[GSlob]

OK. Here are Murray's "qualified sources" for the Western music:
G.Abraham, (1979) The Concise Oxford History of Music, Oxford, Oxford University Press;
L. Alberti, (1968) Musica Nei Secoli, Milan, CEAM;
M.C. Bertrando-Patier, (1998) Histoire de la Musique, Paris, Larousse
E. Borroff, (1990) Music in Europe and the United States, New York, Ardsley house
C. Dahlhaus and M. Eggebrecht, (1978) Brockhaus Riemann Musiclexicon, 2 vols, Mainz, F.A.Brockhaus.
D.J.Grout and C.V.Palisca, (1996), A History of Western Music, New York, W.W. Norton &Co.
P. Hamburger (1966) Musikens Historie, Copenhagen, Aschehoug Dansk Forlag
and another 10 equally dry, equally scholarly and equally incomprehensible to a layman works. To score really high, one better be in all 16 sources, and prominently. As you can see, it has nothing to do with use in movies. Results of this "popularity contest":
Beethoven 100; Mozart 100; J. S. Bach 87; Wagner 80; Haydn 56, and all the rest of them, from Handel to Gluck - below 50.

[Pharmboy]

See number 20--I figgered you might want to weigh in here.

[Dark Knight]

Handel 155
Wagner 423
Haydn 74

Did Murray account for the language bias and how? I am not disparaging Murray, but that is a monumental bias to overcome.

It is a meta social construct study and Wagner appears to be a problem.

Judging sources has the systemic error in logic of appeal to authority. I have not read Murray so I really can't say he falls into that fallacy. But in movies, Wagner is certainly more important than one would gather from Murray.

Bach was still robbed.

DK