Jeff Dunn, at the end of a well-argued exclusion exercise, says: >So, my bottom line indicates recognition should go to Debussy, Verdi, >Mahler, Puccini, Mussorgsky, Elgar and Strauss. Seven, but not ten. At the risk of repeating myself, I believe "significance" -- in any of the three definitions cited by Jeff -- is a matter of personal choice. Pundits may (infrequently) agree on a list of "significant contributors" to such and such a movement. But to exclude somebody from a list merely on the basis of "they don't fit my definition" -- while perfectly in order for the individual -- is scarcely an objective exercise in determination. And since there will continue to be (at least) as many opinions as there are opinion-holders, doesn't this become a slightly pointless exercise? Somebody on another thread said yesterday something to the effect that "I believe other people's opinions more readily when backed up with argument" and I couldn't agree more. I get much from this List in terms of other people's opinions -- they help shape my own development, but they are neither substitute for my own evaluation nor fuel for pre-emptive strikes on others' preferences. Bottom line? New Music is indeed nonsense for some -- and Nirvana for others. I derive great intelligence and benefit from arguments 'pro' and 'con' a composer's or artist's "worth", such as those put forward by Jeff and others on this thread. But at some point we have to recognise there is no right nor wrong -- just a host of fiercely-held opinions. Tim Mahon [log in to unmask]