Greatness in Music

[karlhenning]

Haydn knew:

Scarcely any man can brook comparison with the great Mozart.

[sonic1]

addressing the whole idea or notion of "i think it is important not to define music in an absolute sense in terms of good and bad, but more in terms of what is good and bad for you"...

I'm curious with that line of lazy thinking, which is often encountered in discussions such as these, and we've read tinges of already here, how can you define something if there is nothing as given by which to make a meaningful comparison .... and I don't mean meaningful in the sense given by irrelevant philosophical wordgames!

At it's core judging the quality of music is really intuitive. But there are aspects of music we can talk about, discuss.

Relativism just reminds me of a Christian person who I was arguing with last week who continued to scream: 'JUST LET ME HAVE MY OPINION! IT IS MY OPINION AND I'M ENTITLED TO IT!' ... etc. She took my attacks on her religion (and religion in general) as something personal.

I feel it is the same with music. People should at least give aspects of the music that sounds good to them, and gives them a particular feeling.

Obviously (aesthetic) relativism is an cop-out.

re: words objective & subjective...

To me, subjective is an almost meaningless word, and objective is meaningless ... or I should say, merely hypothetical. This is true of so many words: they do not describe anything meaningful.

Just because a word, e.g. subjective has been created to try and refer to what is perceived as an interior frame of mind (autonomy), then a hypothetical opposite concept of objective has been framed. But this is confusion ... words creating other words ... not meaning.

allowing words to define meaning, rather than meaning to define words i.e. words are arranged in such a way that they have meaning only in so far as they self-refer. Thus words slip their moorings, and their illustrative function is corrupted.


About Bach...

Bach's acheivement was in assimilating & consolidating those ideals & aspirations - of polyphonic counterpoint - into subsequent stylistic & formal developments ... all in an organic, intellectual flowering. Why is Bach is so revered? He used the same nuts & bolts as others ... but made music transcendant & mystical in it's power: he was a genius.

He was in part the great consolidator and summation of that age, and of that great art of horizontal / vertical conception. But ... his real musical "invention" was the depth of his inventiveness : his never-since equaled talent to transcend & unify the intellect / emotion dichotomy in music, by sheer integration of thought, and miraculously appear - in a sort of state of grace - fully fused with natural lyrical musicality. This is what makes Bach the "father of music".

With JS Bach we're talking about a level of harmonic insight & profundity which would render anything "wild" as a fairly tame experience thereafter ... it is the gateway of the most radical experience possible in all music - spiritual ecstasy and some sort of "communion" with oneself or truth. Words fail me and I have to resort to religious terms even though I do not follow a faith !

In the fragmented torrent of ideas this world has become since Bach's time - where certain methods were able to grow and be honed to perfection by him - it is much harder to speak in the unified, integrated voice of a totally consolidated musical form.
Those wonderful musical means were then all used up, and cannot be redeemed by new composers. They have to find a fresh way ... note that I say FRESH ... not new !

It is just not that simple. Personally, I am not arguing that greatness is necessarily personal (though there is an importance for me to like what I like no matter what anyone here wants me to like). Greatness is largely undefined here: great at what? The aims of composers are all different. I always go back to intent here. Bach didn't intend to sound like Vivaldi, yet both are great. We cannot measure them the same way, because they both had different aims. Shostakovich was great, so was Bach: how can we attempt to measure these two by the same parameters.

The problem here is that we are talking about several very different genres of music (though we call it all "classical"). And as we have, time and again, seen here even on this forum, there are always die-hards for each genre. The baroquies always duking it out with the romantics, the moderns always fending off the romantics, yada yada....

...for me, and probably a few others here whose taste seem to span over a multitude of genres, it seems a difficult task to measure greatness, especially in some sort of hierarchy. For example, I consider Bartok to be quite great. But measuring him against Beethoven would be ridiculous.

Now, if we get into a more extra-musical measure of greatness: greatness of mind and ability-then a few stand out over the others. When I think of Bach and how he churned out his music, while running everything he ran, and having like a billion children, I think the man great.

[Scriptavolant]

The point is that those parameters aren't arbitrarily agreed upon and then shoved down our collective throats by the establishment.

What strikes me is that the fixed parameters argument has been deepened and illustrated very well so far, for example in DavidW contribution. It leans on solid arguments.
You keep talking about the truth, but didn't give a straight definition of it so far. You call it the "self evident", "the undeniable", "what you feel and cannot be taught", but I'm still unable to grasp what you mean by saying "truth". Would you explain?

Like Schopenhauer said, truth as a way of surviving all criticism until it becomes self evident.

The truth about what? And being fussy: Schopenhauer was one of the greatest example of counterculture in its time and climate; a convinced dissident fighting against the idealist hegelian hegemony in XIX Century Germany. A philosopher never recognized for his contributions untill the last years of his life. Perhaps not your man at all.

[quintett op.57]

To me, subjective is an almost meaningless word

The word "objective" is hypothetical?

, and objective is meaningless ... or I should say, merely hypothetical. This is true of so many words: they do not describe anything meaningful.

Sorry, I don't get what you mean

All this is very meaningful to me.


About Bach...

but made music transcendant

regarding transcendance, he's not the one and only.

& mystical in it's power: he was a genius.

Mystical in its power? What does it mean.

his never-since equaled talent to transcend & unify the intellect / emotion dichotomy in music, by sheer integration of thought, and miraculously appear - in a sort of state of grace - fully fused with natural lyrical musicality. This is what makes Bach the "father of music".

slow-motion please. Or a mor complete demonstration at least.

With JS Bach we're talking about a level of harmonic insight & profundity which would render anything "wild" as a fairly tame experience thereafter ... it is the gateway of the most radical experience possible in all music - spiritual ecstasy and some sort of "communion" with oneself or truth. Words fail me and I have to resort to religious terms even though I do not follow a faith !

I guess the precedent paragraph is supposed to justify this thought.

In the fragmented torrent of ideas this world has become since Bach's time - where certain methods were able to grow and be honed to perfection by him - it is much harder to speak in the unified, integrated voice of a totally consolidated musical form.

perfection in music, do we need another thread to define what it means?

[quintett op.57]

The problem here is that we are talking about several very different genres of music (though we call it all "classical").

Oh yes.
Between Vivaldi and Bach' styles, there's a big gap.

Vivaldi probably suffers from being judged as if he aimed the same than Bach. It's because they lived at the same time.
But, in Italy, it was already almost classical era.

[karlhenning]

Oh yes.
Between Vivaldi and Bach' styles, there's a big gap.

Not such a big gap as between Vivaldi and Schumann, of course.

From temporal distance, a lot of stylistic nuance which loomed large Back In The Day, seems comparatively insignificant.

[quintett op.57]

Not such a big gap as between Vivaldi and Schumann, of course.

From temporal distance, a lot of stylistic nuance which loomed large Back In The Day, seems comparatively insignificant.

insignificant?
not between italian music and german music at the beginning of the XVIIIth, please!

[karlhenning]

insignificant?
not between italian music and german music at the beginning of the XVIIIth, please!

My dear fellow, note the adverb comparatively.  Compared to the differences between Vivaldi and Schumann, the stylistic differences between a Vivaldi concerto grosso and a Bach concerto grosso are slight.

If you find the differences enormous, that reflects a specialist interest on your part, not an absolute fault in my statement.

[sonic1]

Wait here: do people actually think Vivaldi NOT GREAT? While I am sort of sick of certain music, that would not render it NOT GREAT. Quite the contrary: for a man to still have his work performed hundreds of years later, and quite a lot, is quite a feat. Vivaldi has touched a lot of people with his music. He has communicated his art successfully over several centuries. I think that is pretty friggin' great. And most of you know I don't necessarily judge music by its popularity. But his aim was not the same as Bach, who aimed at more structural complexities. I find no conflict in assigning them both greatness, for much different reasons. Comparing the two in hierarchy however would seem like a child's name (my composer can beat up  your composer). Who cares about all that? As displayed over and over and over again here on this forum, nobody agrees (even to a close degree) on the order of hierarchy. It serves no real purpose except to get us arguing.

But a general glob organizing system of greatness is ok with me-Who was great at WHAT? Why was Mahler great? I think we could attempt at saying why each great composer was great. Measuring them against each other however is child's game.

[quintett op.57]

Wait here: do people actually think Vivaldi NOT GREAT?

As a conclusion, I wouldn't say all the composers have the same level of greatness.
But don't try to rank them.

Don't try to rank guys like Handel, Vivaldi, Bach, Haydn and Mozart, you would even ignore what you're doing.

vivaldi on the same level as bach ??  oh nevermind... Wink

this is where the discussion started.

[sonic1]

So does everyone here agree that a hierarchal cannon is silly? A cannon maybe fine, if it doesn't attempt at ranking composers against one another.

[BachQ]

So does everyone here agree that a hierarchal cannon is silly?

Rankings serve a legitimate, if circumscribed, purpose .........

[karlhenning]

Last things first:

But a general glob organizing system of greatness is ok with me-Who was great at WHAT? Why was Mahler great? I think we could attempt at saying why each great composer was great. Measuring them against each other however is child's game.

Agreed on that last (how do we compare Schumann and Vivaldi? -- I wasn't, of course, I was pointing out that there is a great stylistic gap . . . which of itself is part of the problematic nature of comparing them).

I am too mixed in my read of Mahler to answer, there.  But you have giants of 20th century music as various as Schoenberg, Shostakovich and Bernstein vouching for his greatness, by word and (in musical emulation, to some degree) deed.

Wait here: do people actually think Vivaldi NOT GREAT? While I am sort of sick of certain music, that would not render it NOT GREAT.

Agree with the latter;  couldn't speak to the former.

Stravinsky went on record as having little interest in Vivaldi;  but then, Igor Fyodorovich was always colorful in his musical scorn 

[sonic1]

Well, this is why I go back to the personal cannon: There is no way even a limited group like our own could agree on a hierarchal cannon, let alone the classical scene at large.

If we are talking about a general cannon, and an agreed-upon cannon (which in itself is a major challenge), I suggest leaving out a hierarchal order, unless you never want to accomplish anything.

However, for what the music means to you personally, or what you think as more great than another, there can be a hierarchy. But I myself would even find arguments even if just dealing with my own self (inner arguments never to end). Personally I don't see a purpose in ranking.

[karlhenning]

. . . Personally I don't see a purpose in ranking.

No, indeed.  Though that goes straight back to DavidW's fine post . . . trying to make a horserace of it is pointless (Bach, then Mozart and Prokofiev neck and neck, some track separates them from Haydn, Sibelius pulls up the rear).

I don't see a canon as that sort of strict linear "ranking."  And again, I think a canon as something which is Other than, simply, my listening preferences still has value.

[karlhenning]

this is where the discussion started.

No, that was Nielsen 

[sonic1]

No, indeed.  Though that goes straight back to DavidW's fine post . . . trying to make a horserace of it is pointless (Bach, then Mozart and Prokofiev neck and neck, some track separates them from Haydn, Sibelius pulls up the rear).

I don't see a canon as that sort of strict linear "ranking."  And again, I think a canon as something which is Other than, simply, my listening preferences still has value.

This I agree with. For example, I am not the biggest Mozart fan. I finally kind of get it, but I don't ever really crave Mozart like I do Bach or Shostakovich or even that rare Vivaldi mood. That would not stop me from assigning him into greatness; for obviously, my tastes aside, he has impacted many many lives with his music.

[karlhenning]

Jared, do you know this 'un?--

[sonic1]

Jared, do you know this 'un?--

That looks pretty interesting. I will have to check it out. I have been digging on that neo-pseudo-tango stuff lately.

[quintett op.57]

quintett, you just want to argue for for the sake of it, you just pick out bits and pose questions without carefully reading and absorbing whats being said, or contributing anything to this discussion....please....take some time to reflect and think it through before posting in a knee-jerk fashion.

allright. I start again without picking out bits.

About Bach...

Bach's acheivement was in assimilating & consolidating those ideals & aspirations - of polyphonic counterpoint - into subsequent stylistic & formal developments ... all in an organic, intellectual flowering. Why is Bach is so revered? He used the same nuts & bolts as others ... but made music transcendant & mystical in it's power: he was a genius.

I really don't know what it means : making music mystical in its power.

He was in part the great consolidator and summation of that age, and of that great art of horizontal / vertical conception.

he was a consolidator, but he didn't consolidate everything, we agree about that, don't we?

But ... his real musical "invention" was the depth of his inventiveness : his never-since equaled talent to transcend & unify the intellect / emotion dichotomy in music, by sheer integration of thought, and miraculously appear - in a sort of state of grace - fully fused with natural lyrical musicality. This is what makes Bach the "father of music".

Still in need of an explanation about this. I don't agree with the fact that he had a never-since aqualed talent for what you've said. This is what you have to explain.
When you've done this effort, things will be clearer to us.

With JS Bach we're talking about a level of harmonic insight & profundity which would render anything "wild" as a fairly tame experience thereafter ... it is the gateway of the most radical experience possible in all music - spiritual ecstasy and some sort of "communion" with oneself or truth. Words fail me and I have to resort to religious terms even though I do not follow a faith !

!!! hum
I don't have to comment this, only compliments, you agree?

In the fragmented torrent of ideas this world has become since Bach's time - where certain methods were able to grow and be honed to perfection by him - it is much harder to speak in the unified, integrated voice of a totally consolidated musical form.

perfection? what is perfection in music? deserves a new thread, doesn't it?

Those wonderful musical means were then all used up, and cannot be redeemed by new composers. They have to find a fresh way ... note that I say FRESH ... not new !

You're assuming he's consolidated everything and lifted the level of music up to perfection?
wow!
Now you just have to give arguments.