Don's Exit on the Information Highway

Home
Don's Place
Consumer Experiences
Travel
News Archive
World View
Interests
Web Links

Happy Holidays!

Top 10 Composers

There are many ways to approach the project of identifying the top 10 Western classical composers of all time 

  1. One could choose based on a composer’s importance, i.e., how innovative was he/she? How much did he/she influence later composers? Did (s)he prove to be an insightful critic who was pivotal in the recognition of other important composers? (By the way, I do not accept the idea that “without so-and-so the music of so-and-so would not have been possible.” I believe that it was only a matter of time for any particular innovation to have taken place—some composer somewhere, looking at the available options to do something new, would have figured out a next step; this is not to detract from the accomplishments of those who may have had a genius that facilitated the discovery of new paths earlier than they might otherwise have been found; I am only saying that it presupposes too much to think that, for example, Debussy’s advances in tonality would never have taken place without him. Those advances may have been delayed, and thus not in time to influence, say, Stravinsky; and then Stravinsky may not have happened; but the later timing might have been just right to inspire and bring to prominence a composer whom we have never heard of. Nevertheless, what happened, happened; and we owe those composers recognition for what they did, regardless of whether or not they may have been the only individuals capable of their advancements.) Such a list might be as follows:
    1. Bach
    2. Haydn
    3. Beethoven
    4. Debussy
    5. Mussorgsky
    6. Rimsky-Korsakov
    7. Stravinsky
    8. Schonberg, or Webern, or Berg
    9. Reich or Glass
    10. Wagner
  2. One could choose on the basis of equitable distribution between nationalities,  chronological periods, and genres; i.e., a composer would lose points if (s)he failed to compose in a major category such as symphony or opera. Such a list might be as follows:
    1. For German Baroque: Bach
    2. For Italian Baroque: Vivaldi
    3. For German Classical: Mozart
    4. For German Romantic: Schubert
    5. For Russian Romantic/Ballet: Tchaikovsky
    6. For Italian Opera: Verdi
    7. For German Opera: Wagner
    8. For Romantic Piano: Chopin
    9. For Impressionist: Debussy
    10. For French: Berlioz
  3. One could choose on the basis of popularity of the works of each composer.
    1. Tchaikovsky
    2. Rachmaninoff
    3. Mozart
    4. Beethoven
    5. Mendelssohn
    6. Dvorak
    7. Rimsky-Korsakov
    8. Schubert
    9. Puccini
    10. Johann Strauss
  4. One could choose on the basis of musical depth of the accumulated works of each composer.
    1. Bach
    2. Beethoven
    3. Bartok
    4. Mozart
    5. Brahms
    6. Debussy
    7. Berg
    8. Stravinsky
    9. Britten
    10. Oh, I don’t know—maybe Corigliano or Boulez or Tippett, or Del Tredici
  5. One could choose based on a combination of the above factors—this is the most difficult, but probably the most in the spirit of the project; but how does one prioritize? Is diversifying the list more important than choosing the very best quality? How does one weigh the impact on mass audiences versus a critical elite?

While the fifth approach seems to be the one that Tommasini is looking for, it is simply too complex for me to contemplate; and I think that the aggregation of all the individual Top 10 lists will automatically yield a good response in the manner of option 5, as long as most of the entries are well-thought-out. 

For my own individualized list, I decided to think of those compositions without which I feel my life would have been, well, almost ruined, and included those composers on my list without regard for diversity or importance. I did run into an inner conflict on the matter of personal preference versus verifiable quality. This especially becomes an issue with a twentieth-century composer such as Bartok, whose string quartets I recognize as being the most worthy successor to Beethoven’s set in terms of innate quality; my head says to include Bartok on this basis, but my heart says no. Now, there are limits: if Tchaikovsky were known only for the 1812 Overture, I could not include him, no matter how much fun the work might be—I have enough sense of intellectual responsibility not to throw all judgment to the winds and simply “follow my heart.” So, I hope that the following list doesn’t contain anything cheap just because I happen to like it: 

  1. Bach. Composition: St. Matthew’s Passion. Bonuses: (1) Staggering total output, (2) unprecedented depth, (3) variety of forms—oratorio, keyboard solo works, especially for organ—can you imagine an opera repertoire without Bach? And what about his sons, especially J. C. Bach, who bridged Baroque and Classical, and inspired Mozart? Bach is a no-brainer in any serious musician’s book. Only weakness: no operas. (We can forgive him for no symphonies or string quartets—their time had simply not arrived.)
  2. Mozart: Le Nozze di Figaro. Bonuses (1) A diverse output including opera, symphonies, string quartets, and piano concertos—had he not composed opera, the piano concertos alone would have landed him in the Top 10.
  3. Beethoven: Almost any of the late String Quartets. If it weren’t for them, there would be the Ninth Symphony; if not for those, then several of the Piano Sonatas.
  4. Schubert: The Cello Quintet. If not that, then the Piano Quintet. If not that, “Death and the Maiden” Quartet. Bonuses: the most important lieder writer of all time. Shortcomings: not so good as a musical architect; his development sections are weak, his overall structure somewhat sprawling; but what tunes! No successful operas, no piano or violin concertos. On balance, a limited composer, who wrote indispensable music. Given Tommasini’s diversity criteria, Schubert would have to go; and that’s why I cannot accept Tommasini on this point.
  5. Handel: Messiah. And concertos of all kinds, including most especially concerti grossi. And opera, which brought us one of the most popular and enduring arias of all time, the Largo from Xerxes.
  6. Brahms: Requiem. And the Violin Concerto and Piano Concerto No. 2. And the 4 symphonies. Bonus: a fairly important composer of organ music. Downside: no opera or ballet.
  7. Tchaikovsky: Swan Lake. Tchaikovsky may lack profundity and architectural skills; but Swan Lake is not only indispensable but points out his stature as a ballet composer. Prokofiev and Stravinsky come close, but in this category they still rank second and third. Thus Tchaikovsky gets points for diversity—he’s Russian, he’s the master of ballet, and he did not neglect opera, chamber music, or any other significant musical form, except for organ music—he does have a significant solo keyboard output, however. He also gets extra credit as a superb orchestrator.
  8. Mendelssohn. Octet. I know, I know, Mendelssohn is considered superficial and saccharine; but can you honestly say you could do without the Octet? What about the Violin Concerto? What about Elijah? Mendelssohn not only wrote these indispensable masterpieces, but was a fairly important composer for organ, chorus, and keyboard, and did not neglect symphonies or chamber music. Opera was the only thing missing, given his location and era (ballet was not yet a necessary part of a composer’s resume). Another bonus, and a crucial one: he resurrected Bach—the composer that will be #1 in any serious list! Yes, sooner or later (but it had already been almost a hundred years!) someone would have rediscovered Bach; but Mendelssohn actually did it, and so it is he who should get the credit.
  9. Richard Strauss. Der Rosenkavalier. Bonus: The Four Last Songs. Shortcomings: Strauss was not the innovator that Wagner was, nor were his symphonies very good, and his chamber-music output was rather limited. Wagner was greater and more important, but there is not a single work of Wagner’s I couldn’t do without. Ditto Verdi.
  10. Stravinsky. Le Sacre du Printemps. This is a little marginal—maybe I could do without the Rite; perhaps this is my one nod to importance as an innovator, and my debt to the twentieth century. I am very tempted instead to substitute Puccini: “Nessun dorma,” La Boheme. Unfortunately, Puccini’s output is limited to opera; and nothing he did, other than write a half-dozen indispensable masterpieces, furthered music in any new way. On the other hand, Stravinsky’s memorable and enjoyable works are limited to the three Paris ballets, while Puccini gave us five operas that are absolute musts: Boheme, Tosca, Turandot, Gianni Schicchi, and Butterfly.

Painful omissions

Haydn. Father of the Symphony and the String Quartet (more or less). He is very close behind Mozart in every category, and is underrated in terms of his mastery of vocal and choral pieces, including opera; but he is almost always second to Mozart, if only by a millimeter, and there is not a single work of his I couldn’t do without, not even the “Surprise” Symphony. 

Rachmaninoff: The Third Piano Concerto is very nearly essential; again, perhaps it’s guilt on my part—the knowledge that it would be unconscionable to, for example, put him in place of Stravinsky. 

Prokofiev: Romeo and Juliet ranks so close to Swan Lake, and Prokofiev’s Third Piano Concerto so close to Tchaikovsky’s First, that it seems a shame to include one without the other. Prokofiev also is a true twentieth-century composer, not a nineteenth-century throwback like Rachmaninoff. In a way, I am bowing to conventional wisdom here, rather than bucking it as I did with Mendelssohn; I know that most critics would make the decision for Tchaikovsky, based on the stronger position his ballets have in the repertoire and the overwhelming popularity of his first piano concerto, and the Nutcracker. Tchaikovsky’s six symphonies are simply more listenable than any of Prokofiev’s, other than the latter’s First, which is barely a serious piece. 

Chopin: The Nocturnes, for piano of course. Pianists would be lost without Chopin; but I had to drop him from my list because, not only do the Nocturnes not quite rise to the level of drop-dead-without-them, Chopin’s range was extremely limited—even his piano concertos pale in comparison to those of many other composers. There are no symphonies, no operas, and no string quartets, although there is a decent piano trio, and at least some of his pieces were made into a ballet—but not by him. 

Not quite painful, but nevertheless an unfortunate omission: Johann Strauss, Jr. The piece? The Blue Danube. But there are so many others. Alas, the waltzes fall outside the realm of “serious” music; and this is the only genre in which he can be taken seriously.

 

 

There are a few pieces that I consider essential, and also of just as high quality as those in the above list, but which Tommasini has disqualified: 

Monteverdi. Poppea. Bonus: The Vespers. Monteverdi was the first major opera composer; but Tommasini ruled out his period of musical history.

 

Tomassini ruled out the next two because either they were popular composers, or because the work itself was not “classical”:

Gershwin: Porgy and Bess.

Bernstein: West Side Story. I could have got away with including Bernstein’s Overture to Candide as a qualifying entry—I consider it music’s greatest overture next to the Marriage of Figaro; but I could not justify including Bernstein on the basis of three minutes of music when West Side Story did not meet the ground rules.

 

All this has led me to update my music pages.

 

Travel

We returned on July 8, 2011, from a 24-day tour of southern France, with a side trip to nearby Monaco. Our tour, self-designed, but employing a couple of guides for approximately 1/3 of the trip, included Cote d'Azur, Provence, the Alps, and the Pyrenees, concluding with two days in our return-home departure city of Toulouse, where we met an old friend. I hope to include a picture here and links to other photos from the journey later this summer.

Last summer included a 21-day tour of the Australian Outback, as well as the coastal cities of Darwin, Broome, and Perth.

More pictures are available here

Our previous trip to Australia was in November, 2005, and also included New Zealand. Highlights included Sydney; the Southern Ocean with the "Twelve Apostles," Kangaroo Island, Melbourne, and Adelaide; and northeastern Australia, with Brisbane, Mount Tamborine, and Heron Island (on the Great Barrier Reef); Christchurch with excursions across the South Island's "Alps," and to the Franz Josef Glacier; two South Island spectaculars, Milford Sound (from Queenstown) and Mount Cook; and the North Island highlights of Wellington and Rotorua (a center of hot springs and Maori culture), including some spectacular land between there and Auckland. Along the way we also saw aboriginal cultures, Antarctic museums, a Lord of the Rings tour, koalas, sheep, kangaroos, sheep, parrots, sheep, penguins, sheep, sheep.... 

In 2006 we made a 24-day tour of Italy:

 

 

For all travel pages, you can click here or on the Travel button, or click on the links under each topic below.

August, 2005: Alaska

Highlights included Camp Denali, Prince William Sound, and Tracy Fjord. Interesting people included a woman who spends four months of the year operating a forklift at the south pole;  an ex-Marine, ex-Forest Ranger, off to seminary to begin a new life as a future priest with likely service to the native peoples of Alaska; and an Alaska Railroad employee from Belarus. One of these days I'll get around to posting some pictures from this trip, but for now proceed to ...

April, 2005: Italy

For pictures and highlights of our 2005 trip to northern Italy, click on Florence 2005 and Venice 2005. All the pictures of Venice are on one page, so it will take a while to load over slow connections. 

The Summer of 2004 took us to Italy and Colorado. For picture stories of those trips click on Colorado 2004, Rome 2004, or Sicily 2004.

Music

The Berliner Philharmoniker continues to dazzle in its Digital Concert Hall. These presentations, which include the ability to watch concerts live from Berlin in HD on one's computer, or Internet-connected TV/home theater, are so good as to rival actual attendance in a concert hall: the sound is better balanced, and the sight lines better than any seat in the house. Just about the only thing missing is the thrill of actually breathing the same air as the great artists and their appreciative audience.

In February, 2009, we co-hosted the Bennewitz Quartet of Prague in our home and gave them a tour of Washington, D. C. They held a master class for middle- and high-school students here and then gave a concert as part of the Candlelight Concerts series in Columbia, Maryland. They performed an early Mozart quartet, the Lyric Suite by Alban Berg, and Schubert's Quartet #13. I was favorably impressed by several things: their technique was excellent, and the blend of their instruments was exceptional; but most importantly, they eschewed flashiness and concentrated on honest and probing interpretations of the music. They did not stray very far from tradition but did employ a noticeably spare vibrato, which served the poignancy of the Schubert exceedingly well.

We also had a visit from another talented quartet, the Calder Quartet, seen April 14 on the Tonight Show, as string backup for Airborne Toxic Event.

As dynamic as our string-quartet friends were sublime, the Simon Bolivar youth orchestra conducted by Gustavo Dudamel, a wunderkind himself, turned in the most phenomenal performance of orchestral music of the entire season -- in Washington, D. C.; Houston, and Chicago.

In May, 2010, an HD presentation in movie theaters of the current La Scala production of Das Rheingold was riveting.

 

I have some more pictures to share on my Windows Live space; they include photos from our yard this summer and a few from a trip I made to Puerto Rico in 2002.

We know an excellent artist in New York, Daniel Roberts; to see some of his art, take a look at his website.

You may e-mail me at don<dot>degeorge at iname<dot>com. I leave it to you to assemble my e-mail address into the standard, workable format because I don't want it available here for spammers' computers to harvest.

Tip: Please do me and yourself a favor and set your screen resolution to at least 1024x728. This will allow you to see the full width of these pages without having to scroll. If this makes text hard to read on your monitor, first use your monitor controls to stretch your Windows desktop to fill the screen--those black borders do you no good at all. If text is still too small, use your Web browser's settings to increase the font size.  (In Internet Explorer, go to View....Text Size.) With modern monitors there's no need to have your computer screen display text the size of a first-grade primer; make your computer screen look like a book that an adult would read. (Oh, yes, this particular note is in very small type; if you can read this easily, then you can gain desktop space by increasing your screen resolution.)

A few more words on screen resolution: A common rule of thumb is to set 14&15-inch monitors to 800x600, 16&17-inch monitors to 1024x768, and 19-inch and higher monitors to 1280x1024. Based on these rules of thumb, if you have less than a 16-inch monitor, I apologize for your need to scroll on this site; but I must say that unless your computer is very old or you are due for new eyeglasses or you view your monitor from across the room, I disagree with the above rules of thumb. I find that you can set a 15" monitor to 1024x728 if you make the adjustments I mention above. I run 1920x1440 on my 21" monitor and can read this fine print perfectly well even though I have trouble reading the ingredient list on a food package. Furthermore, the suggestion to use a  resolution of 1280x1024 is hogwash for anyone viewing graphics or photographs on a computer monitor (and isn't that everybody?) -- this produces a vertically compressed picture that makes things appear too wide. The correct aspect ratio for a computer monitor is 1.33:1; and that means you need to stick to 640x480, 800x600, 1024x728, 1362x1024 (OK, almost no computer offers this resolution, which is what the 1280x1024 should be--there must be some engineering reason for this; otherwise, it makes no sense), 1600x1200, etc. Oh, and while you're at it, be sure that your monitor's refresh rate is set to 70Hz or more; I've seen way too many monitors set at a flickery 60 Hz. For a few of you, your video cards or monitors won't support high-resolution and higher refresh rates at the same time; in that case, I reluctantly suggest that you use lower resolution and higher refresh rate. Thank you for reading my rant on screen resolutions. - Don DeGeorge

This page was last updated on 12/19/11.