Greatness in Music

[Larry Rinkel]

Charles Ives was not known for many years. If we were having this discussion in 1945, you might have said the same thing as you did above, and this would have been a prime example. Just because its unlikely, Dosn't mean its impossible. Mahler also took a long time to be truly acknowledge for his compositional greatness - only the 50s or 60s really (or even later?)

Ives is a special case, the American genius (like Emily Dickinson) working in virtually complete isolation during his lifetime. But he has been discovered and given his fair due. None of that contradicts anything I ever said. The discovery of Ives resulted from the efforts of influential performers like Kirkpatrick and Bernstein, not from private individuals eager to thumb their noses at the canon to push forward the claims of their dubious candidates.

[bwv 1080]

Charles Ives was not known for many years. If we were having this discussion in 1945, you might have said the same thing as you did above, and this would have been a prime example. Just because its unlikely, Dosn't mean its impossible. Mahler also took a long time to be truly acknowledge for his compositional greatness - only the 50s or 60s really (or even later?)

How did Ives greatness come to be recognized?  Schoenberg, Carter, Nicolas Slonimsky, Leonard Bernstein and other composers and conductors promoted his music to the classical music audience as a whole, who accepted him.   It should not surprise anyone that it sometimes takes a generation or two for the culture to digest and recognize the importance of a particular composer.

[Scriptavolant]

For what we are concerned, even if Sonic1 statement is a bit drastical, this abstract make the point:

In his later years and after his death, Bach's reputation as a composer declined: his work was regarded as old-fashioned compared to the emerging classical style. He was far from forgotten, however: he was remembered as a player and teacher (as well, of course, as composer)

Oh! As well, of course, as a composer!

There is no way to compare Bach greatness as we know it today (plenty of studies, recordings, literature, "collective groundswell of opinions") and his greatness in 1751.
He was admired, ok, by a narrow minority.

[Larry Rinkel]

that he's skeptical, nothing more

I'm glad someone's listening.

[Josquin des Prez]

Yes, but Bach was not in the GREAT category in discussion here until later, much later, which is my point. Gosh we are getting a little snippity here.

Not as late as you think:



http://www.secm.org/misc/sun/sun.html#sun

[Scriptavolant]

Not what I said. I said what is doomed are attempts to "prove" the value of a musical composition objectively, or to go to the opposite extreme and and say that it's all subjective or personal.

I was refering to this part:

"This doesn't mean either that the canon of musical greatness is ossified for all time [...]"

Isn't implicit in that proposition that the canon of musical greaness will change somehow, someway?

[sonic1]

Not as late as you think:



http://www.secm.org/misc/sun/sun.html#sun

Alright alright I stand corrected on the Bach comment.

[JoshLilly]

Bach? Great? Do you mean Johann Sebastian in that? Why? I for one don't think so, and never have. What's so great about him? I don't normally talk about or think about what I don't like, and avoid posting to threads that are devoted to pieces or composers I don't care for. But I'm just asking a question: why do I have to acknowledge something as great when it isn't? Here: Bach isn't great. And I mean that with absolute sincerity. His music has always sounded to me like something that an ancient steam automaton would write, devoid of imagination, spirit, emotion. Even when he tried to write something beautiful, it still sounds soul-lessly mechanical. If Heron of Alexandria had constructed a steam robot that would, based on gears and levers, punch holes into paper to create music based on some unthinking mechanical pattern, we'd have had J.S. Bach 1700 years before his time. And it's not the time period, because Zelenka wrote stuff that can make me happy. J.S. Bach's music makes me think: inhuman machine.

By the way, this is payback to the constant mocking of Dittersdorf     And another by the way, I do consider Dittersdorf (with 100% honesty) to have been a great composer. The great thing is, I'm not wrong, and can't be wrong. Then again, I'm not right and can't be right. It's all vibrations in the air, that's all it is, nothing more. The only facts involved would be to identify what note is what, at what frequencies they operate, what volume, so on. These things can be defined. But that's it. It's still vibrations in the air. There are no facts with this beyond identifying the specifics that make up the sound waves that bounce into your ear. I've never understood why people get so worked up over vibrations in the air, when someone says that they don't like one particular grouping, or someone likes another grouping that they don't. Wow. Woohoo. You know what? I didn't care for the movie The Godfather either.

The only thing I care about, is the arrogance - and that's what it is - of those who insist that one particular favouritism must be enforced on others. It doesn't matter how widely accepted a preference is, it's still just a preference. Even if the whole world's population agreed down to the last individual, it's still not a fact.


Oh yeah, one last thing: Elgar sucks!     ....... maybe I better run now.

[Josquin des Prez]

I see the relativists keep coming out of the wood work. There must be a den somewhere that keeps producing those anti-establishment revolutionary wannabes...

[JoshLilly]

Ha, insult away, but I'm still not wrong. Vibrations in the air will always just be vibrations in the air, no matter how strongly anyone wants their taste to be "Right".

[Gurn Blanston]

Ha, insult away, but I'm still not wrong. Vibrations in the air will always just be vibrations in the air, no matter how strongly anyone wants their taste to be "Right".

I'm happy to be a relativist if it means that I don't have to consult the stone tablets every time I want to listen to a new piece of music...

[dtwilbanks]

Ha, insult away, but I'm still not wrong. Vibrations in the air will always just be vibrations in the air, no matter how strongly anyone wants their taste to be "Right".

Vibrations in the air. All we are is vibrations in the air...

[Scriptavolant]

I'm happy to be a relativist if it means that I don't have to consult the stone tablets every time I want to listen to a new piece of music...

[Josquin des Prez]

I'm happy to be a relativist if it means that I don't have to consult the stone tablets every time I want to listen to a new piece of music...

The first fallacy in your attitude is to assume Bach's reputation as a composer isn't something he earned for himself, but something that was ascribed to him by the carvers of those so called 'stone tablets' (who ever they may be).

Thus, the argument goes full circle.  We should merge the 9th thread with this one.

[Larry Rinkel]

I was refering to this part:

"This doesn't mean either that the canon of musical greatness is ossified for all time [...]"

Isn't implicit in that proposition that the canon of musical greaness will change somehow, someway?

It may, subtly and over time. We don't know what music will be valued by the culture of 100 years from now, and it's always possible that some reputations will undergo a striking change. But I tend to think the currently accepted roster is a pretty good one.

[Larry Rinkel]

I'm happy to be a relativist if it means that I don't have to consult the stone tablets every time I want to listen to a new piece of music...

There are no stone tablets. Straw man argument again. There is only the overwhelming, collected enthusiasm and devotion of generations of composers, performers, teachers, listeners, and scholars.

[JoshLilly]

Collected opinion is not collected fact.

[Larry Rinkel]

Gurn, well put!

I believe it is true that the more narrow one's listening, the more likely one is to cannonize. There are great names in music, for sure. But besides the few most agree on (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart) you will get into territorial issues and prejudice of taste. Some will want to add Mahler, others not. Some will want to add Schoenberg, others not. Some will want to add Brahms, others not. Some will want to add Wagner, others not, etc. etc. Many will want to speak of greatness within each subgenre, others not. It all gets too annoying, and makes me just want to hang out in the "what are you listening to" thread which at a great many times is the best source of information in the forum when opinions get a little thick.

Brahms, Schoenberg, Mahler, and Wagner are all unquestionably part of the musical canon as it is presently understood. That this one or that one doesn't care for their music is irrelevant to that fact.

[Gurn Blanston]

The first fallacy in your attitude is to assume Bach's reputation as a composer isn't something he earned for himself, but something that was ascribed to him by the carvers of those so called 'stone tablets' (who ever they made be).

Thus, the argument goes full circle.  We should merge the 9th thread with this one.

But I'm not denigrating Bach in any way when I say that I am pleased to listen to other composers too. In what way does it harm Bach if I happen to delight in Vivaldi, for example? Or does it harm Mozart if i happen to really enjoy Ditters' "Symphonies after Ovid's Metamorphoses"?  It doesn't, and the reason it doesn't is because I am not comparing Vivaldi to Bach, nor Ditters to Mozart. I am simply enjoying their legacy. By the way, the Corrette gamba sonata I'm listening too is virtually great.

[Larry Rinkel]

Collected opinion is not collected fact.

You love tilting at windmills, don't you, Josh?