Greatness in Music

[Larry Rinkel]

"All that"?  Composers who "created monumental or even groundbreaking works of art," who remain unrecognized today?

Examples?

Indeed. Name one. The mavericks (who apparently feel affronted by the concept of a generally accepted canon) are always pushing this or that dubious candidate forward. When I first started posting on music forums some ten years ago, there was a young fellow who took up the cause of Joaquin Rodrigo as the Great Unrecognized Composer, and he sent me a tape of "great" works by this unsung master - despite my skepticism that Rodrigo was nowhere near the level of Falla or even Albeniz among Spanish composers. (I grant him a genuine success with the Concierto de Aranjuez, especially its spellbinding slow movement, but nothing else I know by Rodrigo comes even close.) And so I listened to the tape, including the rather silly Piano Concerto, but the transcendent "greatness" of this composer stubbornly refused to show itself.

[karlhenning]

I don't think these are insuperable objections. You answer them yourself: "Maybe Chopin's music wouldn't be as good either because he wouldn't have access to all the best stuff happening in Europe." There are and always have been centers of musical culture where the efforts of various composers and performers were mutually productive. A composer does not simply emerge without a cultural background. . . .

Thank you, Larry, for so eloquently illustrating the community aspect of music on which I have sought to set such great store in this discussion.

[DavidW]

Let me preface my post: point is not to debate the points raised in the thread, but to attempt to construct my own definition of greatness.  In the process, however, I will face some of the points raised and deal with them, that is however a secondary goal.

Let me start where Gurn left off.  He was the first person on the thread to correctly go back one step.

Before we can define and discuss greatness in music, we must first define and discuss the value of music.  The value of music is in how it enriches our culture.  It is art, and that is how we value art.  The immediate impact of such a definition of value is that
(a) it doesn't distinguish classical from popular,
(b) it's vague-- I don't define how something is enriching, I seemed to have simply shifted the word over to be defined,
(c) it doesn't address craftsmanship in music,
(d) there is no concept yet as to who judges how culture is enriched by music.

Clearly I need to address these points to make this definition viable and meaningful.  Let's start with (a).  I don't consider it a weakness that popular music is considered to be on the same footing as classical music.  What distinguishes them is tradition, craftsmanship and aesthetics.  But on the basis of do they enrich culture, they both contribute.  Rock bands like the Beatles has had a tremendous impact on the western world.  Composers like Boulez and Stockhausen have also played their part influencing and molding our sensibilities.  You may debate the greatness of popular music, but in this context you shouldn't debate that it does have a sense of value.

Now what do I mean when I say that music enriches culture?  I mean that valuable music improves, enhances art.  And now you're about to say aha! then the Beatles have no value.  And I say, not so fast, they do indeed enhance art because for better or worse they have shaped the way we view music, popular artists have added an extra-dimension to how we view music and art, separate from how we viewed folk music of the past.

Craftsmanship is not needed yet in the discussion, the reason that my definition of value does not include it because it is what was claimed by James as the quality that determines greatness.  So I view craftsmanship as the thing that allows you to distinguish the value of one work from another.  It is a possible metric of value.  And the same goes for (d).  The arbiters of music are also a form of imposing a measure on value.  We now need to consider these issues as we are done defining and discussing value now.

Greatness in music--

Notice that if I don't define anyway to distinguish between the value of one work or composer from another then we have a problem-- all works are treated equally.  We need candidates for how we rank value.  But let's first address the issue of hierarchy.

First of all I will note that we do not need a strict hierarchy of taste, just a concept of difference.  Let me illustrate this with an example in math-- you can define a notion of < with numbers, and it's well defined, so you can form a hierarchy of numbers with any finite set such as {1,2,7} you would have 1 < 2 < 7.  But what about pairs of numbers?  There is no well defined way to define a hierarchy to rate a set such as {(1,0),(-1,0),(2,5)}.  No matter how you will define it you will run into problems.  Yet you notice that we can easily distinguish between these pairs of numbers, right?  And clearly there is a relative separation between them that's easily defined, and you can rank those separations easily!  And we do have some vague sense that some points are further away than others.  This is conceptually the same issue that I'm identifying with ranking value in music.  This is what I mean, there are many potential factors in determining greatness, and separate some composers from others without defining a strict hierarchy.  And that is why it is not valid to equate a sense of ranking in music with a strict hierarchy.

Now we have candidates for measuring greatness--
(a) craftsmanship in music
(b) consensus from informed group (musicians, critics)

I haven't seen any other good ones so far, so I will limit myself to those two factors.  Now I will show that neither one suffices to describe greatness in music.  If (a) was the sole factor in determining greatness in music than Cage's 4'33 would not be great.  This is because the work exemplifies a mastery of the conceptual understanding of art, and how to create a dynamic work that has shaped our view of how we interact with the world as a dynamic interchange.  Clearly the value of the work is tremendous!  It has had a great impact on culture as a whole.  But it does not show any mastery of music as a craft to composer.

Thus, I must conclude that (a) can not be a sole factor in measuring greatness.  I understand why James and Opie think this way.  The composers they most esteem are absolute masters of their craft.  Beethoven, Mozart and Bach outshine all others in this respect.  But I see clearly that there is more to consider.

Karl has already argued well (by example) that consensus from informed groups is not enough, because consensus is a fluid thing changing from generation to generation passing through the hands of fickle, temperamental artists.  So I think we need both.

Notice something interesting, that the individual parts of defining value, and the two parameters of greatness are fluid and change over the time.  But taken as a whole you have something that is relatively forgiving.  Even when Bach fails in one category at some time, he succeeds in another.  So Bach can be taken to be considered great from his time, with no gaps.  Also notice that since I ended up with two parameters, from my argument above, there is no strict hierarchy, yet there is still a notion of greatness.  That blows away the concept of a dichotomy between hierarchy vs chaos.

So now I pose the following open questions:
(a) by this construction of greatness, are popular artists great?  I argued that they have value, but I have not discussed their greatness.
(b) would composers that should be considered great fail to be so by this definition?  And in that case how should the meaning of greatness be augmented?

[quintett op.57]

Now, a Vivaldi lover naturally bridles at this, sees an aesthetic injustice in the huge gap separating Bach the Patriarch from Vivaldi the sonic leper, and cries out, "The Gap is nothing like as wide as you imagine!"

If you're talking about me  . I'm not more a Vivaldi lover than a Bach lover.
They're not in my, say... top 25
But they've both written many pieces I love.
I try to think objectively and I see absolutely no reason, apart from all you can read about Bach's profundity and Vivaldi's supposed superficiality, to say one is greater than the other one. 
One has developped variations, counterpoint ; the other one developped orchestration and the less contrapuntal harmony that would be adopted by their successors.
Many people refuse to see Vivaldi as a great composer, but they have difficulties to justify their point of view (which was not Bach's point of view at all).

[karlhenning]

I didn't have any individual in mind, but you now go on record as a Vivaldi maniac 

Great post, David!  Will write more afterwards, but right away, posts like yours justify my temerity in setting off on this thread.

[Josquin des Prez]

I try to think objectively and I see absolutely no reason, apart from all you can read about Bach's profundity and Vivaldi's supposed superficiality, to say one is greater than the other one. 

Then, quite simply, you simply don't understand Bach, or perhaps neither. Is this so unfathomable?

[quintett op.57]

Then, quite simply, you simply don't understand Bach, or perhaps neither. Is this so unfathomable?

Or, could I answer, you've not understand Vivaldi. 
What is your objective argument to demonstrate Bach's superiority?
I don't think we're talking about Bach's greatness, I have a fabulous pleasure listening to his music.
I think we're talking about the fact you guys don't seem to get a fabulous pleasure listening to Vivaldi. So that I think there's something you didn't get. (maybe refuse to get)

[karlhenning]

I think we're talking about the fact you guys don't seem to get a fabulous pleasure listening to Vivaldi. So that I think there's something you didn't get. (maybe refuse to get)

Hard to say;  perhaps I don't get "fabulous pleasure" when listening to Vivaldi?  The musical pleasure in listening to him on occasion is certain;  and Vivaldi's historical significance will certainly survive my comparative non-enthusiasm for him — I am not at all, you see, arguing against Vivaldi's greatness.

I don't know if this can rate as an 'objective argument' for their comparative greatness;  but I don't find myself returning to listen to Vivaldi, nor seeking out new (to me) works in the Vivaldi catalogue, to the degree that I do in the case of Bach.  (I hasten to repeat that I do not propose my experience as normative or determinative, just bringing it into the discussion as one factor which, I suppose, must resonate with some other listeners.)

In sort of practical terms (and David will smile, I think) Boston classical radio plays Vivaldi more frequently than my ears feel they need to hear him.  When I find myself thinking similar thoughts viz. Bach, I generally qualify the thought with, "Why do they always play the same ten Bach pieces, when there's so much more that is just as good?"

Also along these lines, perhaps . . . I really enjoy the Kremerata Baltica recording, The Eight Seasons.  Of course, the Vivaldi concerti deserve their popularity;  and my ears find the balance with the four Piazzolla pieces (Las estaciones porteñas) a very good 'palate-cleanser'.

[quintett op.57]

Hard to say;  perhaps I don't get "fabulous pleasure" when listening to Vivaldi?  The musical pleasure in listening to him on occasion is certain;  and Vivaldi's historical significance will certainly survive my comparative non-enthusiasm for him — I am not at all, you see, arguing against Vivaldi's greatness.

You're right, you won't necessarily get a fabulous pleasure out of his music even if you know it very well.
It doesn't change that I believe many don't listen to his music as seriously as they should.

PS : You should stop listening to radio and listen to the music you want when you want.  I don't come back very often to Vivaldi either. Almost only when he's being criticized . But it's always a great pleasure, especially thanks to his great use of the orchestra (I'm a huge fan of symphonies).

[Josquin des Prez]

What is your objective argument to demonstrate Bach's superiority?

Greater complexity, greater variety, greater consistency, do i really have to spell it out?

Where Vivaldi spoke one language (Italian), Bach spoke all languages (Italian, German, French), either separately or at once. While Vivaldi was merely a competent contrapuntist, Bach was the supreme master of harmony. Where Vivaldi tapped his emotional reach with works like L' Estro, The Four Seasons or the late cello sonatas, Bach kept delving deeper and deeper into the human soul. How is this not self evident?

[karlhenning]

PS : You should stop listening to radio and listen to the music you want when you want. 

It's true; and while it's really a sad state of affairs, that means that we frequently abandon the only radio station in Boston which plays classical music 24/7, because of their numbskulled programming.

[quintett op.57]

Generally speaking, considered, insightful judgement that the works of one composer is transparently more profound than another is not a "denigration of art" ...

I'm not talking about this. He's always criticized, disminished, as many italians. They composed many joyful pieces. Joyful pieces are often disregarded.

you may characterise it as such. Considered judgements happen every day in life. That we are able to conclusively make these judgements by majority concensus of the literate / initiated distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom (as far as I know).

This can't be your point. I know many famous artists and experts assume Bach is the best. But this is a very weak argument. I've seen economist say stupid things, I've seen crowds of scientists assume something wrong just because they hadn't opened the dictionary to check the meaning of what they were talking about. I've seen elites govern my country. I've seen many scholars say Bach was the greatest but never giving an objective argument. I'v never seen anyone assume seriously he knew perfectly a composer.
And, if you want a last argument :I think most of the literate / initiated think no one is superior to the rest, in art.

All within the obvious conditions & parameters that listeners need to be culturally initiated / sensitised to have a chance of getting it. Yes some people will like things of a similar quality to varying degrees, there will be discussion and disagreement up to a point, but if those conditions are met we can say some fuzzy sort of absolute quality exists. 

I don't think it's really absolute quality you're talking about, but at least criteria of quality every human being should admit if he were perfectly instructed. 
I think there are such criteria. I think we know some and ignore others. I think we don't know if some criteria are more important than the others. I think it depends on who's listening.

[Josquin des Prez]

I'm not talking about this. He's always criticized, disminished, as many italians. They composed many joyful pieces. Joyful pieces are often disregarded.

Britney Spears composed many joyful pieces too. What's your point?

I think we don't know if some criteria are more important than the others. I think it depends on who's listening.

You are wrong, of course.

[quintett op.57]

Greater complexity,

So what ?
I admire Bach's 3rd violin sonata for its marvellous simplicity

greater variety,

Depends on what

greater consistency,

subjective

Where Vivaldi spoke one language (Italian), Bach spoke all languages (Italian, German, French), either separately or at once. While Vivaldi was merely a competent contrapuntist, Bach was the supreme master of harmony.

harmony? So many harmonical inventions by both and after them. This is a subjective assumption.
Counterpoint would be enough. Why is a counterpoint better than another?

Where Vivaldi tapped his emotional reach with works like L' Estro, The Four Seasons or the late cello sonatas, Bach kept delving deeper and deeper into the human soul. How is this not self evident?

So what?
What do you mean exactly?
What is exploring the human soul in music?

[Don]

So what ?
I admire Bach's 3rd violin sonata for its marvellous simplicity
Depends on whatsubjective
harmony? So many harmonical inventions by both and after them. This is a subjective assumption.
Counterpoint would be enough. Why is a counterpoint better than another?

So what?
What do you mean exactly?
What is exploring the human soul in music?

I think quintett is just being argumentative.  To me, there is no doubt that Bach covers a greater array of human emotions (and more deeply) than Vivaldi.  Does this add to the premise that Bach's music is greater than Vivaldi's?  That's up for grabs.

[Josquin des Prez]

Does this add to the premise that Bach's music is greater than Vivaldi's?

I'd say yes, absolutely.

[Don]

I'd say yes, absolutely.

I would also, but others might not.  My wife is an "other".  She loves Willie Nelson's music, while I find it boring architecturally and in regard to Nelson's delivery.  Is Bach greater than Nelson?  I say yes, but my wife simply states that she much prefers Nelson and scoffs at the notion that greatness can be measured or determined through consensus.  What it really comes down to is that Nelson speaks to her, but he has nothing to say to me.

[dtwilbanks]

What it really comes down to is that Nelson speaks to her, but he has nothing to say to me.

Don hit it on the old head.

[Josquin des Prez]

Don hit it on the old head.

I disagree. From my point of view, Don's wife simply has an inferior taste in music. It's irrelevant what speaks to her. Is there anything particularly philistine about this view?

[BachQ]

... Willie Nelson's music  ... I find it boring architecturally ....

I find Willie Nelson's music to be architecturally fascinating ......