The Pressure of Music History

[Kullervo]

I have been giving this question some thought lately: Is someone who is familiar with nearly all the major works of music history more able to make a valid judgment on music of today?

For instance, if one hasn't heard all of Beethoven's symphonies — which are considered by many to be the archetype of the symphonic form as we know it today — if one hasn't come to an understanding of these works, is his opinion of a later or more obscure symphony to be given less weight than that of one who is intimately familiar? If so, to what extent would this lack of context make a difference in the qualifications of the judger?

Often, I find myself doubting the greatness of more obscure composers I enjoy because I lack familiarity with their more widely acknowledged contemporaries. E.g. "Should I even like Korngold's operas even though I haven't heard any of Wagner's operas?" Should historical context even enter the sphere of personal preference?

[The new erato]

Should historical context even enter the sphere of personal preference?

No it shouldn't. You like what you like.

But before you pronounce them as great, you should.

There's a major difference between liking stuff and making judgements on its greatness.

A difference several posters on this board should take note of.

[Gurn Blanston]

No it shouldn't. You like what you like.

But before you pronounce them as great, you should.

There's a major difference between liking stuff and making judgements on its greatness.

A difference several posters on this board should take note of.

Well answered, erato.

IMO, the "greatness" of a composer (whatever that is) is not relevant to whether you can or should enjoy the music. I have a great familiarity with Classical Era composers, probably have music by people that most listeners haven't heard of. And I enjoy it a lot. Many of them are not to be confused with "great" but that doesn't stop me enjoying them, nor should it you. One of my favorite concepts is that I can discover "new" music nearly every day, even if it IS 200-250 years old.



----------------
Now playing:
Händel Opus 3 - Munich Bach Orchestra / Karl Richter - Händel Op 3 #2 Concerto Grosso in Bb HWV 313 3rd mvmt - Allegro

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I think the essential thing is, first, to be entranced by a piece of music.

After that you want to repeat the pleasure by listening to as much music as you can, and after a while you can hear differences, not only in style, but also in quality. You notice you come back to some pieces over and over again, without exhausting them in the least.

Then, if you're really thorough, you start reading up on composers, perhaps even taking music lessons. And so, very gradually, you build up a picture, you form your taste, you learn to differentiate between what is pleasing and what is really deep. You also start to realise that not every great composer is to your liking, which does not diminish them, nor does it make you into a blockhead. You discover your own character and temperament.

So - yes, to judge and assess something, you must have knowledge. But to like something - only a good pair of ears, and an open mind.

[DavidW]

Should historical context even enter the sphere of personal preference?

Yes it should.  Historical context adds appreciation for music, art and literature.  The issue about greatness versus personal taste is actually different.  Your post equates completely separate issues.

[Szykneij]

When I saw this topic, I thought it might be related to this story:

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/dec/20/me-official-few-at-fsu-cheated/?sports-colleges-seminoles

[(poco) Sforzando]

Yes it should.  Historical context adds appreciation for music, art and literature.  The issue about greatness versus personal taste is actually different.  Your post equates completely separate issues.

I would agree with that, and with several other postings above. I think it's important to become aware of as much of the corpus of accepted music as one can. That doesn't meant you necessarily have to like Wagner, but not to know Wagner is a serious gap in one's awareness of the standard literature. And for all you know, once you get to know Wagner well you may find Korngold falls short by comparison. Or you may not.

[Josquin des Prez]

The issue about greatness versus personal taste is actually different.

Greatness = taste.   

[Kullervo]

Greatness = taste.   

Unfortunately that is the case for many posters here.

It is my opinion that greatness per se is an agreement of taste over a period of time. That a composer was famous in his day doesn't him great, nor that he is admired now after a long period of neglect, but rather that he is more or less continually admired from his own day to the present.

[Josquin des Prez]

It is my opinion that greatness per se is an agreement of taste over a period of time.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

- Arthur Schopenhauer

[karlhenning]

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

- Arthur Schopenhauer

Your first floater is in assuming that your point of view here, is The Truth™.

Your second floater is in imagining, from this bon mot, that ridicule is supposedly validation.

[karlhenning]

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Schopenhauer is drinking out of the cold porcelain goblet on this one.  "All truth," supposedly, is initially ridiculed.  Let us say that it is generally accepted as true, that Mozart is a great composer.  That truth was established in his lifetime;  so it is a truth with evaded the first of Schopenhauer's self-important "three stages."

So, why does "Josquin" cite this?  Possibly the answer is related to his need to take ridicule as supposed validation.

[Kullervo]

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

- Arthur Schopenhauer

First of all, I think you are abusing Schopenhauer by using words that were not meant for the subject at hand. The idea of an objective artistic "truth" seems to me entirely impossible and can only ever be argued in something like 71db-isms (e.g. "Mozart is better than Beethoven", and so on).

Secondly, suppose we entertain for a moment the idea that an objective artistic "truth" is possible, Schopenhauer's maxim would not be a refutation of my assertion (surely that was your intention?). Opposing opinions have existed all throughout time. With this fact in mind, it is therefore possible for Mozart (as an arbitrary example) to have vehement supporters, even though his music may be dismissed outright by the musical "establishment" (was there ever such a thing?) at large.

[longears]

Don't worry, Corey--your post was completely clear that you weren't equating "greatness" with personal taste, but something quite different, rather asking whether informed judgment has more merit than ignorant prejudice.  A very good question, and one in which I suspect you side with J.S. Mill, who thought it better to be a dissatisfied Socrates that a contented pig. 

Isn't it fascinating that people incapable of understanding household plumbing think that their uniformed judgments about  art mean anything?  And isn't it sad when their bulbs are too dim for them to see their own limitations?  "Oh yeah?  Well I'll see your two PhDs in music and raise you one mystical sensitivity to vibrational complexities!"

[The new erato]

It makes me cringe when I see (and I see it all the time) people making posts about "greatest this, greatest that" and it transpires from other posts that they are not familiar with more than a couple of Beethoven or Mahler (to take two random examples) symphonies - or may even have heard central repertoire works a single time before making judgements on them.

Not to take away from them their opinions in liking some stuff more than other stuff, which they are 100% entitled to (and we alle have to start somewhere), but I wish for more selfinsight and humility in posting.   

Longears has some good points.

[knight66]

Yes, I am 100% behind that post.

Mike

[DavidW]

Isn't it fascinating that people incapable of understanding household plumbing think that their uniformed judgments about  art mean anything? 

I don't feel that anyone that has posted on this thread deserved that.

[longears]

I don't feel that anyone that has posted on this thread deserved that.

(a) The comment was not directed at anyone in particular, but was a general observation about attitudes toward art, including music.  People commonly defer to trained experts when it comes to car repair or bomb defusing, but when it comes to art--including music--all kinds of folks think their untrained opinions are as valid as those of highly trained practitioners. The guy standing before a Picasso and saying, "My kid can draw better than that," is so commonplace it's a cliché.

(b) You having the chutzpah to chide anyone for transgressions of courtesy is the second most hilariously ironic thing I've seen all day!

[DavidW]

(a) The comment was not directed at anyone in particular, but was a general observation about attitudes toward art, including music. 

Uh okay you're just expressing a general animosity towards people having opinions.  Well I at least have to thank you for showing me the courtesy of not directly insulting me.

[Kullervo]

Uh okay you're just expressing a general animosity towards people having opinions.  Well I at least have to thank you for showing me the courtesy of not directly insulting me.

I took it as more as a dig against those who try to justify their personal taste with half-baked ideas foisted off as "truth".