****How else do you expect us Unwashed to learn anything?? :)****
Well, at least you have a sense of humor about it all. Seriously, all this demonstrates the futility of trying to establish a "best". Wether it's a player, composer, recording etc., there will be always be a handful that stand above the rest as pillars of excellence. In the arts, by it's very definition, individuality is a key ingredient of excellence. So, how does one designate a "best" when there is so much individuality as part of the mix? Not possible. One can streamline the list based on level of excellence along with level of influence and then really separate the men from the boys. Re the BBC list:
First if all, I thought it was a pretty good, if incomplete, list. Sorry to hear that you had appropriated it as your own; tsk, tsk, tsk! I was impressed that you had included Gershwin. But, you copied it and left out Britten! That name alone makes the list much more authoritative; he was a true giant. The inclusion of Boulez is probably a good one. Cage and Glass? As two of the greatest? No way! Influential? Certainly; and, very. But, what is "great"? Is great someone who is highly individualistic but who's grasp of so much of what constitutes composition pales in comparison to other composers? Like orchestration skill at the highest level with a thorough grasp of, not only modern techniques, but those of the great composers from the past; while having an individualistic vision. Seems to me that the title "great" should be reserved for the very few that had it all.
"If you feel empathy for his personal outlook, you naturally feel him musically more than some other environ-mental and musical opposite
who is, in a way. beyond you." - Charles Mingus
Well, at least you have a sense of humor about it all. Seriously, all this demonstrates the futility of trying to establish a "best". Wether it's a player, composer, recording etc., there will be always be a handful that stand above the rest as pillars of excellence. In the arts, by it's very definition, individuality is a key ingredient of excellence. So, how does one designate a "best" when there is so much individuality as part of the mix? Not possible. One can streamline the list based on level of excellence along with level of influence and then really separate the men from the boys. Re the BBC list:
First if all, I thought it was a pretty good, if incomplete, list. Sorry to hear that you had appropriated it as your own; tsk, tsk, tsk! I was impressed that you had included Gershwin. But, you copied it and left out Britten! That name alone makes the list much more authoritative; he was a true giant. The inclusion of Boulez is probably a good one. Cage and Glass? As two of the greatest? No way! Influential? Certainly; and, very. But, what is "great"? Is great someone who is highly individualistic but who's grasp of so much of what constitutes composition pales in comparison to other composers? Like orchestration skill at the highest level with a thorough grasp of, not only modern techniques, but those of the great composers from the past; while having an individualistic vision. Seems to me that the title "great" should be reserved for the very few that had it all.
"If you feel empathy for his personal outlook, you naturally feel him musically more than some other environ-mental and musical opposite
who is, in a way. beyond you." - Charles Mingus