Who is "greater," Bach or Beethoven?

[Florestan]

[ukrneal] is arguing that the average person can enjoy classical music just as much as the real connoisseur

Well, I don't see anything wrong with the above. I know people with little formal education or without much interest in classical musical history and theory whio nevertheless enjoy classical music (Grieg's PC or Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique, to be precise).

he?  I don't quite see that, but if he is, he's exactly right--as long as we understand the difference between enjoyment and understanding.

Exactly. Enjoying classical music (or any other art, for that matter) requires two things, IMO: sensibility to beauty and exposure / education. Now, while the former is innate in people except pathological cases, the latter is sadly missing in the early formative years of our children. Whether the cause is a wrong educational philosophy or lack of funding (or most likely a deadly combination of thw two), the result is the same: a lamentable closure of the souls and minds of kids.

[/i], even if we are talking about simple pieces like Beethoven's Für Elise.

Simple pieces like that are an excellent way of introducing classical music to kids. After all, a journey of  a thousand miles begin with one step. Let's not forget that Beethoven late SQs are a tough nut to crack even for certain connoisseurs, which can hardly be accused of taking classical music lightly.

I think Beethoven's heart and mind is to be found in all their essentials both in op. 132 and in this marvel of a disc:

[asin]B0000041MM[/asin]

His argument is quite disingenuous because he is trying to pretend, with false nonchalance, that there is no difference between any given classical composition. A person of average taste can easily be made to appreciate some of the simpler and more approachable classical compositions, but that's entirely besides the point. It doesn't mean that they are actually making any concrete step into appreciating classical music. There is no growth, no individual development, and thus, no real progress.

I cannot disagree more. Enjoying simpler and lighter classical compositions is a big step forward and a prerequisite for the next ones. One cannot appreciate, or take a deep interest in, that which one does not enjoy --- this is an iron law and you don't escape it. Think of all the things you are interested in and name one that you don't enjoy. Conversely, name one thing you enjoy yet you are not interested in.

The surest sign of appreciating classical music is listening to it.

[Henk]

And also, make sure to vote in terms of "greatness" (whatever that means), and not personal taste. But if they happen to be the same, cool.

As Mahler with you, I've noticed Greg :-).

Henk,
your enemy

[mc ukrneal]

Well, I don't see anything wrong with the above. I know people with little formal education or without much interest in classical musical history and theory whio nevertheless enjoy classical music (Grieg's PC or Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique, to be precise).

Exactly. Enjoying classical music (or any other art, for that matter) requires two things, IMO: sensibility to beauty and exposure / education. Now, while the former is innate in people except pathological cases, the latter is sadly missing in the early formative years of our children. Whether the cause is a wrong educational philosophy or lack of funding (or most likely a deadly combination of thw two), the result is the same: a lamentable closure of the souls and minds of kids.

Simple pieces like that are an excellent way of introducing classical music to kids. After all, a journey of  a thousand miles begin with one step. Let's not forget that Beethoven late SQs are a tough nut to crack even for certain connoisseurs, which can hardly be accused of taking classical music lightly.

I am fine with all this too.

I cannot disagree more. Enjoying simpler and lighter classical compositions is a big step forward and a prerequisite for the next ones. One cannot appreciate, or take a deep interest in, that which one does not enjoy --- this is an iron law and you don't escape it. Think of all the things you are interested in and name one that you don't enjoy. Conversely, name one thing you enjoy yet you are not interested in.

The surest sign of appreciating classical music is listening to it.

And surely the last is the most important!

I do think we can appreciate things we don't ourselves enjoy, but I guess it depends on what you mean by appreciate here.

[Florestan]

I do think we can appreciate things we don't ourselves enjoy, but I guess it depends on what you mean by appreciate here.

"Appreciate" yes, but not "be interested in", which is the term I used. For instance, I appreciate the formal logic and  the mathematical structuring of Xennakis' music as the work of a superior intelligence --- yet I have no interest in listening the music for more than a few seconds. 

[mc ukrneal]

"Appreciate" yes, but not "be interested in", which is the term I used. For instance, I appreciate the formal logic and  the mathematical structuring of Xennakis' music as the work of a superior intelligence --- yet I have no interest in listening the music for more than a few seconds. 

I do like a story that ends happily ever after!

[starrynight]

I am fine with all this too.
And surely the last is the most important!

I do think we can appreciate things we don't ourselves enjoy, but I guess it depends on what you mean by appreciate here.

If you appreciate something (as MUSIC not just as a piece of history) I would say that means that you enjoy something to an extent, but maybe you just enjoy other things more.  We all have preferences / specialities, that's natural.

[Florestan]

I do like a story that ends happily ever after!

What do you mean? 

[mc ukrneal]

What do you mean? 

We are agreed (sorry  - I was kinda round about in that).   

[Florestan]

We are agreed (sorry  - I was kinda round about in that).   

Aaaah, yes I see now... well, no surprise that two elitists Opera Rara fans are in agreement.  0:)

[mc ukrneal]

Aaaah, yes I see now... well, no surprise that two elitists Opera Rara fans are in agreement.  0:)

hah! You got me there...

[Josquin des Prez]

And surely the last is the most important!

No its not. The preservation of this great art is what is really important. Its absolutely irrelevant who's enjoying what and where, if we are talking about stupid crap like The Three Tenors. You are making the same semantic fallacy as before.

[Josquin des Prez]

For instance, I appreciate the formal logic and  the mathematical structuring of Xennakis' music as the work of a superior intelligence

Superior autism maybe. Intelligence doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it, lest we are to imply Xenakis music is somehow more "intelligent" then Bach's, merely because it requires are greater amount of aspergers to appreciate.

[Josquin des Prez]

I cannot disagree more. Enjoying simpler and lighter classical compositions is a big step forward and a prerequisite for the next ones.

I don't see how. After all, everybody knows pieces like the Air in G for strings, or Pachelbel's Canon. Those pieces are as popular as they ever were. Yet, interest towards classical music is at its lowest ebb.

[Florestan]

The preservation of this great art is what is really important.

It is important, but the goal of its preservation should not be that it be locked in an ivory tower out of the degrading touch of the "ignorant masses"--- but that it be known, studied and enjoyed by anyone who has such an interest. And the interest can only be aroused by exposure and education. It is here that the situation is truly dramatic and the perspectives are bleak.

Its absolutely irrelevant who's enjoying what and where, if we are talking about stupid crap like The Three Tenors.

I don't know ukrneal's stance about that, but IMO the day when a critical mass of our kids and youngsters will enjoy The Three Tenors more than the MTV pop crap will mark a real progress.

Do you have any data about how many people, upon hearing TTT, decided (or not) that kind of music is worth exploring more deeply? That would be interesting to discuss.

I don't see how. After all, everybody knows pieces like the Air in G for strings, or Pachelbel's Canon. Those pieces are as popular as they ever were. Yet, interest towards classical music is at its lowest ebb.

I don't know about interest (though judging by the sheer amount of classical music available in all forms and shapes online, maybe it's not that low --- after all, there is an established and thriving market), but certainly exposure / education is -- and I mean exposure and education in its due time: early formative years.

[mc ukrneal]

No its not. The preservation of this great art is what is really important. Its absolutely irrelevant who's enjoying what and where, if we are talking about stupid crap like The Three Tenors. You are making the same semantic fallacy as before.

If you don't enjoy something, you will never pursue it further. Enjoyment or fulfillment is critical for the music to live and breathe.

[ibanezmonster]

As Mahler with you, I've noticed Greg :-).

Henk,
your enemy

[marvinbrown]

  I can't bring myself to vote one way or the other on this one! Bach is an authority on music, his work is astoundingly exact.  I would say he is one of the greatest PERFECTIONISTS in all of music.  If you want to learn, learn from Bach.  And Beethoven, well I can not think of a greater REVOLUTIONARY (Wagner comes close) than Beethoven.  What a remarkable visionary, hear Beethoven and marvel at the depth, the emotion and boldness!  If you want to dare, dare like Beethoven. 

marvin's vote: I CALL A DRAW!

[Josquin des Prez]

It is important, but the goal of its preservation should not be that it be locked in an ivory tower out of the degrading touch of the "ignorant masses"--- but that it be known, studied and enjoyed by anyone who has such an interest. And the interest can only be aroused by exposure and education.

Agreed but there is nothing to be gained by diluting the art in order to appeal to undeveloped tastes. The fact of the matter is that the only way the average listener can be made to appreciate classical music is if they pour the effort and willingness to learn and understand what's it really about. Today however the very idea that there are things in this world that need knowledge and personal development in order to be appreciated is completely unknown to most. It is not the people who are at fault really, or at least no more then they ever were, its our culture that has changed, for the worst.

I don't know ukrneal's stance about that, but IMO the day when a critical mass of our kids and youngsters will enjoy The Three Tenors more than the MTV pop crap will mark a real progress.

I see no difference really, except that The Three Tenors might be comparatively less vulgar, which is another argument altogether.

Do you have any data about how many people, upon hearing TTT, decided (or not) that kind of music is worth exploring more deeply? That would be interesting to discuss.

Well, i can only rely on my own individual impression through out the years. Many times i've have met people who have listed popular classical pieces like the ones i mentioned above among their favored "songs", but you could tell they didn't understand a whole lot about classical music in general. Through out the years, i had a lot more success converting people who were already interested in forms of music of a certain degree of sophistication (such as Jazz, or progressive Rock), people whom would have found The Three Tenors as uninteresting as we do. I went thought the same process myself. I could never manage to hack through classical music, though i did make a few sporadic attempts. Then one day i became enamored with a group called King Crimson, which i listened to assiduously for more then two years. One day i was reading an interview with the main guitar player, who mentioned Bartok and late Beethoven among his main influences. My curiosity in classical music was rekindled, and this time i had a much easier time delving into the main repertory thanks to my experience with this band, who's music was far more complex then anything i had experienced until then. Personally, unless people are made aware that there things in music which require a certain amount of effort and growth to understand, no progress will ever be made. Most of the people who argue that classical music is stuffy and boring do not even know that there many other things to music then what their limited experience taught them. Their impression is one which is often based upon mere ignorance rather then individual taste (or lack of there of). They say they don't like classical music, but in actuality they don't really know it. For all intended purpose they might fall in love with it, if they knew what it really was.

and I mean exposure and education in its due time: early formative years.

I was 22 when i first started to listen to classical music in a serious manner, and i had very little musical education up to that point, besides my two years of training with King Crimson. Thus, i don't think its ever too late. All you need is the right type of exposure, not just any type of exposure, which may not be sufficient.

[The Diner]

[karlhenning]

No its not. The preservation of this great art is what is really important. Its absolutely irrelevant who's enjoying what and where . . . .

Orthogonal, really. People enjoying the art, is an important part of what drives its preservation.