Greatness in Music

[drogulus]

Can Nielsen really be as great as Bach, if I just feel that it is so?

     If you did feel that way, you might feel called upon to provide the appropriate reasoning which would be well suited to convince those who are persuadable on these points. Otherwise the answer would be no, not if you just feel it. It takes far more work than that to make a composer great. A devoted listenership over time, staunch defenders in high places, a convincing rationale based on "eternal truths", and so on. But as the philosophers say, "in principle", it could be done.

     Since Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart came first, they were the beneficiaries of the ideology of artistic greatness that has reigned for the past 2 centuries. It would be hard to displace them without abandoning the supporting apparatus, something that people are reluctant to do. They see greatness as a fact about the world, not something they happen to think and, uh, feel. It's an example of an idea that's very good at defending itself.

     It's a classic blind spot. We all know artistic judgments are time-bound and culture-specific, and have no trouble until we get into proximity with High Art and its defenders. Then it isn't your view that matters, but some abstract ideal outside of Space and Time. As I say, it takes a lot of work to make this plausible, and for some of us no amount of thundering from on high will suffice any more.

"Toto, get away from there...."

[karlhenning]

Interesting post, Ernie, thanks!

[BachQ]

Interesting post, Ernie, thanks!

....... in contrast to your post, Karl .......

[karlhenning]

Sometimes one strives for just the right note of tedium, mon vieux

[longears]

Sometimes one strives for just the right note of tedium, mon vieux

Are you discussing Wagner again, Karl? 

[drogulus]

     I have a better idea of what greatness in music isn't than I do what it is.

     It is either like the specific gravity of Mercury on the planet Krypton 10,000,000 years from now, after all intelligent life has been destroyed. That is, 13.534, just as it is here right now. Or, it's like the warm and fuzzy feeling I have for my cute little nonexistent puppy Zindeneuf, which, like a toothache, I indubitably have.

     It seems more like the latter than the former, and yet I don't give up on objective factors altogether. I just can't decide what role they play. Everyone cites them, but they don't decide things by themselves.

[Papageno]

I'm studying Kant's The Critique of Judgement right now.  Kant says that art cannot be beautiful in itself, the subject of beauty is defined by man.  Conversely there must be something of beauty in art itself so that we can say for example that Beethoven is better than the Beatles.

[longears]

In other words, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Beethoven v Beatles?  Apples v ice cream.

[Al Moritz]

There could be something in this. For instance, if one were to play eleven notes of a tone row, how many can correctly anticipate the final note? Without that ability, surprise becomes impossible.

Ouch, listening to twelve-tone music doesn't work that way. A twelve-tone row is just a structural construct, not necessary a "melody". Also, even if the row is used as "melody", things like shape and gestural expression become much more important in a work than the "aural searching" for each note. As Schoenberg said, "I write twelve-tone compositions, not twelve-tone compositions".

As Stockhausen once told me, "you understand my music much better than all those theorists". When I asked him what he meant, he said that "theorists are only interested in the numbers"--with "numbers" he apparently meant the serial proportions (which in his music do not just concern the pitches).

[Ten thumbs]

Ouch, listening to twelve-tone music doesn't work that way. A twelve-tone row is just a structural construct, not necessary a "melody". Also, even if the row is used as "melody", things like shape and gestural expression become much more important in a work than the "aural searching" for each note. As Schoenberg said, "I write twelve-tone compositions, not twelve-tone compositions".

As Stockhausen once told me, "you understand my music much better than all those theorists". When I asked him what he meant, he said that "theorists are only interested in the numbers"--with "numbers" he apparently meant the serial proportions (which in his music do not just concern the pitches).

I'm not sure where your concept of melody comes into it. My point was that if a composer departs deliberately from a structural concept in order to surprise the listener, one would need to be very familiar with the sound of serial music to pick that up. Deviation has always been one of the prime tools of genius.

[lukeottevanger]

Deviation has always been one of the prime tools of genius.

I'm sure, somewhere, Sean is reading that and feeling very flattered...

[drogulus]

I'm studying Kant's The Critique of Judgement right now.  Kant says that art cannot be beautiful in itself, the subject of beauty is defined by man.  Conversely there must be something of beauty in art itself so that we can say for example that Beethoven is better than the Beatles.

     If greatness is decided over time by audiences, how could what they decide be present all along in the music? They wouldn't be deciding anything, they would be "cringing before Webern". Even if you leave all such decisions in the hands of a succession of expert committees, you are still deciding something, like whether or not to pay attention to what they say.

     Incidentally, the inability to formally decide questions about modernism versus traditional understandings reveals the underlying problem, which is that any attempt to define music by criteria other than the effects it produces will break down. If it's music if it's accepted as such, than its greatness must also follow from its acceptance rather then whatever virtues it may be seen to have. I don't particularly like this, but I suppose Kant didn't either.

     Music is a form of communication that resists being categorized as either a medium for information or as information itself. If I talk about a great book I probably don't mean the cover or binding, but what is written in it. Music is the whole thing, and an overemphasis on conceptual innovation will detract from the point, which is how the music sounds to you. Questions of structure are instrumental in nature, not to be valued in themselves but rather as pass-through elements. Except, of course, by adepts like musicians and composers who sometimes are convinced that the tools are more important than what can be made with them. They are sometimes surprised to find that an audience can't be made to care.

[karlhenning]

"cringing before Webern"

Brilliant!

[karlhenning]

Music is a form of communication that resists being categorized as either a medium for information or as information itself.

Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes.

[jochanaan]

...Questions of structure are instrumental in nature, not to be valued in themselves but rather as pass-through elements. Except, of course, by adepts like musicians and composers who sometimes are convinced that the tools are more important than what can be made with them. They are sometimes surprised to find that an audience can't be made to care.

You might be surprised to learn just how few musicians (including composers) think that way.

[drogulus]

You might be surprised to learn just how few musicians (including composers) think that way.

      OK, how about this: Schoenberg did, Stravinsky didn't. So I don't think I would be surprised if the empiricists outnumbered the conceptualist faction, especially among performers, but even among composers they are probably the majority. They don't get no respect, no respect at all.....

[karlhenning]

      OK, how about this: Schoenberg did

You think that Schoenberg was "convinced that the tools are more important than what can be made with them"?

What an extraordinary claim, Ernie.

[jochanaan]

      OK, how about this: Schoenberg did, Stravinsky didn't...

Wait, wait!  Are we talking about the same Schoenberg?  Arnold, who said, "A Chinese poet speaks Chinese, but what does he SAY?"

[karlhenning]

Ernie is mistaken both in supposing that Schoenberg "valued" tools over what can be made with them, and in supposing that Schoenberg thought of music in terms of such discrete "parts."  A mallet is obviously entirely separate from a cabinet made with it;  but music is an entirely different matter.

[longears]

Wait, wait!  Are we talking about the same Schoenberg?  Arnold, who said, "A Chinese poet speaks Chinese, but what does he SAY?"

Riposte of the day!

Ain't it grand when intellectualism doesn't poison the well of the intellect!?