Where have the Great Composers gone?

[James]

My difficulty with determining which works are great is entirely bound up with the problem of what objective criteria to use to judge musical compositions. 

For artistic merit, how about what's actually there in the music for starts.

[Cato]

Quote from: Cato on September 23, 2016, 08:55:19 AM

I suspect there was possibly some reverse snobbery involved.

This definitely happens. I've experienced it too. Most people just can't be bothered with it. Oh well, their loss. And the term "Classical Music" is loaded with negative connotations and excess baggage. Doesn't quite help.

True statements all!

I have never even tried to compose a thing, I am not knowledgeable enough. However I used to get immense pleasure in playing with others both classical and in my early days Jazz, unfortunately due to the ravages of time listening is all I can do now, 

Andante sighing   

But listening is the primary skill, so if you have that, you still have the soul of the musical experience.   0:)

[James]

But listening is the primary skill, so if you have that, you still have the soul of the musical experience.   0:)

I'd say 'active listening' is paramount to everything else, even for musicians themselves. A really good ear is a must. Thru 'active' listening alone, one can notice and hear enough and begin to understand what makes certain musicians & pieces greater than others. And it is a skill as you say .. one that should get better & grow ("stretching your ears") with experience.

If all you do is passive listening, you will probably never really learn much about the art (beyond the surface) and what's possible. And this isn't to say that Western Art Music is the be-all and end-all of music either, the best of it is certainly rich territory, but there is plenty of stuff within popular music(s), and even other cultures that it rarely addresses.

[San Antone]

You must get quickly bored to tears in the section dedicated to discussing the comparative fine-haired differences of recordings of the same piece.

For me, though I'm literally trained as a musician, including the how of discussing music and the relative quality and 'worth' of a piece, here, in order, top to bottom, is my list of preference of my activity with it...
1.) composing it
2.) playing it (piano)
3.) performing it
4.} 'just' listening.

No. 4 is enough on its own that in one lifetime, you will never be able to cover it all, even without repeat listening to anything :-)


Best regards.

I am also a trained musician and composer.  I could adopt your list, although my instruments are upright bass, guitar, banjo, mandolin and dobro.

[San Antone]

For artistic merit, how about what's actually there in the music for starts.

Let's say that we have four works under consideration for greatness, all often performed and recorded and could be considered as part of the Classical music canon:

Haydn String Quartet No. 66 in G, Op. 77, No. 1
Debussy String Quartet
Shostakovich String Quartet No. 8 in C Minor, Op. 110
Stockhausen Helicopter Quartet

What criteria would you use that is consistent to all four of these works in order to create an objective basis for making the case for greatness in each case?  And what if there are people who disagree with you, as undoubtedly will be?  Who decides?

[Karl Henning]

Let's say that we have four works under consideration for greatness, all often performed and recorded and could be considered as part of the Classical music canon:

Haydn String Quartet No. 66 in G, Op. 77, No. 1
Debussy String Quartet
Shostakovich String Quartet No. 8 in C Minor, Op. 110
Stockhausen Helicopter Quartet

What criteria would you use that is consistent to all four of these works in order to create an objective basis for making the case for greatness in each case?  And what if there are people who disagree with you, as undoubtedly will be?  Who decides?

Which consumes the least fossil fuels?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[James]

Let's say that we have four works under consideration for greatness, all often performed and recorded and could be considered as part of the Classical music canon:

Haydn String Quartet No. 66 in G, Op. 77, No. 1
Debussy String Quartet
Shostakovich String Quartet No. 8 in C Minor, Op. 110
Stockhausen Helicopter Quartet

What criteria would you use that is consistent to all four of these works in order to create an objective basis for making the case for greatness in each case?  And what if there are people who disagree with you, as undoubtedly will be?  Who decides?

But most of these SQs are already considered great, ditto the musicians for the most part. Each have earned their place. Are you completely unaware ? Would you not agree that the music itself is a pretty objective place to start in order to learn why certain musicians and works have the great artistic merits they do? This would provide a lot of insight and knowledge, no?

[Monsieur Croche]

Let's say that we have four works under consideration for greatness, all often performed and recorded and could be considered as part of the Classical music canon:

Haydn String Quartet No. 66 in G, Op. 77, No. 1
Debussy String Quartet
Shostakovich String Quartet No. 8 in C Minor, Op. 110
Stockhausen Helicopter Quartet

What criteria would you use that is consistent to all four of these works in order to create an objective basis for making the case for greatness in each case?  And what if there are people who disagree with you, as undoubtedly will be?  Who decides?

...but that is exactly why all four are on the list, no winners, no runners up 

[San Antone]

But most of these SQs are already considered great, ditto the musicians for the most part. Each have earned their place. Are you completely unaware ? Would you not agree that the music itself is a pretty objective place to start in order to learn why certain musicians and works have the great artistic merits they do? This would provide a lot of insight and knowledge, no?

If they are all great:

What in the music makes these works great?  Are the same things that make the Haydn SQ great also present in the Stockhausen Quartet, and are what make it great?  Same for the Debussy? The Shostakovich?  What do all these quartets share, if anything, which can be objectively identified, compared, weighed and judged great?

[Karl Henning]

Irony du jour

Are you completely unaware?

[James]

What do all these quartets share, if anything, which can be objectively identified, compared, weighed and judged great?

You make is sound more difficult than it is. There is loads of material out there that uses a relatively objective criteria to effectively evaluate and communicate the artistic merits of great musicians and works. Shedding more light on the "art form" which is far from arbitrary. Libraries are filled with this stuff. No one learns in a vacuum, and we should respect the tradition, no? It is a great starting point that we can apply to new works. The same observations & questions about the craftsmanship and the artistic decisions made. I used to listen and watch countless shows like BBC Radio 3's Discovering Music (for example) religiously and on a weekly basis they had no such trouble digging into the details of a masterwork from any era or kind. Each week they simply looked at the music in a similar way. They would look into the quality of the materials & how well-crafted the harmonies & melodies were, the interesting, meaningful rhythms, the relationships, the instrumentation and how it suited the material and how balanced it was. They would go into how a composer (or song-writer or even improviser) would build a vibrant composition from just a few small germ ideas. They would illustrate the simplicity or complexity of it and how a musician found the right way to say something. Highlighting the clarity and intelligibility of the expression because it's so well designed. They would talk about how some musicians authentically seek out new ideas in order to heroically express themselves, exploring imagination etc. And historical context; dates, times, events .. and how the musician found their place within the established conventions for the type of work, adding their own voice and enriching tradition etc.

[San Antone]

I doubt James will offer a sincere attempt to deal with the questions I posed, which I did not mean in a merely rhetorical manner. 

For me, the musical analysis I asked for, while certainly possible, I think is unreliable since different people can identify different aspects and elements in the works to use as evidence of greatness.  But I purposely chose works from different periods since I also question whether there is a/are common denominator(s) which can be found in all works, from across the hundreds of years of music history, that can be shown through an analysis of the music and held up as an indicator of greatness.

At least that is my opinion. 

I am open to be convinced otherwise.  But, I also doubt James is the person to convince me.

I think we have inherited these works as great and accept them as such, which, for me, is enough.   That's the way the classical music canon has been created, i.e., through a process of filtration over time with the great works rising to the top.

And my list contains one work that I do not think is actually great.  Any guesses which one?

[James]

I doubt James will offer a sincere attempt to deal with the questions I posed, which I did not mean in a merely rhetorical manner. 

I just did. Did you not read it?

For me, the musical analysis I asked for, while certainly possible, I think is unreliable since different people can identify different aspects and elements in the works to use as evidence of greatness.  But I purposely chose works from different periods since I also question whether there is a/are common denominator(s) which can be found in all works, from across the hundreds of years of music history, that can be shown through an analysis of the music and held up as an indicator of greatness.

I certainly addressed this too. And the things I mentioned can be used for any work and certainly all 4 you listed - whether how they pan out based on that criteria is another matter.

[San Antone]

I didn't see your post before I posted mine.  Like I said, you would not offer an answer.

The same observations & questions about the craftsmanship and the artistic decisions made.

Most works written by trained and experienced composers could exhibit these same two broad examples.   Greatness is something else, some kind of "X" factor, imo, beyond craftsmanship and artistic decision.

I used to listen and watch countless shows like BBC Radio 3's Discovering Music (for example) religiously and on a weekly basis they had no such trouble digging into the details of a masterwork from any era or kind. Each week they simply looked at the music in a similar way. They would look into the quality of the materials & how well-crafted the harmonies & melodies were, the interesting, meaningful rhythms, the relationships, the instrumentation and how it suited the material and how balanced it was. They would go into how a composer (or song-writer or even improviser) would build a vibrant composition from just a few small germ ideas. They would illustrate the simplicity or complexity of it and how a musician found the right way to say something. Highlighting the clarity and intelligibility of the expression because it's so well designed. They would talk about how some musicians authentically seek out new ideas in order to heroically express themselves, exploring imagination etc. And historical context; dates, times, events .. and how the musician found their place within the established conventions for the type of work, adding their own voice and enriching tradition etc.[/size][/font]

All of this kind of analysis comes well after the fact, after the work has been accepted as great and has entered the classical music canon.  This great work is dissected and analysed with commentators looking for the elements that contribute to its greatness. But this is all a speculative process. Often times these same works were criticized at the time of their composition and certainly not seen as great.  We have the same problem today.  How are we to judge a new work? 

Some people have identified John Luther Adams' Become Ocean as great; others are not convinced.

[James]

I didn't see your post before I posted mine.  Like I said, you would not offer an answer.

I offered you some criteria on which you can weigh artistic merit. You can certainly use some of the things I mentioned and many others and see how they pan out. Some works will score much higher than others in certain areas of those criteria, other areas may lack as a result of the over-emphasis of certain criteria, some will be strong across all of them, some will be horrible in all of the criteria. And from this criteria and the questions raised you can see what choices & decisions a musician makes. You can apply the criteria to music made yesterday, or 500 years ago.

[Andante]

I am also a trained musician and composer.  I could adopt your list, although my instruments are upright bass, guitar, banjo, mandolin and dobro.

I take it that you mean Double Bass I have never heard a Bass player refer to it as Upright Bass, just a comment that's all. 

[Karl Henning]

No slouch, that bass.

[San Antone]

I take it that you mean Double Bass I have never heard a Bass player refer to it as Upright Bass, just a comment that's all.

Yes, double bass, but I played jazz and that is most of us referred to it as an "upright".

[Sergeant Rock]

Yes, double bass, but I played jazz and that is most of us referred to it as an "upright".

And here I thought maybe you were a cool rockabilly 

Sarge

[San Antone]

And here I thought maybe you were a cool rockabilly 

Sarge

I have been in Nashville for the last 28 years as a professional songwriter, but would never claim to be a rockabilly.  My most recent cut