Where have the Great Composers gone?

[Andante]

Hmm, the Tyranny of the Majority, eh?  0:)

Or the wisdom of crowds 
I see posts saying a lot of today's masterpieces took years to be accepted but that is misleading, You can't apply yesterdays situation with today's in the past it may have taken years for a new work to be heard but not today it is only a matter of weeks or months yet most of it is still rejected.

[Karl Henning]

Or the wisdom of crowds 
I see posts saying a lot of today’s masterpieces took years to be accepted but that is misleading, You can’t apply yesterdays situation with today’s in the past it may have taken years for a new work to be heard but not today it is only a matter of weeks or months yet most of it is still rejected.

The most important sense in which the past and the present are fundamentally similar, is that the short-term rejection by the many simply does not signify artistically.

It's not clear to me what you mean to say by "in the past it may have taken years for a new work to be heard." The same can be perfectly true today. For only one example: 16 years ago I wrote a piece for piano and wind quintet which still no audience has yet heard. So we do not yet know if it is great music, or if the wisdom of the crowds will reject it, or both.

Oh and another artistic constant which was true in the past, has perhaps always been true, and which remains true to this day:  if a piece is performed once, and only once; and if that first performance is (to put it diplomatically) inadequate ... well, you see perfectly clearly where I am going. The musical experience is rejected by the many, but the inadequacy of the performance in fact means that the crowd are not competent to judge the actual merits of the piece. Most of the audience, perhaps, are completely unaware of their reduced competency in this matter, and are content to condemn the piece as rubbish.

This problem is, if anything, aggravated in our day, when, as much of a challenge as it is to get a new piece performed once, it can be an even greater challenge to arrange a second performance.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Parsifal]

I don't subscribe to the idea that music should be rated as good, better, best ... great.  It just does not matter to me whether someone (or everyone) considers a work great or horrible.  I listen to a lot of music because I am curious about what is being written, or has been written - in a variety of styles.  Most of it I enjoy at some level; some I love to listen to.  I never ever think if it is great or not great.  Just how my brain works.

I am most definitely not offering a proscriptive to anyone else.   But this thread seemed to be going down the well worn path of deciding which composers have risen to greatness.   All I was doing was making the observation that if that determination is going to be made, then I think it takes the passage of a good amount of time so that we can receive a consensus opinion.

But if I enjoy a work and someone (or a whole lot of people; or if Pierre Boulez) tells me it is great - it does not change how I enjoy it; nor would it change my opinion of the work if someone (or a whole lot of people; or if Pierre Boulez) told me the opposite.

I agree entirely. Although I'd add that there is some "great" music that you have to hear just because it has been so influential and you won't understand what you are listening to without some exposure to it. If you haven't heard Beethoven's fifth symphony, the Well Tempered Clavier, Le Mer, Louis Armstrong, Bob Dylan, etc, you won't have to context to understand what came after.

[Cato]

Oh and another artistic constant which was true in the past, has perhaps always been true, and which remains true to this day:  if a piece is performed once, and only once; and if that first performance is (to put it diplomatically) inadequate ... well, you see perfectly clearly where I am going. The musical experience is rejected by the many, but the inadequacy of the performance in fact means that the crowd are not competent to judge the actual merits of the piece. Most of the audience, perhaps, are completely unaware of their reduced competency in this matter, and are content to condemn the piece as rubbish.

This problem is, if anything, aggravated in our day, when, as much of a challenge as it is to get a new piece performed once, it can be an even greater challenge to arrange a second performance.

I thought immediately of the First Symphony of Rachmaninov.  The premiere was something of a disaster, and the work remained unknown for decades: even the score was lost, and so it had to be reconstructed from the parts.

[San Antone]

I agree entirely. Although I'd add that there is some "great" music that you have to hear just because it has been so influential and you won't understand what you are listening to without some exposure to it. If you haven't heard Beethoven's fifth symphony, the Well Tempered Clavier, Le Mer, Louis Armstrong, Bob Dylan, etc, you won't have to context to understand what came after.

I agree with this.

[James]

It is my view that these qualities are subjective and what to you is a work exhibiting "quality and exellence =  great", may not stike another person the same way.

Sure, an average Joe with no experience may think this way - but certainly not learning musicians or connoisseurs. There is usually agreement, even if personal tastes may differ. For them, it is not a mindless affair. Being a great musician and doing great work actually means something beyond just throwing words around. It's relating to the deeds. Hence, not superfluous - but very real, present and meaningful.

[James]

Exactly.  One could (and perhaps ought to) simply say:

Absorbing music is my aesthetic, I love the benefits. It's constantly inspiring and a reminder that people can do great things, that perhaps we aren't that bad after all. Music is usually interesting, beautiful, moving &c.

What? This is the stupidest thing I've read. How did you come to such a conclusion based on what I said. And you're some sort of musician right? Have you ever made the distinction between a great musician or work and an average or amateurish one?

[Ken B]

Everyday people who deny one creation can be better than another use zippers made out of brass not butter.

[James]

I don't subscribe to the idea that music should be rated as good, better, best ... great.  It just does not matter to me whether someone (or everyone) considers a work great or horrible.  I listen to a lot of music because I am curious about what is being written, or has been written - in a variety of styles.  Most of it I enjoy at some level; some I love to listen to.  I never ever think if it is great or not great.  Just how my brain works.

You may not subscribe to it, but this is how the world works. There are levels. Sure, you can consume any shit you want, but you'll probably learn more from the best! and really get your engines going! ... there are differences between a great musician and a shitty one. Deal with it. And you don't have to wait (according to your calculations) 100 years and the opinions of many to pinpoint it either.

[Mahlerian]

All the above pertain to the aesthetic/technical/theoretical plane --- and as such it does not answer my question: given two works on the same aesthetic/technical/theorical plane, one enraptures casual listeners, the other makes them wince in pain --- the difference is obviously make by an extra-aesthetic/technical/theorical ingredient. Which one?

If it's a matter of sounding "like noise," the familiarity of the listener is the issue.  It's that simple.

Debussy's harmonic and melodic resources have been appropriated (in some cases cheapened) by all kinds of subsequent film composers, jazz musicians, etc., and they are familiar to the average listener today, at least to some degree.

Schoenberg's language, where it is heard, is heard in such a simplistic form that the actual music remains completely unfamiliar territory and it is difficult for listeners to grasp the connections it has to more familiar things like Bernard Herrmann or Alex North scores or even the music of Shostakovich.  It's like expecting someone whose only experience of Baroque music is Vivaldi's Four Seasons to immediately recognize the fugue that opens Bach's B minor Mass as part of the same era.

[nathanb]

Words cannot express my utter despair for the human race upon reading the latest Florestan post in this thread.

[SeptimalTritone]

All the above pertain to the aesthetic/technical/theoretical plane --- and as such it does not answer my question: given two works on the same aesthetic/technical/theorical plane, one enraptures casual listeners, the other makes them wince in pain --- the difference is obviously make by an extra-aesthetic/technical/theorical ingredient. Which one?

This part of your response has, again, misunderstood my last few posts. Schoenberg and Debussy are not on the same plane in aesthetics, technique, and theory. That's obvious, and that's my whole point about classical music aesthetic being a web, not a ladder. They are not technically the same, obviously. They are incommensurate. I have reiterated this many times.

The difference in response for the average classical listener comes from what Mahlerian said: familiarity with the musical idiom, and in different types of musical qualities that I stated earlier:

"For the first question, Schoenberg's much lesser diatonicism and triadicism, much lesser degree of repetition or imperfect repetition (with yet the burden of needing to perceive regularity and recall in often sonata form or sonata form-ish movements), much greater linear contrapuntal density, much greater quantity of melodic wide leaps, and much greater rhythmic irregularity. All of these elements, especially acting together at the same time, make it much less comprehensible, and therefore enjoyable, to casual listeners."

Do you understand what I mean in my quote, and why what I said in my quote would make Schoenberg difficult? My quote isn't just theoretical words, they are an explanation of the auditory experience for classical listeners not used to Schoenberg. It is an answer to your question.

Again, there is no monolithic requirement to "push through" with repeated listening to the point where one must like the music. I think that a lot of people just won't like Schoenberg, no matter the number of repeated listens, and this is no fault of theirs, it is, in fact, a neutral thing, just as liking Schoenberg is neutral. There is no merit/dismerit in liking Schoenberg. There is also no merit/dismerit in liking Beethoven. The value of Schoenberg, and Beethoven too, comes not from liking or disliking or the quantity of people liking or disliking (even potentially in the future), but from the aesthetic content, that is, the working out of melodic-harmonic conflicts within and between musical ideas.

[Karl Henning]

Again, there is no monolithic requirement to "push through" with repeated listening to the point where one must like the music. I think that a lot of people just won't like Schoenberg, no matter the number of repeated listens, and this is no fault of theirs, it is, in fact, a neutral thing, just as liking Schoenberg is neutral. There is no merit/dismerit in liking Schoenberg. There is also no merit/dismerit in liking Beethoven. The value of Schoenberg, and Beethoven too, comes not from liking or disliking or the quantity of people liking or disliking (even potentially in the future), but from the aesthetic content, that is, the working out of melodic-harmonic conflicts within and between musical ideas.

Very good.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Andante]

The most important sense in which the past and the present are fundamentally similar, is that the short-term rejection by the many simply does not signify artistically.

OK, I don't care if a piece is an artistic masterpiece or not, if it don't sound good to me I will not buy it.
If an engineer designs a car and it is hailed by his peers as an engineering masterpiece but when produced just dose not work as a motor car who do you blame?

It's not clear to me what you mean to say by "in the past it may have taken years for a new work to be heard." The same can be perfectly true today. For only one example: 16 years ago I wrote a piece for piano and wind quintet which still no audience has yet heard. So we do not yet know if it is great music, or if the wisdom of the crowds will reject it, or both.

Presumably you have had it played so did you record it and put on the www that is the way to have it judged, a link would be helpful. 150 years ago this was not possible that is what I mean by it may have taken years for the work to be heard by a large number of people over say Europe.   

Oh and another artistic constant which was true in the past, has perhaps always been true, and which remains true to this day:  if a piece is performed once, and only once; and if that first performance is (to put it diplomatically) inadequate ... well, you see perfectly clearly where I am going. The musical experience is rejected by the many, but the inadequacy of the performance in fact means that the crowd are not competent to judge the actual merits of the piece. Most of the audience, perhaps, are completely unaware of their reduced competency in this matter, and are content to condemn the piece as rubbish.

That is always the excuse, blame the audience for being stupid uneducated twits, never blame the musicians or the music.

This problem is, if anything, aggravated in our day, when, as much of a challenge as it is to get a new piece performed once, it can be an even greater challenge to arrange a second performance.

When I was a regular concert goer the only way for new works to be heard was to squeeze it into a program of regular accepted works, I guess that is still happening, I have also heard one or two premiers which left me wondering if I would ever like this kind of thing, but I am wandering off topic sorry.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Mr Henning I explored some of you music on YT and loved it particularly the choral,     also the Piece for unaccompanied clarinet but not quite as much, I am a fan.   

[Monsieur Croche]

Words cannot express my utter despair for the human race upon reading the latest Florestan post in this thread.

The more recent Floridflow's post before this has been redacted by a mod, so I imagine any uglier tumors or even remotely threatening polyps or marks have been cut away or treated.

But, if one of the more unattractive of posts by the likes of a Floridflow can bring you to a state of utter despair, then I feel compelled to say that I think you've so far led a very sheltered life, and that you need to get out more ;-)


Best regards

[North Star]

That is always the excuse, blame the audience for being stupid uneducated twits, never blame the musicians or the music.

You misunderstood Karl there, Andante. His point was that if the audience hears a poor performance, they will have no way to properly judge the piece. That is not the audience's, but the performers', fault.

[Karl Henning]

OK, I don't care if a piece is an artistic masterpiece or not, if it don't sound good to me I will not buy it.

Understandable and nothing objectionable in that (if you allow the slight modification: I don't care if a piece is an artistic masterpiece or not, if the recording doesn't sound good to me I will not buy it.).  I was merely describing circumstances (not uncommon) in which the sole representation of a piece may not sound good.

Presumably you have had it played so did you record it and put on the www that is the way to have it judged, a link would be helpful.

No, the piece has never been played.  I have quite a "backlog" of works in a similar situation.

That is always the excuse, blame the audience for being stupid uneducated twits

Where did I accuse anyone of these vices?

[James]

Schoenberg and Debussy are not on the same plane in aesthetics, technique, and theory. That's obvious, and that's my whole point about classical music aesthetic being a web, not a ladder. They are not technically the same, obviously. They are incommensurate. I have reiterated this many times.

I'm scratching my head .. why are we even discussing Schoenberg or Debussy in this thread? Both are what we would call 'great' musicians .. no? Majority in-the-know would say so I'd think. It's like splitting hairs at this level. Perhaps we should be discussing what makes a musician or a work of art GREAT? I'm sure we could come up with objective criteria upon closer inspection and maybe even draw some parallels too.

[San Antone]

Perhaps we should be discussing what makes a musician or a work of art GREAT? I'm sure we could come up with objective criteria upon closer inspection and maybe even draw some parallels too.

I am more interested in listening to an unknown composer's latest YouTube offering.

[Monsieur Croche]

This is the stupidest thing I've read.

You can only have one of those, of course....

Your above statement reminds me of the student who explained away yet another absence from a day of school with the excuse he had already used many a time before.

Teacher: "Why were you absent yesterday?"
Student: "My Grandmother died." 
Teacher: "Just how many Grandmothers do you have?"