The Great American Symphony

[some guy]

This had puzzled me a bit, too. James' mind is certainly a thing, but the text in question uses the plural.

Anyway, to do some thread duty--or just philosophical duty--this last little exchange is a good example of one of the many problems with the whole idea of "greatness."

Greatness is almost always used as if it were an attribute of the object itself, like instrumentation and duration and perhaps genre. It is not. It is a quality conferred upon the object, a value judgement. Treating this valuation as if it were an attribute is what gives these kinds of discussions their peculiar quality, as it would be for anything extrinsic treated as if it were intrinsic.

So we get the following sub-text, rarely ever spelled out so bluntly, but certainly ever-present in every conversation: "You cannot see that X is great? What is wrong with you?" And its converse, equally contentious, "You cannot see that X is not even close to being great? What's the matter with your brain?"

It's not really difficult. "Great" is a conclusion, drawn (in the best case scenario), from facts. Facts are the only kinds of things that can be attributes, intrinsic. Conclusions are always and forever opinions. Conclusions derive whatever validity they may have--and some of them, as we have seen, have none --by how convincingly they have been derived from the facts. Some will remain unconvinced.

So yeah. "The Great American Symphony" is a non-starter. There not only is no such thing; there can be, in the nature of things, no such thing. No matter what intrinsic attributes a symphony may have--duration, instrumentation, use of or deviations from previous formal structures--the great (!) extrinsic quality of greatness doesn't enter into it until you have yourself some listeners. And, as we have just seen, listeners--even intelligent, experienced listeners--disagree about which symphonies are great or not.

Instead of trying to find something that does not exist, that cannot, by definition, exist, perhaps we would be better served by listening to some symphonies and then talking, if we must, about what we liked and disliked, if we must, about each one.

[Karl Henning]

This had puzzled me a bit, too. James' mind is certainly a thing [....]

Just for purposes of discussion, mind you, it may be a thing, or it may possibly be only an idea.

[Karl Henning]

Anyway, to do some thread duty--or just philosophical duty--this last little exchange is a good example of one of the many problems with the whole idea of "greatness."

Greatness is almost always used as if it were an attribute of the object itself, like instrumentation and duration and perhaps genre. It is not. It is a quality conferred upon the object, a value judgement. Treating this valuation as if it were an attribute is what gives these kinds of discussions their peculiar quality, as it would be for anything extrinsic treated as if it were intrinsic.

So we get the following sub-text, rarely ever spelled out so bluntly, but certainly ever-present in every conversation: "You cannot see that X is great? What is wrong with you?" And its converse, equally contentious, "You cannot see that X is not even close to being great? What's the matter with your brain?"

It's not really difficult. "Great" is a conclusion, drawn (in the best case scenario), from facts. Facts are the only kinds of things that can be attributes, intrinsic. Conclusions are always and forever opinions. Conclusions derive whatever validity they may have--and some of them, as we have seen, have none --by how convincingly they have been derived from the facts. Some will remain unconvinced.

So yeah. "The Great American Symphony" is a non-starter. There not only is no such thing; there can be, in the nature of things, no such thing. No matter what intrinsic attributes a symphony may have--duration, instrumentation, use of or deviations from previous formal structures--the great (!) extrinsic quality of greatness doesn't enter into it until you have yourself some listeners. And, as we have just seen, listeners--even intelligent, experienced listeners--disagree about which symphonies are great or not.

Instead of trying to find something that does not exist, that cannot, by definition, exist, perhaps we would be better served by listening to some symphonies and then talking, if we must, about what we liked and disliked, if we must, about each one.

Yes. Greatness:  what does it mean?  If/when we agree on what it means, how do we put that idea to service?

Some are content to use the idea as a cudgel, which hints at just how blunt and inartistic an instrument it is, in their hands.

[kishnevi]

This had puzzled me a bit, too. James' mind is certainly a thing, but the text in question uses the plural.

Anyway, to do some thread duty--or just philosophical duty--this last little exchange is a good example of one of the many problems with the whole idea of "greatness."

Greatness is almost always used as if it were an attribute of the object itself, like instrumentation and duration and perhaps genre. It is not. It is a quality conferred upon the object, a value judgement. Treating this valuation as if it were an attribute is what gives these kinds of discussions their peculiar quality, as it would be for anything extrinsic treated as if it were intrinsic.

So we get the following sub-text, rarely ever spelled out so bluntly, but certainly ever-present in every conversation: "You cannot see that X is great? What is wrong with you?" And its converse, equally contentious, "You cannot see that X is not even close to being great? What's the matter with your brain?"

It's not really difficult. "Great" is a conclusion, drawn (in the best case scenario), from facts. Facts are the only kinds of things that can be attributes, intrinsic. Conclusions are always and forever opinions. Conclusions derive whatever validity they may have--and some of them, as we have seen, have none --by how convincingly they have been derived from the facts. Some will remain unconvinced.

So yeah. "The Great American Symphony" is a non-starter. There not only is no such thing; there can be, in the nature of things, no such thing. No matter what intrinsic attributes a symphony may have--duration, instrumentation, use of or deviations from previous formal structures--the great (!) extrinsic quality of greatness doesn't enter into it until you have yourself some listeners. And, as we have just seen, listeners--even intelligent, experienced listeners--disagree about which symphonies are great or not.

Instead of trying to find something that does not exist, that cannot, by definition, exist, perhaps we would be better served by listening to some symphonies and then talking, if we must, about what we liked and disliked, if we must, about each one.

Well, if you want to go truly off the deep end
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

[vandermolen]

I like Schuman #6, but I'm still getting into it....I like 8 about the same, and 9 and 10 are really quite excellent. #3 is the one that reaches right ut and grabs you - it's a very tough score to play, very demanding parts - but when done well - NYPO, Chicago, it is a real knockout...would love to hear it live.

Thanks for the feedback. There is a very poetic section towards the middle of the work and I find the end of it oddly moving in a way that eschews all sentimentality. I find it to be a searching and visionary work which, to me, is one of the marks of greatness in music. I agree that Symphony 3 is a terrific score too.

[James]

I do disagree, and your opinion is certainly not fact.

I'm not stating my opinion, just pure fact. There has not been an American symphonist or symphony on the level (nor "equal or better", as you put it) of the best of what was born & bred in Europe.

Many have already been named on this thread. go read them...better yet, go listen to them.

You can't be serious ..

[Heck148]

I'm not stating my opinion,

right, you are just spewing bullcr*p.

There has not been an American symphonist or symphony on the level (nor "equal or better", as you put it) of the best of what was born & bred in Europe.[/size][/font]

an unfounded opinion based on obvious inexperience and lack of musical knowledge.

You can't be serious ..

Totally serious - I doubt that you have even heard the music aforementioned...as for "best of what was born & bred in Europe" -
..you obviously do not have the musical knowledge to express a worthwhile opinion.

[Scion7]

Is there an American symphony equal to Beethoven's 5th, 6th, 7th or 9th?  Well, no, of course not.
Has any American made the same accomplishment as Mahler did with the best of his symphonies?  Can't think of one.

BUT that doesn't mean that William Schuman's 3rd or Barber's 1st can't stand along many slightly 'lesser' European symphonies - and both of these are both inspired, and very well done pieces of music technically.

American composers have given many symphonies that "count."
Just dismissing them would be a foolish thing to do.

[kishnevi]

Is there an American symphony equal to Beethoven's 5th, 6th, 7th or 9th?  Well, no, of course not.
Has any American made the same accomplishment as Mahler did with the best of his symphonies?  Can't think of one.

BUT that doesn't mean that William Schuman's 3rd or Barber's 1st can't stand along many slightly 'lesser' European symphonies - and both of these are both inspired, and very well done pieces of music technically.

American composers have given many symphonies that "count."
Just dismissing them would be a foolish thing to do.

True.  I would suggest that in the last forty years* or so, the American contribution to the symphony has been at least as good as that made by Europe.

But certainly the most boring American symphony is more worth listening to than almost anything by Stockhausen.

*Interval chosen to leave Shostakovitch out of the balance.  Leaving him in would send it crashing down in favor of the European side.

[(poco) Sforzando]

This is turning into the usual "You're an idiot," "No, you're the idiot," "No, you're the bigger idiot" type of pseudo-discussion that so many threads of this sort degenerate into. Change a few names and it's the same thing as we had last week with the "Frustration" thread, in which the OP started beating the drum for a few British candidates (with the usual complaint about the overplayed "standard" composers, just as we have had here). Then at the next stage, various posters line up for or against, and finally everyone comes out swinging, with statements like "But certainly the most boring American symphony is more worth listening to than almost anything by Stockhausen" — which makes me question whether the poster has heard much by Stockhausen at all, just as I question whether the advocate of Stockhausen has heard many American symphonies. Of course nobody says anything specific about any of the music in question or attempts to revisit it (why bother?), so that by this point the whole discussion just becomes an unenlightening slugfest.

[Heck148]

BUT that doesn't mean that William Schuman's 3rd or Barber's 1st can't stand along many slightly 'lesser' European symphonies - and both of these are both inspired, and very well done pieces of music technically.

and powerfully expressive...agreed, but I don't think I would refer to them as "lesser" symphonies, tho - it has a negative connotation that is not warranted - I don't feel that Walton Sym #1, Vaughan  Williams 4, Sibelius 5, Schuman 3, Shotakovich 5 are in any way "lesser" symphonies...these are all powerful works, extremely well-written, and deeply expressive...whether they are "equal" to Mozart 39, 41, Beethoven 3,5,7,9?? Who knows??....depends on what mood I'm in!! They all affect me differently. all great...

American composers have given many symphonies that "count."
Just dismissing them would be a foolish thing to do.

Right on the $$

[Scion7]

I didn't say they were lesser - I said they'd stand with many quote-lesser-unquote European symphonies [those outside of the best of Beethoven or Mahler - which were innovative.]  Lesser than Beethoven does not mean 'of no value.'   

Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique is vastly different from Charles Ives' symphonies, but I'd rank them about the same level - giving the edge to Berlioz for melody, and Ives for technical complexity - and there is a lot going on in the Berlioz piece that's bold and new for the era it was composed.

[James]

just as I question whether the advocate of Stockhausen has heard many American symphonies.

I have, too many .. otherwise I wouldn't have said what I did. Stockhausen has more on offer.

[Jo498]

As I understood the question it has at least two aspects. The first is that after ca. Mahler "symphony" ceased to be as important a genre as it had been from late Haydn and Mozart to Mahler. So it is very unlikely that any symphony post ca. 1920 will have the status, impact etc. of one by Beethoven or Mahler.

This can of course be denied or classified as skewed position in favor of one certain narrative in musical history favoring the avantgarde that abolished symphonies in the strict sense already in the first wave of modernity (no symphonies by Debussy, Ravel, Bartok, Berg etc.).

So if one accepts that there are still worthwhile symphonies written (more or less post-romantic or neo-classical in a broad sense) after ca. 1925-30 (to put Ives, Nielsen and Sibelius also into the frame where symphonies were still an unproblematic genre) one can compare symphonies by e.g. Shostakovich, Hartmann, Henze, Vaughan Williams etc. with their American counterparts like Schuman, Copland, Harris etc.

I think e.g. amw holds a version of the position sketched in the first paragraph that tends to be very critical towards any neoclassical/romantic symphony past the 1930s or so (or even towards the masterpieces of neoclassicism like Stravinsky's). So from this vantage point it seems plausible that most American symphonies are rather negligible in the long run.

But the main (and maybe slightly more worthwhile) discussion should probably start with what I wrote in the 3rd paragraph above.

[James]

Is there an American symphony equal to Beethoven's 5th, 6th, 7th or 9th?  Well, no, of course not.
Has any American made the same accomplishment as Mahler did with the best of his symphonies?  Can't think of one.

Yes, precisely, good examples .. and there are others. Then you go on and talk of 'lesser' things ..
Bottomline, there really isn't an American symphonist or symphony that is truly 'great', or essential  ..
and probably less than 5 American symphonies that truly count.

[James]

whether they are "equal" to Mozart 39, 41, Beethoven 3,5,7,9?? Who knows??....depends on what mood I'm in!! They all affect me differently. all great...

You're so very confused. The mere whim of your mood doesn't change musical history or where things came from. It doesn't lessen, devalue or erase the greatest achievements. I'm not much of a symphony person myself at the end of the day, but at least I have put in the time and have the facts all sorted & straight, leading to a clear perspective.

[Karl Henning]

right, you are just spewing bullcr*p.

In essence, you are right.  When James states his opinion, he seems genuinely to believe that his opinion is Universal Artistic Truth.  He genuinely believes that, when you offer what any reasonable adult would regard as a divergent opinion, you simply were not paying attention when he pronounced The Truth unto you.  James's discussion, then, is not any matter of intelligent adults exchanging ideas, and benefiting from another perspective;  it is James trying to get all youse idiots to understand the Truth he's laying down here.  FOR OUR BENEFIT, PEOPLE!  Show a little appreciation, jeeze . . . .

[some guy]

Well, if you want to go truly off the deep end
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

That was an interesting article, especially for the struggle expressed therein, not explicitly articulated until the last paragraph.

The thing he posits there, that his "experiences of everyday life—[his] real feeling of a headache, [his] real taste of chocolate—that really is the ultimate nature of reality," is first principle kinda stuff for any student of language or literature. I was thinking as I read it, that his struggle was probably a result of his perspective, his training as a scientist. And that is what he says in the last paragraph. A poet, for example, would never have this particular struggle. In poetry, in the arts generally, probably, the idea is that "reality" is what happens when objects and observers get together. Reality only happens then. Neither observers nor objects really ( ) exist on their own. Real reality is what happens when they meet.

Of course, there's something there in each, separately, in order for the meeting to even be possible, but that something, in either case, is quite remarkably different from what results are when the two meet. That's what Hoffmann suggests in his interview, too. A poet would probably start with the results, the pre-existing somethings being, by definition, out of reach, a matter of speculation only.

But that's as may be. More immediately interesting to me is how easy it is for a post like mine explaining how a category can be empty to be followed immediately by a heated discussion in which all the disputants take as given that the category is real, is full:

"marks of greatness"
"on the level of"
"equal to"
"lesser"
"rank" (this one came after an acknowledgement of difference--and only similar things can reasonably be ranked)
"truly great"

So yeah. Just ignore that stuff about the empty category, eh?

And I also expect some high-powered ignoring of (poco) Sforzando's last--and very sensible and intelligent--post. Too early to tell on his, I suppose. Karl's last is a nice adjunct to that. While focussed on the shenanigan's of a particular poster, it does imply the same intellectual premises as inform (poco)'s post.

[Karl Henning]

"Just noodling."

[Karl Henning]

Some symphonies which I have quite enjoyed, but which I do not at all propose as The Great American Symphony, are those of George Antheil.  I find them both enjoyable as music to listen to (and I do not necessarily enthuse about music, merely because it is enjoyable to listen to), and interesting to reflect upon, in the context of the larger question which embraces the present thread.  It seems to me that Antheil didn't set about to write "The Great American Symphony":  perhaps he did not believe there was such a thing, nor any need for any such thing.  Perhaps he wrote them, and wrote them in the way he did, because he wanted to.  To pick up one strand in the present discussion, I can enjoy listening to them, and feel gratitude that there is a recording available, without arguing that the pieces ought to be represented in the current or future repertory of US orchestras.  Which is a considerable distance from other pieces which I feel are, actually, bad music.  Good but not great is a valid space for creative endeavor, especially since the definition of The Great is so problematic.  (Problematic, I mean, for any mind willing to step outside of comforting oversimplifications.)

Part of why I do not worry myself at all about The Need for Greatness, on the one hand, nor about the fallacy that there is One True Direction of Musical Progress (and if your work is not on that path, You Are No Use) is exemplified in the Antheil symphonies.  If you do good work, creating the work you want to create, for your own reasons, is enough.