The 10 greatest composers

The New York Times music critic, Anthony Tommasini, came up a with a list of the 10 greatest composers. This is not supposed to be just a list of his personal favorites, but a reasoned attempt to rank composers not only by their inspiration but also according to other criteria such as their influence on classical music. Though many people thought the exercise silly, many more felt compelled to participate in it, voting, commenting and submitting their preferences. I was one of them.
Here is the list that Tommasini came up with:
1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Mozart
4. Schubert
5. Debussy
6. Stravinsky
7. Brahms
8. Verdi
9. Wagner
10. Bartok
Surprisingly, it would seem most people who participated in this exercise are in broad agreement about most names. I certainly could subscribe at least to eight of them.
About the first three, the only argument would probably be the order in which they should appear. After giving much thought to the subject, I would probably place Mozart first, followed by Beethoven and then Bach.
Should Schubert come in fourth? There is no doubt he was a great composer but he died young, he had a narrow range and was at his best only in chamber music and song cycles. So I would probably relegate him to a lower rank.
One objection I have to this list is the presence of Debussy at number 5. Don't get me wrong, I love Debussy, but is not Stravinsky a much greater composer, with a much broader range? And what about the other 19th century titans? Debussy may have been very influential but he would probably not make my list.
Next comes Stravinsky. Here the only question is whether he should placed higher, since to my mind he is undoubtedly the greatest XXth century composer.
In my opinion, Brahms deserves to make it, though he is not to everybody's taste. But ahead of Verdi and Wagner? I am not sure...
Verdi and Wagner, no question they should be in.
As for Bela Bartok, I have strong reservations. Apart from personal tastes, his music does not seem to be aging well. It now sounds ponderous and overwrought. But I admit this opinion may be founded more on prejudice than on knowledge.
Who is left out? First and foremost, Chopin. He should definitely be in. I would also probably make cases could for Haendel, Haydn, Schumann, and Puccini. I also saw a lot of comments arguing in favor of Mahler and Tchaikovsky, but these two, great as they may be, would not make my list. Some also argued for Britten, a few for Alban Berg...All things considered, I think Chopin should certainly replace Bartok and probably Debussy should make way for Haendel, though it is heartbreaking to leave Haydn, Schumann or Puccini out (my personal favorite among the three being Schumann).
And finally, shouldn't one spare a thought also for Johan Strauss Jr?
This list raises a larger point: given the heavy presence of XIXth century composers and German ones to boot, would it be fair to conclude that so-called classical music is time and place specific? An art that reached its apogee in the germanic speaking lands of Central Europe between, say, 1780 and 1910? I would probably answer yes. "Classical music" is not dead and it is still too early to have a good perspective on the XXth century. But my bet is that, with historical perspective, the XXth will be seen as the century of popular music, an american or anglo-saxon century, in which jazz and rock will rank as high as classical music, and names such as Miles Davies and The Beatles will be as much part of the cannon as the great composers of the past.

Janacek

The Gulbenkian Foundation mounted a superb production of Janacek's last opera, "From the House of Dead", first performed in 1930, after the Czech composer's death. A staged concert performance, with video projection, a great cast and musical direction by the finnish conductor Esa-Pekka Salonen, this show revealed a great work, taut, relentless, dramatic, which certainly places Janacek in the canon of XXth century classical music. In Lisbon, January 6 and 7th 2011.

Azenhas do Mar