Greatness in Music

[71 dB]

You'd do better if you started correcting errors right at home, if you know what I mean, lad  

Sorry, I don't know what you mean.

[sonic1]

We already had a perfection in music thread. It was another typical GMG brawl. If you want to ensure the arrival of Pink Harp, be my guest, and start another.

It is a silly notion to me, unless just using the word "perfect" in a more personal sense.

[quintett op.57]

James, the difference you suggest between fresh and new is not clear to me.

here is the first definition of fresh in the free-online dic :

1.  New to one's experience; not encountered before.

[jochanaan]

Coming late to this thread, I'm not sure what to say.  But I'll try to say something anyway.

First, here's a proposed definition of music:  "Organized sound."  This discounts randomly generated noises--unless somebody deliberately exploits aspects of the randomness, in other words, organizes it; much like Stockhausen and his Music for Four Helicopters (or however many it was).

Now to the even more problematic concept of greatness.  When I say that a composer, or a certain piece of music, is great, I usually mean that it has two things: Power, and perfection.  "Power" means that it moves me--to wonder, joy, fear, or some other emotion.  "Perfection" means that all the musical elements--notes, dynamics, phrasings, motivic developments, and so on--are in good relation to each other and form a satisfying whole.  Perfection without power is "academic" music; power without perfection never moves me for long.

Size and complexity play a role, but a small one.  A Bach organ fugue, Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, or a Wagner opera are good examples of big, complex great pieces; but a late Schubert song can have equal power and perfection compacted into a small size and musical simplicity.  (I'm thinking of Der Doppelgänger.)

Of course, since music only truly lives when it's performed, we have to consider performance too.  A great performance is simply one that portrays and transmits the music's greatness.  And one measure of music's greatness might be the quality of performances it draws from musicians.  If, say, the London Symphony, the Berlin Philharmonic, the Vienna Philharmonic and other world-class orchestras tend to give consistently weak performances of a certain piece, that might point to a lack in the music itself; but if the music consistently draws the best playing from the musicians, there's probably something there.

I think I said somewhere on the old forum that a good "objective" measure of greatness is simply the number of qualified listeners--that is, listeners who have experience and sensitivity--who think a composer or a composition is great.

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

Unless they're ranked by caliber and muzzle velocity.

[karlhenning]

Here's an offshoot of this thread, if you like 

[karlhenning]

First, here's a proposed definition of music:  "Organized sound."  This discounts randomly generated noises . . . .

Does it also discount our friend the nightingale? — since we cannot speak to his organization, I mean 

Fine addition to the thread, your post, jochanaan, thank you!

[sonic1]

James, you make some pretty strong statements, and you expect clarification from others. It is only fair if you take the time to communicate yourself too. I agree with you about Bach being great. But you need to communicate this without saying he has no equal, and all the other floral adjectives. Bach was an inventive arranger of harmony and melody, and his music emotive through the complexities. That is what I would say. His music has stood the test of time (and at least in one period, survived neglect). His output was mind-boggling, especially considering all his other responsibilities. He also wrote for entirely new instruments with new tonality-something most composers never have to deal with. Instead of being intimidated, he was excited and wrote stuff for every key.

Yes, in that German way, he has a mechanistic tendency, but also in that German way it is laced with intense emotion, intentional or not.

[Danny]

So we're all agreed that Beethoven was the greatest of all composers and that we need another cycle of his symphonies recorded?  Why, I think that was Dr. Karl's intention for creating this thread, after all!

[BachQ]

First, here's a proposed definition of music:  "Organized sound."   This discounts randomly generated noises--unless somebody deliberately exploits aspects of the randomness, in other words, organizes it; much like Stockhausen and his Music for Four Helicopters (or however many it was).

Very good!

[Don]

So we're all agreed that Beethoven was the greatest of all composers and that we need another cycle of his symphonies recorded? 

Yes, it's about time for another Beethoven symphonies cycle.  How about Yannick Nezet-Seguin?

[karlhenning]

Very good!

Make your checks payable to: M. Edgard Varèse (a/k/a "The stratospheric Colossus of Sound")

jochanaan does get bragging rights for the referral, naturalmente!

[sonic1]

Coming late to this thread, I'm not sure what to say.  But I'll try to say something anyway.

First, here's a proposed definition of music:  "Organized sound."  This discounts randomly generated noises--unless somebody deliberately exploits aspects of the randomness, in other words, organizes it; much like Stockhausen and his Music for Four Helicopters (or however many it was).

Now to the even more problematic concept of greatness.  When I say that a composer, or a certain piece of music, is great, I usually mean that it has two things: Power, and perfection.  "Power" means that it moves me--to wonder, joy, fear, or some other emotion.  "Perfection" means that all the musical elements--notes, dynamics, phrasings, motivic developments, and so on--are in good relation to each other and form a satisfying whole.  Perfection without power is "academic" music; power without perfection never moves me for long.

Size and complexity play a role, but a small one.  A Bach organ fugue, Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, or a Wagner opera are good examples of big, complex great pieces; but a late Schubert song can have equal power and perfection compacted into a small size and musical simplicity.  (I'm thinking of Der Doppelgänger.)

Of course, since music only truly lives when it's performed, we have to consider performance too.  A great performance is simply one that portrays and transmits the music's greatness.  And one measure of music's greatness might be the quality of performances it draws from musicians.  If, say, the London Symphony, the Berlin Philharmonic, the Vienna Philharmonic and other world-class orchestras tend to give consistently weak performances of a certain piece, that might point to a lack in the music itself; but if the music consistently draws the best playing from the musicians, there's probably something there.

I think I said somewhere on the old forum that a good "objective" measure of greatness is simply the number of qualified listeners--that is, listeners who have experience and sensitivity--who think a composer or a composition is great.
Unless they're ranked by caliber and muzzle velocity.

BTW jochanaan, how dare you interject even-tempered, objective argument! (a slug to the stomach)



This is the playground, baby.

[BachQ]

BTW jochanaan, how dare you interject even-tempered, objective argument! (a slug to the stomach)



This is the playground, baby.

Yeah, he's just neutralized about 15 pages of this thread ........

[karlhenning]

Yeah, he's just neutralized about 15 pages of this thread ........

Surely not that much, mon vieux?

Perhaps you're right, at that . . . .

[Danny]

Yes, it's about time for another Beethoven symphonies cycle.  How about Yannick Nezet-Seguin?

Hey, I'm buyin'!

[karlhenning]

The castanets in the third-movement Adagio (In the Store) of the Shostakovich Thirteenth.

That is greatness in music.

[Danny]

The entire Tenth Symphony is a masterful work of art, Dr. Karl. 

[quintett op.57]

James, you make some pretty strong statements, and you expect clarification from others. It is only fair if you take the time to communicate yourself too. I agree with you about Bach being great. But you need to communicate this without saying he has no equal

But if he thinks this?
He can, he just has to give arguments if he wants to convince.
If he had not said this, we would all agree (except Josquin and Josh).

[Bunny]

Yes, it's about time for another Beethoven symphonies cycle.  How about Yannick Nezet-Seguin?

Don't forget Jos van Immerseel's cycle to be released in 2008.  There's certainly room for another period instrument cycle.

[DavidW]

And Fux.
I don't think you do but I find it important not to reduce this influence to Bach and Handel (not to Fux either).

I made the same mistake I was criticizing!  I was characterizing an era by a minority!