The Symphony Cyclist

[Brahmsian]

You bring up an interesting question, DavidRoss.  And again, this reminds me of the now closed 'Define greatness in Music' thread.  At least I think it's closed, I know there was some hot debate on the issue.

Is there any way, or any room for objectivity in determining greatness, or level of greatness in music?  Talking specifically about classical music.

Can one say objectively, 100% - that Beethoven's symphonies are greater than Attenberg's symphonies?

Can one say objectively, 100% - that Beethoven's symphonies are greater than Mahler's symphonies?

I'm just asking - is it possible?  How do you draw the line?

Or does one say - Yes, I prefer Attenberg's symphonies over Beethoven's symphonies, but I realize that Beethoven's symphonies are greater works?   

[Grazioso]

MM~V.  Seeking greats among relative unknowns is what brought me here in the first place.  But though I've learned to appreciate several less acclaimed composers, I've yet to "discover" one I'd call "great."  If Atterburg is "great," what then do we call Janáček or Dvořák?  "Super great"?  Brahms or Haydn ... "super duper great"?  And what about Bach or Mozart or Beethoven?  "Super duper extra colossally great"?

Heck, all you really need in music is Bach and Mozart. Everything else is gravy 

[Brahmsian]

Heck, all you really need in music is Bach and Mozart.  The rest is noise!      Fixed!   

[DavidRoss]

We just need to define our terms, Ray ... an impossible task among this bunch! 

Let's just say that praise from one who clearly recognizes the greatness of, say, Beethoven and Mahler, but who doesn't debase the term by applying it to every fellow who ever wrote a bar of music for string, is far more likely to appeal to my interest when she calls my attention to something she regards as particularly noteworthy.

[DavidRoss]

Heck, all you really need in music is Bach and Mozart. Everything else is gravy 

This reminds me of a particularly pompous former member who made a fetish of sneering at those who enjoyed music written by anyone other than 7 or 8 German speakers from centuries past.  But he wouldn't have said, "gravy." 

[Brahmsian]

We just need to define our terms, Ray ... an impossible task among this bunch! 

Let's just say that praise from one who clearly recognizes the greatness of, say, Beethoven and Mahler, but who doesn't debase the term by applying it to every fellow who ever wrote a bar of music for string, is far more likely to appeal to my interest when she calls my attention to something she regards as particularly noteworthy.

I know - I do agree with you David.  I think there is (or must be) some level of objectivity.  Or, really, perhaps it doesn't really matter anyways, in the grand scheme of things?  Just listen to the music you enjoy the most, explore, do whatever you want to in regards to appreciating whatever music you do.

[DavidRoss]

I know - I do agree with you David.  I think there is (or must be) some level of objectivity.  Or, really, perhaps it doesn't really matter anyways, in the grand scheme of things?  Just listen to the music you enjoy the most, explore, do whatever you want to in regards to appreciating whatever music you do.

Yep.  I really enjoy, for instance, certain works by Barber and Copland, yet I would never think to regard them as "great" composers ... nor is my enjoyment of their music diminished at all by their general reputations as relatively minor figures in the history of music.

Addendum:  Nor is my enjoyment of composers I do regard as "great," such as Stravinsky or Sibelius, diminished one bit by others' failure to recognize their stature.

[Grazioso]

Yep.  I really enjoy, for instance, certain works by Barber and Copland, yet I would never think to regard them as "great" composers ... nor is my enjoyment of their music diminished at all by their general reputations as relatively minor figures in the history of music.

Addendum:  Nor is my enjoyment of composers I do regard as "great," such as Stravinsky or Sibelius, diminished one bit by others' failure to recognize their stature.

For me, it's simple: listen to what you enjoy. If "greatness" is at issue, establish specific criteria for greatness and offer specific examples from the scores to back your argument. Otherwise, let that sleeping dog lie

[Grazioso]

For fellow symphony explorers: The following is a tentative list of composers whose complete symphonies have been recorded on CD. I have worked to verify accuracy of those listed, but errors are possible and omissions are likely, given the enormous breadth of classical music on disc. Corrections/additions welcome. Thanks.

Q-Z, 75 composers

Rachmaninov
Raff
Rangstrom
Rathaus
Rautavaara
Rawsthorne
Respighi
Reznicek
Ries
Rimsky-Korsakov
Ropartz
Rorem
Rota
Rott
Roussel
Rubbra
Rubinstein
Saint-Saens
Sallinen
Sauguet
Saygun
Schmidt
Schnittke
Schoenberg
Schreker
Schubert
Schuman
Schumann
Scriabin
Searle
Shostakovich
Sibelius
Simpson
Sinding
Smetana
Smith, A.M.
Sorkocevic
Stanford
Stenhammar
Still
Strauss
Stravinsky
Suk
Sullivan
Svendsen
Szymanowki
Tal
Tanayev
Tchaikovsky, P.
Tcherepnin, A.
Thomson
Thuille?
Tippet
Toch
Tournmiere
Tubin
Valen
Vaughan Williams
Verhulst
Vermeulen
Vierne
Villa-Lobos
Volkmann
Vorisek
Wagner, R.
Wagner, S.
Walton
Weber
Webern
Weill
Wellesz
Wetz
Wilson
Wiren?
Yoshimatsu
Yun
Zemlinsky

Combined list=237 composers with 1,212 symphonies 

[kishnevi]

Re: comparative greatness

Perhaps we should split the question into different aspects.
1) Some composers appeal to us individually more than others, and we each react to different composers differently.   I think Mahler is great, Sibelius not as great.  Others would reverse that.  I usually talk about a specific composer's music "speaking to me" or not--something of an emotional connection with the music.  This aspect of the question is obviously subjective.
2) Certain composers have a wider appeal, or are more enjoyed/connected with by more individuals than others.  That wider appeal, while based on individual subjective reactions, results in something objectively measureable (for instance, Beethoven has a wider appeal than Barber, so one can justify on this level saying that Beethoven is a greater composer than Barber.  This aspect of the question is both subjective and objective.
3)Finally, certain composers have either achieved a technical mastery far superior to the peers (let's say, Bach and Mozart for examples) or innovated and influenced later composers to a high degree(let's say, Beethoven and  Wagner for examples); their impact on the history of music therefore entitles them to the adjective of "great" on an objective level.  (And yes, the examples were just for superficial purposes, and I realize that Bach and Mozart were in their own fashion great innovators, and Beethoven and Wagner achieved superior technical mastery.)

[Brahmsian]

2) Certain composers have a wider appeal, or are more enjoyed/connected with by more individuals than others.  That wider appeal, while based on individual subjective reactions, results in something objectively measureable (for instance, Beethoven has a wider appeal than Barber, so one can justify on this level saying that Beethoven is a greater composer than Barber.  This aspect of the question is both subjective and objective.

Well, then that means that 'popularity' is a criteria for objective greatness?  Well, I guess it is to some degree.

I've always wondered if each composer were given equal amount of playing time in the concert hall, if our favorites would change over time?  I mean, we are told from a very young age that (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven) are the greatest composers who ever lived, often without having heard a single note.  So, we are automatically faced with a pre-conceived notion that these 3 are the greatest of all time.

I'm not disagreeing with you by the way, Jeffrey, I'm just throwing it out there.  Just something that has been on my mind.

[The new erato]

Combined list=230 composers with 1,146 symphonies 

of which nearly 10% are by Haydn. 

[Grazioso]

Well, then that means that 'popularity' is a criteria for objective greatness?  Well, I guess it is to some degree.

I've always wondered if each composer were given equal amount of playing time in the concert hall, if our favorites would change over time?  I mean, we are told from a very young age that (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven) are the greatest composers who ever lived, often without having heard a single note.  So, we are automatically faced with a pre-conceived notion that these 3 are the greatest of all time.

That's a problem with artistic canons: many people take them on faith. Of all the listeners to classical music who reflexively nod in sage agreement at the statement "Bach is great" or "Beethoven is great," how many are musicians/composers/musicologists who've actually studied the music and compared it extensively and objectively to the work of those composers' contemporaries? Which of them could intelligently articulate their positions and support them with objective evidence? "Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent."

And if popularity and cultural impact equal greatness, then The Beatles and Lady Gaga are far more important than Schubert and Bartok 

To my mind, the whole idea of establishing hierarchies of artistic greatness is suspect. About the only time I can see it having some sort of useful role to play is in an educational/cultural literacy setting. A humanities or music history professor only has so many days in a semester to introduce students to classical music, so what do you choose? Like it or not, if you want to be "cultured," you need to know your Shakespeare, Michelangelo, and Beethoven. But then, like it or not, you're just perpetuating someone else's ideas.

Most of the time, the whole "greatness" idea seems to be an evasive way of pretending one's subjective impressions are somehow objective truths.

[Grazioso]

of which nearly 10% are by Haydn. 

And if I'm not mistaken, CPO have recorded all 41 of brother Michael's symphonies. Haydn family FTW 

[eyeresist]

I've always wondered if each composer were given equal amount of playing time in the concert hall, if our favorites would change over time?  I mean, we are told from a very young age that (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven) are the greatest composers who ever lived, often without having heard a single note.  So, we are automatically faced with a pre-conceived notion that these 3 are the greatest of all time.

I've found it's possible to pay lip service to the Greats, and in the meantime listen to the music that I REALLY like

[Dundonnell]

I tried something slightly different some time ago from the other direction, so to speak

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10427.msg260004.html#msg260004

I presume that you are familiar with the fantastic National Discographies published on Musicweb? (Click on 'Resources' at the top of the homepage). For those who want to know what orchestral music has been recorded these discographies are invaluable!!

[Mirror Image]

I presume that you are familiar with the fantastic National Discographies published on Musicweb?

I wasn't, but I am now. Kudos Colin for mentioning this resource.

[Grazioso]

I tried something slightly different some time ago from the other direction, so to speak

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10427.msg260004.html#msg260004

I presume that you are familiar with the fantastic National Discographies published on Musicweb?

I'll check out Musicweb's lists and work through your list and correlate it with mine. Depressing to see all the music that still needs to be recorded 

[Dundonnell]

My lists are two years old now.

I should update them

[Grazioso]

My lists are two years old now.

I should update them

The MDG Foerster cycle has been completed.