could, and began as a thoroughly Wagner-saturated composer. Berg (not Jewish, but close to Schoenberg) remained Wagner-saturated. Goldmark, Korngold, Schreker, Zemlinsky, Herrmann, Waxman... Doesn't the idea that being Jewish should determine one's musical judgments strike you as - I beg your pardon - rather racist?

    Schumann didn't live long enough to hear Wagner's mature works. Clara was very conservative (she found Tristan "disgusting," which gives us a pretty good indication of her limitations). Bulow was a proponent of Wagner's works who only soured a bit after Cosima left him. Hanslick (a critic, not a composer) was a notorious reactionary who gradually acknowledged Wagner and would probably have come round completely if he'd lived to be 200...

    And it's not fair to assume composers who came after Wagner would've rated him S because that's the direction music went. Would it be fair of me to assume that almost every Classical, Gallant, and Baroque composer would've despised Wagner as a degenerate?
    There's a difference between what has actually happened and what "might have" happened if history had been different. Such hypotheticals are unanswerable and absurd. No serious composer (or scholar) of stature now disputes Wagner's importance.

    Not sure what's the fuss about Wagner about being high A tier instead of S tier. He's a great if you ask me, but to elevate his influence to S tier is to devalue the influence of Liszt, Schönberg and Stravinsky.
    It isn't to devalue anyone. But his influence was as great as anyone's - greater, if we look beyond music to the culture as a whole (there are threads on this very subject). I'll only say here that Wagner is the only composer to cause such a stir in society, even after his death, that he had an "ism" attached to his name.

    And why's the disagreement over timelessness here? The tastes of the public change through time, so the ability of music to stay within public taste (i.e.popularity) through periods of time is a measure of how timeless a work is. This goes for any kind of art. What's your definition of timelessness?
    "Popularity" is a matter of numbers. "Timelessness" is a matter of durability. They tend to overlap, but are not the same.
    Last edited by Woodduck; Aug-26-2019 at 00:00.

  16. Likes ManateeFL, WildThing, OperaChic and 2 others liked this post
  17. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,559
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Partita View Post
    Regarding my opinion that the forum-based rating of Brahms and Schubert suggests that they could be included in their own group, I think you will see that this is the case if you care to delve into the detailed results of the last main favourite composer poll (Top 10 composers). This took place in February 2019, and you participated in it, along with many others. If you care to look at the detailed results, I think you will find that there were far more votes for each of Brahms and Schubert than there were for Chopin, Tchaikovsky, and Rachmaninov. As far as I can recall, the same results occurred in several previous T-C polls.
    Have I ever claimed that any poll (or game) among the TC members showed Tchaikovsky and Chopin to be valued equally to Brahms and Schubert? It was just the opposite - what I clearly stated in my previous post was that the relatively small TC community evidently differes in this respect from the overall community of classical music lovers, as demonstrated by the results of two internet polls on much larger samples.

    I admit that it was indeed my fault that I didn't notice how much attention you paid to the polls (or to a game) in which some TC members took part. However, when you asked me what I meant by "general publicity polls", I made it very clear that I meant something else than the TC poll/game. Based on the examples I have shown to you, it should be clear by now that for the general public of classical music lovers both Tchaikovsky and Chopin are ranked a bit higher than Brahms and Schubert, so when ranking composers based on "general popularity", one should not place the latter two in a higher tire. I hope you won't have any problems with agreeing with this.

  18. #87
    Senior Member KenOC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SoCal, USA
    Posts
    19,312
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    Brahms was conflicted about Wagner because their artistic philosophies were so different and because their followers made such a fuss...
    Actually, Brahms hated Wagner because Richard let Johannes’s darkest secret out of the bag: The owner of classical music’s best beard hated cats. Brahms would sit by his window with a crossbow that Dvořák had given him and shoot arrows at the cats in the street. Once he’d speared a cat, he would reel it in like he was fishing. Brahms would listen to the sounds the cats made as they expired, and he’d incorporate the sounds into his music.

    Some people think Wagner was making this up, but The Guardian saw fit to repeat his claim.


  19. Likes Waldesnacht liked this post
  20. #88
    Senior Member Bulldog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Posts
    19,749
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chu42 View Post
    Rachmaninov isn't going anywhere though, he's too much of a giant pretty much everywhere.
    Maybe he is a giant. Hollywood did very well by him, and lovers of lush/romantic music eat him up. However, there are many folks not in that category to whom Rachmaninov is not so special.

    Personally, I love much of his solo piano music and his 3rd piano concerto. The remainder doesn't hold significant interest for me. Given that solo keyboard is my favorite genre, I'd likely place Rachmaninov somewhere in my top forty but nowhere near top ten.

  21. Likes Woodduck liked this post
  22. #89
    Senior Member Woodduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    14,059
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bulldog View Post
    Maybe he is a giant. Hollywood did very well by him, and lovers of lush/romantic music eat him up. However, there are many folks not in that category to whom Rachmaninov is not so special.

    Personally, I love much of his solo piano music and his 3rd piano concerto. The remainder doesn't hold significant interest for me. Given that solo keyboard is my favorite genre, I'd likely place Rachmaninov somewhere in my top forty but nowhere near top ten.
    Rachmaninoff maintained a very high standard in most of his works (he never really got the hang of opera, though he wrote several, but he's in good company there). I love his music, and he's certainly proved popular and durable, but he isn't very important to the development of music. If that's a major criterion, he shouldn't be higher than about the middle of these rankings.

    A criterion that hasn't been mentioned is expressive range, i.e., how many qualities of feeling does a composer succeed in communicating, and how resourceful is he in finding new forms to meet new expressive needs. A composer who seems to be saying more or less the same thing over and over from work to work should certainly rank lower than one whose expressive and stylistic range is greater. I think Rachmaninoff's range is fairly narrow - narrower than, say, Tchaikovsky's.
    Last edited by Woodduck; Aug-25-2019 at 22:46.

  23. #90
    Senior Member KenOC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SoCal, USA
    Posts
    19,312
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    This recording is probably the most accurate remembrance we have of how Rachmaninoff played his own works. I was very surprised by his taste, attention to detail, and restraint. Quite a classical fellow, really.



  24. Likes Woodduck liked this post
Page 6 of 31 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •