Your No. 1 Composer

[some guy]

I probably should just let this go, but some things are just too tempting.

keep some distance from the music at times, certainly to judge it better.  Idolising is probably a bit of a dead end and could get in the way of understanding the music better.

I would take judging and understanding to be two different things. And that the better the understanding, the less the judging. 

As for living composers who you may know, well that is great but most people aren't really in that position and so it isn't that relevant to them.

Yes. I see. That must be why so many people read fantasy fiction and sci fi novels (and watch the movies, too) and why so many people like shows about people stranded on deserted islands and shows about gangsters, because those things are relevant to them. Yes. That must be it!

[Elgarian]

I would take judging and understanding to be two different things. And that the better the understanding, the less the judging.

I promise not to take this any further off-topic, but I can't resist quoting here an observation by David Cecil that I know, absolutely, that you'll like. He's writing about literature, but it's relevant for criticism of any art form:

[The critics'] aim should be to interpret the work they are writing about and to help readers to appreciate it, by defining and analysing those qualities that make it precious and by indicating the angle of vision from which its beauties are visible.

But many critics do not realise their function. They aim not to appreciate but to judge; they seek first to draw up laws about literature and then to bully readers into accepting these laws ... [but] you cannot force a taste on someone else, you cannot argue people into enjoyment.

Actually, reading it again I see this is not quite as off-topic as I feared. We're talking in this thread not about the assessment and judgement of music, but about the love affairs we have with it. And although we're not acting in the formal role of critics here, Cecil's references to trying to articulate the nature of its preciousness, and of trying to express our perception of its beauties, are not a million miles away from the things we're struggling to talk about.

[Octo_Russ]

Easy choice, Beethoven, for me no other Composer comes even close, a revolutionary, it's his sheer universal-ness, for a number 2 i would agonize over a whole pack [Schubert, Chopin, Brahms], but Beethoven is head and shoulders above them all.

[Karl Henning]

I promise not to take this any further off-topic, but I can't resist quoting here an observation by David Cecil that I know, absolutely, that you'll like. He's writing about literature, but it's relevant for criticism of any art form:

[The critics'] aim should be to interpret the work they are writing about and to help readers to appreciate it, by defining and analysing those qualities that make it precious and by indicating the angle of vision from which its beauties are visible.

But many critics do not realise their function. They aim not to appreciate but to judge; they seek first to draw up laws about literature and then to bully readers into accepting these laws ... [but] you cannot force a taste on someone else, you cannot argue people into enjoyment.

That is good.

[starrynight]

I probably should just let this go, but some things are just too tempting.I would take judging and understanding to be two different things. And that the better the understanding, the less the judging. 
Yes. I see. That must be why so many people read fantasy fiction and sci fi novels (and watch the movies, too) and why so many people like shows about people stranded on deserted islands and shows about gangsters, because those things are relevant to them. Yes. That must be it!

I think every time we listen to music or approach any work of art we are both trying to understand and judge at the same time.  Judging is pretty much inescapable it seems to me, it's the decision as to whether something is really worth your time or not, and whether it is worth your effort to get to understand more.  Obviously it's important to have that openness to try and understand in the first place, but you can't keep listening to the same piece forever trying to understand it.

Your second point I don't really get.  Most people don't know a composer in person, so any idea of the composer's character is often largely of their own imagining and I don't think can be inferred fully through the music.  In fact I wonder if you could have someone who you know in person who is really nice and interesting but could actually do quite boring music for you anyway.  And it could work the other way too.  And for some good composers in the past their music may have been pretty much their life, putting most of their energy and thoughts into that and not into other things or people so much.

[starrynight]

I promise not to take this any further off-topic, but I can't resist quoting here an observation by David Cecil that I know, absolutely, that you'll like. He's writing about literature, but it's relevant for criticism of any art form:

[The critics'] aim should be to interpret the work they are writing about and to help readers to appreciate it, by defining and analysing those qualities that make it precious and by indicating the angle of vision from which its beauties are visible.

But many critics do not realise their function. They aim not to appreciate but to judge; they seek first to draw up laws about literature and then to bully readers into accepting these laws ... [but] you cannot force a taste on someone else, you cannot argue people into enjoyment.

Actually, reading it again I see this is not quite as off-topic as I feared. We're talking in this thread not about the assessment and judgement of music, but about the love affairs we have with it. And although we're not acting in the formal role of critics here, Cecil's references to trying to articulate the nature of its preciousness, and of trying to express our perception of its beauties, are not a million miles away from the things we're struggling to talk about.

I think judging is inescapable as a first point of selecting something to love.  But certainly critics (like the general audience) can have a very narrow way of judging which ignores things which don't fit music with the kind of intention and style they are looking for.  I always feel with any kind of music, popular or classical, that it shouldn't be judged on not being something that it isn't trying to be.

[Karl Henning]

I think judging is inescapable as a first point of selecting something to love.

But that which we love — did we "select" it to love?

If do — is it love?

[Elgarian]

I think judging is inescapable as a first point of selecting something to love.

I think our experiences, then, are so widely divergent that we don't have much common ground to discuss. I loved Elgar's music long, long before I was in any position to attempt to judge it. Indeed I know so little about music that I hardly think I'm capable of judging it correctly now.


This is all getting a bit too serious perhaps. To lighten things a bit, let me make the completely separate and  irrelevant observation that I think I may now possess more recordings of Scheherazade than I have of Elgar's violin concerto. What does this mean? And should I be worried? Karl, who understands all my neuroses better than most, will have wise words to offer, I doubt not.

[starrynight]

But that which we love — did we "select" it to love?

If do — is it love?

Yes, because otherwise you would just love everything.  As for exactly what love is well that is another question, and a big one.

[Karl Henning]

I fear there's a false step there.  There must be some reason, not necessarily conscious selection, why we love some things and not others.

My wife and I are celebrating our 18^th anniversary tomorrow. "I love you because I selected you to love" is not going to cut it with her. (Nor should it.)

[some guy]

Your second point I don't really get.  Most people don't know a composer in person, so any idea of the composer's character is often largely of their own imagining and I don't think can be inferred fully through the music. In fact I wonder if you could have someone who you know in person who is really nice and interesting but could actually do quite boring music for you anyway.

starry, this whole sub-topic started when you wondered about meeting composers in person. I responded to that, because I have met many composers in person. Then you said my response was irrelevant. Say what?

You: "I do wonder if they actually met their idol whether they would actually like him as much though."
Me: "Yes."
You: "That's irrelevant."
Me: "I question the relevance of your comment about relevance."

In none of that was there anything about inferring a composer's character from the music. I've met many heroes of mine. I like them all more after I had met them. Done.

And, though it might seem irrelevant, I can also answer your next question, "I wonder if you could have someone who you know in person who is really nice and interesting but could actually do quite boring music for you anyway."

Also "yes."

Most of the people I've met have been people whose music I already liked, so no problem there. Though liking someone is great incentive for trying harder to like their music.

Anyway, I apologize if my real-life first-hand experiences with living composers is not relevant to your speculations. But ya gotta understand that "I wonder if..." is hard to pass up if you have had the experience and hence know the answer.

[starrynight]

You: "I do wonder if they actually met their idol whether they would actually like him as much though."
Me: "Yes."
You: "That's irrelevant."
Me: "I question the relevance of your comment about relevance."

In none of that was there anything about inferring a composer's character from the music. I've met many heroes of mine. I like them all more after I had met them. Done.

. But ya gotta understand that "I wonder if..." is hard to pass up if you have had the experience and hence know the answer.

You are twisting what I said though, definitely a habit on these forums.  I said many people do not personally know the composers they listen to, that is a fact.  It is likely that they never will either.  Now the fact that you have a different perspective and have met those you like the music of is interesting, but again you can't speak for everyone (a habit on these forums) even from that perspective.  You have had one experience, others will have other experiences.  You know the answer for yourself from that perspective but not for others.

[mszczuj]

I must say I don't understand at all what are you talking about. Do you mean man not music when you use word "composer"? But what for?

[Bulldog]

It's about time to wrap this one up.

Your No. 1 composer is Beethoven.  That's no surprise, since Beethoven always wins.

No. 2 is Bach.

No. 3 is Haydn.

No. 4 is a tie among Brahms, Handel, Mahler, Wagner and Mozart.

I thank you for your votes and discussions.

[Opus106]

That's no surprise, since Beethoven always wins.

No. 2 is Bach.

Will you accept a last-minute vote for Bach?

[Ataraxia]

Will you accept a last-minute vote for Bach?

Hey, I got one and two right!! 

[Bulldog]

Will you accept a last-minute vote for Bach?

Well, another Bach vote wouldn't change the order.

[Gurn Blanston]

It's about time to wrap this one up.

Your No. 1 composer is Beethoven.  That's no surprise, since Beethoven always wins.

No. 2 is Bach.

No. 3 is Haydn.

No. 4 is a tie among Brahms, Handel, Mahler, Wagner and Mozart.

I thank you for your votes and discussions.

I am thrilled to see Haydn as high as #3! His stock value is improving every day.

[Opus106]

Well, another Bach vote wouldn't change the order.

I see I missed Octo_Russ' post after your latest tally. Hm... how about two last-minute votes, then?

[Leon]

I am thrilled to see Haydn as high as #3! His stock value is improving every day.

He got 3 votes: you, me and DavidW - the usual suspects.