Greatness in Music

[karlhenning]

Therefore the practice of assigning a few composers of the past "greatness" above all others is odd to me. I get why you say so, the skill, the ability to emote and communicate using the complex system of composition (the writing, orchestration, and all else that goes into getting instrumentalists in a stand, and an audience into the seats), despite the conflicts of personal life, and producing music that reaches far into the consciousness of the public is amazing. I just believe there is more to music than that, and see little use in assessing the greatness of those which institution already directs us into. It seems a game more than anything else.

I can't answer for why it seems "a game" to you, Jared.  Is the sticking point in this key phrase: a few composers?  Neither do I quite follow your objection to "institution";  music necessarily has both (a) continuity with a respected past, and (b) a community which practices the art — the society does not exist, has never existed, where one person practiced music to the exclusion of all others;  it is an inherently communal artform.

Just as Larry pointed out that attempting to define artistic greatness as either "subjective" or "objective" is ultimately an exercise in failure, I don't think you'll get much purchase by broadly demonizing "institutions."  I, for one, would never have had any opportunity to learn the practice of music, as I now practice it, without the beneficent effect of a number of "institutions."

[karlhenning]

It seems like for every post of admiration, there are three for criticism.

Really?  It seems to me otherwise.

[sonic1]

Library shelves are loaded with old composers who no longer seem "appropriate" (whatever that is) for the modern era. That's why guys like Schein, Scheidt, are not played except by baroque specialists. But Bach is still played and listened to, even by you. Bach still has something to say to the present time. That's part of what constitutes greatness.

No one here is saying that you should listen to nothing but Bach, or that there shouldn't be times when Bach will absolutely will not do. No one is saying there should be no new music. That is a straw man of your own invention.

Such as....

Such as what the music is saying.

And in classical music there are three composers who are listed consistently above all others. I believe that is not due to other than institution. Bach was NOT considered one of the great ones until much later, as most of us know. He certainly would not have made it into the pantheon of greats without the PR work done much after his death. I think it is an interesting process, how as a group we decide who gets put into our various pantheons. I think these immortalized individuals do not necessarily get selected out of skill alone, but out of a sort of critical mass, guided in part by truth, and in part by the workings of fashion. In fact, I wonder how much these values have changed over the centuries-I wonder how tainted our modern perspective is.

At any rate, the holding up of three composers over all others is meaningless to me. It reflects fashion, not truth.

[EmpNapoleon]

Really?  It seems to me otherwise.

Yea, you're probably right.  It just seems like the critical posts are louder than the admiration posts.

[karlhenning]

At any rate, the holding up of three composers over all others is meaningless to me. It reflects fashion, not truth.

No.  In the first place, this illustration is an easily dismissable extreme;  as you must already know, neither Mark nor I (for instance) would suggest that only three composers are possessed of a supreme greatness which separates them from all other composers.

In the second, your curtain-line here seems to me fundamentally mistaken.  Admiration for Bach, a "fashion"?  And even the exaggeration of selecting three great-above-all-others composers, is a reflection of the truth.  A flawed reflection, with which much exception is to be taken, but the thing which is so imperfectly reflected there is indeed the truth.

I think that the case is much stronger, to claim that "any composer is great, as long as someone likes it," is a reflection of fashion, and not of the truth.  (Not that that accurately reflects your own thoughts, Jared.)

[dtwilbanks]

Bach was NOT considered one of the great ones until much later, as most of us know.

Not from what I've read. Anyone who looked at his music knew he was great. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Mark G. Simon]

Such as what the music is saying.

How do you manage to separate "the ability to emote and communicate using the complex system of composition (the writing, orchestration, and all else that goes into getting instrumentalists in a stand, and an audience into the seats), ... producing music that reaches far into the consciousness of the public" from "what the music is saying"?

And in classical music there are three composers who are listed consistently above all others. I believe that is not due to other than institution. Bach was NOT considered one of the great ones until much later, as most of us know. He certainly would not have made it into the pantheon of greats without the PR work done much after his death. I think it is an interesting process, how as a group we decide who gets put into our various pantheons. I think these immortalized individuals do not necessarily get selected out of skill alone, but out of a sort of critical mass, guided in part by truth, and in part by the workings of fashion. In fact, I wonder how much these values have changed over the centuries-I wonder how tainted our modern perspective is.

If you've been to the other board, CMG, you know there is one pernicious poster there who would hold you to three or four composers and tell you all the rest are worthless. Fortunately, he's an oddity and doesn't post here any more.

As you know the modern PR industry did not exist in the past, and nobody makes PR for dead composers because dead composers don't pay. Neither Bach nor his sons paid Baron von Swieten to collect Bach manuscripts, arrange performances of Bach compositions, and turn on as many musicians as he could to Bach's music (Mozart was one of his converts) as he could. That's word of mouth, which is a legitimate way of building a reputation. 

[karlhenning]

Not from what I've read. Anyone who looked at his music knew he was great. Maybe I'm wrong.

I should hardly think that Frederick the Great would have invited "Old Bach" to Court, except that cultivated people even in Bach's lifetime recognized his greatness.

[dtwilbanks]

I should hardly think that Frederick the Great would have invited "Old Bach" to Court, except that cultivated people even in Bach's lifetime recognized his greatness.

Sorry. I should have said "...anyone knowledgable who looked at his music...".

[sonic1]

His music was little-known until much later. Not unheard of, but not well known either. Certainly not what it is today.

BTW I am not demonizing institution: Institution is how society survives. I am just separating my own ideas from that which has been imposed upon me since birth.

I do believe Bach a fashion, or a sort. Greatness and what is considered great, changes with time. Some fashions last a lot longer, and other less so. But I believe a lot of what we consider great, we do so at the influence of institution, not our own personal values.

Art must remain current to have life. I believe in "classical" music the over-emphasis of the greatness of certain composers has HELD BACK artists. You fall into the trap of either being a traditionalist, or a tradition breaker. I believe Schoenberg would have been more interesting if he was not so bent on tradition-altering. You always ride on the artists of the past, but arguably music has had some difficulty in the modern era, struggling with assimilating its present with its past. Just look at the many arguments regarding modernity and classical.

No, I don't suggest that only 3 composers do it for you fellas. I am saying that the pantheon has a small number of composers which does not reflect the production of music over the many centuries. The vibe is impositional and I think it is an unnecessary hurdle for composers. If what you write has nothing to do with what Bach wrote, you should not have to justify your existence by pounding your head over all the Bach cantatas.

[sonic1]

How do you manage to separate "the ability to emote and communicate using the complex system of composition (the writing, orchestration, and all else that goes into getting instrumentalists in a stand, and an audience into the seats), ... producing music that reaches far into the consciousness of the public" from "what the music is saying"?

Easy mark. Some artists don't have a lot of depth. I have a friend who is an incredible artist. His painting very effectively communicates his ideas and feelings, his technique incredible. But he doesn't have a lot of depth and his art reflects this.

Also what I am getting at is this: what was important to people of the past is not necessarily important to people now.

Joe Satriani is a guitarist who has incredible skill in the rock world. To me his playing it totally empty because it lacks that which I most love about music, the guts. Yet, luigi nono can express so much with long sustained scraping violin strings. Anyway, I have a test to study for.  I will return to this later.

[FideLeo]

His music was little-known until much later. Not unheard of, but not well known either. Certainly not what it is today.

Right.  For all we know the Prussian King wasn't too keen on Bach's compositions - look at what happened to Bach's dedication copy of the Musical Offering after it was sent in (hardly used) and it even bore the so-called Royal Theme!   It is the old man's better known virtuosity as a keyboard player and contrapunctalist that was the main attraction for the audience I believe.  As for composition, the King preferred the new style of Quantz or Benda brothers or even perhaps Telemann!

[karlhenning]

His music was little-known until much later. Not unheard of, but not well known either. Certainly not what it is today.

Sure;  but I think that Mark demonstrated that that is more sensibly attributed to changes in travel and communications over the centuries.  It isn't that Bach was "just a musical joe" in his day, but then M-G-M got hold of the rights to his catalogue . . . .

BTW I am not demonizing institution: Institution is how society survives. I am just separating my own ideas from that which has been imposed upon me since birth.

And that is on the whole a worthy process.  OTOH, you know, hardly any of the ideas we have, are not ideas which others have already been possessed of.

. . . I am saying that the pantheon has a small number of composers which does not reflect the production of music over the many centuries. The vibe is impositional and I think it is an unnecessary hurdle for composers . . .

The idea that we should just dispense with the notion of greatness in art (or say that it's all great, which amounts to the same thing), is at once quixotic, and destined to provoke The "Why?" Response.  Personally, I do not feel imposed upon.  As to the hurdle . . . well, I can juggle three objects reasonably competently;  I will probably never be able to juggle four objects.  It is a hurdle which I do not care about enough to surmount.  Compositionally, this is already a flawed analogy in my experience, because I don't think I've ever considered the greatness (undeniable greatness, in my thinking) of a formidably large number of composers anything like a "hurdle" in the path of my own work.  From my perspective, I'm not feeling any "impositional vibe," and I am inclined to think that the fault is "not in one's stars but in oneself."

. . . If what you write has nothing to do with what Bach wrote, you should not have to justify your existence by pounding your head over all the Bach cantatas.

Also what I am getting at is this: what was important to people of the past is not necessarily important to people now.

I agree with both these sentiments, but I don't find them arguments tenable to the present discussion.

[karlhenning]

Right.  For all we know the Prussian King wasn't too keen on Bach's compositions - look at what happened to Bach's dedication copy of the Musical Offering after it was sent in (hardly used) and it even bore the so-called Royal Theme!   It is the old man's better known virtuosity as a keyboard player and contrapunctalist that was the main attraction for the audience I believe.  As for composition, the King preferred the new style of Quantz or Benda brothers or even perhaps Telemann!

You must have quite a fine blade there, so neatly to divide Bach's compositional skills from his skills as a contrapuntalist.

[Mark G. Simon]

Easy mark. Some artists don't have a lot of depth. I have a friend who is an incredible artist. His painting very effectively communicates his ideas and feelings, his technique incredible. But he doesn't have a lot of depth and his art reflects this.

The trouble is you can't express your depth until you've got the technique. The fallacy here is that technique and depth are opposing forces. The truth is that whole purpose of technique is to allow the artist to communicate whatever ideas he (or she) has most effectively. Preferably they should be deep ideas.

But let's turn this around and imagine an artist who has all kinds of deep ideas and no technique. How can this artist possibly communicate those ideas effectively? He simply can't.

Library shelves are also littered with scores by technically gifted composers who have no deep ideas. Time sorts them out. Music is considered great when it uses a high level of craftsmanship to express deep ideas.

[dtwilbanks]

Time sorts them out.

I believe this short sentence answers the question of how we know a composer is great.

[FideLeo]

You must have quite a fine blade there, so neatly to divide Bach's compositional skills from his skills as a contrapuntalist.

The technical aspect (can one write/improvise a six-part fugue ad hoc?) and the overall style and content of a musical work of course can mean different things.

[Haffner]

Not from what I've read. Anyone who looked at his music knew he was great. Maybe I'm wrong.

The aristocracy sure seemed to know. Check out the "Musical Offering".

[Haffner]

I should hardly think that Frederick the Great would have invited "Old Bach" to Court, except that cultivated people even in Bach's lifetime recognized his greatness.

Arggh! Karl beat me to it!


Love the "...Offering".

[FideLeo]

Love the "...Offering".

Don't think the King loved it as much as you do.