Greatness in Music

[Maciek]

Who said it was? if so, the "best" composer would be Brian Ferneyhough

Well, isn't he?

[karlhenning]

Completely disagree here again. It's all a matter of education.

I don't know that your disagreement is complete here, Maciek; the musical centers are a source of musical education.  Even Haydn, who blossomed in isolation, went down to Esterhaza from Vienna.

[Maciek]

OK, I disagree partly. I think you can get a decent education outside those centers - through books, through people who studied there etc. Or even a decent education that would be completely independent of those centers! Wow!

[karlhenning]

OK, I disagree partly. I think you can get a decent education outside those centers - through books, through people who studied there etc. Or even a decent education that would be completely independent of those centers! Wow!

I think it possible, but exceptional.  Again, a matter of music's communal nature.  One can be self-taught to only such a degree.

OTOH, I think your mention of the South American Baroque very well taken. Though even by that label, it sounds an American cadet branch of the European style of the epoch. The point that especially lights up, I think, is how that is overlooked in the publishing industry . . . and the importance of publication.

[Maciek]

The point that especially lights up, I think, is how that is overlooked in the publishing industry . . . and the importance of publication.

Yes, definitely! I think I mentioned Zarebski's name earlier in this thread. Well, he was one of Liszt's favorite students and a fantastically talented composer but unfortunately died young. Many of his works were never published, and then World War II came, Warsaw was burned in 1944, and countless manuscripts were lost, including (for example) his Piano Concerto. Had any of these manuscripts been published earlier, the music would have still been with us.

[karlhenning]

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."

:-)

[karlhenning]

War is terrible, Maciek.  There are problems enough in the realm of culture, without the wasting barbarity.

[karlhenning]

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).

Curiously, I once met a Canadian composer who had studied (some) with Ferneyhough.

This is pure fiction, but I imagine him saying, "Brian says there's no hurry.  Take half an hour to count it . . . ."

[Maciek]

"Brian says there's no hurry.  Take half an hour to count it . . . ."

LOL!

[Larry Rinkel]

Yes, definitely! I think I mentioned Zarebski's name earlier in this thread. Well, he was one of Liszt's favorite students and a fantastically talented composer but unfortunately died young. Many of his works were never published, and then World War II came, Warsaw was burned in 1944, and countless manuscripts were lost, including (for example) his Piano Concerto. Had any of these manuscripts been published earlier, the music would have still been with us.

As to Zarebski and any other of the Polish composers you mention, I know nothing of them other than your word. And that's simply not enough for me. Musical merit is not necessarily distributed among all cultures and at all times. If you are going to propose new candidates for inclusion in the canon, the burden is on you, not on the people skeptical of you.

[Don]

I just wanted to make it clear that my personal views on greatness in music are pretty much in line with Karl's and a few others.  But I do feel protective of all the other folks, the bulk of whom have zero interest in classical music.  From a cultural point of view, their opinions also matter.

ONE PERSON - ONE VOTE.

[Maciek]

As to Zarebski and any other of the Polish composers you mention, I know nothing of them other than your word. And that's simply not enough for me. Musical merit is not necessarily distributed among all cultures and at all times. If you are going to propose new candidates for inclusion in the canon, the burden is on you, not on the people skeptical of you.

You're aware of the fact that you're only proving my point? What sort of argument is that: "I've never heard of that composer so he can't be good - prove his value to me!" That's exactly the kind of arrogant "imperialist" attitude I was talking about. I'm not surprised that you haven't heard anything by Zarebski - AFAIK, Luke is the only other person on this forum who knows and likes his Piano Quintet. But I don't see how a new name can ever be included into the canon if you say "the burden is on you". Well, it's no burden for me, because his name is already included into my canon - and also into the canon of every single music student in Poland. The only question is this: who are the ignorant - the ones who know this music and give it credit, or the ones who refuse to even consider listening to it simply because they've never heard of it or because it wasn't included into their curriculum?

[Scriptavolant]

What sort of argument is that: "I've never heard of that composer so he can't be good - prove his value to me!"

It is the same sort of argument Larry exposed here:

but rather a collective groundswell of opinion that relatively few depart from, and those who do are always tilting at windmills and constructing straw man arguments about "pompous windbags" and "intellectual cultural elites" and "mistakes of history" and the like.

You can depart from the majority, only by paying the price of constructing straw man. IN other words, the majority is aaaalways right. Ergo, if the majority does not know your main man, he's not worth being known at all.

[Maciek]

But I am speaking for the majority! And I mean vast majority! So why should the English-speaking majority be more important than the Polish-speaking majority? Or the Chinese-speaking majority? Or the Lithuanian-speaking majority?

[sonic1]

But I am speaking for the majority! And I mean vast majority! So why should the English-speaking majority be more important than the Polish-speaking majority? Or the Chinese-speaking majority? Or the Lithuanian-speaking majority?

'cause you ain't 'merican foo!

Speak english or die!!















(yes I'm joking)

[Larry Rinkel]

You can depart from the majority, only by paying the price of constructing straw man. IN other words, the majority is aaaalways right. Ergo, if the majority does not know your main man, he's not worth being known at all.

And what part of my previous statement did you miss?

Greatness is a matter of judgment, that is, neither provable fact nor personal whim, but instead the collective response of composers, performers, listeners, and scholars. This doesn't mean either that the canon of musical greatness is ossified for all time, or that composers and works may not be reevaluated up or down, or that individuals may not depart from the generally accepted canon here and there in accordance with personal taste.

[Larry Rinkel]

You're aware of the fact that you're only proving my point? What sort of argument is that: "I've never heard of that composer so he can't be good - prove his value to me!" That's exactly the kind of arrogant "imperialist" attitude I was talking about. I'm not surprised that you haven't heard anything by Zarebski - AFAIK, Luke is the only other person on this forum who knows and likes his Piano Quintet. But I don't see how a new name can ever be included into the canon if you say "the burden is on you". Well, it's no burden for me, because his name is already included into my canon - and also into the canon of every single music student in Poland. The only question is this: who are the ignorant - the ones who know this music and give it credit, or the ones who refuse to even consider listening to it simply because they've never heard of it or because it wasn't included into their curriculum?

Oh, simmer down. For a moderator you're extremely immoderate. I reiterate: my personal feelings have nothing to do with the matter any more than yours do. If indeed "his name is already included into the canon of every single music student in Poland," then it's my point you are proving, not yours.

[PerfectWagnerite]

It's simple: Beethoven and Bach and Mozart are great, Dittersorf and Elgar are not.

[Maciek]

Oh, simmer down. For a moderator you're extremely immoderate.

How extremely kind of you to point that out. Where exactly did I offend you personally? I'm willing to edit out anything of that kind and publicly apologize.

If indeed "his name is already included into the canon of every single music student in Poland," then it's my point you are proving, not yours.

Apparently I don't understand what your point is. Mine is that if there is to be such a thing as a "general" canon, then it should indeed be general, i.e. include great works produced by composers from even those nations who were unfortunate enough to have been slaughtered to the last man. Since I don't know much about those nations, I've chosen a more moderate example - that of Poland. Now, as it happens, the canon taught at Polish music schools does not include a single piece of South American baroque music. In fact, I don't think it even contains a single piece of music by a British composer (? - maybe Britten, I'm not sure) but perhaps it does contain one or two by American ones. So that's not my notion of a true, "general" canon. OTOH, I don't think what is considered the canon in Poland is included in the canon in other countries. At least not that I've heard of. So my point is that so far all canons are local, both temporally (Gurn's point and mine in a smaller part) and spatially (my point). Until your last post I understood your point to be that there is a "general" canon, developed over the ages by collective consensus which includes every (or almost every) "great" piece of classical music ever written (with the obvious exceptions of works lost etc.). But now I have no idea what your point is anymore...

[quintett op.57]

You're aware of the fact that you're only proving my point? What sort of argument is that: "I've never heard of that composer so he can't be good - prove his value to me!"

Maciek, you're overreacting, he's not said that.