Sorry, ability is the wrong word, I should say 'techniques and tendencies', which are quite evident in the music of Sgt. Peppers and onward



That sounds nothing like saying they weren't art composers. This is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. How they composed music is irrelevant to how great they were as composers? So how you play guitar has nothing to do with how good a guitarist you are?



That has everything to do with composing. Writing a song, and parts to a song is the definition of the verb composing. If someone comes up with a guitar line for a song, written or not, they are composing. We are talking however about what makes a COMPOSER in the technical sense, not one who composes (verb). Then every who bangs spoons together is a composer to the musical definition, I don't find that true. Compose means to create or produce something musical. To avoid everyone on the face of the earth being a composer, there is a clear musical definition of what makes a musical composer, more so than 'someone who composes'. There are many words that the noun differs from the verb. A vigilante is literally one who is vigilant, I'm extremely vigilant, but does that make me a vigilante? There's much more to it, I can go on about tons of 'one who does verb' labels that are very different from their verb. Similarly, a 'composer' is much more than just 'one who makes something musical'.




No it's not. I have no idea why you think that. Let me ask you this, what's the difference between a songwriter and a composer? Lyrics? So people who only write instrumentals are not songwriters? Surely they are writing songs, so does that mean everyone who writes any song is a 'songwriter' be profession?




You are right, sorry I was misinformed.




Used the wrong word here, you cannot patent a song, I meant copyright. You can only copyright the melody of a song, this is true, you cannot copywrite a drumline for example, or any backing rhythm part, you also cannot copyright harmonic progression, only the melody.



No, the definition I used is the basic technical definition used by anyone in the field of music. I'm not sure about your musical education, and I'm not sure about mine, what I am sure of is every musician, writer, instrumentalist, arranger have used my definition of composer. In any competent dictionary or glossary of musical terms, that's what is described as a composer. I never said to exclude Macca or Lennon from the list, I said without Martin they'd be much, much lower. They did compose, but did extremely poorly in the other areas. I am not talking about in a classical sense, I am talking about in a musical sense, as this site is about music and musicians. You are talking in a general, non-professional, everyday sense of the word.

They did some of that, but it's not as though they were imitators. He had some influence on them, and they had some on him.



Why in the world would your method of playing guitar have anything to do with how good a guitarist you are? And that's the sense of "how they composed" I meant here. You were telling me about Lennon and McCartney's methods. I see no relevance.



It's "a person who writes music".




Because that's what the word means.



Composers and lyricists are the two types of songwriters. One can be either, or both, and be a songwriter. But, yeah, that's the difference.



Perhaps, but most of the people who come to this site are not professional musicians. They see the word "composer", they think of the definition in Merriam-Webster's (which is the one I quoted above), not the one in some book of music theory.

I don't have any real musical training, but I think I'm a pretty well-read guy and I've certainly read a lot about rock music. I've never heard the notion that arranging and orchestrating is part of composing before. I've never heard that George Martin took part in "composing" for the Beatles, nor have I heard the word applied to anything done on new versions of old songs (unless it was, perhaps, specifically composing a new melody line or something like that). Maybe in the world of music theory it's different, but I think it's clear what most people will be thinking from that term.

And, in any event, I don't think orchestrating or arranging is all that important in rock music in general. I still think that if you're just talking "Greatest Rock Composers", then having ELP and the Flaming Lips above Lennon/McCartney, Holland/Dozier, Stevie Wonder, Smokey Robinson, Carole King, and so on doesn't make sense.

In the case that arranging and orchestrating don't matter, then this list is null because it's pretty much the songwriters list. When the idea for this list was proposed, and based on the previous list, I assumed it was based off the technical definition of composer. That is the definition that everyone I know goes by when talking about music. It's like saying when talking about music dynamics refer to different things then they would in say economics class. Same here with composition. In rock music as far as I know, my definition of composer stands true as well. This definition, and when I learned it as well, was being used to describe jazz and blues musicians as well as classical, and later, rock. I've never once heard Macca or Morrison or Kurt Cobain or Dylan called a composer, and they all wrote music. However, Zappa, Wilson, Jeff Lyne, Fripp, all the way to Miles Davis, and George Gershwin are all referred to as Composers, not songwriters. Why then, even in rock, is there a distinction in titles that holds itself very consistantly? Because there is a difference in the musical definition. This is a music forum, about objective music lists that is supposed to be discussed with well informed people, and those who aren't get to learn and be informed, and we use facts and evidence to base as accurate and musical discussions as possible. Of course I would assume this list is using the technical definition.

Just so you know, I don't know what dictionary you're using but:

Composer:

1. One who composes or creates music
2. A person who creates music, either by musical notation or oral tradition (songwriting), for interpretation (arrangement) and performance (orchestration), or through direct manipulation of sonic material (orchestration and mixing)

Definition 2 is the one I assumed we go by, as it's the technical and not literal definition. It also happens to be the definition that wikipedia took, and many other sites that define and describe the term, especially music sites, and most technical dictionaries (any competent dictionary that has more than one five word definition) carry.

Also, you should do some research on how many chords, progressions, dynamics, looping, tape techniques, instrument placement, and mixing, and added solos he designed and recommended for most Beatles songs. There is a reason he's known as the fifth beatle, without him, half their songs would be very, very different.

I've never heard Brian Wilson or Jeff Lynne referred to as a "composer". Maybe Zappa or Gershwin when referring to their long, classical-format works. But I do see "composed by" credits all the time.

I want to stress: I don't have a problem with putting together the kind of list you're putting together. I just think it should have a name that makes its purpose clear to those of us who aren't familiar with the "technical" definitions you're thinking of.

You've never heard Brian Wilson be referred to as a composer? That's surprising, every interview, biography, comment by another artist, or any discussion about his writing I've ever read/heard/seen people refer to him as a composer.

Roger Waters? He wrote the whole album of "The Wall." The man's a genius.

The Wall is tricky for composition.. If it's solely on a song to song base, then credit has to be given (but composing one album by yourself ain't that much for great news, even if it's a good album), but if composing and writing goes beyond that of making songs and develops into the autonomity and originality of the work, then The Wall falls short for being more or less a rip-off of The Who's Tommy.. Which one's the best is as always pointless to ask, but The Wall Did hardly anything that hadn't been done before, and even on a song to song basis, I think The Wall falls short, due to its amount of.. well, let's just say it.. filler material.