World's Greatest Draft (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

The last two picks have been great. Everything that I don't like about Joyce (and all of the authors he influenced) I love about Dickens. Great stories, great characters, and great narrative. And most of all, suspense. Suspense doesn't have to be about murder or crime, it only has to be about what happens next.

My favorite? A Tale of Two Cities. The hero in this novel does exactly the opposite of my professed philosophy; he sacrifices himself so that others can be happy. Dickens is such a great writer that I don't care. The best artists are those that can mesmerize us in their world irregardless of whether or not our viewpoints match theirs. Dickens is a master.

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known

 

[Andy Dufresne]

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known

Dr. Marcus: Is that from a poem?Kirk: No. It's something Spock was trying to tell me...on my birthday.

McCoy: You okay, Jim? How do you feel?

Kirk: Young. I feel...young!

 

[Yankee23Fan]

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known

Dr. Marcus: Is that from a poem?Kirk: No. It's something Spock was trying to tell me...on my birthday.

McCoy: You okay, Jim? How do you feel?

Kirk: Young. I feel...young!

Same thing that popped into my mind. As for the Marx and Washington picks, as Andy can attest, they were in the bucket with my last pick as I was going back and forth. I was going to take Washington, but decided that the other category was more important right now. And I knew he wouldn't make it back to me.

There are still many more Americans that need to be drafted.

 

[Orange Crush]

I can't stand Dickens. The master of the run-on sentence. The man would go pages while forgetting about the period.

 

[Doug B]

I am going to have to go on auto-skip tomorrow, guys. I'll only be online for about 90 minutes late in the afternoon.

Same will be true every day this week except Tuesday.

 

[timschochet]

I can't stand Dickens. The master of the run-on sentence. The man would go pages while forgetting about the period.

I don't why you would complain about this; sometimes, (not all the time, but let's say a good deal of the time and especially when we are trying to make a point) it is absolutely necessary to have what you and others might refer to as a "run-on sentence", because it is comprised of one idea and only one idea: to divide that sentence into different parts would take away from the whole, and might give you the impression that you were looking at more than one idea, thus weakening whatever central argument is being made; of course, Dickens recognized this, and that's why he decided that long sentences were an important device for getting more complicated messages across, especially in novels like Bleak House, Great Expectations, David Copperfield, Little Dorrit, and A Tale of Two Cities (my favorite,), not to mention short stories like A Christmas Carol.

 

[BobbyLayne]

While Columbus is the most instantly familiar explorer, there are only a few at the top of the heap imo.

3.12 -- Marco Polo, Explorer.

[

Great, just great.The last 5 picks have been my next 5 names

Good pick

Even Watt? I have been catching a little flack from one of my trusted advisers for "reaching" for him. I disagree obviously and I am glad to have a little back up to bolster me. The more I read about him the more I thought that his biggest inventions were every bit as big as Gutenberg's one biggie and his body of work could surpass or at least rival Edison. It was one of those quantum steps every couple of generations that gave steampower to fuel the Industrial Revolution that transformed the modern world.

3rd round doesn't seem early in an Open Draft. Perhaps with Categories, however - I don't see him being a slam dunk to surpass Messrs Guttenberg and Lun.

Hard to see him falling too far, but not sure it was the best VBD.

Of course, the lack of discussion is just timing. Draft late at night or when Larry Boy 44 and timschochet are driving a discussion, and you could end up with the invisible team.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

Last 5 picks have totally screwed me over & this name has changed 6 times in typing it and I'm going to regret, especially by the time the next 14 names come down the line.

I'm going to play it safe and pick the best guy available.

3:13 - Louis Pasteur - Scientist

If one were to choose among the greatest benefactors of humanity, Louis Pasteur would certainly rank at the top. He solved the mysteries of rabies, anthrax, chicken cholera, and silkworm diseases, and contributed to the development of the first vaccines. He debunked the widely accepted myth of spontaneous generation, thereby setting the stage for modern biology and biochemistry. He described the scientific basis for fermentation, wine-making, and the brewing of beer. Pasteur's work gave birth to many branches of science, and he was singlehandedly responsible for some of the most important theoretical concepts and practical applications of modern science.

Pasteur's achievements seem wildly diverse at first glance, but a more in-depth look at the evolution of his career indicates that there is a logical order to his discoveries. He is revered for possessing the most important qualities of a scientist: the ability to survey all the known data and link the data for all possible hypotheses, the patience and drive to conduct experiments under strictly controlled conditions, and the brilliance to uncover the road to the solution from the results.

Louis Pasteur (December 27, 1822 – September 28, 1895) was a French chemist and microbiologist born in Saint Cloud, Paris. He is best known for his remarkable breakthroughs in the causes and prevention of disease. His experiments supported the germ theory of disease, also reducing mortality from puerperal fever (childbed), and he created the first vaccine for rabies. He was best known to the general public for inventing a method to stop milk and wine from causing sickness - this process came to be called Pasteurization. He is regarded as one of the three main founders of microbiology, together with ** ** and ** **. Pasteur also made many discoveries in the field of chemistry, most notably the molecular basis for the asymmetry of certain crystals.[1] He is buried beneath the Institute Pasteur, a rare honour in France, where being buried in a cemetery is mandatory save for the fewer than 300 "Great Men" who are entombed in the Panthéon.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

While Columbus is the most instantly familiar explorer, there are only a few at the top of the heap imo.

3.12 -- Marco Polo, Explorer.

[

Great, just great.The last 5 picks have been my next 5 names

Good pick

Even Watt? I have been catching a little flack from one of my trusted advisers for "reaching" for him. I disagree obviously and I am glad to have a little back up to bolster me. The more I read about him the more I thought that his biggest inventions were every bit as big as Gutenberg's one biggie and his body of work could surpass or at least rival Edison. It was one of those quantum steps every couple of generations that gave steampower to fuel the Industrial Revolution that transformed the modern world.

Watt was 5th on my list of 5, but I would have taken him. Totally paved the way for the technology we have now.

 

[timschochet]

I am going to have to go on auto-skip tomorrow, guys. I'll only be online for about 90 minutes late in the afternoon.Same will be true every day this week except Tuesday.

That's fine, Doug, I always know that no matter how far behind you get, you'll make it up, and usually with superb picks as well.

 

[timschochet]

Pasteur is a great, great scientist, and contributed much to the betterment of mankind. Excellent choice!

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

I have PM'd Usual21

 

[mad sweeney]

While Columbus is the most instantly familiar explorer, there are only a few at the top of the heap imo.

3.12 -- Marco Polo, Explorer.

[

Great, just great.The last 5 picks have been my next 5 names

Good pick

Even Watt? I have been catching a little flack from one of my trusted advisers for "reaching" for him. I disagree obviously and I am glad to have a little back up to bolster me. The more I read about him the more I thought that his biggest inventions were every bit as big as Gutenberg's one biggie and his body of work could surpass or at least rival Edison. It was one of those quantum steps every couple of generations that gave steampower to fuel the Industrial Revolution that transformed the modern world.

Watt was 5th on my list of 5, but I would have taken him. Totally paved the way for the technology we have now.

Funny, I was really considering Pasteur but since I had a scientist already I had whittled it down to Watt and another cat. But I couldn't help wondering if LP wouldn't have been a better choice as a WC for me.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Pasteur is a great, great scientist, and contributed much to the betterment of mankind. Excellent choice!

Very solid, regardless of where he ends up in the judges opinion, that will play well in the category when the draft is over and the voting begins. Perhaps only Newton and Einstein are bigger icons in the category.

 

[timschochet]

JML, we may not see eye to eye philosophically, but I can tell you this: your draft so far is outstanding.

Actually, almost all the drafts are great, as I wrote before, it's going to be difficult to mess this up. I don't envy the category judges.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think enough has been written about James Watt. The steam engine may be the most important invention of all time, more than the printing press, more than paper. It took hundreds of years for those inventions to have an effect on mankind; within 20 years of the creation of the steam engine, the world was completely changed. Historian Paul Johnson refers to this as "The Birth of the Modern", the transformation from an essentially medevial society into the world we have today. I can't speak for the inventor judge, but Watt is definitely top 3 for me.

 

[thatguy]

Pasteur is a great, great scientist, and contributed much to the betterment of mankind. Excellent choice!

Very solid, regardless of where he ends up in the judges opinion, that will play well in the category when the draft is over and the voting begins. Perhaps only Newton and Einstein are bigger icons in the category.

Scientist is particularly deep. I still have probably 6-8 names that I consider about on par with Pasteur.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

JML, we may not see eye to eye philosophically, but I can tell you this: your draft so far is outstanding.Actually, almost all the drafts are great, as I wrote before, it's going to be difficult to mess this up. I don't envy the category judges.

No probs Tim, I know you like to foster debate. Sometimes it just happens to get the tail prickled up.It's almost an art.As for my draft, cheers.5 of my picks could rank 20th towards the back of the draft, but I'm gonna take em, so I'll take what I can get now.

 

[timschochet]

As for Marco Polo, he has to be in that top rung of explorers along with Magellan and a few others who have not been selected, directly below Columbus. I still hold Columbus as #1 for the reasons I stated yesterday, but Polo and Magellan are not too far behind.

 

[timschochet]

JML, we may not see eye to eye philosophically, but I can tell you this: your draft so far is outstanding.

Actually, almost all the drafts are great, as I wrote before, it's going to be difficult to mess this up. I don't envy the category judges.

No probs Tim, I know you like to foster debate. Sometimes it just happens to get the tail prickled up.It's almost an art.

As for my draft, cheers.

5 of my picks could rank 20th towards the back of the draft, but I'm gonna take em, so I'll take what I can get now.

Well now you have me intrigued.

 

[flysack]

Dickens is good. I say top 10.

But so many better writers were still on the board.

I'd say he was a reach.

 

[Mario Kart]

14. Usual21

15. thatguy

16. Andy Dufresne

17. Herbert The Hippo

18. Bobbylayne

19. Mister CIA

20. Abrantes

 

[Mario Kart]

I have a suggestion and this may help overall with the drafting during the week. Instead of starting a timer of an hour during the week, since some of us work without computer access during the day and having to go on auto-skip, why not make a picking schedule instead?

Example: (assuming Usual21 does not pick tonight)

Usual would start the draft tomorrow morning and get a 45-minute window to pick. After that 45 minutes is up, he is skipped. And the next person may pick.

In regard to the above, if thatguy picks in minutes of his 45-minute window, the next pick cannot go until thatguy's 45-minute window is up. During that time Usual can come in and pick at any time.

What this will do is at least slot the draft picks. If a drafter cannot get to a computer in the morning but sees he is the 5th drafter for the day, he will now have a certain time frame where he can check in and pick freely without a few people skipping him and picking before him.

14. Usual21 = 9:00 - 9:45

15. thatguy = 9:46 - 10:30

16. Andy Dufresne = 10:31 - 11:15

17. Herbert The Hippo = 11:16 - 12:00

18. Bobbylayne = 12:01 - 12:45

19. Mister CIA = 12:46 - 1:30

20. Abrantes = 1:31 - 2:15

and so on throughout the day.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Do the vast majority of drafters work with computer access and do not have to go on auto skip?

I'm not in favor of designing rules to accommodate one or two people, but not sure what the case is with our drafters.

I thought the G.A.D. had pretty good momentum more often than not, especially in the first 8-10 rounds and the last few.

So if it ain't broke, why fix it?

Would be interested to hear what other folks think about Mario Kart's idea.

 

[thatguy]

I say leave well enough alone. It's not perfect, but as BL said, it worked fine for the last draft.

 

[larry_boy_44]

the issue I have with MK's idea is when someone has a 4 hour clock in the middle of the day...

I mean, we will all get frustrated when someone (say me) is up at 11 am and isn't in thread and can't be skipped until 3 PM...

that's 4 mid-afternoon hours that one person takes up, all because we went through 10 picks quick in the morning and had a set clock like that...

 

[timschochet]

I appreciate it, Mario, but what we're doing seems to work, and everyone understands the rules, so I think we should stick with it.

It is true that in previous drafts I have been involved with, some of the interest level waned after the first few rounds, and we were stuck waiting for people. However, that did not really happen in the Greatest American Draft, and I don't expect it to happen in this draft either. The plan is, that like the American draft, we'll stick with one hour throughout.

Also- if someone misses two picks, is not on autoskip, and fails to show up in the thread for over 24 hours, I'll ask for a replacement drafter at that point.

 

[Mario Kart]

There are new people in this draft compared to the last. I was just looking at the fact that all schedules are not the same and if you know you don't have to check in until a certain time... drafting during the day would be less hectic.

Just an idea for more formality.

 

[timschochet]

There are new people in this draft compared to the last. I was just looking at the fact that all schedules are not the same and if you know you don't have to check in until a certain time... drafting during the day would be less hectic. Just an idea for more formality.

It's not a bad idea at all, but it should have been implemented before we started. At this point, everybody understands the rules, and it would be unfair to change them.

 

[BobbyLayne]

There are new people in this draft compared to the last. I was just looking at the fact that all schedules are not the same and if you know you don't have to check in until a certain time... drafting during the day would be less hectic. Just an idea for more formality.

It's not a bad idea at all, but it should have been implemented before we started. At this point, everybody understands the rules, and it would be unfair to change them.

How about we keep an open mind about it, eh? We hope things go as well as in the G.A.D., but if not, here's one alternative we may consider.

 

[timschochet]

Let's talk some more about Beethoven vs. Mozart. I found this passage on the web which gives Beethoven the edge, with a pretty good argument:

Both composers are worthy of the title " genius", yet Beethoven's genius, as I am to claim in this abstract, is more universal and thus more profound of the two. In a few epithets, the bulk of Mozart's creation can be described as lightweight, springy and delightful, often evoking soothing and calming effects in the listeners. Undoubtedly, he reached unprecedented heights of proficiency in aiming at this particular sensory sphere and expanded its boundaries to a truly cosmic scale. But Mozart's music is purely entertaining, and, as such, it rarely crosses to the intellectual and more demanding realms of human perception; this is where Beethoven takes the scepter and rules unconditionally: opposite to abovementioned description, his music is often heavyweight, consciously brooding and hence dramatic to the point of tragic. Indeed, the broad comparison of the qualities of the comic and of the tragic comes to mind: the former deals with life and death issues with an aerial and playful approach, avoiding engaging philosophical delving, whereas the latter is more or less defined by an uncompromising probing of said issues. Mozart can be nostalgically melancholic, Beethoven can be woefully grim; Mozart can be charmingly gay, Beethoven can be strikingly passionate. If Mozart communicates joy and even teaches us to experience it, Beethoven constantly seeks to reflect other, yet untouched (in music) aspects of the human condition, - and it is this search that he passes on to the audience. And this makes him the discoverer, the visionary and ultimately the deeper and more important composer of the two. Beethoven transcends music and stands out as a humanist. After sufficient listening, it seems that Beethoven is aware of the mozartian milieu, yet chooses to explore other territories - the opposite, however, cannot be said about Mozart. listen to Mozart to relax, listen to Beethoven to wonder.

Thoughts?

 

[timschochet]

There are new people in this draft compared to the last. I was just looking at the fact that all schedules are not the same and if you know you don't have to check in until a certain time... drafting during the day would be less hectic. Just an idea for more formality.

It's not a bad idea at all, but it should have been implemented before we started. At this point, everybody understands the rules, and it would be unfair to change them.

How about we keep an open mind about it, eh? We hope things go as well as in the G.A.D., but if not, here's one alternative we may consider.

Sure. It's always wise to to do this. We'll see what happens. If things don't work out well, we can give Mario's idea serious consideration.

 

[timschochet]

I've also been looking at a lot of lists of composers, and the top three are generally ordered in this way:

1. Beethoven

2. Mozart

3. Bach

This order has the greatest amount of consensus, though a few people have it differently, and Bach is sometimes replaced in the third position by one or two others.

After the top three, though, it really varies from list to list as to who's next. I'm really interested to see who gets drafted next here from #4-#20, and how Misfit Blonde will order them, and what his criteria will be. I would have a LOT of trouble judging this category because my own personal tastes would inevitably get in the way.

 

[Ozymandias]

Let's talk some more about Beethoven vs. Mozart. I found this passage on the web which gives Beethoven the edge, with a pretty good argument:Both composers are worthy of the title " genius", yet Beethoven's genius, as I am to claim in this abstract, is more universal and thus more profound of the two. In a few epithets, the bulk of Mozart's creation can be described as lightweight, springy and delightful, often evoking soothing and calming effects in the listeners. Undoubtedly, he reached unprecedented heights of proficiency in aiming at this particular sensory sphere and expanded its boundaries to a truly cosmic scale. But Mozart's music is purely entertaining, and, as such, it rarely crosses to the intellectual and more demanding realms of human perception; this is where Beethoven takes the scepter and rules unconditionally: opposite to abovementioned description, his music is often heavyweight, consciously brooding and hence dramatic to the point of tragic. Indeed, the broad comparison of the qualities of the comic and of the tragic comes to mind: the former deals with life and death issues with an aerial and playful approach, avoiding engaging philosophical delving, whereas the latter is more or less defined by an uncompromising probing of said issues. Mozart can be nostalgically melancholic, Beethoven can be woefully grim; Mozart can be charmingly gay, Beethoven can be strikingly passionate. If Mozart communicates joy and even teaches us to experience it, Beethoven constantly seeks to reflect other, yet untouched (in music) aspects of the human condition, - and it is this search that he passes on to the audience. And this makes him the discoverer, the visionary and ultimately the deeper and more important composer of the two. Beethoven transcends music and stands out as a humanist. After sufficient listening, it seems that Beethoven is aware of the mozartian milieu, yet chooses to explore other territories - the opposite, however, cannot be said about Mozart. listen to Mozart to relax, listen to Beethoven to wonder.Thoughts?

Obviously this person has listened to Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, and has not experienced Don Giovanni's Questo e il fin, and the Coronation and Requiem Masses. I rank Beethoven marginally above Mozart, but that reviewer need to open his ears.And by the way, no less an authority than Gounod described Don Giovanni as a work of perfection. Personally The Marriage of Figaro is my favorite opera. It could be described light and frivolous, but it is not. It is deeply revolutionary, not only musically, but politically. How many composers have works which probably rank in the top five in opera, top ten in symphonies, top ten in piano concertos, top five in clarinet concertos, top ten in flute concertos, top five in masses, top ten in sacred music, top five in horn concertos, and top two in children's music?

 

[Mario Kart]

I have three picks for my next two that I really, really want on my team. I think two are in danger of getting sniped and would be devastated if all three of them did. That is all.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Let's talk some more about Beethoven vs. Mozart. I found this passage on the web which gives Beethoven the edge, with a pretty good argument:

Both composers are worthy of the title " genius", yet Beethoven's genius, as I am to claim in this abstract, is more universal and thus more profound of the two. In a few epithets, the bulk of Mozart's creation can be described as lightweight, springy and delightful, often evoking soothing and calming effects in the listeners. Undoubtedly, he reached unprecedented heights of proficiency in aiming at this particular sensory sphere and expanded its boundaries to a truly cosmic scale. But Mozart's music is purely entertaining, and, as such, it rarely crosses to the intellectual and more demanding realms of human perception; this is where Beethoven takes the scepter and rules unconditionally: opposite to abovementioned description, his music is often heavyweight, consciously brooding and hence dramatic to the point of tragic. Indeed, the broad comparison of the qualities of the comic and of the tragic comes to mind: the former deals with life and death issues with an aerial and playful approach, avoiding engaging philosophical delving, whereas the latter is more or less defined by an uncompromising probing of said issues. Mozart can be nostalgically melancholic, Beethoven can be woefully grim; Mozart can be charmingly gay, Beethoven can be strikingly passionate. If Mozart communicates joy and even teaches us to experience it, Beethoven constantly seeks to reflect other, yet untouched (in music) aspects of the human condition, - and it is this search that he passes on to the audience. And this makes him the discoverer, the visionary and ultimately the deeper and more important composer of the two. Beethoven transcends music and stands out as a humanist. After sufficient listening, it seems that Beethoven is aware of the mozartian milieu, yet chooses to explore other territories - the opposite, however, cannot be said about Mozart. listen to Mozart to relax, listen to Beethoven to wonder.

Thoughts?

We've heard from a couple pianists who preferred Beethoven over Mozart, and my son's preference is similar.As a consumer, a mere listener, I cannot say.

I get a subscription each to the New York Philharmonic's summer season, which is called Mostly Mozart - though in truth, not every concert features him. I've had some kind of season tickets to classical music for about 15 years - first in Grand Rapids (MI), then DSO (Detroit), and here we have a couple world class orchestras (the American Symphonic Orchestra also plays primarily at Lincoln Center). Honestly, I have never felt anything approaching a negative feeling listening to any of the first three composers drafted.

My cd collection has a good representation of those 3 as well as many other composers. Mozart is my personal favorite. I cannot articulate why, and I have zero desire to denigrate anyone selected so far. It's a bit like ice cream to me; some days I love butter pecan, the next week it might be chocolate fudge brownie, and all I really understand is I love it.

In terms of breadth, Mozart's body of work is amazing. Now we should judge on quality without regard to quantity, but it is worth noting Mozart completed 41 symphonies, 22 operas, and 25 piano concertos as compared to Beethoven with 9 symphonies, 1 opera, 5 piano concertos. Included in the former is some of the finest operas ever known: The Marriage of Figaro, Don Giovanni, The Magic Flute. What I find amazing about his life is he so easily adapted to any kind or style of musical composition: full orchestral symphonies, chamber music, piano/violin concertos, organ masses, sonatas, serenedes, dances. It is one thing to be prolific, but to maintain the level of excellence he did at every point in his life from childhood on is remarkable.

My personal list is

1A Mozart
1B Beethoven
3 BachBut, hey...it's friggin' ice cream! There is no such thing as bad ice cream!

 

[larry_boy_44]

But, hey...it's friggin' ice cream! There is no such thing as bad ice cream!

oh yes there is....

 

[flysack]

Despite being a literature and philosophy junkie, I'm a classical music dunce.

I'm loving this discussion. I'm even making lists of pieces I need to get on CD and actively listen to.

Thanks, W.G.D!

 

[timschochet]

BL, in terms of quantity, doesn't Bach outdo both Beethoven AND Mozart?

 

[FUBAR]

I mean, really, Tim...

you realize that according to your theory that Jesus, Ghandi, and Buddha are evil and Stalin and Hitler are good, right?

Stalin and Hitler were selfish and power-hungry...

Jesus, Ghandi, and Buddha were altruistic and supported charity and love and peace...

purely by what you say, the evil men are good and the good men are evil...

I realize that my answer to you is going to get me into more trouble than I'm in already with a lot of people here, but here goes:1. Stalin and Hitler were both collectivists. Both men believed that man should live for the state, and they imposed this will on the people they governed. Whether the government is National Socialist or Communist, the essential theme is the same: the individual has no value.

2. To the extent that Jesus and Plato have some of these same ideas, yes, their teachings are evil, or at least not helpful to the advancement of mankind. I do not know why Jesus taught that most rich men should be condemned simply for being rich, for example. But I do not claim to be an expert on the teachings of either man, so I won't go any further in this regard. Same with the Buddha.

3. I have no idea what Gandhi's views were regarding how to form a political society, or on collectivism. His main issue seemed to be the ill-effects of colonialism in his native lands.

I support love and peace and I try to be a charitable person. None of this is evil. But I believe that man should behave by acting upon his own rational self-interest. This for me is the moral good.

It wasnt' so much that rich men should be condemned simply for being rich, it's that it's much harder to get into heaven as a rich man because it's more difficult to give it all and follow Jesus. I have no doubt that two of the richest men in America will get into heaven if they believe in Jesus, in part because they have given a lot to charity and improved the lot of their fellow man. All I am going to say on the rest of this is if you're judging philosophers, I have no doubt who I should take.

 

[larry_boy_44]

so I'm downloading some Bach... 'cuz he's on my team... lol

after that I'll probably get some other stuff (I found a torrent titled "top 100 classical songs" and is is like 1/2+ Bach, Beethoven, & Mozart... lol)

 

[BobbyLayne]

BL, in terms of quantity, doesn't Bach outdo both Beethoven AND Mozart?

Yes, he wrote over one-thousand compositions in his lifetime.I am keenly interested in who #4 will be; I had a good sense of who the three most popular/iconic composers would be, and I figured no one would feel confident deviating from the consensus in this category. #4 in our draft is a clear #3 (or even #2) among classical aficionados, at least here in NYC (which everyone should know - especially if you live here - is the very centre of the universe).Not sure he'll be the next one to go, though, as in this format the next tier may appear muddled.

 

[Ozymandias]

BL, in terms of quantity, doesn't Bach outdo both Beethoven AND Mozart?

Yeah. But Mozart had about 20 years as a composer, Beethoven about 37 and Bach 45. I also believe Bach had steady employment.

 

[BobbyLayne]

BL, in terms of quantity, doesn't Bach outdo both Beethoven AND Mozart?

Yeah. But Mozart had about 20 years as a composer, Beethoven about 27 and Bach 45.

Bach never wrote symphonies; at the time of his death, symphony was used as prelude, interlude and postlude to opera and choral arrangements - 10 or 20 minute arrangments, but they were not the featured attraction. His three sons wrote 50-60 symphonies, and some of their father's work was developed into full orchestral symponies.

 

[Ozymandias]

BL, in terms of quantity, doesn't Bach outdo both Beethoven AND Mozart?

Yeah. But Mozart had about 20 years as a composer, Beethoven about 27 and Bach 45.

Bach never wrote symphonies; at the time of his death, symphony was used as prelude, interlude and postlude to opera and choral arrangements - 10 or 20 minute arrangments, but they were not the featured attraction. His three sons wrote 50-60 symphonies, and some of their father's work was developed into full orchestral symponies.

Bach had fairly steady employment, but it was primarily related to being a performer, rather than a composer. Many of Mozart and Beethoven's works depended on getting a financial sponsor.

 

[flysack]

so I'm downloading some Bach... 'cuz he's on my team... lol

Bless the internet and its file share sites. Only there could a search on "Don Giovanni" bring back this -

Aria_Giovanni_pissing.rar

Don_Giovanni_y_sus_dolce-vitos__1965_.zip

 

[BobbyLayne]

BL, in terms of quantity, doesn't Bach outdo both Beethoven AND Mozart?

Yeah. But Mozart had about 20 years as a composer, Beethoven about 27 and Bach 45.

Bach never wrote symphonies; at the time of his death, symphony was used as prelude, interlude and postlude to opera and choral arrangements - 10 or 20 minute pieces, but they were not the featured attraction. His three sons wrote 50-60 symphonies, and some of their father's work was developed into full orchestral symphonies.

Bach had fairly steady employment, but it was primarily related to being a performer, rather than a composer. Many of Mozart and Beethoven's works depended on getting a financial sponsor.

Yes, he was the most famed organist of his day. Interestingly, he wasn't particularly well known as a composer until after his death and the end of the Baroque period.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Would everyone check page one to ensure your picks are in the correct category?

For instance, when FUBAR drafted Muhammad "as a leader for now", and so he is listed.

In his own sig, though, FUBAR has him down as Religious Figure.

Seems like a lot of the picks could/should be moved, so please make sure you convey to timschochet.

TIA

 

[Abrantes]

Damn. Kinda hoped there would be a couple picks since I last checked. I might not get to pick tonight after all.

 

[thatguy]

Damn. Kinda hoped there would be a couple picks since I last checked. I might not get to pick tonight after all.

Ditto. If Usual21 picks I'm good to go, if not... :(