Greatest Composer Since the Time of Beethoven, sorry but it's true.

[Karl Henning]

Pettersson comes to mind...

The Penguin Guide had no love for him, or Penderecki

And what does it matter if Stravinsky had no appreciation for Liszt or Vivaldi?

[snyprrr]

And what does it matter if Stravinsky had no appreciation for Liszt or Vivaldi?

nadadita





Can I start a 'Biggest Hack' Thread, Karl,... pleeeez??!!!

[Karl Henning]

Get some rest first, fella.

[Jo498]

Personally I trust positive verdicts about music much more than negative verdicts, simply for the fact that the letter ones imo are often based on prejudices and ignorance. Positive verdicts, especially by persons that are very interested in and have a broad knowledge of music, are mostly based on a deeper occupation with the subject.

I don't find this very plausible. Either s/he is an expert and then, supposing he is not dismissing something without really knowing it thoroughly (which might have been to some extent the case with Adorno about Sibelius and Stravinsky about Vivaldi) I should trust both positive and negative verdicts.
Or he is just making a flippant remark or venting a personal opinion or I don't trust the expertise, then the positive verdict should not count for much either.

I think one can often learn more about some music or literature from outrageously wrong statements by subtle and knowledgeable people than from praise by "true believers".

[Monsieur Croche]

Surely, merely arguing against the thesis that Stockhausen was "the greatest composer since Beethoven" is not hatred?

Is that valley boy/girl tween "Hate / Hater" slang usage from nearly a decade ago still in circulation?
Tween slang like that is usually considered unkewl no more than ca. three years after it first became a fashion!

[Karl Henning]

I don't find this very plausible. Either s/he is an expert and then, supposing he is not dismissing something without really knowing it thoroughly (which might have been to some extent the case with Adorno about Sibelius and Stravinsky about Vivaldi) I should trust both positive and negative verdicts.
Or he is just making a flippant remark or venting a personal opinion or I don't trust the expertise, then the positive verdict should not count for much either.

I think one can often learn more about some music or literature from outrageously wrong statements by subtle and knowledgeable people than from praise by "true believers".

You make a good point:  I do not think there is much to be learnt about the value of Stockhausen's music by reading what the "true believers" post.

Does Sibelius's admiration for Haydn make him a vacuous "true believer"?  The key point, I think, is that for any artist's work to be appreciated properly, the critic must have some sympathy for the artist's viewpoint.  So, no, Stravinsky's coy dismissal of Vivaldi does not mean much, since it was a soundworld or musical method which did not much interest him.  But IMO neither is (at the risk of beating a dead horse) Layton's knowledgeable and academical detraction of Shostakovich, based on the premise that "he's no Sibelius."

I invite you not to take my own almost thorough disdain for Stockhausen particularly seriously.  What I have heard or studied of his does not impress me enough to seek out more of his work.


I am not going to feel obliged to respect (say) Adorno's scorn for Sibelius, simply because he spins his scorn into a scholarly article.

[North Star]

I don't find this very plausible. Either s/he is an expert

On what? An expert will have blind spots, and a limited range of expertise.

and then, supposing he is not dismissing something without really knowing it thoroughly (which might have been to some extent the case with Adorno about Sibelius and Stravinsky about Vivaldi) I should trust both positive and negative verdicts.

Alright, we agree that an ignorant dismissal of someone with expertise is of little worth.

Or he is just making a flippant remark or venting a personal opinion or I don't trust the expertise, then the positive verdict should not count for much either.

Sure, baseless remarks are bad. If it encourages you to to listen with your own ears instead of dismissing the artist critiqued, all the better.

I think one can often learn more about some music or literature from outrageously wrong statements by subtle and knowledgeable people than from praise by "true believers".

Sure, oohing and aahing of little substance is not worth much, while people can arrive at a negative conclusion of the merits of a work of art and say something worthwhile about the works of art, or art in general. But missing the point eloquently is still just that, if there is a point in the work of art.

[Monsieur Croche]

Music which says something which no music had before, ought perhaps to be "innovation" enough.  (Writing superb music, ought to be enough.)

A-yep!
https://www.youtube.com/v/4l0Rxc3MFHA
Earth-shaking terrain-altering innovation? Nope.  Truly superb writing, that 'says something, and says it extremely well'? Yup.  Not directly sounding like music of another, i.e. "His own voice?" Yup.  I rest your case, lol.

One could argue that mere innovation is trivial.  Sure, we are all grateful that we have hot and cold running water, this was an important innovation.  But the important thing is the life we lead, a life made easier by the technical innovation.

We should consider any individual who praises the innovation as The Thing That Matters, rather a narrow-viewed eccentric, I should think.  (Oh, look!  A string quartet with helicopters!)

"Oh, look, string quartet w a very eccentric fugue as its final movement!" (people walked out on this at its premiere :-)

I did not say innovation was the only thing that matters, and that is why I deliberately included that subset of 'innovators' who are noted, but not at all called 'great.'  The distinction is more than important for the very reason you stated; innovation, all by itself, is not nearly enough to qualify a thing as great.

The greatest and great game, at least on fora, is to me trivial, a kind of sport the innate nature of which rules out reaching a solid final conclusion, or 'winning,' is not possible, period.

I.e. there are, like it or not, a collective bunch of musicians, critics, musicologists and historians who write "Those authoritarian books," wherein one finds these status of greatness rankings.  To date, I don't think they have included a one name that most would disagree with, nor named as 'one of the greatest' a composer where most people would disagree with their ranking.  Ergo, a lot of reasonable responses to 'Why is composer not rated higher are, "I think he's rated just about right."

THIS IS EXACTLY WHY PROKOFIEV, SIBELIUS, RAVEL, RACHMANINOV, HONEGGER, MILHAUD, CASELLA and a host of other great composers are also prominently listed in Groves, the Larousse Encyclopedia of Music and Musicians, The Harvard Dictionary of music, etc. -- because they were 'great' and so therein are so acknowledged.

I agree with you in that any piece which is 'successful' as a piece of music [not necessarily equating that with 'popularity', and if not but a poor imitative near replica of another composer's work, is nothing to dismiss as less than some kind of excellent, great, etc.

Where these rating games get downright emotional and silly, of course, is when all of us plebes have at it, bringing with us our emotional responses and attachments to a piece, perhaps our national pride due to the fact the composer is a 'home boy or girl,' and all  the rest which is actually outside that piece.

Where it verges on the ridiculous, imo, is when one or more plebes goes at it as if their empiric opinion -- as a non-professional musician or music scholar -- will, by assertive repetition, somehow have a super-heroic force to overturn the weight and force of the collective assessments of a composer by those who write the scholarly Groves, Larousse, etc.  :-)

The over-reaction to this over-reactionary polemic essay / rant contra Sibelius carries its own interior comedic irony.

While I find the phenomena of the civilized debacle this thread is as ironic and funny, it is also quite warming that, catalyzed by an amusing and reactionary period piece essay which carries zero threat, so many show their ardor in their love of a fine composer's music -- which is only as it should be!

B.T.W. ~ There is, and probably never will be, any clear set of criteria that allows determining what 'the greatest' is, who the greatest are, or of determining what constitutes a masterpiece. (Though people will  and do try, all such threads are but exercises, futile if the expectation is for a resolve to reach anything that could be conclusive.)


Always best regards.

[Monsieur Croche]

Can I start a 'Biggest Hack' Thread, Karl,... pleeeez??!!!

Go right ahead with that innately negative OP; its inevitable content is going to be mostly some serious dissing, whining and bashing.  Maybe that will reach a new height (or depth) of that kind of content in one thread.

For this proposed future OP, I pre-nominate John T. Williams, and Alan Hovhaness.

I predict a lot of outrage, hurt feelings and butt-hurt reactions having named just those two....



Best regards

[North Star]

I did not say innovation was the only thing that matters, and that is why I deliberately included that subset of 'innovators' who are noted, but not at all called 'great.'  The distinction is more than important, for the very reason you stated; innovation, all by itself, is not nearly enough to qualify a thing as great.

The greatest and great game, at least on fora, is to me trivial, a kind of sport the innate nature of which rules out reaching a solid final conclusion, or 'winning,' as not possible, period.

I.e. there are, like it or not, a collective bunch of musicians, critics, musicologists and historians who write "Those authoritarian books," wherein one finds these status of greatness rankings.  To date, I don't think they have included a one name that most would disagree with, nor named as 'one of the greatest' a composer where most people would disagree with their ranking. Ergo, a lot of reasonable responses to 'Why is composer not rated higher are, "I think he's rated just about right."

THIS IS EXACTLY WHY PROKOFIEV, SIBELIUS, RAVEL, RACHMANINOV, HONEGGER, MILHAUD, CASELLA and a host of other great composers are also listed and prominent in Groves, the Larousse Encyclopedia of Music and Musicians, The Harvard Dictionary of music, etc. -- because they were 'great' and so therein and are so acknowledged.

So once again you try make it look like Sibelius, while a great composer, was not an innovator or someone who altered the terrain.. As if ignoring my reply - where I quote chapter and verse demonstrating falseness of that idea - makes it disappear. 

The over-reaction to this over-reactionary polemic essay / rant contra Sibelius carries its own interior comedic irony.

While I find the phenomena of the civilized debacle this thread is as ironic and funny, it is also quite warming that, catalyzed by an amusing and reactionary period piece essay which carries zero threat, so many show their ardor in their love of a fine composer's music -- which is only as it should be!

I think you mean to say that you find the phenomenon that this thread is - a civilized debacle - to be ironic and funny.

[Cato]

A-yep!
https://www.youtube.com/v/4l0Rxc3MFHA
Earth-shaking terrain-altering innovation? Nope.  Truly superb writing, that 'says something, and says it extremely well'? Yup.  Not directly sounding like music of another, i.e. "His own voice?" Yup.  I rest your case, lol.

[James]

Personally I trust positive verdicts about music much more than negative verdicts, simply for the fact that the letter ones imo are often based on prejudices and ignorance. Positive verdicts, especially by persons that are very interested in and have a broad knowledge of music, are mostly based on a deeper occupation with the subject. Therefore I trust Miles' opinion about Stockhausen more than his opinions about Dolphy or Coleman. In addition the fact that Coleman and Dolphy were competitors in the same field of music might have biased his verdict.

I certainly would value Miles's (or Gould's) perspective on matters of music far more than anyone on this board. No offence, but a no-brainer.

[Monsieur Croche]

So once again you try make it look like Sibelius, while a great composer, was not an innovator or someone who altered the terrain.  As if ignoring my reply - where I quote chapter and verse demonstrating falseness of that idea - makes it disappear. 

I think the degree of personal offense you have taken has clouded your thinking.   Yes, Sibelius made subtle, some say dramatic, innovations in the how and what of thematic materials treated and presented within the Sonata-Allegro Symphonic format.  If he had done it first, that would be a different degree of innovation. Sibelius' innovation is a matter of degrees of variation of innovation vs. startling innovation, while I suppose it is necessary to say, once again, newness on its own not being enough to give prizes for, either. 

Sibelius altered his own terrain, and only a little bit the treatment of the presentation and variants of themes within the symphonic form. That is quite different from a seismic upheaval of the force of change Monteverdi, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Debussy, Schoenberg, Webern, et alia affected.  Nielsen altered his terrain and symphonic form, especially in the first two contiguous movements of his fifth symphony, deploys progressive tonality, counterpoint and polytonality and handling of  themes with more than a little aplomb, yet remains, ya know, Niesen... and another 'great' composer.

Within the context of the times Sibelius was composing, those innovative features were also not so startling to those who did notice them, unless they were staunch conservatives unaware or unwanting of other progressive developments in music going on then.  Over one hundred years later, some here are making out that Sibelius' subtle innovations were actually that startling, or perhaps even influential.  I think not, and that in no way dismisses his contribution in that area and certainly does not and can not diminish the value of his music.

Nothing will make Sibelius greater, or less great, than he now is.  I doubt if there is anything hidden left to be later discovered in the way of innovation in his scores.  This whole thread is reactionary to a post of a reactionary polemic essay (in perspective of its vintage and context), which is both a period piece and laugh riot.   

I seriously doubt that even those for whom Sibelius does not do much are interested in demoting his status as a composer.  Whatever anyone thinks, and following criteria Karl Henning gave earlier [] -- criteria with which I wholly agree -- basically as long as what is written is not a pale imitation of some other composer's work or style, 'innovative' or not, if it is superb writing, and speaks genuinely for itself -- that really ought to be great enough.

I think you mean to say that you find the phenomenon that this thread is - a civilized debacle - to be ironic and funny.

It is a quite civilized discussion, and we can collectively think GMG members and its founder and mods for setting that standard and holding to it.

What I find ironic, irony being implicit in that something is funny:
~~~Liebowitz's rant I mean, what else would anyone in 2016 call that essay?, and that it is so clearly in a context of a period and a specific agenda -- about which no one needs any training, expertise, or researcher or detective skills to literally smell as coming off its pages -- it is that transparently dated.
~~~Once posted, people actually took it seriously as if it was written yesterday and felt they had to DEFEND Sibelius vs. seeing the Liebowitz for exactly what it is, a period piece, now laughable as to its content, and that polemic quality of many contributors reactions is nearly equal in pitch and tone, merely in favor of vs. against. -- C'mon, that's funny.
~~~That if you think about it, none of that reaction was at all necessary IF the Liebowitz essay had been seen for what it is / was (by its date and context, just about anyone would see that.)  If this Liebowitz essay is not in Nicolas Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective: Critical Assaults on Composers Since Beethoven's Time, it is certainly worthy of being included in some late edition.
~~~That even non-fans know well enough that Sibelius needs no defenders whatsoever. 

1899 to 1924: Sibelius symphonies 1-7  Symphonic form or other, innovative as he was, "innovation" is also relative.
~~~1899 to 1910: Mahler symphonies 4 - 9 / Das Lied von der Erde / the unfinished 10th symphony.
~~~1905: Debussy's La Mer, a formal symphony regardless of what the composer chose to call it.
~~~1911 - 1922: Carl Neilsen Symphonies 3 - 5

-- just to keep the innovation thingie in relative proportion :-)


Best regards.

[Monsieur Croche]

Indeed. Imagine someone who doesn't care for Mozart, feeling that he was artistically justified because Glenn Gould said something negative about Mozart.  Lame, I know, but I've seen it 

Maybe more revealing of myself than I should, but, here 'tis...

"If you don't get Mozart, you don't get music."


Best regards.

[Mirror Image]

Maybe more revealing of myself than I should, but, here 'tis...

"If you don't get Mozart, you don't get music."


Best regards.

I don't like Mozart, so I guess I don't 'get' music. Whatever that means.

[Monsieur Croche]

I don't like Mozart, so I guess I don't 'get' music. Whatever that means.

"If you don't get Mozart, you don't get music" -- no liking mentioned, at all.

You don't have to like a composer, an era, etc. in order to get it.
"Getting it" and liking it are two different things.


Best regards.

[Mirror Image]

"If you don't get Mozart, you don't get music" -- no liking mentioned, at all.

You don't have to like a composer, an era, etc. in order to get it.
"Getting it" and liking it are two different things.


Best regards.

Okay, then let me rephrase, I don't get Mozart. Is that better?

[nathanb]

Maybe it's time to move this discussion back onto the topic of Lord Stockhausen.

[Mirror Image]

Maybe it's time to move this discussion back onto the topic of Lord Stockhausen.

If this topic was about Stockhausen, then why don't the moderators merge it with the Stockhausen thread? Until then, this thread can go in any direction and I hope it does because Stockhausen is most definitely not a composer I want to talk about.

[nathanb]

If this topic was about Stockhausen, then why don't the moderators merge it with the Stockhausen thread? Until then, this thread can go in any direction and I hope it does because Stockhausen is most definitely not a composer I want to talk about.

Moderator action does not define the topic of a thread. I agree they should've merged it, but that doesn't change the fact that the OP intends to start a Stockhausen thread.