Bernstein says that Beethoven was the greatest composer

[karlhenning]

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]

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.

Can you suggest a starting place?  0:)

[(poco) Sforzando]

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)

But asking for three players is a step up from the example I gave.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Can you suggest a starting place?  0:)

I could.

[karlhenning]

I could.

How absolute the knave is! 

[karlhenning]

(Just a quote from Hamlet, not imputing any knavery to our esteemed Sforzando)

[(poco) Sforzando]

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. 

First of all, I don't know who forces anything on anyone. You or your brother are simply being told the composers who have survived over time, nothing more or nothing less. You don't want to bother with them, I could care less. When I was growing up, I thought it made sense to listen to people who had studied music and thought about it far more deeply than I had, and that helped guide my personal taste. Not in a slavish way, but more like a mentoring sort of arrangement with both my teachers and the books I read.

What really interests me here is why your brother feels such a need to react "strenously" or "violently" when confronted with such guidance. No one is being forced to think any one way, no one must think one thing and not the other. (Which is not to say you won't be challenged if you present yourself as a gadfly - especially if you go about attacking in a cavalier manner works that many knowledgeable people esteem very highly.) But it appears that with your brother, the Culture of Resentment is in full swing, as if it somehow the generally accepted canon of Western art is an attack on his personal pride.

[JoshLilly]

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

Wait a minute: NO!! I never said or thought such a thing. Wrong. I just said I tend on many of those issues to not disagree with the majority. I believe those are my exact words. I more go along with most people's idea of what "good" and "bad" performances are, at least with extreme examples (amateur vs. professional, for example).

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.

I might agree with you. And then again, I might not. I'd have to hear each one. I did hear one MIDI of a symphony written by someone who was pretty much an amateur composer, and I thought the first movement was greater (superior) to many things I've heard by composers generally regarded as Great, including works by them regarded as Great. This is my preference. I can't stand anything I've ever heard by Shostakovich, so I thought this thing was better than Shostakovich. That's where it begins and ends. This likely doesn't hold true for anyone else, has no relevence for anyone else on Earth, and shouldn't delight or anger anyone.


About forcing pantheons... perhaps you could consider this backlash from all the non-stop Dittersdorf jokes. I like Dittersdorf a fair amount, yet people make forcing statements on the quality of his music all the time as if it were objective fact. Do I need to go search for examples?

[JoshLilly]

First of all, I don't know who forces anything on anyone. You or your brother are simply being told the composers who have survived over time, nothing more or nothing less.

Ah, no... this is most definitely not the case. Not even on this very message board, which I wasn't even counting. It goes way, way beyond that, including into direct and pointless name-calling by people with doctorates, and so on. Sometimes it's really hilarious to see these supposedly high-brow people stoop to using words like "idiot" and "moron" to attack someone who doesn't agree with them on what is or isn't great.

[The new erato]

When I was growing up, I thought it made sense to listen to people who had studied music and thought about it far more deeply than I had,

I think that is what in most areas are called studying. Here it obviously is a problem since it hinders the free thinking of all the free spirits floating around the board with lots of loosely grounded opinion but who can't be bothered to study the subject properly

[(poco) Sforzando]

I might agree with you. And then again, I might not. I'd have to hear each one. I did hear one MIDI of a symphony written by someone who was pretty much an amateur composer, and I thought the first movement was greater (superior) to many things I've heard by composers generally regarded as Great, including works by them regarded as Great.

Then I should certainly welcome an opportunity to hear this great work.

About forcing pantheons... perhaps you could consider this backlash from all the non-stop Dittersdorf jokes. I like Dittersdorf a fair amount, yet people make forcing statements on the quality of his music all the time as if it were objective fact. Do I need to go search for examples?

Your choice. I have no problem with the occasional Dittersdorf joke. And I have heard enough of his music to know I consider it inferior to Haydn, Mozart, or Beethoven. I'm not saying that's "objective fact," nor do I really care. It's my aesthetic judgment, and I have yet to hear anything by or read anything about the man that persuades me to a contrary position.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Ah, no... this is most definitely not the case. Not even on this very message board, which I wasn't even counting. It goes way, way beyond that, including into direct and pointless name-calling by people with doctorates, and so on. Sometimes it's really hilarious to see these supposedly high-brow people stoop to using words like "idiot" and "moron" to attack someone who doesn't agree with them on what is or isn't great.

Then please share some links to the hilarity, so that we can all partake.

[lukeottevanger]

I can't stand anything I've ever heard by Shostakovich, so I thought this thing was better than Shostakovich. That's where it begins and ends. This likely doesn't hold true for anyone else, has no relevence for anyone else on Earth, and shouldn't delight or anger anyone.

The first sentence here is an excellent example of the sort of sentence that troubles people, I think - the 'I don't like x, therefore I think y, which I liked, is better'. It boils down to 'what I like (subjectively) is therefore of higher (objective) quality'. It sits oddly with your statements in this thread about objective quality being impossible to measure.

Don't get me wrong - I can (sort of) understand how such a statement can be made. I too can't stand much of what I know by another fairly major composer (the only well-known name who I really don't like, but whose name isn't relevant here), and I can't help but listen to other, comparable but less highly-rated music and think, mystified, 'surely this is better than that'. But, always checking this self-indulgent, self-important instinct is my respect for the many others who disagree with me about this composer. I end up feeling that it is almost certainly me who is missing something, rather than these others who are misled. And in the past, as I have come round from real antipathy towards a composer, and bemusement at the generally high opinion of them, to something approaching adoration, I have been glad of my previous quiet and circumspect reserving of judgement, instead of shouting my negative opinions aloud. Which is why I don't mention the name of that first composer, the one I still don't like, here - at some point I may realise that I have been a fool. 

The second sentence, though, shows a humility in one's opinions that belies the impression given by the first sentence, which leads me to think that you didn't mean the first sentence to make the impression it does.

[JoshLilly]

Honestly, I can't be bothered. You can take this as that it doesn't exist (but it does), but it would take a long time. Plus, one of the big sites where this happened no longer exists; it was the site where I first encountered Larry Rinkel, but I can't remember exactly what it was called. Classical Insites or something like that, I think. After that, I didn't come near these types of websites for several years. The level of childish malice toward "inferiors" there was impressive, to say the least.

I think you're kidding, though, if you say you haven't witnessed such things yourself. I've even seen some of it go on here. I don't think I'd have to look far, but really, neither would anyone else if they want to see it, besides which, everyone already has seen it.

[lukeottevanger]

...it was the site where I first encountered Larry Rinkel...

That is indeed a life-changing moment for all of us!

I was there too, at the time - Classical Insites it was (CI)

[JoshLilly]

The first sentence here is an excellent example of the sort of sentence that troubles people, I think - the 'I don't like x, therefore I think y, which I liked, is better'. It boils down to 'what I like (subjectively) is therefore of higher (objective) quality'. It sits oddly with your statements in this thread about objective quality being impossible to measure.

What I do like is better. What else does "better" mean? It doesn't apply to anyone else. This is not arrogance because I don't seek to place this rating in anyone else's mind but my own. If I said "It's better for me and everyone else", like so many musical intelligentsia do, then it's the height of arrogance. I also think mustard is better than catsup/ketchup.

I too can't stand much of what I know by another fairly major composer (the only well-known name who I really don't like, but whose name isn't relevant here), and I can't help but listen to other, comparable but less highly-rated music and think, mystified, 'surely this is better than that'. But, always checking this self-indulgent, self-important instinct is my respect for the many others who disagree with me about this composer. I end up feeling that it is almost certainly me who is missing something, rather than these others who are misled.

And maybe you're not missing anything, and you just don't like it? Besides which, listening to music in and of itself seems self-indulgent to begin with.

The second sentence, though, shows a humility in one's opinions that belies the impression given by the first sentence, which leads me to think that you didn't mean the first sentence to make the impression it does.

I really don't understand what impression it gives, or is supposed to give, or not supposed to give. I like what I like, don't like what I don't like, and think whatever I choose to is great or not. How does humility factor in, one way or another? Letting other people define for me what is good or bad is proper humility? I won't ever accept that. Taste is not fact, no matter how much anyone wants to say - or force - it to be.

[lukeottevanger]

What I do like is better. What else does "better" mean? It doesn't apply to anyone else. This is not arrogance because I don't seek to place this rating in anyone else's mind but my own. If I said "It's better for me and everyone else", like so many musical intelligensia do, then it's the height of arrogance.

Re the first three sentences, I simply disagree with you here, on a fundamental level. 'Better for me' (as my children say about their favourite foods!) is, to my way of thinking, different from simple 'Better'. The latter, to my mind, implies some sort of consensus. But I can see you don't agree with that, and perhaps neither does Saul.

Re the second sentence, I agree - except that I think you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding this 'musical intelligentsia', who tend to discuss musical detail rather than simply making value judgements based on their own responses.

And maybe you're not missing anything, and you just don't like it?

How boring that would be, though. That closes me off to any further development. You know, I'd rather like it, I'd rather one day discover that I've been missing things, I'd rather get the pleasure that others get from this music than remain disliking it. This is why I don't understand why the Pauls of this world shut themselves off from so much music. I know this isn't an accusation that could be laid at you, btw.

Besides which, listening to music in and of itself seems self-indulgent to begin with.

Perhaps! But in a different way - it's indulging one's wish for aural pleasure. The other is (potentially) indulging one's sense of self-importance.

I really don't understand what impression it gives, or is supposed to give, or not supposed to give. I like what I like, don't like what I don't like, and think whatever I choose to is great or not. How does humility factor in, one way or another? Letting other people define for me what is good or bad is proper humility? I won't ever accept that. Taste is not fact, no matter how much anyone wants to say - or force - it to be.

Again, I don't think anyone is trying to define things for you, or lay down listening laws for you to follow. I simply can't see that, I'm afraid.

[(poco) Sforzando]

What I do like is better (etc.)

I don't have time to sort through all this now, but it seems to me that what you're missing is the potential for learning from others who may have studied more than you, or who may have different viewpoints that might change your apparently solipsistic views. What if, say, someone who knows and loves Shostakovich well could get you to hear his work in a way that opened it up for you? what if a trained composer got you to perceive weaknesses in this amateur composition that you don't hear now? Sorry, but the Beatles' "Across the Universe" is playing in my inner ear right now: "Nothing's gonna change my world." Yet the fun and challenge of participating in discussions like this can be precisely the shaking up of one's embedded opinions.

[JoshLilly]

I don't have time to sort through all this now, but it seems to me that what you're missing is the potential for learning from others who may have studied more than you, or who may have different viewpoints that might change your apparently solipsistic views. What if, say, someone who knows and loves Shostakovich well could get you to hear his work in a way that opened it up for you? what if a trained composer got you to perceive weaknesses in this amateur composition that you don't hear now? Sorry, but the Beatles' "Across the Universe" is playing in my inner ear right now: "Nothing's gonna change my world." Yet the fun and challenge of participating in discussions like this can be precisely the shaking up of one's embedded opinions.

I'm not missing anything along those lines. That's why I'm here. Should I recount my story of growing from despising Rachmaninov's 2nd Piano Concerto to it becoming one of my favourites of all PCs? All I'm saying is, it's not wrong for someone to never think it's great, regardless of what anyone else says. I want to like everything I hear, but I just don't. Sometimes, I grow to like something over time.

This message board has already gotten me giving listens to Sibelius in the last months. I still can't stomach any of it except the last 20 seconds or so of the 7th symphony, but even that's progress.    I really enjoy reading people's gushy posts about Sibelius and Shostakovich, even though I dislike (sometimes loathe) everything I've heard by both. And sometimes I read some interesting point and seek out something specific based on it, which is how I found out about the end of Sibelius's 7th, which impresses the hell out of me.

If I didn't desire to expand my already-huge playlists of stuff I like, I wouldn't even be here.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I'm not missing anything along those lines. That's why I'm here. Should I recount my story of growing from despising Rachmaninov's 2nd Piano Concerto to it becoming one of my favourites of all PCs? All I'm saying is, it's not wrong for someone to never think it's great, regardless of what anyone else says. I want to like everything I hear, but I just don't. Sometimes, I grow to like something over time.

This message board has already gotten me giving listens to Sibelius in the last months. I still can't stomach any of it except the last 20 seconds or so of the 7th symphony, but even that's progress.    I really enjoy reading people's gushy posts about Sibelius and Shostakovich, even though I dislike (sometimes loathe) everything I've heard by both. And sometimes I read some interesting point and seek out something specific based on it, which is how I found out about the end of Sibelius's 7th, which impresses the hell out of me.

If I didn't desire to expand my already-huge playlists of stuff I like, I wouldn't even be here.

That all sounds good to me. So where are we in dispute?