Greatness in Music

[Don]

All right.  But you had written:

Which, given the discussion, might have been taken as some statement touching greatness.

Then you took my statement in a way not intended.  There is no correlation between "what speaks to you" and greatness.

[Don]

Sure;  but I am not the only person to express agreement with that point on this thread.

And I am not the only person to express disagreement.

[Scriptavolant]

Furthermore, I still find the whole discussion off-topic. Someone was talking about windsmill, no?
The anti-relativism ministries seem to fight against the idea that there is no such thing as a greater composer, or against the idea that Beethoven is not a great composer, that values are absolutely relative (no, they're relatively relative) and so on; but I still wonder who ever said or even thinked that (except maybe for 71 dB  )

[karlhenning]

The anti-relativism ministries seem to fight against the idea that there is no such thing as a greater composer, or against the idea that Beethoven is not a great composer

Not at all; Beethoven is assuredly a great composer.

So are they all, all great composers . . . .

[karlhenning]

And I am not the only person to express disagreement.

Actually, I believed that I was agreeing with a point of yours, that (purely) objective value is not a part of this.  Gurn said something much similar.  And I cited Larry's post which partly explained why objective value is, well, irrelevant here.

That is to say, you are an element in the set "many of us."

[Scriptavolant]

Not at all; Beethoven is assuredly a great composer.

I don't deny this (and I was wondering who does), so why keep on underlying a cinch? I don't see the point, there are no opponents.

[karlhenning]

If on the other hand, you wish to disagree with the point now that I have indicated that it seems something of a consensus here, that is not exactly unusual, either 

[karlhenning]

I don't deny this (and I was wondering who does), so why keep on underlying a cinch? I don't see the point, there are no opponents.

Well, my subsequent irony, for one thing.

If all composers are great composers, there are no great composers.  There are, simply, composers.

[Don]

Actually, I believed that I was agreeing with a point of yours, that (purely) objective value is not a part of this.  Gurn said something much similar.  And I cited Larry's post which partly explained why objective value is, well, irrelevant here.

That is to say, you are an element in the set "many of us."

Except that I don't feel a need to add others to buttress my opinions.

[EmpNapoleon]

This is greatness at the GMG.  The place is called "good music."  Everyone wants to know why the music listed here at the GMG is great.  Its fun listening to people who like the same good music as you and annoying sometimes when listening to others who like different bad music.
But I've said nothing.

If all composers are great composers, there are no great composers.  There are, simply, composers.

And of composers I've learned alot here at the GMG. 

[karlhenning]

Except that I don't feel a need to add others to buttress my opinions.

That's good that you tell us your needs and non-needs, Don.

You let us know when you divine the needs that people other than yourself feel, okay?  That might be of general interest, too.

I cannot tell for certain, of course.

[Maciek]

For what's it's worth my wife's top 3 are (in alphabetical order): Bach, Lutoslawski, Vivaldi. With no inner hierarchy as far as I know...

And now let me get back to my part of the discussion...

[quintett op.57]

yeah, thats what i was thinking also....or perhaps there is a language barrier issue or something, because it seems quintett is not fully comprehending whats being said.

Great exists ....and shock horror - bad exists, and many shades in between.

Inferior & superior...these things are reality.

Have I said the contrary?
I don't agree with Harry on this point.
It won't make it easier if you put words in my mouth. 

If the greatest music was the most complex, all composers should kneel in front of Ockeghem.
You're assuming complexity is a sign of greatness : Explain to me.
You're assuming Bach has more variety : I say not in everything, because Vivaldi's orchestration is incredibly various for his time.

On the contrary of what you're saying, I'm waiting for your arguments with insatiable hunger.

I'm just having to repeat the obvious - because to me there is a group-think over reaction to the calamitous idea that - in art - some people just don't get it and some do ... that some people are better than others ... that YOU CAN SAY SO, and that is the way it has been and probably always will be. And that is all we have ... but it's good enough.

it's allright. I've always thought this. This is not really our point of disagreement.
My point is that there are composers who made several masterpieces capable of giving an immense pleasure to the listeners, like (Membre Jesus Nostri i'm just listening to). And trying to say who's the best among them is useless. I've never read a real argument. It's always something like "it's more complex".

Why should the most complex be the best?
to this I was never given an answer.
And keep thinking the most complex is the best....at being complex.

[quintett op.57]

not even right! : at being the most complex actually.

[Scriptavolant]

Why should the most complex be the best?

That's the right question. I would add why the most spiritual, joyful, tragic should be the best? Best at what? At being spiritual, joyful, tragic? And how you quantify such characteristics?
It's just a matter of taste and cultural entourage, again; for example sanctioning that Beethoven is the greatest composer for he infused spirituality in music as anybody else it's nonsense, or at least it is no objective and absolute point at all. There are plenty of composers who did not care for spirituality the way Beethoven did, and you do not expect them to infuse spirituality in their music and you cannot compare them with the Master; so implicit in a statement like this (Beethoven is the best because he infused music with spirituality) is the fact that you assume spirituality to be the most important feature in Art. But this is just a personal choice, it may be shared by the community, but it remains an arbitrary parameter.

[Larry Rinkel]

I'd say yes, absolutely.

I'd say yes, absolutely, too.

[karlhenning]

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.

At first, that almost seems tautological: the value of something is how it adds value to something broader.

But it is not quite a tautology;  though I find myself a little disconcerted that the value of music is not in the thing itself, but in what it does for something else.  But, heck, maybe that's right.

[snip]

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.

Shaping (to whatever degree) the way we view the larger art world is a type of enriching, good.

[snip]

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 [snip, though a good example, of course] . . . 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.

Excellent.

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.

That last line is the key, I think.  Craftsmanship can still be an important component.  The wag in me wants to say, "So maybe 4'33 is not in fact great."  But instead I agree with your closing point, that 4'33 does not exhibit mastery of the craft of composition, but is Something Else;  it is not a musical score, but is an invitation to consider ambient sound as "music."  It is in its way important, and important to Music, yet is in itself something rather Other.

(Parenthetically, of course I am with Bill that there are times when I am more content to hear a nightingale sing than to listen to music.  Myself, I both embrace the invitation to think a bit larger of music, and yet, resist the idea that the nightingale is an artist.  Put him on American Idol, and we'll see how he fares :-)

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.

The craft, too, alters, as the work of past greats impacts the craft.  Bach's craft is not Monteverdi's craft, nor is Stravinsky's craft Beethoven's craft.  Yet all these several crafts are disciplines of excellence.

The water flows in the river, the river today is not yesterday's river.  And yet, not all water is the river.

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.

I'm not the man to answer, but I like the question, and I see the following factors as having impact on the answer:

1. Popular artists are something historically and socially different from both their forebears in The Larger Culture, and the (for want of a better term) classical artists.

2. The Informed Arbiters of popular artistry, and the I.A. of le monde classique, are largely (though by no means hermetically) separate.

2a. While that argues against a gauge to establish hierarchy &c. the classical artists enjoy a longer tradition as a tradition (as opposed to a popular artist sort of feeling in tune with centuries of folk artists — with whom many classical artists have also been in tune over the centuries, natch).  There is a practical "age difference" which is part of the difficulty of finding a common currency of evaluation.

3. One of the few general differences to have actual traction, in discussion "popular VS. classical" is, long-term artistry.  Time and time again, pop groups "play themselves out," pop writers "write themselves out."  There are exceptions, but (it seems to me) comparatively rare;  I don't pretend to understand why it's the case, but it does seem amply demonstrated.  On the contrary, in classical music, it is much the exception rather than the rule, when a composer's mastery does not wax greater and greater the more he writes.

(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?

We should need to settle on what composers should be considered great :-)

Terrific post, David!

[Larry Rinkel]

Likely more from your end than my wife's.  Unlike you, she doesn't try to equate her preferences with any notions of greatness.

Neither do I. My preferences are utterly irrelevant to what the musical culture has deemed most valuable. As it happens, in most cases they agree.

To quote an anecdote about Pierre Monteux: after a concert, an admirer came up to Monteux and said, "Maestro, I must admit, I really don't like the Brahms 3rd Symphony." Monteux: "Yes, yes, I know. But it does not matter."

[Larry Rinkel]

Why should the most complex be the best?
to this I was never given an answer.
And keep thinking the most complex is the best....at being complex.

Who said it was? if so, the "best" composer would be Brian Ferneyhough (whose rhythms are so complicated you can spend 15 minutes trying to count one of his measures).

[Maciek]

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."

You've entirely missed my point in more ways than one.

First of all, note the "maybe"! It's there for a reason. I was trying to say something absurd and thus provocative. Would you for one minute believe that Chopin would have been a worse composer if he wasn't living in Paris? Why? Do you sincerely believe that he had access to anything in Paris that he wouldn't have had access to if he lived in Warsaw? And what exactly would that have been - especially considering the fact that most musicians in those times did travel from time to time...

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.

Completely disagree here again. It's all a matter of education. You don't have to be born in Germany to have a good musical education.

In Europe these centers of musical culture were rooted primarily in the Germanic speaking countries, Italy, and France; somewhat less so in Russia, Spain, and England, perhaps even less in the Scandinavian and Baltic countries.

I believe that's completely false - you're simply listing the countries which were politically strongest for the last 200 years. But how do you know their musical culture was actually better developed than that of others? Well, you don't, because the culture of those countries which lose wars etc. is quickly forgotten, no matter how exquisite it was.

How many Polish Renaissance or Baroque composers do you know? I'm guessing none. Why? Because they were inferior to their Western colleagues? From what I've heard of Mikolaj Zielenski, Marcin Mielczewski or Stanislaw Sylwester Szarzynski and the like, I rather don't think so. The reason you don't know them is that Poland was absent from the European map from the end of the 18th century till the beginning of the 20th century, and then wasn't all that present later either. These are all extra-musical circumstances. If Poland hadn't finally reemerged as a fully independent state at the end of the 20th century there'd have been no hope for Polish Baroque or Renaissance composers. They'd have been completely forgotten - like, I suppose, many from less fortunate nations have been. And this would have nothing to do with quality!

And how about South American Baroque? From what I've heard I have no doubt it is great music - but somehow we're not flooded with recordings. I wonder why?

It is always people who decide what reaches a wider audience (what is recorded and what isn't) and people have their limits - they grow up in a specific culture, and have good knowledge of specific composers, and usually they will assume they know almost everything. An absolutely irrational belief...

Nonetheless, the idea of a musical genius springing up in isolation in Kyrgyztan, doomed to eternal obscurity, may be possible but sounds to me far-fetched. Eventually, one way or another, however long it takes or despite whatever political or other obstacles, the cream rises to the top.

I don't believe that story. How exactly, pray tell, do you imagine the cream from Kyrgyztan would rise to the top of the Western world? A vacationing famous conductor would discover him accidentally? Accidentally - how? And what the hell would the conductor be doing vacationing in Kyrgyztan?? I know a rather disturbing story of a great composer discovered and promptly forgotten by the Polish conductor Henryk Czyz. While vacationing in the country he heard someone play some exquisite, modern mazurkas. He walked over to the window and asked the person at the piano what he was playing. It turned out the guy was playing his own compositions. The conductor walked away bewildered without finding out anything more. Needless to say, he was sorry about that for the rest of his life (he couldn't remember the exact place etc.).

All this does not mean that most of the established "greats" are not great. It just means that the canon has enormous holes in it, some of which will never be filled. Or at least that's not likely. So all of this is probably a bit off topic. But I've spent a moment writing it, so now I'm going to post it anyhow!