I’m not so sure I’d leave off Chopin and include Bartok. I’d also find some room for Haydn, though I don’t know who I’d drop. I’d find room for Richard Strauss, too, and probably drop Wagner for him. Tchaikovsky should be there, maybe ahead of Debussey.
Anyway – obviously these sorts of lists engender fruitless discussion, but fun.
I’d want to see Haydn there, too, and I’d want to make room for Mahler. I’d agree that Debussy does not belong in the top 10: maybe not even in the top 20.
I’ll give you Strauss, but you can’t delete Wagner. I agree with Giles…Debussy doesn’t belong on there, but I don’t know that Haydn does, either. At the risk of including too many Baroque Germans, I do think that Handel belongs, though.
If I were making such a list, I’d separate out opera from the rest of classical music and give it its own list—partly because I’m not, personally, a big fan of opera, and partly because I think it makes sense for them to be separate categories. With that restriction, Verdi and Wagner definitely wouldn’t be on the list.
I do find it a bit odd that Bartok is on the list, and maybe Debussy too. I think Haydn deserves to be there. Aside from composing a lot of very good music, he was very influential—arguably moreso than, say, Debussy or Wagner, but his influence is more invisible because it happened longer ago and has permeated all of Classical music.
which is closer to what I and many of you would have come up with. (If you want to see his 50, they’re listed here and in his book’s table of contents.)
Obviously there’s no definitive way to prove this point one way or the other, but here’s my case for Haydn: string quartets, most especially the “Russian Quartets” of Opus 33. The way the accompaniment becomes melody is unique, and simply genius.
That said, you all are crazy! Debussy most definitely belongs. My top 10, in no particular order.
[ul]
[li]J. S. Bach[/li][li]Mozart[/li][li]Beethoven[/li][li]Schubert[/li][li]Brahms[/li][li]Debussy[/li][li]Stravinsky[/li][li]Shostakovich[/li][li]Bartok[/li][li]Schoenberg[/li][/ul]
Prokofiev and Verdi should definitely be in the list but I couldn’t cut anybody that’s already there, so…
I’d agree with dropping Verdi and Wagner for classification purposes (they belong on a dedicated opera list). That frees up two slots, and I’d slip Papa Haydn into one (I like Haydn’s music…I just didn’t judge it higher than Verdi and Wagner) and Tchaikovsky into the other.
ETA: Ugh…Schoenberg…influential, I’ll give you. But 12-Tone makes me itch.
I think we might need clarification…by “Top Ten” are we talking most popular, most musically appealing, most influential, most innovative? Because that right there is four different Top Tens, I’d think (with maybe quite a bit of overlap).
After I posted my list I browsed the linked article and got to thinking about my own personal criteria. They weren’t at all clear.
Breadth and variety surely are important, otherwise I wouldn’t have left Chopin out. Of the ten composers I chose only 3 didn’t write opera and all wrote a great variety of orchestral, choral and chamber works. This isn’t a list of my personal favorites either, otherwise Beethoven would be out and Berg and Prokofiev would have been included. However it’s not free from my personal prejudices either. Mahler and Wagner are out because they’re too slow and tiring for my tastes. I don’t like to sit and listen to them, but I’d never dream of denying their greatness. All the composers I chose were hugely influential, but Monteverdi, Haydn, Handel, Wagner and Mahler were much more influential than Shostakovich, so why is he in and they out? (Really, how the hell can I leave Monteverdi out?)
It’s a bit of a mix. Breadth is important as is influence but tempered by my own taste. Chopin is out because he was too limited in scope, even though he’s one of my favorite composers. Beethoven is in because he’s one of the touchstones of western music even though there are other composers I like better. But I also do love his music, otherwise he’d be sulking in the corner with Wagner.
The opera question is complicated. I did take operas into account, but maybe didn’t give opera as much weight as other genres. My list wasn’t ranked, but I do think Bach and Mozart dispute the number one place. Take out Mozart’s operas and that changes, even if you take out Bach’s oratorios as well. He’d still easily make the list (hell, the piano concertos alone put him in the list), but not so high in my estimation. If opera is in then how can one exclude Verdi or Wagner or Strauss or Puccini or Britten. If opera is in, then maybe I have an excuse to substitute Berg for Schoenberg and maybe Schubert would be out. If it’s an opera list then John Adams would certainly make the cut for Nixon and Klinghoffer.
Also, the influence thing did weigh on my choice of Schoenberg, but it was far from the only reason for my choice. 12-tone done right is as good as anything else and he has tons of music I love. Maybe you could try Gurre-Lieder, jayjay, as it’s neither 12-tone nor atonal.
Dvorak! What the heck is Dvorak not doing on this list? I say: Add Dvorak, and toss Wagner. Possibly onto a separate opera list. Possibly into the Sun. Whichever.
I’m okay with that. Bartok’s not getting tossed into the Sun, though - that’s a special privilege reserved for Wagner.
ETA: Waitaminute, who says there’s only room for one ethnomusicologist? Ethnomusicologists are neat! I stand by my original send-Wagner-into-greatly-abbreviated-orbit plan.
ETA Again: On yet another hand, it would irk Wagner greatly to share the same list as an ethnomusicologist. Perhaps he should stay on for that reason alone.
I ended up making a top 10 opera composers list. This one was more fun, as I decided to simply go with my favorites and throw any other criteria out of the window. This one is ranked and my favorite opera by the composer is listed as well.
[ol]
[li]Mozart - Don Giovanni[/li][li]Puccini - Turandot[/li][li]Richard Strauss - Der Rosenkavalier or Salomé[/li][li]Alban Berg - Lulu[/li][li]John Adams - can’t decide whether it’s Nixon in China or The Death of Klinghoffer[/li][li]Britten - A Midsummer Night’s Dream[/li][li]George Gershwin - Porgy and Bess[/li][li]Bartok - Bluebeard’s Castle[/li][li]Verdi - Falstaff[/li][li]Henry Purcell - Dido and Aeneas[/li][/ol]
Bluebeard’s Castle was one of the first operas i heard and remmains a favorite, so Bartok is in. Honorable mentions to Monteverdi, Bizet and Schoenberg. I almost included Die Fliedermaus by the other Strauss but it’d mean bending the rules too much.
This is an interesting question: Just what is it that makes something “classical music”? Surely not just its age: There are modern composers who would be considered classical, and old music that isn’t. You could separate it out by primary instrument, with most classical music being based on the violin (or other bowed strings), but opera being based primarily on voice. But then, Bach’s best works were for keyboard instruments, and I can’t see saying that Bach isn’t classical.
Operatic music is primarily dramatic, in the sense that it’s produced to create an acted narrative onstage. That’s the easy part.
Of course, when we use the term “classical” in the sense we’re using it in this thread, we don’t mean the technical term “Classical” (i.e., the style of music following Baroque and preceding Romantic), but the popular sense of “vaguely pre-20th Century orchestral/chamber/keyboard music”. In other words, music written for the orchestral instruments, classical guitar and piano/harpsichord.
It’s frustrating, because popular opinion lumps everyone from Chretien de Troyes to Aram Katchaturian (and further into the present) into “classical”.
I’d take “classical music” in this sense, of serious Western art music, right up to the present, and include contemporary composers like John Adams – even though he would not be on my list of top ten.
Bartok’s not getting tossed into the Sun, though - that’s a special privilege reserved for Wagner.