Donald Satz wrote:

>Bill Hong wrote:
>
>>Biber is certainly known, but isn't considered to be in the Top Tier
>>of Baroque composers.
>
>Who is in that top tier? In terms of gereral popularity, I think it's Bach,
>Handel, and Vivaldi.  Concerning personal preference, I limit it to Bach
>and Handel.
>
>The 2nd tier is more interesting and consists of baroque composers
>who managed to stay well above the "banal" category: Zelenka, F.
>Couperin, Kuhnau, Rameau, Biber, Hasse, Purcell, Planicky, Telemann,
>and D. Scarlatti.  Being a fan of consort music, I tend to place
>composers like Locke, Jenkins, and Lawes in a special category.

Well.  The Baroque technically starts in 1600 or thereabouts.  There
is no mention of Monteverdi in the above, or Schuetz, for that matter.
Interesting you also left off Corelli who is certainly in your "second
tier" (who would sanely put him in a "third tier?").  I guess I think that
Monteverdi and Bach/Handel are incomparables because even though they are
technically "baroque" their styles and musical worldview are worlds apart.
Put Monteverdi in the the context of his time and he is surely of equal
stature to Bach in his.  And his music stands the test of time independent
of style.  Some evidence of this may be the fact that he is the earliest
composer in the standard opera repertoire.

Popularity and personal preference are not necessarily the only things to
consider when ranking composers, a process I find odious anyway.  There is
what I call musical truth, but I don't know what others call it.

Chris Bonds