I frankly think it's impossible to comment on the "10 most important works of all time". Important in who's eyes and for what reasons? In fact I suppose it's perfectly possible for Howard G to label Reich's piece as "important" without him personally having any respect and admiration for it whatsoever. Whitehead & Russell's "Principia Mathematica" is hugely important, but you won't find it on my bookshelf. :-)

Perhaps the reasoning goes thus:

1. Sound looping in classical music was a huge innovation in the 1970s.

2. Reich was a founder member of the group that pioneered that form of innovation.

3. The "18 musicians" piece was the exemplar of the style.

QED - perhaps...

As I said, the idea of "importance" in music is utterly subjective, and I can understand, Michael, your irritation at Britten being left out of HGs final programme.

You made a reference, earlier on in the thread, about the role of the critic (e.g. Mr. Puff) and the Emperor's New Clothes view of people like Reich. In the end, I don't pay any attention to critics either, tendentious, pretentious or otherwise. With musical composition, what matters is whether you think the composer sincerely believes in what he's doing. Reich has stuck to his style through thick and thin, for nearly 50 years, weathering the sort of scorn and that we've seen here and there in this thread - and probably not making a huge amount of money from his work either. In that sense, I'd rather have Reich on my music shelves than, say, anything by Andrew Lloyd Webber who - to me - is the epitome of tedium. Every one of his operas famous for having just one tune which is repeated over and over again ad nauseam. "Cats" - "Moonlight". "Evita" - "Don't Cry For Me Argentina", etc.

Hey ho. How much more fun this conversation would be sitting by the fire in the Lord Nelson at Southwold, with a pint of Adnams in front of us!