Have any of you read the book by Phil Goulding, titled "Classical Music-The 50 Greatest Composers and Their 1,000 Greatest Works"?
I purchased this book years ago and really enjoyed it at that time. I just came across it again, and now, as a somewhat more "sophisticated listener" I have a somewhat different opinion of the book.
The author ranks the top 50 and gives explanations why they received the ranking they did. He has several "rules" whereby you can adjust the rankings yourself, within certain sectors. I was ASTONISHED that Rach was not even in the top 50. What the heck, I'll give you his list and see what you all think.

1.Bach
2.Mozart
3.Beethoven
4.Wagner
5.Haydn
6.Brahms
7.Schubert
8.Schuman
9.Handel
10.Tchaikovsky
11.Mendelssohn
12.Dvorak
13.Liszt
14.Chopin
15.Stravinsky
16.Verdi
17.Mahler
18.Prokofiev
19.Shostakovich
20.Richard Strauss
21.Berlioz
22.Debussy
23.Puccini
24.Giovanni da Palestrina
25.Anton Bruckner
26.Telemann
27.Saint-Saens
28.Sibelius
29.Ravel
30.Rossini
31.Grieg
32.Christoph Gluck
33.Paul Hindemith
34.Monteverdi
35.Bartok
36.Cesar Franck
37.Vivaldi
38.Bizet
39.Mussorgsky
40.Jean-Philippe Rameau
41.Faure
42.Rimsky-Korsakov
43.Donizetti
44.Ralph Vaughan Williams
45.Smetana
46.Johann Strauss
47.Karl Maria Von Weber
48.Janacek
49.Couperin
50.Borodin

Now to me, the most glaring errors are the placement of Franz Liszt(should be in Wagner's spot), Von Weber(should be ranked higher based on his importance as arguably the first true Romantic), and as mentioned the absence of Rach.
Oh, and of course Beethoven should be number ONE!!

I agree with you about Beethoven, but I think both Chopin and Liszt should be higher, with Chopin one place above Liszt. Why is Wagner so high? And Rachmaninov being omitted is a travesty indeed.

Bach should trade places with Palestrina, Mozart with Fauré, Debussy with Brahms, Bartok with Schumann, Stravinsky with Tchaikovsky.

Berlioz, Bruckner, Mahler, Vaughan Williams, Ravel, Borodin, Prokofiev, Shostakovich and Janacek should be higher on the list.

Also I see that Messiaen, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, and Ligeti are missing.

Rachmaninov certainly doesn't belong on this list. I don't see why he included Vivaldi either.

Seeing that this list is too focused on the past anyway, I wouldn't take it too seriously.

There are a lot of things I disagree with about this ranking, the first being the fact that it is impossible to create a ranking like this. I have not read the book, so I reserve some judgement, but how can you compare Bartok with Palestrina in a way that you can say one is a "greater" composer than the other?
Anyway, I may have some other comments later, but the one thing that really sticks out is ranking Tchaikovsky higher than Chopin, Stravinsky, Mahler, and Strauss - Richard that is.
Also, did the author sleep through the Second Viennese school sections of his music history classes?
BTW, Rocky doesn't belong on the list, IMVHO.

Wagner 4th on the list?? Give me a break he shouldn't be in the top 20 IMO. Shostakovich 19th? Give me another break- he ought to be in 4th place at least.

Is the author deaf?

Not sure about about Rach though despite the fact I enjoy his music very much.

This is too subjective.

Interesting all the comments about Wagner... that was my first ugh. Wagner *might* belong on the list, but he's nowhere near #4.

Chopin should be higher also, IMHO. And, dare I say it, Mendelssohn seems a tad high to me.

Nina

I'm not too happy with Lizst being right above Chopin... but I don't want to start another flame war

Everybody has the right to do a list.

Why don't we start ours ?

Exactly. The list posted above should be called "Author's favorite composers", there are plenty of reasons to differ.

Elena
http://www.concertpianist.com

There is no conceivable way that Debussy was a superior composer to Brahms. In ANY respect.

Rachmaninoff doesn't belong in the top 100.

The more I think about it the more I think the list is useless, maybe even worse than useless. I have a slight objection in principle, 'grading' talent of this type is evidently innacurate, but also unjustified and possibly even offensive. But, the list is also hugely wrong. And there in lies another of my gripes. Its wrong.

I beg to differ. Perhaps you are only considering piano output but when viewed in the context of innovation in music, Debussy contributed *way* more than Brahms in terms of tonality, forms, and aesthetic. Brahms was just an extention of Beethoven musical ideals, even by his own admission.

Elena
http://www.concertpianist.com

I also disagree, even though Brahms was indeed a great composer,I do not think he was even close to Debussy in the general aspects of things, such as innovation and reaching new musical heights. Then again, the time periods and composers were very different, thus making it tough to compare.

At least Bach is right where he should be, with Beethoven second. I do think Chopin should be one step higher than Liszt though, I don't know how that happened!

Mozart cannot be less than very close to Bach.
Listen the the Magic Flute of the 23rd piano concerto or the concerto for clarinette or the quintette with clarinette. Or Don Giovanni.

The podium of gold, silver and bronze is the same I was taught many, many years ago. And I find that I feel it will not move for a long time.

I would have put Monteverdi and Purcell much more at the top. And Vivaldi too. And of course Debussy and Berlioz.

Are we what we love ?

How long ago was this book written? I'm sure if the same author made a similar list now, it would look much different especially with somewhat of a revival in Rachmaninoff's music in recent times. An updated one would probably also include Schoenberg, Messiaen, Cage, and one of my personal favorites (and not for his musical theater!), Bernstein.

Mike

1. Apples
2. Oranges
3. Watermelon
4. Strawberries
5. Kiwi
6. Peaches
7. Pineapple
8. Grapefruit
9. Bananas
10. Pears
11. Honeydew

I can't believe that this argument still persists after more than a century. How does musical innovation in 'tonality, forms, and aesthetic' translate into emotional substance? Of course, it doesn't. The 'Prelude al'apres-midi d'un faune' is obviously revolutionary, and more important to the development of music than the C minor Symphony, but that does not invalidate Brahms.

Shut up, loser. Everybody knows that a good watermelon beats even the best apple every day of the week.

Sheesh... :rolleyes:

Oh please, watermelons are like 99.9% water - how on earth can that beat a nice crisp apple!?!?

:D Quite right, Kreisler.

I'm just wondering why the hell kiwi is on the list. KIWI? What kind of hippie fruitarian whack job are you?

OK Kreisler.....You made your point.

:rolleyes:

I am shocked and appalled that cantaloupe didn't make the list.

April

He is right about Kiwi, though.

Orlando, but who is to say which one has more emotional substance? To some people, a Debussy prelude on the piano can be more intimately emotional than even something like a Chopin nocturne or a Brahms Ballade, it is truly very subjective. And of course, it does not invalidate Brahms, or any other composer of substance for that matter- it just makes them "Different".

Don't put words in my posts I didn't say. I would never invalidate Brahms, I adore Brahms. But honey, if you can't feel anything with Debussy's music, that ain't my problem!

Elena
http://www.concertpianist.com

I'm glad you agree.

Sweetheart, I took issue with your faulting Brahms for being an 'extension of Beethoven.' Are you going to address that, or continue dodging? And I feel Debussy just fine.

IMHO, on a scale of 1 to 100 these composers all fall between 99.9 and 100, so trying to rank them is kinda futile.