Greatness in Music

[Haffner]

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

[karlhenning]

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

You're still missing the point.  Frederick's invitation demonstrates that he understood the distinction between [ what I like ] and [ what is great ].  There ought to be overlap, of course;  but it is a perceptual failure to define greatness as "what I like best."  BTW, the non-use of the dedication copy is something of a red herring that you're offering (sic) to the discussion;  that was an artifact, a regal present, it was not a delivery of workaday publication.  You seem to imply (a) that Frederick did a lot of playing (which I expect he did not, at that point;  he hired musicians to do a lot of playing -- he himself played occasionally, as a diversion), and (b) since he did not do much of this lot-of-playing from the dedicatory copy, it "means" that he had scant regard for Bach.  That is nonsense, and especially means nothing in comparison to the event of inviting Bach to court.

[sonic1]

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.

I neither think they are opposing nor bound together (expression and technique). The point of a lot of modern (should we say post-modern?) art is that you can lack technique and make great art. Cage went as far as to disassociate himself from the process of composing. I personally don't believe high art MUST POSSESS great technique. Most often it does, but it does not always.

I am not suggesting that Bach was technically masterful but lacking ideas. I am suggesting that to use him as a measure of greatness undermines the intent of a lot of modern artists. There is a vast difference in theory between the art of Bach and the art of Luigi Nono. Yet, I would consider Luigi Nono's quartet piece Fragmente an absolute sublime masterpiece, and I know many who would agree. In my own person there is no conflict between recognizing the greatness in Bach's WTC pieces, and recognizing the sublimity of Luigi Nono's quartet piece aforementioned. But I don't put Bach into this pantheon either. In fact, I would even go as far as to arguing that doing such takes away from my ability to comprehend and enjoy his music.

What I am getting at is this: It is one thing to say, "this work is sublime. It is a masterpeice." and to state why. It is another thing to say, "this composer is one of the greatest composers ever". It is really just a more formal version of band freaks that go on and on about how the Beatles are the zenith of all rock music. It is a sort of worship that has no purpose for me.

Dispensing of the need to assign Greatness does not mean I won't recognize it. It just means I want to see the music for what it is without all the unnecessary and superfluous eulogy. I have not seen a really good reason for such exercise.

I have not seen a decent reason for such a practice. In fact, I see it as a sort of turnoff. Whether intended or not, the practice comes off as elitist diatribe. I think Bach speaks for himself in his music. Does he really need the extra worship?

The other problem I come to is that if we assign greatness to a particular composition or composer, what standards do we use. If we could all be careful enough not to extend standards from one composer to another (two who have completely different intents) and not get into using such parameters to cut down on forms we don't personally like, I could almost except this practice. However, there is no evidence that suggests that will happen any time soon. Personal tastes/prejudices will alter the purpose of such a practice (and DOES).

[karlhenning]

I think Bach speaks for himself in his music. Does he really need the extra worship?

Again, while I likely agree with the fact that a lot of adulation (for, say, certain operas in French and certain orchestral works about the sea) winds up being about Something Else . . . I don't see that as an argument against the issue of greatness.

[BachQ]

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

Can we have a definition of "depth" and "deep" please ........

[sonic1]

Can we have a definition of "depth" and "deep" please ........

Joe Satriani vs Jimi Hendrix

[sonic1]

Again, while I likely agree with the fact that a lot of adulation (for, say, certain operas in French and certain orchestral works about the sea) winds up being about Something Else . . . I don't see that as an argument against the issue of greatness.

ok maybe I can buy that. But as often discussed, even on these pages, it is about Something Else. A need to justify one's tastes comes into play when entered is the hierarchy.

Once you attribute such greatness to such a person, then begs the question: why waste your time on all the others if they are all just lesser forms of art. That question is almost inevitable when you propose greatness. Karl, I trust you are more careful than that. But even I have been tainted by this sort of talk-when listening to a "lesser" artist than Bach I am prejudiced by the presence of Bach unless I separate him entirely. I am talking in the context of judging greatness overall rather than judging each artist by the parameters within which they work. The latter I have no issue with.

[Mark G. Simon]

I neither think they are opposing nor bound together (expression and technique). The point of a lot of modern (should we say post-modern?) art is that you can lack technique and make great art. Cage went as far as to disassociate himself from the process of composing. I personally don't believe high art MUST POSSESS great technique. Most often it does, but it does not always.

The 20th century is going to be problematic to evaluate because of the plethora of competing theories all of which presume to overthrow the accepted ideas of what music should be. Some of them will prove to be valid, some will prove to be hooey. As I said before time will sort things out. But the burden of proof is on the new ideas to demonstrate their validity.

The other problem I come to is that if we assign greatness to a particular composition or composer, what standards do we use. If we could all be careful enough not to extend standards from one composer to another (two who have completely different intents) and not get into using such parameters to cut down on forms we don't personally like, I could almost except this practice. However, there is no evidence that suggests that will happen any time soon. Personal tastes/prejudices will alter the purpose of such a practice (and DOES).

Larry addresses the issue of personal taste in his statement that I quoted. I suggest you read it again.

[Mark G. Simon]

Can we have a definition of "depth" and "deep" please ........

No we can't.

[Mark G. Simon]

For new music I would feel fine about suspending the concept of greatness until enough time has passed that a valid consensus can be formed about it. We can't know for sure what among the music being written today is great until a century or so has passed, so let's just enjoy it and leave the judgment to another generation.

[Haffner]

Joe Satriani vs Jimi Hendrix

For me, Hendrix= Jeff Beck overamplified and sloppily played, with some very good songwriting.
Joe Satriani= See above, but replace Eddie Van Halen with Jeff Beck

That written, I like them both a little (Hendrix almost entirely for his songwriting).

But are you saying one is "deep" and one has "depth"? Please define and assign the attributes to the appropriate individual.

[Mark G. Simon]

Once you attribute such greatness to such a person, then begs the question: why waste your time on all the others if they are all just lesser forms of art.

Simply because you enjoy it.

[Haffner]

Simply because you enjoy it.

This is a really good answer.

[sonic1]

For me, Hendrix= Jeff Beck overamplified and sloppily played, with some very good songwriting.
Joe Satriani= See above, but replace Eddie Van Halen with Jeff Beck

That written, I like them both a little (Hendrix almost entirely for his songwriting).

But are you saying one is "deep" and one has "depth"? Please define and assign the attributes to the appropriate individual.

Satriani exemplifies, for me, mastery in technique without much depth.

[Haffner]

Satriani exemplifies, for me, mastery in technique without much depth.

Hendrix, the opposite?

Have you ever heard the recording "Stargazer" by the band Rainbow?

[lukeottevanger]

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.

Don't want to intrude into this interesting thread at this late stage (so far I've only lurked) but I think that's Mark's pithy summing-up here - 'Music is considered great when it uses a high level of craftsmanship to express deep ideas' - whilst convincing to an extent, could do, IMO, with a little modification. There are plenty of 'great' composers with deficient technique in one or more areas (and when I say 'great' I mean 'generally admitted to the pantheon of important figures'). My own favourite, Janacek, had flaws in certain technical respects (which usually meant he either didn't venture into those areas or he exploited them with understanding); according to some, Satie, one of the most original figures of 20th century music, had one of the most deficient techniques of all; Tippett, a deeply original musical figure, had problems handling large structures. And so on and on - I could multiply these examples many times over, as this is an area which interests me deeply. To be sure, the three I mention are not Bach or Mozart, but they are not negligible figures either. I would even say that one reason a composer like Janacek speaks to me so deeply is because the deep ideas are not expressed smoothly, through a refined technique, but have to burn their way through to the surface. Same goes for Mussorgsky, even - dare I say it - for some points in late Beethoven....It makes the music all the more human to me - because humans aren't meant to be perfect, and I, personally, don't always know where to put myself when faced with 'perfection'. Which is why, BTW, I love the Musical Offering more than the Art of Fugue - it bears more traces of humanity, is less rarified and objective...

To me, Mark's statement would be more accurate, if less concise, if it read:

'Music is considered great when it express deep ideas using a technique appropriate to the implications of those ideas'

in which case - and sorry in advance for huge generalisations! - music whose concern is psychological penetration, human fallibility and raw truth can, to those ends, have a fallible but honest technique (Janacek); music concerned with the ultimate integration of the personality can have moments when the integration fails and the vision is lost (Tippett) and so on. And of course, it goes without saying that, whatever one sums up the 'concern' of Bach's music as being (glorifying his God, creating forms and structures of perfect balance, whatever) it requires and gets a perfect technique. In all cases this correlation of expressive/aesthetic ends and technique quirks/specificities just makes the music truer to its creator.

Or am I gabbling again?

Now I will beat a retreat....

[BachQ]

No we can't.

Please?

[Mark G. Simon]

Don't want to intrude into this interesting thread at this late stage (so far I've only lurked) but I think that's Mark's pithy summing-up here - 'Music is considered great when it uses a high level of craftsmanship to express deep ideas' - whilst convincing to an extent, could do, IMO, with a little modification. There are plenty of 'great' composers with deficient technique in one or more areas (and when I say 'great' I mean 'generally admitted to the pantheon of important figures'). My own favourite, Janacek, had flaws in certain technical respects (which usually meant he either didn't venture into those areas or he exploited them with understanding); according to some, Satie, one of the most original figures of 20th century music, had one of the most deficient techniques of all; Tippett, a deeply original musical figure, had problems handling large structures. And so on and on - I could multiply these examples many times over, as this is an area which interests me deeply. To be sure, the three I mention are not Bach or Mozart, but they are not negligible figures either. I would even say that one reason a composer like Janacek speaks to me so deeply is because the deep ideas are not expressed smoothly, through a refined technique, but have to burn their way through to the surface. Same goes for Mussorgsky, even - dare I say it - for some points in late Beethoven....It makes the music all the more human to me - because humans aren't meant to be perfect, and I, personally, don't always know where to put myself when faced with 'perfection'. Which is why, BTW, I love the Musical Offering more than the Art of Fugue - it bears more traces of humanity, is less rarified and objective...

The down side of pithiness is that blanket statements never cover everything. Nothing is as tidy as we'd like it to be. Tippett is a personal favorite of mine, even though some of his works, especially the vocal ones, have really infuriating flaws. I don't know if posterity will count him among the greats although there are a bunch of scores that in my opinion ought to qualify. Janacek is a composer I'm just starting to love. I know a lot of people who would not have any reservations in counting him among the greats, especially as an operatic composer. I have no objections to your revision of my statement.

[Mark G. Simon]

No we can't

Please?

It's a deep subject.

[BachQ]

It's a deep subject.

When referring to "deep subjects," what do you mean by "deep" ?



(let's try this from another angle .........)