Well, in post #18 I named two of their top-4 
The list ranked my initial picks as:
Bach (2)
Mozart (5)
Beethoven (6)
Chopin (9)
Brahms (11)
Debussy (3)
The consensus view suggests that I vastly overrated Mahler (23) and Dvorak (69)
“Chopin: Just a piano guy” 
FWIW, AMG has distributed its top classical composers into three tiers - a top 50, top 200, and top 500.
Criteria were: Popularity, historical significance, and presence in the repertory with an emphasis on representing the biggest voices in each time period and genre. Thus, a few medieval voices are there alongside Mozart in the top 50 even though their music is scantly performed by comparison. Etc.
I had a hand in crafting the list, and won’t pretend otherwise, but objectively I think it does a pretty good job of separating the genuine “biggies” from the next rank down, many of whom are still damn fine and very important composers. Which is not to say there isn’t plenty of room for argument. Debussy, for instance, didn’t make the top 50 while Ravel did. Some might say that’s backwards.
One afternoon I listened as an NPR station in Toledo OH interrupted Phillip Glass’s dance cycle and apologized on-air, after getting bombed with angry phone calls. Back on with the 18th C. music for lawyers’ reception rooms, nursing homes and houseplants.
I see both.
Wow. That Classical Music Navigator list has to be the biggest load of (insert particularly harsh expletive here) I have ever seen. Wagner at number 1? GIven his main innovations were really just extension of harmony and expansion of scale, processes started and indeed developed some way by J.S. Bach and Beethoven respectively (not to denigrate Wagner. I think he should be up there, just not top. Probably top 5). Surely Bach has to be number one, if only because the most important, unique aspect of modern western music, the harmony was virtually invented by the man (even the highly chromatic harmony of Wagner and his spiritual descendants. Just listen to Ein Musikalisches Opfer). I would then put Beethoven, as without him there would have been no romantic period. I do not think this is an overstatement. There was no real motivation at the time to develop music beyond the classical conception. Even early Beethoven shows signs of musical conception way beyond anyone else at the time (specifically I refer to the two piano sonatas op.28 “quasi una fantasia”). His later stuff, especially the piano sonatas and string quartets, contains passages which at times sound like they could have been written in the early 20th century. The ouvertura to the Grosse Fuge is almost reminiscent of Schoenberg. Without all of this Wagner would have been nowhere (not to mention Beethoven expansion of the symphony orchestra). As far as Mozart is concernehd I have never understood why he is so highly ranked (if anyone can explain to me please do so. I mean that seriously). He wrote very little of note, with the exception of a handful of symphonies and piano works and a few operas. His reputation seems to be entirely built on the fact that he was a child prodigy (and the music world loves a child prodigy). I would have to put Haydn highly, despite finding his music intensely boring, if only because he pretty much standardized sonata form, which was and still is the basis for countless important works. And of course Stravinsky has to be near the top for influencing almost every sphere of modern art music (including jazz. The beboppers were all Stravinsky fans)
On a different note, Jackmannii, why do you think Mahler is unpopular? His fifth symphony is extremely well knownand liked, if only because it was used in the soundtrack to Death in Venice. And every time I have seen a performance of his 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, or 7th symphonies or any of the song cycles they have been packed (and here in london there are plenty of performances Mahler, possibly because he’s seen as a safe bet). And given the length of his symphonies that is saying something. As for radio play, how often do radios play pieces that are 90min+ with 20-30 minute movements. (Not that I would rank Mahler too highly. I like his music a lot but don’t think he was particularly influential, at least not compared to some of his contemporaries).
OOps. So you do. Serves me right for doing things off the top of my head… :smack:
I think you missed this part on the site: it appears to me that there is enough agreement among experts in this respect that the results produced here probably do reflect at least a first-order level of accuracy. Whether Debussy “really” ranks third in this respect, or first, or fifth, or even tenth is not that important; clearly the evidence suggests that he has been at least a whole order of magnitude more influential than, say, Weber or Mahler
The ‘prodigy’ aspect gives the legend a warm color, but that’s not the reason for his popularity, which isn’t a recent phenomenon. Beethoven considered him among the greatest.
From the book linked in a post above:
As for why? I think calibre ought to be more a matter of quality than innovation, per se. There, Mozart trumps Haydn (whose music you admittedly find boring).
I entirely agree that Mozart trumps Haydn in terms of compositional quality. Bu the big problem I have with Mozart is that while his best pieces are certainly worth listening too he wrote an awful lot of complete crap (more, proportionally, than most. Beethoven wrote a few terrible pieces, notably Wellington’s victory, but the vast majority of his work was of a very high standard). One of the things that continually amazes me about J.S. Bach is the incredible quality of his work, given how much he wrote.
I don’t see how that changes the equation, unless that work was written with serious intent. Many of his works were composed when young; some composed for instructional purposes, and some just for financial obligations. Only the quality of his good works ought to matter.
Oye gevalt!
The only thing they have in common is the accusation of being paid per word.
To other comments:
Greatness chronologically is: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner.
Wagner changed opera from a silly Italian art form to a fusion of music, art and drama. The rumors that his sister was physically ill when she read Renzi are, well, rumors. 
Yep, nothing silly about Wagner! :dubious:
I’ll not argue opera with that user name.