Bernstein says that Beethoven was the greatest composer

[karlhenning]

Nonetheless, Josh, there are plenty of applications of objective good-VS.-bad in the arts.

You do realize this, don't you?

[(poco) Sforzando]

What if someone has more experience, is more intelligent, and has more exposure, and still doesn't like it? In any case, all those things have nothing to do with any relative values of personal taste (what is good or bad). You can choose to give more credence to one person's taste than another's... indeed, most people do this. But one is not more right than another, and can't be. "Good" and "bad" by their very definitions cannot be objective.

Well, no, matters of aesthetic inferiority or superiority are judgments. They cannot be proven, but only discussed, disputed, or assented to (or not). Nonetheless, it cannot be accidental either that a substantial majority of people who know and care about the matter consider creators like Beethoven, Mozart, Shakespeare, Dante, Cervantes, Michelangelo, etc., to have produced on the whole more valuable work than creators like Auber, Bulwer Lytton, Bougoureau, etc. - take your pick. Even if there are differences in opinion here or there (one person may like Messiaen more than I do, another may value Janacek less highly), even if the first group can't be proven "good" and the other "bad," many of us behave in fact as if that is the case - so great is the cumulative effect of our common cultural heritage.

As a big Beethoven fan, I actually give Bernstein's opinion of Beethoven very little value whatsoever, based on the recordings I've heard of Bernstein conducting orchestral music of Beethoven. It just sounds awful to me, changed, modified, modernised. I hate it.

This makes me wonder first of all if you've ever read Bernstein's rather marvelous imaginary dialogue, "Why Beethoven?" reprinted in "The Joy of Music" from 1956. Whatever else, it makes clear Bernstein's passionate involvement in Beethoven, and part of it - the peroration, the best part - is reproduced here, so I'll just link:

http://thecultureclub.wordpress.com/2006/10/20/bernstein-on-beethoven/

And I don't know what Bernstein Beethoven you've heard, but I still maintain that his 1966 Eroica with the NY Phil is one of the most powerful performances ever, getting to the heart of the music in the way the Savalls and Gardiners and Norringtons can't even fathom.

[Ephemerid]

Nonetheless, Josh, there are plenty of applications of objective good-VS.-bad in the arts.

You do realize this, don't you?

Oh, Karl, I'm not saying that the greatness of Beethoven is synonymous with the collective subjectivities of a long line of composers-- but rather that they are RESPONDING to the (objective) presence of something never before and never since achieved-- It makes no sense to say Mendelssohn is "greater" than Beethoven when historically we know that Beethoven exerted such a tremendous influence.  Whatever it is that all these composers heard (and still hear), it was more than merely a collectivity of subjective responses-- there is something else.  The fact that so many composers have turned to Beethoven as a great standard-bearer indicates something more than mere subjective likes and dislikes.

That "something else" would be those more objective things like proportion, structure, output and lot more complex things I personally can't really say too much on myself (not knowing those details very intimately)-- I am aware that those objective things exist, though I might not be able to completely understand or express those things.  However, I do know that for other composers, historically, Beethoven is one of those great standard-bearers, something that cannot be said about a lot of other composers (which is not to say that there aren't other influences besides Beethoven/Mozart/Bach on composers).  

p.s. It just occurred to me that I think you were referring to the other Josh   

[Sergeant Rock]

And I don't know what Bernstein Beethoven you've heard, but I still maintain that his 1966 Eroica with the NY Phil is one of the most powerful performances ever, getting to the heart of the music in the way the Savalls and Gardiners and Norringtons can't even fathom.

Amen, brother!

[karlhenning]

No worries, Josh, a good reply.

[Ephemerid]

No worries, Josh, a good reply.

Its what happens when I multi-task 

[JoshLilly]

Nonetheless, Josh, there are plenty of applications of objective good-VS.-bad in the arts.
You do realize this, don't you?

No, actually, I don't. Quality can never be objective. I don't care if every Human being who ever lived, lives, or ever will live (including me) agrees with Bernstein's statement on Beethoven, it's still not objective. Mass, of even universal, opinion, is still just that. Beethoven obviously did something that resonates with more people's brains than most other composers, for whatever reasons, but there's nothing objective about likes and dislikes. Only mathematical and physical reality are objective. Even saying "murder is bad" has no objectivity in it, though I would hope everyone would agree with it.

[karlhenning]

No, actually, I don't. Quality can never be objective.

Really? No such thing as some people sing better than others, no such thing as some instrumentalists play better than others, no such thing as some choirs or orchestras perform any better than others?

As an example, mind you.

[JoshLilly]

Really? No such thing as some people sing better than others, no such thing as some instrumentalists play better than others, no such thing as some choirs or orchestras perform any better than others?
As an example, mind you.

No. "Better" and "worse" do not exist within the bounds of physical, objective reality. This is not to say that we might not be in universal agreement on some of those things, but they're still not facts of objective reality. Anything that is objective exists independent of thought or observation.

And I don't know what Bernstein Beethoven you've heard, but I still maintain that his 1966 Eroica with the NY Phil is one of the most powerful performances ever, getting to the heart of the music in the way the Savalls and Gardiners and Norringtons can't even fathom.

I don't know that I have heard that specific version, but every one I've heard by Bernstein (several) sounds modernised, big, mushy, and unclear. You just can't get it all with orchestras that big. I think it is Bernstein who could not fathom. He knew the orchestra of Mahler, not the orchestra of Beethoven¹, and I stack up Gardiner as his heavy superior in this regard.


¹ I'm sure Bernstein was factually aware that the orchestra he was using was not similar to those known to Beethoven. I hope you know what I mean.

[karlhenning]

No. "Better" and "worse" do not exist within the bounds of physical, objective reality. This is not to say that we might not be in universal agreement on some of those things, but they're still not facts of objective reality. Anything that is objective exists independent of thought or observation.

Ah. I think I understand you now.

So in all events, "lack of objectivity" cannot conceivably be a criticism of anything artistic, by your criteria.

It remains only to point out that The American Heritage Dictionary lists six readings of the adjective objective.  You've had fun worrying this line of the conversation by focusing on one narrow reading of the word.  You cannot realistically expect the whole forum, let alone the whole world, to indulge you in that eccentricity.  Language is bigger than that.

[(poco) Sforzando]

No. "Better" and "worse" do not exist within the bounds of physical, objective reality. This is not to say that we might not be in universal agreement on some of those things, but they're still not facts of objective reality. Anything that is objective exists independent of thought or observation.

I know what you're getting at, and partly agree when it comes to making judgments on composition and performing at a certain level.

But such things like singing/playing in tune, being able to play the notes accurately and with technique in reserve, having stamina to meet the demands of a physically demanding work, etc., are as objective as they need to be for most needs, and to argue otherwise strikes me as a meaningless philosophical nicety.

I can upload a clip of me stumbling my way through a Chopin etude on an out-of-tune piano, and then a clip of Ashkenazy or Anievas doing the same piece, and then let's see if you can tell me there's no good or bad in an objective sense.

[JoshLilly]

You cannot realistically expect the whole forum, let alone the whole world, to indulge you in that eccentricity.  Language is bigger than that.

And I do not think you can realistically expect to have everyone accept your taste or assessments on music as "true", yet you seem to, simply because many of yours happen to coincide with a majority of those within this group. The Human self is bigger than that.

[karlhenning]

And I do not think you can realistically expect to have everyone accept your taste or assessments on music as "true", yet you seem to, simply because many of yours happen to coincide with a majority of those within this group.

I don't think you've much read my posts.

[JoshLilly]

I have read a lot of them. A whole lot. Including in the thread about greatness and music that ballooned up to gargantuan proportions.

I'm not really sure what you would call this by you, in this very thread:


"Bernstein's remark is plausible. Yours is not."


That's without ranging farther back, where I do recall stronger statements about people being wrong in saying something is great or not.

[karlhenning]

But such things like singing/playing in tune, being able to play the notes accurately and with technique in reserve, having stamina to meet the demands of a physically demanding work, etc., are as objective as they need to be for most needs, and to argue otherwise strikes me as a meaningless philosophical nicety. [ italics mine —kph ]

Thank you.

[Saul]

What if someone has more experience, is more intelligent, and has more exposure, and still doesn't like it? In any case, all those things have nothing to do with any relative values of personal taste (what is good or bad). You can choose to give more credence to one person's taste than another's... indeed, most people do this. But one is not more right than another, and can't be. "Good" and "bad" by their very definitions cannot be objective.

As a big Beethoven fan, I actually give Bernstein's opinion of Beethoven very little value whatsoever, based on the recordings I've heard of Bernstein conducting orchestral music of Beethoven. It just sounds awful to me, changed, modified, modernised. I hate it. If Bernstein were to make technical statements devoid of opinion (like "In Bar #xxx, this note is blah with such&such marking") I wouldn't argue: his knowledge exceeds mine by incalculable lengths. But a statement on "greatest" or "worst" or whatever doesn't depend on that.

Wonderful post.

Too bad Karl, just doesnt get it...

[JoshLilly]

But such things like singing/playing in tune, being able to play the notes accurately and with technique in reserve, having stamina to meet the demands of a physically demanding work, etc., are as objective as they need to be for most needs, and to argue otherwise strikes me as a meaningless philosophical nicety.

I tend to have no disagreement on those things with the majority here, but I don't see it having any bearing on qualities of compositions. I wouldn't argue that I'm as good at singing as even my most hated professional singer, for instance. I can't even hit notes with my voice, so there goes that. I see no need to argue or disagree with this. I do, however, see a need to resist those who force pantheons of greatness on others. They should say "ignore it", and with regards to my personal life, I do. But do you have any idea how many people are alienated by this élitist behaviour? My brother counts among them, very strenuously. He would react violently (not physically) if told who and what he must consider "great" or not, using language that would probably not be permitted. 

[lukeottevanger]

I do, however, see a need to resist those who force pantheons of greatness on others. They should say "ignore it", and with regards to my personal life, I do. But do you have any idea how many people are alienated by this élitist behaviour? My brother counts among them, very strenuously. He would react violently (not physically) if told who and what he must consider "great" or not, using language that would probably not be permitted. 

But I don't think that is what is happening, at least not in this thread. I've never seen anyone say 'you must consider Beethoven great', or anything like this. Whether Beethoven is (or can be measured as being) 'objectively' greater than Mendelssohn or vice versa is not really the point; the point is that in the real world most classical music lovers think he is, just as most people would agree that Ashkenazy is a better pianist than Sforzando etc. Now, I don't think anyone would argue that it isn't absolutely fine to question any perceived Beethoven-above-all-others consensus - you're hinting in that direction, if I'm not wrong; James was more explicit about it yesterday (personally, if such a consensus exists, and I don't think it does, I'm not part of it). But, whatever, you are both doing so in a reasoned, carefully-assessed way which could prove the basis for fruitful and pleasant discussion. What gets people's goat is the casual way in which Saul, Poju or Paul feel that the denigration of other great music is the best way to  promote their own personal favourites*, but - and this is the important bit - without ever going into musical detail to support their argument. And no, this isn't a case of 'only the musically literate can have opinions' - we can all have opinions. But once one takes one's opinions out of the realm of personal preference and bludgeons others with them, I think one ought to be prepared 1) to justify one's arguments to the standards desired by those others or 2) to take the flak back.

*e.g. Paul, yesterday:

I have on Brahms great violin concerto/Oistrakh/Kondrashin/Russian State/1953. Just with the opening minutes I am impressed as to how Brahms may have surpased his master of inspiration, Beethoven. I would venture to guess those who love both concertos, may also agree that Brahms has more to offer than does Beethoven.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I tend to have no disagreement on those things with the majority here, but I don't see it having any bearing on qualities of compositions. I wouldn't argue that I'm as good at singing as even my most hated professional singer, for instance. I can't even hit notes with my voice, so there goes that. I see no need to argue or disagree with this. I do, however, see a need to resist those who force pantheons of greatness on others. They should say "ignore it", and with regards to my personal life, I do. But do you have any idea how many people are alienated by this élitist behaviour? My brother counts among them, very strenuously. He would react violently (not physically) if told who and what he must consider "great" or not, using language that would probably not be permitted. 

Ah. So while performance may have objective standards, composition has none. Anything goes.

Let me first turn to one essential aspect of composition: orchestration. Say, for instance, a composer writes a part for timpani without understanding the instrument well enough to calculate the number of drums he needs, so that the timpanist throws up his hands and says, "I can't retune the instrument in this time frame. I'd need 7 drums to play this part and I'd be retuning every 10 seconds! Does this nitwit think the timps are a melody instrument?" Or he writes a harp part with a whole-note chord tied over six bars, setting off a stream of giggles in his harpist because the harp is an instrument that can barely sustain any pitches at all, let alone the one I described. Or he writes passages that the conductor has to re-orchestrate because half the melodic lines are overpowered. (I remember one poster on another board continually complaining about Rachmaninoff in this respect - not that anyone re-orchestrated Rachmaninoff, but that in the sludge of his orchestration many of the voices couldn't be heard.)

And this is just one aspect of composition, others being things like melody, counterpoint, rhythm, form. I certainly understand cases whereby certain composers "break the rules" and the result is more individual and interesting than if they hadn't. Berlioz and Mussorgsky are obvious examples, of whom it was said that if you "correct" them, the result is always worse.

I realize too I am not yet speaking to your nothing of a "forced pantheon" and your brother's (not physical) violence, etc. I'm just getting started here, starting small.

But if you think there's nothing objectively better or worse than anything else in composition, I urge you to listen to the work of some of the amateurs who pepper the Internet with their "masterpieces." They are easy enough to find.

[lukeottevanger]

Ah. So while performance may have objective standards, composition has none. Anything goes.

Let me first turn to one essential aspect of composition: orchestration. Say, for instance, a composer writes a part for timpani without understanding the instrument well enough to calculate the number of drums he needs, so that the timpanist throws up his hands and says, "I can't retune the instrument in this time frame. I'd need 7 drums to play this part and I'd be retuning every 10 seconds! Does this nitwit think the timps are a melody instrument?"

hmmm - a little close to home! Sounds like the original (and best) version of the Glagolitic Mass (although with an underestimate of number of drums or speed of retuning....mind you, three players are asked for, I suppose)