Greatness in Music

[Don]

What if I was your musicology professor and I taught in my class that Vanhall, Massenet, Glazunov and ALW were the greatest composers in the Western Classical tradition?  Still valid?

Back to school?  That's a depressing scenario.  But let's go with it.  With you as my professor, I would want to get the best grade possible.  So I would not object to your preferences, although I would retain my own.

[karlhenning]

What if I was your musicology professor and I taught in my class that Vanhall, Massenet, Glazunov and ALW were the greatest composers in the Western Classical tradition?  Still valid?

Exactly, Steve;  in his home listening, one enjoys the luxury of "whatever anyone thinks, fine."  But before music reaches the listener, in his home, in the form of a prepackaged recording, there is still a community and an educational/training network which has to supply performers.

One of my points is, I find it hard to believe that the performance supply side of the ongoing concern of music, can function at a level of excellence, if a laissez-faire listener side is the driver.

[Scriptavolant]

For example, could a random generation of noises/sounds be considered MUSIC? 

Stretching the meaning of the term "music", as modern aesthetics does, yes, it can be considered music. There is another way to reason, that is cirscumscribing arbitrarily the term, say, to works composed between 1750 and 1850 and judging everything else on the basis of such parameter.

not every composer in music history is of equal greatness and importance. 

Well I guess we could rate the importance as a measure of the influence on following generations of composers, for example.
So from this (common) point of view Beethoven may be considered one of the greatest, but from the same perspective I'm perplexed on how we should rate Mozart or Bach. So, the importance in term of influence on following generations is again not the only way to judge/consider the greatness of a composer.

And greatness is still the subject of this topic, isn't it tautological to answer "well, not every composer is of equal greatness" without giving a detailed technical explanation of "greatness"?

[Danny]

I would add influence and the degree in which a composer shapes all the others who come after him, but with the Wagner thread dealing with that issue I guess it might just be originality and innovation.  But not even that suffices, really, so I'm out on this one, Dr. Karl. 

[71 dB]

It is a fuzzy and complex process to evaluate greatness in music. I end up "feeling" how great the composer behind the music is. I use many parameters:

1. Musical sophistication
This is based on fibrational fields I told about so time ago.

2. Musical experiences
This is simply about how much the music "kicks ass", blows me away. Correlates with the sophistication.

3. Figuring out the personality of the composer
Many works by a composer tell something about how the composer tought about life and art. How much did he trust his own ideas? How much did he put his ass on the line for art? In what way did he learn things from his/her teachers and How did he teach younger generation?

[Larry Rinkel]

How much did he put his ass on the line for art?

Would you care to answer, in regards to Elgar and Diddersdorf?

[karlhenning]

Stretching the meaning of the term "music", as modern aesthetics does, yes, it can be considered music. There is another way to reason, that is cirscumscribing arbitrarily the term, say, to works composed between 1750 and 1850 and judging everything else on the basis of such parameter.

Hey! That way lies, If it ain't Common Practice, it can't be great!

Well I guess we could rate the importance as a measure of the influence on following generations of composers, for example.

That's one measure;  I think it will fail if we try to make it the only measure.

So from this (common) point of view Beethoven may be considered one of the greatest, but from the same perspective I'm perplexed on how we should rate Mozart or Bach. So, the importance in term of influence on following generations is again not the only way to judge/consider the greatness of a composer.

Well, and that way lies the Big Web Site of Comparative Musical Influence of recent notoriety  

And greatness is still the subject of this topic, isn't it tautological to answer "well, not every composer is of equal greatness" without giving a detailed technical explanation of "greatness"?

Ah! The Emperor's New Greatness Gambit!  

[karlhenning]

It is a fuzzy and complex process to evaluate greatness in music. I end up "feeling" how great the composer behind the music is.

So you do not distinguish between "I like the music" and "The music is great," right?

And the reason you find it fuzzy, is because your musical preferences are driving the definition of greatness, yes?

[Harry]

Really with all respect for the posters, this will go nowhere.
Greatness, is a word, and all words used by man are per definition subjective.
So Don is right, it is a endless spin.
The definition of the word has to be established, before discussion can commence.
But the wording of that definition in it self is subjective again.

[71 dB]

Would you care to answer, in regards to Elgar and Diddersdorf?

Elgar really tried to compose the best possible music and make the world a better place.

Dittersdorf must have tried hard too considering the fine music and competition from Haydn.

[karlhenning]

I would add influence and the degree in which a composer shapes all the others who come after him, but with the Wagner thread dealing with that issue I guess it might just be originality and innovation.  But not even that suffices, really, so I'm out on this one, Dr. Karl. 

If greatness is something recognized by cultivated consensus, then this is certainly an important consideration.  Mozart discovered "old Bach" late enough in the game that his influence lights upon a small fraction of the Salzburg Master's work, but Mozart saw the greatness of Bach.

[karlhenning]

Really with all respect for the posters, this will go nowhere.

It's the journey, not the destination, Harry.

How can you be sure we will not find interesting arrivals in all this?

[Josquin des Prez]

Greatness is determined by the level of craftsmanship and invention (regardless of idiom) and how consistent it is within the frame of a composer's output. 

I don't think it can be easily demonstrated with words (and i definitely don't have the vocabulary for it, even in my original language), but it's a tangible variable and one that can only be met with the right amount of musical intelligence (which seems as fixed as general IQ, i'm sorry to say) mixed with the right amount of knowledge and experience. This is means that when all it's said and done you have to find it for yourself.

What does greatness feels like? Have you ever listened to a piece of music which is so inventive, so brilliant that it almost doesn't seem possible a mere human brain could have though it all up? Well, there you have it.

[71 dB]

So you do not distinguish between "I like the music" and "The music is great," right?

And the reason you find it fuzzy, is because your musical preferences are driving the definition of greatness, yes?

For long I didn't care about Mozart but I sensed his greatness. So, I do distinguish.

Fuzzy because that's the way brain works.

[karlhenning]

For long I didn't care about Mozart but I sensed his greatness. So, I do distinguish.

Excellent.

[bwv 1080]

Really with all respect for the posters, this will go nowhere.
Greatness, is a word, and all words used by man are per definition subjective.
So Don is right, it is a endless spin.
The definition of the word has to be established, before discussion can commence.
But the wording of that definition in it self is subjective again.

Not really, per my market definition I can define greatness as the degree of esteem which the culture as a whole holds the music.  The criteria for greatness is the collective responses to the work by the individual members of the culture.  These responses incorporate every factor by which one judges music without having to decide which factors are more important than others.  Nor is every member of the culture given an equal vote.  The great musicians and writers about music have a disproportate voice, although the aggregate of individual listeners not ignored.  Whats more, no reasonable person 100 years ago would object to the notion of a musical culture greater than the sum of its individual members (living and dead).  It is only in today's environment of self-absorbed consumerism that one one hand the notion that "my individual taste is the sole arbiter of quality" is widely accepted alongside with nihilistic contention that because notions like greatness cannot be quantified they therefore have no meaning.

[karlhenning]

The definition of the word has to be established, before discussion can commence.
But the wording of that definition in it self is subjective again.

Now, wait a second, Harry.

First, you object that there's no definition.

Then you discard the definition because it is "subjective."

So what's this definition that there isn't, but it's no good because it's subjective, hmmm?

[Harry]

It's the journey, not the destination, Harry.

How can you be sure we will not find interesting arrivals in all this?

You crave for answers Karl, on a question that in it self cannot be answered.
Even if there is a consensus of experts that say based on technical skills, and good melodies, we proclaim Mozart greater than Haydn, what does that signify? Or that the same body of experts say Dittersdorf is minor in the light of Haydn? Greatness is a personal thing, not something that is cooked up by a intellectual cultural elite that think it to be great, that's just their collective subjective opinion.

[Harry]

this, and stuff like it in this thread, is just lazy thinking and a cop out. would you also deny or say its merely subjective that william shakespeare or even albert einstein or isaac newton are just as great as anybody else in those fields?

I say that greatness is what the spectator thinks of it, not what a collective body of experts tell us that it is.
And accusing of lazy thinking is not helping either my friend. For my mind is very active, thank you.

[Scriptavolant]

but it's a tangible variable and one that can only be met with the right amount of musical intelligence (which seems as fixed as general IQ, i'm sorry to say)

Forniscici una stima del tuo quoziente intellettivo, e magari anche una breve bibliografia di studi che mettano in relazione il QI con l'intelligenza musicale. Sarei molto interessato, visto che è il mio settore professionale.