Influencial Composers Tool

Here is a link to a mathamatically framed list of the most influencial composers of our time, and their rankings, by wikipedia. I'm not sure how familiar this may be to you, but I'd though I'd share it. This also gives information on who influenced a certain composer, who was infuenced by a certain composer, and lists a lot of their compositions.

Now, I don't know how accurate this tool is, but tell us what you think about it. Read the few paragraphs before the list that explains what exactly they did to form it. I definitely could see some of you contradicting it in specific ways, so that's why I brought it up here. :toothygrin: I'm sure it can make some of your music history researches a little easier. I've looked over the influenced composers section and that part all looks accurate.

Interesting. I knew good old Bach would be up there.

I'm most surprised at Meyerbeer and Weber being ranked so high, Copland so low, and Shostakovich not even being on the list...

I'm most surprised at Meyerbeer and Weber being ranked so high, Copland so low, and Shostakovich not even being on the list...

well, that alone is enough to demonstrate the list is BS.

No Barber, no Bernstein? but Froberger and Stanford?

The modern composers can't score as high, as they haven't been around long enough to influence as much, which is how that system of ranking works.

Although Strawinsky is v. high on the list..

I wouldn't really say that shostakovich is totally influencial... Or Copland for that matter (at least he's on that list).

I really don't like lists, personally! The most outreagous lies can come out! :D

This is basically "HOT or NOT" for composers.

Like most algorithms, if you put garbage in, you get garbage out.

To be fair, Mozart, Beethoven and Wagner are pretty much the very top for composers with a huge amount of influence.

Shostakowitch doesn't come close - he's only been dead 50 years, 2 of the other 3 have been dead 200 years, how can he be as influential? He can't! (yet, at least)

while Sibelius is one of my favourite composers, and I think his symphonies should be compulsory study for ANY composition student, he is not by any definition "influential". His music has not had any repercussions on later composers, and is only NOW being "re-discovered" as having any value. He has too long been considered a "pops" composer because of a few rather popular symphonic poems and a war horse violin concerto.

Copland, however, almost single-handedly created the "American sound" in music.

and let me just add the following quote from that site:

"Ravel, for example, is not usually credited with breaking much truly new ground--yet, for whatever reason, a good number of important twentieth century composers are thought to have been influenced by his music"

this quote is an indication that whoever put the list together has no knowledge of music history

I'm not really sure, but Coplands music seems pretty original, and I haven't heard much like it, so even though it is The or An American style of music, it hasn't been like SUPER influencial really (yet I like the style and I've heard wonderful songs derived from his style). but yea Barber isn't on the list, and the Adagio is like really influential. and they should have given Tchaikovsky higher positioning considering his era. and they should have given Haydn a higher positioning. Bach defintely should have been first, or if not Beethoven or Mozart. Everyone has different opinions on who is better, so these people who made it have their own opinions about history and nobody can completely agree with it.

I although, find the tool somewhat useful. It can give you some background information to branch off into more research, like who influenced certain composers. I'm just glad Mozart and Beethoven are on the top 10.

How is a single string quartet movement like the Barber Adagio "influential"?! What exactly did it influence? I agree that Barber is a fairly important composer, but the Adagio for Strings is very much a "pops" piece.

Meanwhile, I would consider Copland to be the single most influential American composer - besides creating THE American orchestral sound, one might even argue that the entire film scoring industry draws 90% of its influence from Copland, Wagner, and Debussy.

Incidentally, I have no problem with Wagner being ranked #1. I'm not a fan of his, but he had a huge impact on virtually all subsequent composers.

Well yea you are right about that, so I actually have a slight change in mind and I think Copland deserves a greater spot on the list. Seriously, 96th place? That's a little harsh. His music has been quite an influence. And I think Wagner definitely deserves his spot because I can see what he did and how people were affected by it. And Barber? I don't really care that much about him. If I needed my hair cut, I'll probably ask someone else.

But I also think Tchaikovsky is a little underrated.

If Beethoven influenced Wagner then is it fair to say he influenced every Wagner-influenced composer? The influence by now (of both) is so diluted - you may as well credit Hildegard von Bingen as the most influential composer or something. I seriously doubt the newest composers have a direct Wagner influence -- perhaps they have a Bernstein and Bartok influence, the latter who was influenced by Strauss, who was influenced by Wagner.

Point being, the influential composers themselves did not exist in a vacuum.

I sort of feel sorry for whoever made this list - they're like a climatologist who tries to take every factor in the cosmos that they can and predict climate changes for two-hundred years in to the future.

To be fair, Mozart, Beethoven and Wagner are pretty much the very top for composers with a huge amount of influence.

Shostakowitch doesn't come close - he's only been dead 50 years, 2 of the other 3 have been dead 200 years, how can he be as influential? He can't! (yet, at least)

Wagner wouldn't be half of what he was if not for Berlioz. I think every major composer is indispensable and part of the great transformation of music throughout time.

Good point, let's rank them all #1, and then no-one's favourite composer has to be left out, which would have a bad effect when we're all trying to be friends with everyone else.

*group hug*

How is a single string quartet movement like the Barber Adagio "influential"?! What exactly did it influence? I agree that Barber is a fairly important composer, but the Adagio for Strings is very much a "pops" piece.

Meanwhile, I would consider Copland to be the single most influential American composer - besides creating THE American orchestral sound, one might even argue that the entire film scoring industry draws 90% of its influence from Copland, Wagner, and Debussy.

Incidentally, I have no problem with Wagner being ranked #1. I'm not a fan of his, but he had a huge impact on virtually all subsequent composers.

It's actually unfair, and unrealistic, to state that the Adagio for Strings is a "pops" piece.

It's actually a quite austere, strict application of counterpoint. It's the slow movement of a string quartet.

That it has become popular as a "funereal" piece is no reflection on the composer.

Samuel Barber (I am talking of his entire oeuvre, and not of one single piece) went against the grain of avantgardisme that was "common practice" in the mid 20th century. His mixture of serial, tonal, and modal music was unique and actually opened doors for MANY later composers of the 20th century. You can name many tonal American composers of the same period, however, how many of those so successfully blended elements of past present and future into single works?

Examine the scores of either the piano concerto or the piano sonata and you will be amazed at the depth of understanding of modern compositional techniques Barber demonstrates. You will also see works that are incredibly cohesive and beautifully structured while staying true to his own "romantic" aesthetic.

In Barber's obstinate desire to remain "lyricial" to the end, he paved the way for music in the late 20th century. Some say he was born in the wrong century. I say, thank god he was born when he was and made it possible for those who came afterwards to be proud neo-romantics.

By the way, Barber himself may have had a "romantic" sensibility to much of his work, his incredible mastery of form and micro-structure demonstrate that he was actually a "classicist" at heart.

It's actually unfair, and unrealistic, to state that the Adagio for Strings is a "pops" piece.

It's actually a quite austere, strict application of counterpoint. It's the slow movement of a string quartet.

That it has become popular as a "funereal" piece is no reflection on the composer.

Samuel Barber (I am talking of his entire oeuvre, and not of one single piece) went against the grain of avantgardisme that was "common practice" in the mid 20th century. His mixture of serial, tonal, and modal music was unique and actually opened doors for MANY later composers of the 20th century. You can name many tonal American composers of the same period, however, how many of those so successfully blended elements of past present and future into single works?

Examine the scores of either the piano concerto or the piano sonata and you will be amazed at the depth of understanding of modern compositional techniques Barber demonstrates. You will also see works that are incredibly cohesive and beautifully structured while staying true to his own "romantic" aesthetic.

In Barber's obstinate desire to remain "lyricial" to the end, he paved the way for music in the late 20th century. Some say he was born in the wrong century. I say, thank god he was born when he was and made it possible for those who came afterwards to be proud neo-romantics.

By the way, Barber himself may have had a "romantic" sensibility to much of his work, his incredible mastery of form and micro-structure demonstrate that he was actually a "classicist" at heart.

Here here!

Barber gets a lot of bad press, usually by those who have failed to take the time to listen to his entire catalogue.

The sonata for piano is an incredible achievement for solo piano. It annoys me that people refer to his music as 'pop'.

The adagio for strings, regardless of its popularity, is incredibly well put together, using minimal musical material to generate a work of great emotional range.

It's actually unfair, and unrealistic, to state that the Adagio for Strings is a "pops" piece.

It's actually a quite austere, strict application of counterpoint. It's the slow movement of a string quartet.

That it has become popular as a "funereal" piece is no reflection on the composer.

I'll just say this: read what I'm responding to. The previous post had said the Adagio itself was influential - that was where I had an objection. Nothing to do with Barber himself.

Aha, that's it I think. Well, they say Barber was really classic? Classical music that is. He must not be that amazing, since the classical period ended like a million years ago. Oh, we know what were doing, because we run wikipedia. We can do whatever the hell we want. Let's dismiss him from the list because we know everything.

Aha, that's it I think. Well, they say Barber was really classic? Classical music that is. He must not be that amazing, since the classical period ended like a million years ago. Oh, we know what were doing, because we run wikipedia. We can do whatever the hell we want. Let's dismiss him from the list because we know everything.

What the hell are you going on about?

Obviously, you have no idea what "classicist vs. romantic" means in music theory.

What the hell are you going on about?

Obviously, you have no idea what "classicist vs. romantic" means in music theory.

Is this another joke like mine? Because it doesn't seem as saracastic. :D

Do you not care that we can't understand what the hell you're talking about? Your attitude is getting to me as well. Quit trying to piss people off on purpose.

Do you not care that we can't understand what the hell you're talking about? Your attitude is getting to me as well. Quit trying to piss people off on purpose.

I agree with Tumababa. I'm tired of people trying to put words in other people's mouths. I mean I'm not talking about any specific person, but of the while I've been here, negativity has seemed to be the main point of everyones discussion. Thanks for the back up Tumababa.

Qccowboy, in my last post that you quoted me on, I was only mocking the people of wikipedia who made this list. It wasn't anything I would say. Speed reading isn't the best thing to do while reading sarcasm :D

I agree with you 100% on this list issue. Bottom line, it's nothing to get excited about, since the evidentual recipe of the list that the wiki came up with is horribly organized.

Once again... I'm done trying.

My thoughts are twofold

1. Rkmajora has no idea what he's talking about

2. I think lists saying which composer was more influential than others are complete garbage, what standard are they putting them up against to say how influential they were?

There's no set standard saying "You have to do *insert something here* in order to be considered influential"

So I say that lists like this one are a waste of time