Greatness in Music

[karlhenning]

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.

I like it!

For the record, I wish to make the distinction between mocking Dittersdwarf, and mocking Dittersdorfmania.  It is the poor fellow's cross to bear, that he may seem to be the object of derision from those who wonder at attempts to rate him The Equal of the Canonized Haydn.

[karlhenning]

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".

Alas! Right there, you're wrong! 

There will always be methods of discriminating among vibrations in the air.  (Hint:  discrimination is a matter of judgement, and not automatically The Great Satan.)

[karlhenning]

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...

May no one burden your shoulders with stone tablets (or jade lozenges, for that matter), Gurn!

There is a variety of ways to be a Non-Absolutist . . . .

[karlhenning]

Collected opinion is not collected fact.

Neither is collected opinion completely divorced from collected fact.

[karlhenning]

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.

So nearly perfect a post, Gurn! 

Of course, taking pleasure in the music of the B-Team does not denigreat the Grates.  And we can both (for instance) enjoy the music of the Flying Fescas, and compare them to The Gold Standard, and we can forebear to despise Silver and Copper, simply because they are not Gold.

[karlhenning]

People are insisting that some composers are "factually" superior to others. They're doing it on this very thread, even.

Where?  Leave us address that, without endorsing your errors! 

[karlhenning]

If it can't ever be proven, then it's not a truth.

Truly, a tiny thought.

[karlhenning]

Vivaldi is a victim of the confrontation between the non-classical fans, who love his music (not understanding anything because they're not serious listeners) and a part of the classical fans who need to show they're different from the crowd.

That's a valid and interesting social observation;  I don't find it a "driver" here, though.

[Larry Rinkel]

If it can't ever be proven, then it's not a truth.

You're really stuck in logical positivism, aren't you? 

[Josquin des Prez]

Enormous value, in my life. Not being a believer, the existence of staggering works of the imagination like Hamlet, the Divine Comedy, the C# minor quartet, the Mass in B minor, the Ring, etc., is the closest I can come to religious experience.

This is all nonsense. Your perception of those works is the result of brainwashing by an elitist establishment. Only a true free thinker is able to see through this hideous plot and realize there's nothing of value in any of those.

BTW, JoshLilly, before posting your life story, you might want to know i'm being partially facetious here. 

[karlhenning]

Thanks, sonic. Oh yes, I completely agree with that. Even if we are completely willing to go along with the consensus and say that there are 3 or 4 composers that rise above all others, so what? Is that all we will listen to then? And if we listen to others, is it just an exercise to see how badly they fare in comparison with the anointed few?

Put thus, as exaggeration, of course . . . .

But I think it's only a fringe which would preserve Supreme Greatest Status to only 3 or 4 composers (though even so, it would be interesting to hear the arguments why only those 3 or 4 are the Chosen Few . . . as long as the discussion was actually musical, and not "Well, it's obvious, everybody knows why . . . .")

Myself, I think there's a larger population of "those that rise above the others."

Nor, myself, do I imagine that the recognition of such outstanding excellence renders the listening to The Others as futility, or as an exercise in snobbish contempt.

Your remark here, Gurn, has its characteristic anecdotal charm, but it strikes me not so much as an argument against the method, as fright at applying its results.  As if, in education, we were to argue against giving some students A's, because we're worried what will happen to the B- and C-students (euthanasia? Gosh, let's hope not!)

Many (by no means all) of the caveats raised in the course of this thread about the means of comparison are well taken, but it still puzzles me how one can entertain the idea (and if this be a strawman, please, someone set me aright) that comparison itself should be anathema, that there is no such thing as greatness/excellence, but only (ONLY, mind you) what Jane, John, Vanna or Ivan likes to listen to.

Let's regard the matter in the light of a separate, but related, illustration.

Hardly any of us (even if we did not select the Opus 21 as one of our Top Three) would take the greatness of the Beethoven Ninth Symphony as meaning that listening to the First is a waste of time.

Do we agree that it would be absurd to consider the First Symphony "equally great" to the Ninth?  The composer himself, without at all disowning the earlier work, would feel slighted by the idea that in years of composing music, he had not achieved greater mastery of his craft over time and through experience.  The recent thread not far distant notwithstanding, few of us contest the greatness of the Ninth (though acknowledging its greatness does not mean either that we enjoy it, or, if we do enjoy it, that we want to hear it all the time);  there might, though, be interesting discussion on whether (and how) the First Symphony is a "great" piece — evaluating the excellence of the First, if you like.

(Of course, for some of us who, say, find the presence of sopranos objectionable, the First will be preferable to listen to in comparison to the Ninth;  but it is proving, in this thread, nearly as difficult to distinguish between, and to discern the true relation between [the greatness of artwork] and [our enjoyment of artwork], as it is to determine how and in what ways composers and their work may be compared.)

In this field of inquiry, then, (a) there are questions of how we address comparison and "inequality", and (b) it were absurd to simply call all the elements "equal" in all ways.

I venture to imagine that we will find both differences, and similarities, in that field of inquiry touching upon comparing composers.

[karlhenning]

I suppose, even if we do all come to some agreement (even substantial rather than complete) on, say, a roster of A composers and B composers, that there may be some listeners who take this as rationalizing for "I'm going to listen to every last composition by the A Team before I condescend to listen to anything by those unwashed also-rans."

But of course that behavior is itself, and is not an argument against the existence of a distinction between A and B . . . .

[karlhenning]

BTW, I do not see the "purpose" of this thread as encompassing the drawing up of any such definitive roster.  Not that the thread is bound to any conception I may or may not have as to its purpose.

[JoshLilly]

"Myself, I think there's a larger population of "those that rise above the others."


The problem I, and others, have with this, is the idea that there is such a population that's universal for everyone.  A forced pantheon, if you will.  I have composers I listen to more than others, which I suppose would make them my "greats". But it would appear to me that many of those I consider Zeus or Hera of my Pantheon, might only be Nike or Heracles in yours. It's not so much the idea of a Lineup of Greats that I'm against, it's the idea that you (anyone) gets to tell me who's on that lineup. As I say, one man's Amon-Rê is another man's Ra-Herakhty.

And by the way, I don't have to acknowledge Beethoven's 9th Symphony as superior to the 1st. I think I do. Kinda. But I don't have to. I'm honestly not sure which one I prefer more, if either. Part of the reason is the 3rd movement of the 9th, which is maybe my least favourite movement in all Beethoven's symphonies. Not that I don't like it! "Least favourite" is very relative here, I just rate that movement a 9.5 and most of the other movements in his symphonies 9.6 to 10. Something like that. I'm not much into "grading" music, even internally. But suffice it to say, whether he became more practiced in composition or not does not have anything to do with how one strikes my ears over the other. One thing I will say, is F.J. Haydn's Le Matin symphony has always been the greatest as far as I'm concerned, I think it's the best he ever wrote, and it came right near the beginning of his long list of symphonies.

[karlhenning]

"Myself, I think there's a larger population of "those that rise above the others."

The problem I, and others, have with this, is the idea that there is such a population that's universal for everyone.  A forced pantheon, if you will.

But, I won't 

The fact that most of the musical world holds JS Bach in very high regard, doesn't mean you are obliged to listen to him, not at all, not x% of the time.  Not absolutely.

Practically, in say radio programming, it may mean that there's more Bach than you personally would prefer.  That at least is culturally less disingenuous, I think, than the reverse tyranny of (say) Boston's classical station, which overweights the mediocrities (though, admittedly, for the very practical reason that it makes good sonic wallpaper in the Boston area's dentist offices).

My other immediate comment is, you're driving the method by the result you desire (universal roster of A composers is unacceptable).

[karlhenning]

And by the way, I don't have to acknowledge Beethoven's 9th Symphony as superior to the 1st. I think I do. Kinda. But I don't have to.

Sure.  But perhaps, if Larry discussed the comparative ingenuities in the sonata design of the first movements of the First and Ninth Symphonies, you might think differently.

The culture's evaluation of various items alters over time.

Part of what feeds into that is, that the individual's understanding and perception of the music is not fixed in stone, either.

[JoshLilly]

What if the people doing the programming for the Boston station don't consider that music mediocre at all? It's not just that I don't listen often to J.S. Bach's music, it's that I don't consider him a Great composer. Now, I don't hate him as much as my earlier message made out, I admit I was exaggerating. But people do attempt to enforce a Pantheon on all music listeners that includes him. Maybe it's not what they say ("This is my opinion, that Bach is a great composer"), it's how they say it ("Bach is a great composer for me, you, and everybody, whether they like it or not"). And please don't accuse me of making a strawman argument, because people do talk this way, all the time; it's even written that way in books that are used to teach music appreciation classes. Well I took one of those in college, and it was a big bummer; I was the only "classical" music listener in the class, and the attitude of the book, its tone, and that of the instructor, was harmful to the other students' perception of that music.



"But perhaps, if Larry discussed the comparative ingenuities in the sonata design of the first movements of the First and Ninth Symphonies, you might think differently."

I would be fascinated, but I don't know that this is the case. Someone did that once with me when I was talking about how I think I preferred W.A. Mozart's first symphony to his last. I was given great stuff on the finalé of the Jupiter, the fugue writing, all that. And yes, I hear all that. Awesome! Mozart sure did develop his craft during his lifetime. Yes, yes, to all that. But it doesn't make me as happy. The raw, unpolished, pure joy that I get from the 1st gives way to something else in the last. Note that I like both of those symphonies about equally well... but unless someone points out a specific note that I've somehow missed, or something, it won't change which I like more, no matter how much I learn about it.

For me, learning about a composer, the history of a piece, &c., has absolutely zero impact on how much I like it. I think it's very important to stay that way, too. That's why I've never been impacted to learn about R.Wagner's personality or bigotries; while I'm interested as an historian, it has zero - ZERO - to do with the way I listen to the music. Notes are notes. I either like them or I don't. But sure, pointing out something I physically missed while listening, that's a whole different story. That might change my perception. But just talking about how it was written, and trying somehow to "prove" some kind of superiority, will have zero impact on my preferences. I will love to learn about it, but it won't make it sound any different.

[karlhenning]

What if the people doing the programming for the Boston station don't consider that music mediocre at all? It's not just that I don't listen often to J.S. Bach's music, it's that I don't consider him a Great composer. Now, I don't hate him as much as my earlier message made out, I admit I was exaggerating. But people do attempt to enforce a Pantheon on all music listeners that includes him. Maybe it's not what they say ("This is my opinion, that Bach is a great composer"), it's how they say it ("Bach is a great composer for me, you, and everybody, whether they like it or not").

This is because Bach's greatness, the excellence of his work, is not simply a property of whether you like it, or how much you like to listen to it, or how often you feel you need to listen to it.

Your remark has the look of taking umbrage because someone is trying to tell you that [the greatness of artwork] and [our enjoyment of artwork] are distinct, though not necessarily mutually exclusive, categories.

The artwork is an object in the culture as a whole, it doesn't exist solely as an object for any individual's consumption.

[karlhenning]

"But perhaps, if Larry discussed the comparative ingenuities in the sonata design of the first movements of the First and Ninth Symphonies, you might think differently."

I would be fascinated, but I don't know that this is the case. Someone did that once with me . . .

Your experience today may be otherwise, mightn't it?

For me, learning about a composer, the history of a piece, &c., has absolutely zero impact on how much I like it. I think it's very important to stay that way, too.

Larry's hypothetical discussion above is a different matter entirely.  I am surprised you don't realize this.

[karlhenning]

BTW, Josh, it is possible that I do not listen to Bach any more frequently than you do, perhaps even less.

But I have learnt a great deal about composition from listening to, and over time better understanding, his work.