2011 Classical Countdown: Assessing the Winners and Losers

Sunday, January 01, 2012 - 12:00 AM

The 2011 Classical Countdown The 2011 Classical Countdown (Wordle)

If anything, classical music fans are not a frivolous crowd. That is the evidence turned up in WQXR's 2011 Classical Countdown, a listener survey that showed that Beethoven remains the most popular composer around, with his Symphony No. 9 "Choral" topping the list of 75 classical works.

The ranking, based on a three-week online survey that asked listeners to vote for their three favorite pieces, presents a non-scientific picture of the station’s audience. Along with Beethoven, works by Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Bach and Brahms are the most popular overall while noticeably absent are classics by Haydn, Liszt, Chopin, Bartok and Shostakovich. As in the past, listeners gravitated towards serious, profound works -- though not entirely.

A few highlights:

  • Most popular. Works by Beethoven held a remarkable four of the top five slots in the survey and nine of the 75 slots in total, making him the most represented composer of 2011. Not insignificantly, the Countdown followed closely on the heels of WQXR's Beethoven Awareness Month.
  • Biggest growth spurt: Mahler’s Symphony No. 2. The symphonic epic jumped to third place in 2011 from fifth place in 2010 and 27th place in 2009.
  • Biggest loser: Dvorak’s Symphony No. 9. The "New World" fell from its number-two perch in the 2010 and 2009 Classical Countdowns, to sixth place. Missing altogether this year were Rimsky-Korsakov’s Scheherazade (no. 34 in 2010 and no. 14 in 2009) and Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique (no. 44 in 2010 and no. 26 in 2009).
  • Surprise newcomers: Mahler’s Das Lied von der Erde (no. 20) and Bruckner’s Symphony No. 8 (no. 35). The sprawling late romantic works are generally not considered hits by either composer but each received a healthy number of votes. 

As for Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9, that piece has held the top slot throughout much of the Classical Countdown's 25-year history. While records are incomplete, station archives show that the piece was voted number one every year from 1987 through at least 1998. Similar tastes emerged decades earlier. When WQXR asked more than 4,000 listeners to nominate their favorite symphonies in 1940 and 1948, the Ninth ranked at No. 2 and 1, respectively. Follow-up surveys in 1962 and 1967 also put the Ninth at No. 1.

Taken as a whole, the 2011 Countdown shows a particular priority of classical-music listeners when it comes to picking favorites: monumental works of profound or spiritual significance consistently rank high while pieces with a lighter touch are less favored. Franz Liszt, a composer who gave the world plenty of splashy and occasionally over-the-top works, is nowhere to be found on this year's list (or those of 2009 and 2010, though this year was especially striking, being his bicentennial). Haydn, Rossini, Bellini, Bizet, Chopin, R. Strauss and the aforementioned Rimsky-Korskov are also conspicuously absent.

Ravel’s Bolero and two Gershwin favorites (Rhapsody in Blue and An American in Paris) are notable exceptions to the serious trend. By contrast, Requiem masses were a particular favorite this year, specifically those of Mozart (no. 10), Brahms (32), Verdi (28) and Faure (66). Just over half of the pieces -- 38 in total -- were composed in the 19th Century.

This raises the question of contemporary works. Only two pieces composed after 1950 placed in the 2011 survey: Leonard Bernstein’s Candide (no. 42) and West Side Story (no. 38). A glance at one barometer, the Pulitzer Prize winners in music since 1950, shows no overlap with the Countdown, even among composers who fall on the approachable end of the spectrum, including John Adams, Jennifer Higdon, Steve Reich, Gian-Carlo Menotti and Virgil Thomson (for more modern works, consult the Q2 Music New Music Countdown). Composers of the Renaissance and early Baroque eras met a similar fate.

WQXR program director Matt Abramovitz said the Countdown is not only an ideal programming hook for the holiday season, but a chance to read listener feedback online. "WQXR listeners are such a smart, engaged and passionate group," he said. "It's invigorating to see such lively conversation about the station and the music as we head into a New Year together."

What do you think makes a piece of music great? Should it speak to profound issues? Can it also be fun and even frivolous? Are there other personal factors involved? Please leave your comments below.

Tags:

More in:

The WQXR e-newsletter. Show highlights, links to music news, on-demand concerts, events from The Greene Space and more.

Comments [28]

EA from LI

This conversation has strayed somewhat from the intended topic, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It highlights that WQXR is trying to become a real community of listeners by inviting us to participate in every way possible, and for that I give the management and the announcers a lot of credit. In the short time WQXR has been a public station it has already changed and it is still evolving--I responded some months ago to an email questionnaire from the station in which I said I didn't particularly want to hear the announcers talking about themselves or their everyday lives, and I've noticed they talk much more about the music now, which I appreciate. Sure, sometimes the comments are a little "lite" or even frivolous, but these people love their work and they know what they're talking about, and I can live with a lame joke (or a little movie music--horrors! The world has changed!) every now and then. I even like picking up on the fact that they like one another--how nice to know, when I spend so much time in their company every day! Classical music doesn't have to be stuffy any more than it has to be atonal all the time. As for the programming, I'm sure we would all like to have a tailor-made playlist just for ourselves, but that's why we still buy CDs, isn't it? And for those who remember when the old commercial station decided to play NO choral or vocal music at all for a while because it reportedly didn't go over well with audiences, you know things could be a whole lot worse. Now we have choral music, live music, interviews, special programming, opera broadcasts, new music and new artists, a 24/7 opera streaming link, and still plenty of beloved favorites. It's human nature to complain, I guess, but WQXR isn't one of the things I feel deserves my ire (Congress, now--don't get me started). I traveled to Altanta overnight a few years ago and was shocked to find there was no classical station in the area that I could tune in for the few hours I was in my hotel room--and it was a miserable stay. Here at home, where I have the station playing all day in my office, in the kitchen, and when I'm in the car, I'm often secretly gratified to hear my 19-year-old "complain" to her friends that thanks to her crazy mom, "a little man with a violin follows me everywhere I go!" Amen to that. Carry on, WQXR! (Oh, and I don't think multiple votes should be allowed in a poll.)

Jan. 05 2012 11:32 AM
Michael Meltzer

Mitan:
You cite all the music I grew up with. For the first time, composers felt free to draw upon all the resources of musical history, from the new and untried to medieval scale design, Renaissance & Barouque counterpoint, classical architecture, romantic and impressionistic color and even the songs and rhythms of the street in one huge melting pot. It was an exciting time, full of diversity and the widest range of emotional experiences through sound.
Of all this, WQXR is ignorant and therefore fearful. It is run by professionals of a different profession, not music. At anything musical, they are amateurs. Since the education they lack takes many years, the only solution is for them to step aside, and of course that will not happen.
Yet they keep asking for money. For what? My order never arrives.

Jan. 04 2012 03:29 PM

I have already posted my comment in the discussion about the results and I am quite happy most of my observations are proved by Mr. Brian Wise. Still I want to underline the several things of greater importance about the co-work of WQXR and Q2.
I prefer Q2 but work better on WQXR, i.e. 10 of my 14 working hours go for WQXR; the rest for Q2. Which is a sign WQRX is more or less a background station. The problem for me is that WQXR "speaks" much more (rarely about music in a critical way) than Q2, more often than not wrapped in silence.
Now the serious point: I had my guess that the two countdowns taken together will miss at least a quarter of 20th century and I meant the third one. I was right but more important is how surprisingly Anglo-saxon is the Present and how predictable is the Q2 Past. For me the total absence of Schoenberg and Webern, of Hindemith and Janacek, and of Shostakovich's symphonies is a problem of the WQXR list. The problem of the two lists is that they complement in a manner that predetermines the lack of Lutoslawsky and Boulez, of Xenakis and Schnittke, of Gubaidulina and Saariahu, of Maderna, Nono, Kurtag and Grisey, to mention just a few names. The point is that the uneven stitch between the two lists and radio schemes misses the late, high modernism before minimalism and postmodernism in general. In effect the entire more difficult modernism and avant-garde appear to be underrated by the two lists: too much impressionism for a Q2 list, too much Stravinsky and Bartok for this list as well. So it would be great if a third station is going to be launched, dedicated particularly to 20th century music, whereas Q2 is taking care predominantly for the American scene and about the last 25 years.

Jan. 04 2012 01:18 PM
Derf from Bronx

Sorry that I didn't know that one could vote multiple times. I will be sure to remember that next year. Look for Allan Sherman's great transcription of Ponchielli's "Dance of the Hours" to be in the top 10.

Cheerios!

Jan. 03 2012 08:57 PM
Fred from Kew Gardens

I completely agree with you, Priscilla, and "Movies on the Radio" is where I use my O-F-F switch on the radio.

Jan. 03 2012 07:16 PM
Priscilla Alexander from New York, NY

I agree with those who wish for more rarely heard music instead of repeating the same things. Of course when you play my favorites (Mozart, esp. piano concertos, sonatas, etc., Bach, Haydn, and any music written before 1800). But I also like to hear 20th and 21st Century music; if we don't hear it on the radio, will it ever become familiar and loved? Perhaps radio should play the role that the Church and the Nobility once played in supporting the development of music by playing what is new. I'd much rather have more new music than have to listen to varying commentators on the standard repertoire. I turn to WQXR to listen to music, not to listen to people talk.

I also don't know why movie scores are played. It rarely fits what I would consider classical music....perhaps because there are not the requirements of form. Yes, sometimes the sounds are interesting, but the whole is dissatisfying. Yes, I know, Copeland's film music made it into greatness, but I don't think most of what is written for films does. In fact, in a film, what impresses me is when a director uses silence, as Angelina Joli does in Land of Blood and Honey, and what music she used was also wonderful.

Jan. 03 2012 05:55 PM
Tom from Richmond Hill, NY

I am in agreement with the posts regarding the repetitive WQXR playlists. I have the station on at work and at home. I listen at least 5 to 7 hours a day. The same music over and over again. This station has turned into the equivqlent of a classic rock radio station. I get that the station is trying to increase its subscriber base by appealing, with its playlist, to the lowest common denominatior. But I also want the station to expand my horizons by mixing it up and introducing us to new works, or older compositions that historically don't get air time. How ironic that a not for profit entity has fallen prey to the same temptations as a for profit venture. Come on QXR, you can do better.

Jan. 03 2012 11:25 AM
Michael Meltzer

Good point, Alex. But, my own concern is not the "either" of the 19th century, or the "or of the 21st, but WQXR's bypassing of most of the mainstream composition of the mid-20th. It isn't all Copland's cowboy songs and "West Side Story."
Token partial tribute is paid from midnight to 5:30 AM. That is the music in the harmonic language that comprises most of the music of the scores to all the favorite movies of the audience you talk about cultivating.
To me, the programming policies aren't after the wrong thing, but seem to have no particular reasoning or meaningful forethought of any kind.

Jan. 02 2012 11:39 PM
Alex from Brooklyn

Mr. Meltzer: I'm not sure if it's laziness on QXR's part that they play the same "hits" over and over or the belief that they can reach new audiences by giving them healthy doses of the most famous melodies.

You have to consider that their average listener is in the AARP age bracket and will be dead in another 10, 20 or 30 years. The question is, can you engage a younger demographic with unusual, lesser-known works just as well? As a 30-something guy myself, I personally think a John Adams "Short Ride in a Fast Machine" or anything by Philip Glass or Steve Reich would bring in young people just as much as the 50th repeat of the Brahms Academic Festival Overture or a light classic by Delius would.

Jan. 02 2012 10:51 PM
Michael Meltzer

I posted the following last night for the Franck D-minor but it fits in better right here:
I am no fan of the Franck Symphony, but I am aware that other people are. I would have expected it to show up in the countdown, around #25 or 30.
Instead, it is absent, as is "Scheherezade." Both pieces have been coming out of listeners' ears this past year, WQXR has definitely overexposed them.
What I've said in the past about the Dvorak "Wood Dove" is especially true for the old chestnuts, because the latter are also in home collections or are heard in live concerts and other places as well as WQXR. You really have the ability to kill a good piece, at least temporarily, if you play it over and over with no respite.
There is no shortage of good music to program. The only obstacle is laziness.

Jan. 02 2012 06:38 PM
Nonta from Manhattan

There were many "favorite" pieces of classical music that I could have nominated for the List-- but doesn't mean that I want WQXR to endlessly play them. I count on your station to play music that does not necessarily dwell in the castle of perennial favorites.

I'd like more chamber music (neglected this past year); and much more early music (ditto).

Jan. 02 2012 04:01 PM
JoeV from NJ

DEAD GUYS! One & all . . . that's the best NYC's public radio station can do

Jan. 02 2012 02:22 PM
HYH from Freeport, Long Island

The beauty of music -- all music (and art, for that matter) -- is that is appeals to each of us in different ways, for different reasons. Growing up in NYC and going to classical music schools and camps, there are so many pieces of music that are special to me because of the 'time and place' memory aspect, whether from performing, hearing/learning about the pieces in class or friends performances, etc. Some composers/pieces just touch us deeply for no reason other than upon first hearing, just does something, strikes a chord in our emotions and hearts and souls. Sometimes, when knowledgeable about a composer or a particular piece (say,from books or articles), the music takes on some other significant understanding. It's all good. Sometimes, when I'm in a great or terrible mood, I have to hear Bach Goldberg for joy or comfort. Sometimes it's Chopin Ballade 1 in memory of dear, departed pianist friend from conservatory or Byrd masses for a particular purity of sound or Brahms 2 or Schumann pno cto or Holst Jupiter for happy memories of orchestra rehearsals in high school or Mahler because his lushness kills me or Part or Whitacre or Elgar, Belmont, Carissimi choral works, etc, etc, etc. The beauty is that there are so many composers, pieces, performances that we can like, dislike, analyze, compare....I love that I can hear an unfamiliar performance of a piece I love, feel connected to and intimate with and still hear something new in it. I love that one day I may say, for example -- "Tchaikovsky 4 is my favorite of his symphonies" and then happen to hear his 6th on WQXR and change my mind. I'm sure that if I had to compile my top 20 list on a monthly basis, it would change quite a bit, for all kinds of reasons. I look forward to voting at end of 2012 and seeing what pops up.

Jan. 02 2012 01:33 PM

Jeremy, I cannot agree with you. WQXR is a well balanced radio station that has many educational programs (e.g. Bill McLaughlin's Exploring Music) while still reserving the majority of its programming for easy listening. In today's day and age, people are busy and would like pleasant recognizable background music while at the same time have gentle exposure to new pieces they haven't heard before. I agree that there are some pieces that are played too many times but by and large, I find the repertoire to be excellent.
Secondly, now that WQXR is listener supported, it is imperative that they be more responsive to their listeners tastes. WQXR is doing a fabulous job at this- it is utilizing the internet and is becoming increasingly interactive with its listener base. I therefore give kudos and thanks to WQXR and encourage them to keep up the good work.

Jan. 02 2012 12:41 PM
jeremy from Forest Hills

The top 75 countdown is a sad reflection of what's happened to classical radio in the past 30 years. What we hear on WQXR is an extension of what "the new WNCN" offered the listener in the mid to late 80s. Aside from the Saturday afternoon opera and the NY Philharmonic broadcast, it's an overly repetitive airing of very familiar pieces, ones which are more often than not 15 minutes or less in length. How many times does one need tohear the Beethoven Leonore Overtures or Tchaikovsky's Fourth within a month or two's time. And yet, we've been "treated" to that on WQXR of late. The poster who makes the point about this being a non-commercial station which should mean it should be more inventive is so right. On classical QXR, you had decades of Bob Sherman's The Listening Room, you had David Dubal's genius. In past decades, we had Bill Watson. Now, we have classical music as the new muzak. Listen to it in the office. It relaxes you etc. etc. And look for even less chamber music, opera and modern music because of their decision to have special "channels" devoted to particular fare on the website. Radio should teach as well as entertain, particularly a non-commerical one. It's ironic the station is acting MORE like a commercial SINCE the WNYC takeover than it was before.

Jan. 02 2012 11:49 AM
Steve Corrigan from New York

The idea of choosing 75 favorites is a little silly, but I think it works. Someone who loves classical music might have 750 or 7500 favotites. The same could apply to lovers of paintings and literature; who could choose 75? I loved listening to them, and the ones the hosts insisted on that "did not make the cut."

The 75 favorites might attract a new audience, and a lifelong interest. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, You can learn a lot, just from listening.

-- Steve

Jan. 02 2012 08:48 AM
yichihara from NJ

To me, the results - Beethoven’s domination in 2011 countdown - is, as you WQXR have already analyzed, no surprise at all to me (due to Beethoven Awareness Month in November). Mahler’s up, too, is not surprise to me; if you check back the playlist in the last three months (from September to December), you’ll find Mahler’s works were played pretty frequently both by live and CDs. Exposure has significant influence on the audience, and also one’s choice depends on one’s experience. The more works you’ve heard, the more likely your favorites are diverse. On another side, each of us has personal, emotional connection with certain works. That could cause complaints/disappointments when our favorites do not appear in the top 75 list at all.

Jan. 02 2012 02:48 AM
Fred from Kew Gardens

To Michael Meltzer:

I’m not even a musician just a frustrated listener with few options. (I expected more and better when WQXR became a public radio station.) When WNYC was only a classical music station they had delightful programming. Now it primarily seems to be about getting maximum dollars out of listeners (in the most shameless ways). Not too different from commercial radio.

It’s hard to believe this is the best we can do in NYC; I can’t even listen to their morning programming. It’s a kind of torture.

If the majority don’t know or care that’s all the more reason to get it right. As in other matters, there seems to be an adamant blissful ignorance.

Jan. 02 2012 02:27 AM
Mike from Brooklyn

Thank you, Mr. Wise, for addressing various areas of audience dissatisfaction with the selection process. Below I am resubmitting my post of earlier tonight to the Countdown blog, with some revision, wherein I offer a suggestion for broadening the composer base of the list.

****************************************************************************

I have given thought to a modification of the selection process designed to
prevent the absence of many popular composers from the 2012 list. In spite of its formulaic quality, (or maybe because of it!) I think it would improve the fairness of a process that has been bypassing some great composers year after year after year. It will use as the objective standard of "popularity" WQXR's very own online record store!

First tally the votes, and set aside the best-liked 65 selections. Then, include one piece of each of the 15 most recorded composers - according to ArkivMusic - who do NOT make the list. That brings the list to 80. This will surely bring in Haydn, who will never make it on his own! Liszt, Gounod and Britten would probably owe the honor to this process as well. The exclusions of Chopin, Berlioz, and Shostakovich may have been flukes this time, but a method such as this would ensure their selections anyway. The number of add-ons can be expanded (or contracted) to include all those (or only those) who exceed a given number of recordings - say 800 or 1000. But I hope for serious consideration of this or anyone else's suggestion, in our common goal of correcting this HUGE, and indeed unacceptable, number of glaring omissions.

Wishing all great listening for 2012.

Jan. 02 2012 01:31 AM
Michael Meltzer

Re Fred from K.G.:
Perhaps if we all start paying more attention to WKCR, that's the best thing we can do to upgrade and improve WQXR.
When the A & P is the only supermarket in your town, It's not a very good A & P. Being "New York's ONLY classical radio station" has created an "Ivory Tower, Musicians Keep Out!"

Jan. 01 2012 11:28 PM
Fred from Kew Gardens

I think the selection process can be greatly improved. WQXR should offer categories to choose from: orchestral, chamber, sonatas, voice, etc. Perhaps 50 compositions can be listed in each category and listeners can vote on their top three pieces in each group. In addition, maybe 20% of airtime can also be devoted to write in choices.

The favorites might be played from Christmas to New Year’s. This would make for a much more varied and interesting selection. I’m more than willing to hear other people’s favorite choices. I’m sure many people (myself included) would participate in this musical voting.

Nine days of only Bach on WKCR was far more interesting to me. Others mentioned this too. WQXR should take these comments seriously. If WQXR (a public radio station) is so restricted in its programming, how will we ever learn or discover anything new?

Jan. 01 2012 07:37 PM
Steve from Brooklyn

The comments during the ongoing countdown reveal a great variety of preferences, over composers to be sure, but also as to period and format---just as one should expect. But there is one message that comes through with near unanimity (yes, a few expressed indifference): end the vote stuffing. Mr. Wise et al., we hope you're listening.

Jan. 01 2012 12:49 PM

Brian Wise did acknowledge that this countdown "followed on the heels of Beethoven Awareness Month" by saying that it wasn't insignificant. I'd like to paraphrase that by saying that it was GREATLY significant in shaping the outcome of the poll. Not to accuse WQXR of intentionally influencing listeners and how they vote, (who would benefit?) but this technique of "foreshadowing" is pretty commonly used in radio to promote songs being pushed by their respective labels. When I lived in Seattle, a rock station there did a daily 'Top 5 At 5' poll, (Top 5 songs at 5PM) and from 4 to 5pm they'd play the songs that were already in that week's heavy rotation. ~AND~ go figure: the songs that ended up in the 'Top 5 At 5' were always from the batch of songs that had just been played from 4 to 5. It's not a fair and balanced representation of public opinion; it's simply a tool to keep an already established demographic of listeners engaged and interested. That's the business of radio; that's the way it's always been. I'm not saying that it's a terrible thing; I enjoyed listening to the countdown. But I think that there will be less people annoyed by the outcome if they understand that there's a limit to how accurate a poll like this is, and perhaps lower their expectations and just enjoy the offering within the carefully established framework put in place by WQXR and radio in general. That being said, it was still a bit discrediting to allow people to vote more than once!

Jan. 01 2012 11:31 AM
Noel

Beethoven's 9th in 1st should surprise no listener of any music. Joy-the fall of the Berlin Wall, Grief of 9-11 and all emotions in between echo in this work

Jan. 01 2012 10:44 AM
concetta nardone from Elmont, NY

Ballot stuffing anyone? Jeff or Elliott did remark that you could vote more than once just like Chicago. What is this? American Idol? The ninth again and again.I do love the 9th but have some other favorites. Also the 5th with its boring DA DA DA DA was up there. No? Cannot be. There should be some separate classifications. I think the fix was in. Do the bookies get in on this?

Jan. 01 2012 09:54 AM
Michael Meltzer

Mr. Wise:
There are so many things to say, I’ll try to stick to a few central ones for now. First, your analysis has to limit itself to “present” and “absent.” Any analysis of ranking is fatally flawed by WQXR allowing ballot-stuffing. Also, don’t be surprised when chestnuts that have been over-exposed, like Scheherezade, don’t appear for now. The retail business is the same way, they’ll come back strong.
Your 20th century comments are off on a journalistic wrong foot. The Pulitzer has always meant little to musicians or concert-goers, it’s an academic honor with great prestige in university hiring circles. The names you cite are not the 20th-century mainstream, except for Virgil Thomson during the time he was the much-feared chief critic of the Herald Tribune. When that influence evaporated, so did his concert performance presence. John Adams has yet to prove himself as anything more than a fad, a rebellion that will in a few years cease to matter. I think Higdon will remain for sure, and Corigliano, Moravec and Bolcom, whom you omit, they are composers in the historic sense
As long as 20th century repertoire is consigned by WQXR to the wee hours, listener unfamiliarity will of course limit popularity.
I find it very sad that three major, beautiful 20th century symphonic works do not appear in the 75, the Bartok Concerto for Orchestra, the Shostakovich 5th Symphony and Hindemith’s Mathis der Maler Symphony. Those are staples of the live concert repertoire, musicians auditioning for major orchestras are expected to be familiar with their difficult passages, as well of those of Strauss, Rimsky and Mahler. Their harmonic languages are as accessible as Prokofiev and Walton, and more so than Barber, all of whom you program freely. If you don’t put the core repertoire out there, the musical language of the last century will never become familiar and so much listening pleasure will never happen (Do note that WQXR has been pushing Delius all day, prime time, most every day, and no one mentioned him in the balloting. He is second-rate.).
Shostakovich V is a WQXR late-nighter. So is the Bartok, which WQXR has only recently recognized. And although Bernstein’s Shostakovich is exemplary, the only recording of the Hindemith you air is Bernstein’s disgusting and slovenly dragging of the piece through the cesspool of his melancholy and with his bizarre misplaced climaxes. It is a terrible performance, I don’t blame the public for ignoring it. Hindemith conducted the piece with the Berlin Philharmonic on Decca: listen to it, that’s how it should sound. Bernstein considered Hindemith a competitor and trashed it accordingly.
Just keep expanding your understanding of where the satisfying experiences are, and keep the communication channels open and active. Don’t think about conclusions, think about taste.

Jan. 01 2012 03:47 AM

Can you please let me know which piece was the runner up for the 2011 classical countdown? i missed it and cannot find it on line? not sure why your list stops short of number 2 and one, the actual winner. thank you and Happy New Year and happy listening to us All!

Jan. 01 2012 01:38 AM
Peter Feldman from New York City

Not only Franz Liszt is not listed in the 2011 classical countdown but even more horrifying is the absence of Frederic Chopin and the great french composer Hector Berlioz. There is something wrong in this countdown.

Jan. 01 2012 12:19 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Follow WQXR 

Sponsored

About WQXR Blog

Engage and interact with the WQXR hosts online.

Feeds