I disagree.
Though Beethoven was a great composer , I am not ready to call him the greatest composer ever.
Mendelssohn's early (age 13-14) piano trios concertos and quartets contradict Bernstein's assertion. Even Mozart's symphony No.40 in G minor would discredit his comments.
He makes this comment in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZYn865RiRE&feature=related
Quote from: Saul on March 10, 2008, 07:24:26 PM
Mendelssohn's early (age 13-14) piano trios concertos and quartets contradict Bernstein's assertion.
Beethoven's late piano sonatas and quartets contradict
your assertion.
When you get to be as famous as Leonard Bernstein, you can make your own video to rebut him.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on March 10, 2008, 07:30:10 PM
Beethoven's late piano sonatas and quartets contradict your assertion.
Check Mendy's Concerto in D minor for Piano & Violin written at 13 and you make your own decision then..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR-zHrhH0Qc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFKPKx0lQWE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUWm1Xy39rs&feature=related
Did Mendelssohn ever wrote something like this, irrespective of age?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORrYCjtckM0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkeMlZThfHc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=repcFTXxL7A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXYbGr5RaKM
I rest my case.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on March 10, 2008, 08:07:57 PM
Did Mendelssohn ever wrote something like this, irrespective of age?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORrYCjtckM0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkeMlZThfHc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=repcFTXxL7A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXYbGr5RaKM
I rest my case.
Ah... Brahms famously had said that he would have given up all his compositions if he would had been able to write something like :
This
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3_Px2yXVbw
Try to bit that...
Brahms also gave an autograph, in which he scribbled a few bars from the Blue Danube, and wrote beneath, "Not by Brahms, alas!"
So J Strauss II was the best composer ever!
I have no idea what on earth age has to do with the matter - the quality of the music is all that counts. There have been many astonishing prodigies in music history, of whom Mendelssohn is only one. I'm not prepared on that basis to assert that Saint-Saens (for instance - first piano piece composed at 3 - Mendelssohn didn't even begin taking lessons until 6, the sluggard ;D ) is greater than Beethoven. What's more, I think Saint-Saens, and Mendelssohn too, would have laughed at such an assertion!
Quote from: lukeottevanger on March 11, 2008, 02:01:46 AM
I have no idea what on earth age has to do with the matter - the quality of the music is all that counts. There have been many astonishing prodigies in music history, of whom Mendelssohn is only one. I'm not prepared on that basis to assert that Saint-Saens (for instance - first piano piece composed at 3 - Mendelssohn didn't even begin taking lessons until 6, the sluggard ;D ) is greater than Beethoven. What's more, I think Saint-Saens, and Mendelssohn too, would have laughed at such an assertion!
Luke, don't take the bait. This is Saul we're dealing with. Mendelssohn was Jewish, Beethoven was German. Can there be any other outcome? ::)
Quote from: Mark on March 11, 2008, 02:06:55 AM
Luke, don't take the bait. This is Saul we're dealing with. Mendelssohn was Jewish, Beethoven was German. Can there be any other outcome? ::)
But then Bernstein is Jewish also. The plot thickens!
Quote from: Mark on March 11, 2008, 02:06:55 AM
Luke, don't take the bait. This is Saul we're dealing with. Mendelssohn was Jewish, Beethoven was German. Can there be any other outcome? ::)
Don't worry, I'm perfectly aware of the subtext! But who knows, maybe the absurdity does need to be pointed out.
We all know Rachmaninov (6 foot 6) was the greatest composer anyway.
Quote from: erato on March 11, 2008, 02:10:23 AM
But then Bernstein is Jewish also. The plot thickens!
Hence why Saul bothered to start this thread. If Bernstein had been a Hindu, it wouldn't have bothered Saul one iota. What riles our tiresome resident religious fanatic is that a member of his faith could possibly pick a gentile over a Jew as the world's greatest composer. Saul's persistence in this kind of spam is both tragic and wearisome. But G-d forbid that he should be banned from here - that would be anti-Semitism, naturally ...
Quote from: Saul on March 10, 2008, 08:14:39 PM
Ah... Brahms famously had said that he would have given up all his compositions if he would had been able to write something like :
This
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3_Px2yXVbw
Try to bit that...
Ah... Brahms famously took 20 years to produce his first symphony because the work of Beethoven was such a mighty example to follow: "Composing a symphony is no laughing matter. You have no idea of how it feels to hear a giant's footsteps behind you!"
Try to bit
that...
Or even to beat that.
What else could be expected from someone whose only source of information, education and entertainment seems to be youtube?
Quote from: Mark on March 11, 2008, 02:06:55 AM
Luke, don't take the bait. This is Saul we're dealing with. Mendelssohn was Jewish, Beethoven was German. Can there be any other outcome? ::)
LOL
Quote from: Florestan on March 11, 2008, 04:04:50 AM
What else could be expected from someone whose only source of information, education and entertainment seems to be youtube?
Below the belt... you nerd...
You nerds have forgot that Bach and Chopin were my favorite composers before Mendelssohn. I was intreduced to Mendelssohn's music by my mother and after listening to him for a while, I decided that he is my favorite composer. If he wouldnt have been Jewish, still I would have considered him as my favorite composer. You guys are silly nerds nothing more and nothing less.
Mendelssohn's music is just as great or even greater then Beethoven, he has written mature works as a boy, and the quality, depth and greatness of his music is evident and obvious, and Im not even talking about Mendelssohn's later years mature style, works such as Elijah, violin concerto in E, piano concerto In E No. 3 among others, places him as a supirior composer then Beethoven.
I dislike Mahler's Schoenberg's music, and I think that Beethoven was so much greater then them...
How can I say this? They were Jews no?
Well, it doesnt have to do with he is Jewish and he is not Jewish...
So stop with this whole 'religion' thing....
Quote from: Saul on March 10, 2008, 07:24:26 PM
Though Beethoven was a great composer , I am not ready to call him the greatest composer ever.
Mendelssohn's early (age 13-14) piano trios concertos and quartets contradict Bernstein's assertion.
Well, it's no news that you would propose that
Mendelssohn is somehow a greater composer than
Beethoven, but that remains a niche (not to say eccentric) assertion. For only three things, (a)
Beethoven's symphonic output was broader and more consistently excellent than
Mendelssohn's, (b)
Beethoven's output for piano solo is generally regarded as dwarfing
Mendelssohn's contribution in that field, and (c)
Beethoven's cycle of string quartets is of a breadth and historical importance which
Mendelssohn's comparable work does not come at all close to sharing.
Your statement regarding "Mendelssohn's early (age 13-14) piano trios concertos and quartets" does not in the least make
Mendelssohn a 'greater' composer than
Beethoven; it only compares them by a narrow, and overall meaningless, yardstick -- in fact, it only demonstrates that the 13-year-old
Mendelssohn composed better than the 13-year-old
Beethoven did.
While it is arguable that Bernstein's remark is an admixture of musical opinion, and historical argument, it is much more defensible than your counter-assertion, Saul.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on March 11, 2008, 02:18:29 AM
We all know Rachmaninov (6 foot 6) was the greatest composer anyway.
Bring that hammer
down,
Luke!
Quote from: karlhenning on March 11, 2008, 04:30:14 AM
Well, it's no news that you would propose that Mendelssohn is somehow a greater composer than Beethoven, but that remains a niche (not to say eccentric) assertion. For only three things, (a) Beethoven's symphonic output was broader and more consistently excellent than Mendelssohn's, (b) Beethoven's output for piano solo is generally regarded as dwarfing Mendelssohn's contribution in that field, and (c) Beethoven's cycle of string quartets is of a breadth and historical importance which Mendelssohn's comparable work does not come at all close to sharing.
Your statement regarding "Mendelssohn's early (age 13-14) piano trios concertos and quartets" does not in the least make Mendelssohn a 'greater' composer than Beethoven; it only compares them by a narrow, and overall meaningless, yardstick -- in fact, it only demonstrates that the 13-year-old Mendelssohn composed better than the 13-year-old Beethoven did.
While it is arguable that Bernstein's remark is an admixture of musical opinion, and historical argument, it is much more defensible than your counter-assertion, Saul.
Thank you for your civil disagreement, perhaps Mark and Florestan can take lessons from you in debating.....
But nevertheless, I disagree with you.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 04:13:50 AM
I was intreduced to Mendelssohn's music by my mother and after listening to him for a while, I decided that he is my favorite composer.
That's very nice and nobody here has any issue with that. The problem --- your problem, to be more specific --- is that you seem to have a inexhaustible need to exalt Mendelssohn to the status of the greatest composer who ever lived, by endlessly and senselessly comparing him with others who achieved more celebrated status than him. For some mysterious reason you seem not to be able to fully enjoy his music until you debase Beethoven, or Mozart or whomever happens to come under your whimsical wrath. I don't know what deep psychological forces compel you to behave like this but it's not a wealthy attitude.
Saul, why don't you demonstrate, using musical terms, what makes Mendelssohn a greater composer than Beethoven? I think that's at least what you should be doing if you'd like more serious and 'civil' discussion.
Quote from: Norbeone on March 11, 2008, 04:47:39 AM
Saul, why don't you demonstrate, using musical terms, what makes Mendelssohn a greater composer than Beethoven? I think that's at least what you should be doing if you'd like more serious and 'civil' discussion.
His music has the charm, beauty, color that Beethoven lacks. Mendelssohn's music also has a very personal and deep voice, that comes from the very essence of Mendelssohn. One needs to be attentive to that voice when listening to Mendelssohn. Every single note in a Mendelssohn work was thought over and has a meaning and place in there. When Mendelssohn was 15 his music teachers have told him that they have nothing else to teach him. His education in music was extremely great, and that was evident in his works. He knew what he was doing when he was writing a piece of music.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 04:54:08 AM
Beethoven's music also has a very personal and deep voice, that comes from the very essence of Beethoven. One needs to be attentive to that voice when listening to Beethoven. Every single note in a Beethoven work was thought over and has a meaning and place in there.
Now finally I can agree with you. :D ;D
Quote from: Florestan on March 11, 2008, 04:57:26 AM
Now finally everyone can see that I am a nerd. :D ;D
Well if you say so... ;)
Quote from: SaulHis music has the charm, beauty, color that Beethoven lacks.
That is nonsense;
Beethoven's music has charm, beauty & color, as well.
Quote from: SaulMendelssohn's music also has a very personal and deep voice, that comes from the very essence of Mendelssohn. One needs to be attentive to that voice when listening to Mendelssohn. Every single note in a Mendelssohn work was thought over and has a meaning and place in there.
Everything you've said there, can be said equally of
Beethoven (as Andrei indicates).
Quote from: SaulWhen Mendelssohn was 15 his music teachers have told him that they have nothing else to teach him.
I suppose that is partly because
Mendelssohn did not have such fine teachers as did
Beethoven, who (you recall) studied partly with
Haydn. While a nice anecdote, this statement means nothing to the question of which of the two is a 'greater' composer.
Quote from: SaulHis education in music was extremely great, and that was evident in his works. He knew what he was doing when he was writing a piece of music.
Again, this can be said equally of
Beethoven.
So far, Saul, you have simply failed to make a case that
Mendelssohn is at all greater than
Beethoven.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 04:59:58 AM
Well if you say so... ;)
At least a nerd has something that you'll never have: solid knowledge. ;D
Andrei, I hate to break this to you: I have known many nerds, and you are no nerd ;D
Quote from: karlhenning on March 11, 2008, 05:07:16 AM
Andrei, I hate to break this to you: I have known many nerds, and you are no nerd ;D
Given the context, who knows what Saul means by "nerd"? :D
Quote from: lukeottevanger on March 11, 2008, 02:01:46 AM
I have no idea what on earth age has to do with the matter -
You'll understand when you get older ......
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 04:35:48 AM
Thank you for your civil disagreement, perhaps Mark and Florestan can take lessons from you in debating.....
But nevertheless, I disagree with you.
Of course you do. Because it doesn't sit nicely with your cosy, wholly unrealistic view of life, the universe and everything.
As for debating skills, you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag. And civility? I'll start being civil when you stop being a zealot. >:(
One of Mendelssohn's great achievements when he was young was to recognize the importance of Beethoven's late music, at a time when the late sonatas and quartets were casually dismissed as the ravings of a madman. In "The Romantic Generation," Charles Rosen demonstrates how in some of his early music, Mendelssohn takes late Beethoven as his model, and paradoxically is most himself the more he actually imitates Beethoven. (An example is the early E major piano sonata, whose first movement Rosen shows is modelled on the opening movement of Beethoven's Op. 101.)
There is no question of the high regard Mendelssohn felt towards Beethoven's music. In fact, when the Swedish composer Franz Berwald met Mendelssohn in the 1830's, their encounter went badly, in part because Berwald spoke disparagingly of Beethoven's Fidelio.
So I would be careful about dissing Beethoven if one wants to prove himself a true Mendelssohnian. Mendelssohn would not have approved.
QuoteWherever there is art, there is disagreement.
I like that; nor could I argue with it, if I tried ;D
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 04:54:08 AM
His music has the charm, beauty, color that Beethoven lacks. Mendelssohn's music also has a very personal and deep voice, that comes from the very essence of Mendelssohn. One needs to be attentive to that voice when listening to Mendelssohn. Every single note in a Mendelssohn work was thought over and has a meaning and place in there. When Mendelssohn was 15 his music teachers have told him that they have nothing else to teach him. His education in music was extremely great, and that was evident in his works. He knew what he was doing when he was writing a piece of music.
It's posts like this that will soon earn Mendelssohn an ill-deserved place alongside Elgar and Dittersdorf on the GMG blacklist.
Hey Saul, your greatest composer list is incomplete. The complete version is here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Komponisten
Quote from: karlhenning on March 11, 2008, 05:14:58 AM
I like that; nor could I argue with it, if I tried ;D
All my own work, that quote. ;)
Quote from: Mark on March 11, 2008, 05:15:38 AM
It's posts like this that will soon earn Mendelssohn an ill-deserved place alongside Elgar and Dittersdorf on the GMG blacklist.
Alas, that you speak sooth!
Quote from: Mark on March 11, 2008, 05:15:38 AM
It's posts like this that will soon earn Mendelssohn an ill-deserved place alongside Elgar and Dittersdorf on the GMG blacklist.
Well, I don't know about Dittersdorf . . .
Quote from: Sforzando on March 11, 2008, 05:18:41 AM
Well, I don't know about Dittersdorf . . .
You are contesting "ill-deserved" in his case? Subtle! :)
Quote from: Florestan on March 11, 2008, 04:46:47 AM
The problem --- your problem, to be more specific --- is that you seem to have a inexhaustible need to exalt Mendelssohn to the status of the greatest composer who ever lived.
More to the point, his problem is that he thinks he can convince others of the supremacy of Mendelssohn
on account of his precocity as a youth, as if that has any bearing to the net worth of a composer's output. Mendelssohn is the greatest composer not because he wrote the greatest music, but because he was the greatest prodigy. The logic is so fundamentally flawed it's useless to even argue with it.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 04:54:08 AM
His music has the charm, beauty, color that Beethoven lacks. Mendelssohn's music also has a very personal and deep voice, that comes from the very essence of Mendelssohn. One needs to be attentive to that voice when listening to Mendelssohn. Every single note in a Mendelssohn work was thought over and has a meaning and place in there. When Mendelssohn was 15 his music teachers have told him that they have nothing else to teach him. His education in music was extremely great, and that was evident in his works. He knew what he was doing when he was writing a piece of music.
I said demonstrate musically. Aside from the fact, which Karl rightly points out, that all of these things could be applied equally and (imo) moreso to Beethoven, you have not actually made any arguement until you explain HOW and WHY Mendelssohn has these qualities.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on March 11, 2008, 05:25:26 AM
More to the point, his problem is that he thinks he can convince others of the supremacy of Mendelssohn on account of his precocity as a youth, as if that has any bearing to the net worth of a composer's output. Mendelssohn is the greatest composer not because he wrote the greatest music, but because he was the greatest prodigy. The logic is so fundamentally flawed it's useless to even argue with it.
You silly nerd, and a silly nerd in a red turban at that. Can you not read:
QuoteEvery single note in a Mendelssohn work was thought over and has a meaning and place in there. His education in music was extremely great, and that was evident in his works. He knew what he was doing when he was writing a piece of music.
What does any of that have to do with age? Of what other composer can anything like that be said? Sheesh!
Quote from: Sforzando on March 11, 2008, 05:32:05 AM
Of what other composer can anything like that be said?
Saul Dzorelashvili? ;D
Ah well, 20 new replies since I started writing this - never mind, I'll let it stand and then see what I've missed!
It's not exactly the musical analysis which was asked for, but it was an attempt, so let's look at it sentence by sentence
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 04:54:08 AM
His music has the charm, beauty, color that Beethoven lacks.
Unquantifiable but also, I suspect, not a statement which chimes with most people's experience. We need only take a single piece of Beethoven's - say the op 131 quartet - to find as much charm, beauty and colour as can be packed into a piece of music, certainly as much as in anything by Mendelssohn. The thing is, though, that the Beethoven piece goes
so much further than just an attractive surface; Mendelssohn is capable of doing so, but it occurs much less frequently.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 04:54:08 AMMendelssohn's music also has a very personal and deep voice, that comes from the very essence of Mendelssohn. One needs to be attentive to that voice when listening to Mendelssohn.
The same could be said of every great composer, I suspect, but funnily enough, of all the great composers, my own view is that Mendelssohn's personal voice is one of the least personal, except sometimes in a negative way (e.g. 'this piece sounds fairly bland, so it might be by Mendelssohn') - compare him with his contemporary and compatriot, Schumann. Actually, my earlier example of a prodigy, Saint Saens, is another great composer whose personal voice is a little more general than (say) Faure,
his contemporary and compatriot. One could begin to wonder whether the fluency and ease enjoyed by such prodigies inhibits the formation of a really deeply personal style - perhaps they absorb the standard techniques so easily as youngsters that when the time comes at which most composers go through the fires of personal crisis in order to forge their own personal style, they are not able to. Berlioz said of Saint-Saens 'Il sait tout, mais il manque d'inexpérience' (He knows everything, but lacks inexperience), and it's not really a joke: the most interesting composers fight to gain musical insights which belong to them and which help them write music which is true to themselves. Berlioz did, but Saint-Saens didn't, IMO, and I'm not sure that Mendelssohn did either.
Of course, the example which springs to my mind is my own favourite, Janacek - mind you, he's my own favourite, the composer who chimes with my own tastes closest, and who FWIW did not appreciate Beethoven a great deal, but who I am still happy to is state dwarfed by Beethoven in most ways. Janacek's personal style is one of the most easy to hear in all music - a couple of notes by him by him could be by no one else. But this style didn't arrive fully formed. Janacek was the very opposite of a prodigy, he developed extremely slowly, like a fine wine ;) . By the time he was about 40 his music began to sound recognisably 'Janacekian' but even then he subjected it to a continuous (30 more years) and very conscious process which he called integration, which stripped away everything extraneous until all that was left was pure Janacek. Janacek is an extreme example, but there are literally dozens of others who did similar things. Mendelssohn is an extremely fine composer, but I don't think he ever went through anything like this tortuous process which is necessary for a composer's music to become more than merely technically fluent and, in Mendelssohn's case, ocasionally powerful (as I say, perhaps his prodigy status meant that he didn't need to, but this is a loss IMO)
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 04:54:08 AM
Every single note in a Mendelssohn work was thought over and has a meaning and place in there.
There are composers (many of them) for whom this is true, and I don't doubt that at times Mendelssohn is one of them. But it is less true for him than it is for so many others - Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin, Bach - the list is very long indeed, actually.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 04:54:08 AM
When Mendelssohn was 15 his music teachers have told him that they have nothing else to teach him. His education in music was extremely great, and that was evident in his works.
I've already gone into this - prodigy and fluency is not a way to measure a composer's greatness, and what is more, as I said a couple of paragraphs back, being too good too soon
can inhibit further growth because to be a truly human artist one must go through the normal human process of learning (the Berlioz quotation again - 'He knows everything, but lacks inexperience'). There used to be another group of musicians who were so skilled in their childhoods that they were not allowed to go through the usual processes to develop naturally, and instead were kept, artificially, as boy-men - they were called castrati ;)
In a certain respect, compositional prodigies run the danger of this same artificiality too, because although they are not literally
denied the ability to develop naturally, they don't have a technical need for it, and so risk passing by the personal development it can entail.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 04:54:08 AM
He knew what he was doing when he was writing a piece of music.
I would suggest that this is an accomplishment shared by more than one other composer......
Quote from: Florestan on March 11, 2008, 05:33:14 AM
Saul Dzorelashvili? ;D
The essential word in the question was "composer."
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 04:54:08 AM
He knew what he was doing when he was writing a piece of music.
I'm convinced .......... Mendelssohn's the greatest ..........
Debating this issue is a waste of time because of Saul's basic premise:
Saul's favorite composer MUST be the greatest composer.
Luke, your posts are always value added to any discussion.
Or just added verbosity......
Still, I'm quite tickled by my image of the child prodigy as castrato...... ;D
Quote from: Don on March 11, 2008, 05:43:30 AM
Debating this issue is a waste of time because of Saul's basic premise:
Saul's favorite composer MUST be the greatest composer.
In that respect, Saul and 71 dB have much in common .........
Quote from: Florestan on March 11, 2008, 05:11:03 AM
Given the context, who knows what Saul means by "nerd"? :D
I mean troll, but I cant say it here... ;D
Nor is Andrei any troll.
Quote from: Dm on March 11, 2008, 05:45:31 AM
In that respect, Saul and 71 dB have much in common .........
Rod Corkin can be added to this list.
Oh, I'd clean forgot about the Corkster; thanks for the chortle, Don!
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 05:45:49 AM
I mean troll, but I cant say it here... ;D
Of course not: you'd be like a thief shouting "Catch the thieves!"...
Quote from: Sforzando on March 11, 2008, 05:35:08 AM
The essential word in the question was "composer."
And what have you ever composed in your life?
*** Nothing***
Quote from: Florestan on March 11, 2008, 05:50:14 AM
Of course not: you'd be like a thief shouting "Catch the thieves!"...
I can guess youre not a Robin Hood fan.... ;D ;)
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 05:50:23 AM
And what have you ever composed in your life?
*** Nothing***
I wouldn't ask that question if I was you. I believe Sfz is quite an accomplished composer.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on March 11, 2008, 05:51:30 AM
I wouldn't ask that question if I was you. I believe Sfz is quite an accomplished composer.
Well if I didnt compose anything according to him , then he didnt compose a thing according to me...
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 05:50:23 AM
And what have you ever composed in your life?
*** Nothing***
At age 18 I was accepted as a composition major at the Oberlin Conservatory of Music. Bit that.
I decided on another career path after realizing (unlike some of the wannabees here) that I did not have the drive or talent to pursue music professionally. A word to the wise should be sufficient.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 11, 2008, 05:43:48 AM
Luke, your posts are always value added to any discussion.
What was the name of the song....
"Im kissing up , Im kissing up...blah la la... "
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 05:45:49 AM
I mean troll, but I cant say it here... ;D
Saul, you're such a troll that if you ever holiday in a Norwegian forest, you'll have lots of big-nosed, spiky haired dwarves declaring you king.
Saul, you're so far really luxuriating in three misprisions:
1. The fact that you admire Mendelssohn a great deal, does not confer upon him a status of exalted greatness.
2. If a fellow participant on this forum disagrees with you, that fact does not mean that he is a "nerd" or "troll."
3. If a fellow participant on this forum does not think highly of your composition, that fact does not mean that the other fellow never composed anything in his life.
Quote from: Mark on March 11, 2008, 06:00:36 AM
Saul, you're such a troll that if you ever holiday in a Norwegian forest, you'll have lots of big-nosed, spiky haired dwarves declaring you king.
Here's a better one, get ready...
Youre such a troll that if Peter Jackson couldnt have created computer generated trolls for his film, you would have been called for the job....
There is nothing like, real life action...
Quote from: karlhenning on March 11, 2008, 06:03:26 AM
Saul, you're so far really luxuriating in three misprisions:
1. The fact that you admire Mendelssohn a great deal, does not confer upon him a status of exalted greatness.
2. If a fellow participant on this forum disagrees with you, that fact does not mean that he is a "nerd" or "troll."
3. If a fellow participant on this forum does not think highly of your composition, that fact does not mean that the other fellow never composed anything in his life.
Karl, please read what you say...
When did I say all of these things? before or after the personal insults at me?
Do your reading more carefuly... ::)
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 06:05:38 AM
Here a better one, get ready...
Youre such a troll that if Peter Jackson couldnt have created computer generated trolls for his film, you would have been called for the job....
There is nothing like, real life action...
At least I'm not in the next Harry Potter movie. How are you finding shooting on location?
Quote from: Mark on March 11, 2008, 06:07:38 AM
At least I'm not in the next Harry Potter movie. How are you finding shooting on location?
Thats right at least your not.
You dont want to be found trolling around the set... one film is enough...
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 06:07:36 AM
Karl, please read what you say...
When did I say all of these things? before or after the personal insults at me?
Do your reading more carefuly... ::)
After.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on March 11, 2008, 05:44:25 AM
Or just added verbosity......
Not at all. But your scholarly and thoughtful words are doubtless lost on the subject for whom they were intended.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on March 11, 2008, 05:34:56 AM
Ah well, 20 new replies since I started writing this - never mind, I'll let it stand and then see what I've missed!
It's not exactly the musical analysis which was asked for, but it was an attempt, so let's look at it sentence by sentence
Unquantifiable but also, I suspect, not a statement which chimes with most people's experience. We need only take a single piece of Beethoven's - say the op 131 quartet - to find as much charm, beauty and colour as can be packed into a piece of music, certainly as much as in anything by Mendelssohn. The thing is, though, that the Beethoven piece goes so much further than just an attractive surface; Mendelssohn is capable of doing so, but it occurs much less frequently.
The same could be said of every great composer, I suspect, but funnily enough, of all the great composers, my own view is that Mendelssohn's personal voice is one of the least personal, except sometimes in a negative way (e.g. 'this piece sounds fairly bland, so it might be by Mendelssohn') - compare him with his contemporary and compatriot, Schumann. Actually, my earlier example of a prodigy, Saint Saens, is another great composer whose personal voice is a little more general than (say) Faure, his contemporary and compatriot. One could begin to wonder whether the fluency and ease enjoyed by such prodigies inhibits the formation of a really deeply personal style - perhaps they absorb the standard techniques so easily as youngsters that when the time comes at which most composers go through the fires of personal crisis in order to forge their own personal style, they are not able to. Berlioz said of Saint-Saens 'Il sait tout, mais il manque d'inexpérience' (He knows everything, but lacks inexperience), and it's not really a joke: the most interesting composers fight to gain musical insights which belong to them and which help them write music which is true to themselves. Berlioz did, but Saint-Saens didn't, IMO, and I'm not sure that Mendelssohn did either.
Of course, the example which springs to my mind is my own favourite, Janacek - mind you, he's my own favourite, the composer who chimes with my own tastes closest, and who FWIW did not appreciate Beethoven a great deal, but who I am still happy to is state dwarfed by Beethoven in most ways. Janacek's personal style is one of the most easy to hear in all music - a couple of notes by him by him could be by no one else. But this style didn't arrive fully formed. Janacek was the very opposite of a prodigy, he developed extremely slowly, like a fine wine ;) . By the time he was about 40 his music began to sound recognisably 'Janacekian' but even then he subjected it to a continuous (30 more years) and very conscious process which he called integration, which stripped away everything extraneous until all that was left was pure Janacek. Janacek is an extreme example, but there are literally dozens of others who did similar things. Mendelssohn is an extremely fine composer, but I don't think he ever went through anything like this tortuous process which is necessary for a composer's music to become more than merely technically fluent and, in Mendelssohn's case, ocasionally powerful (as I say, perhaps his prodigy status meant that he didn't need to, but this is a loss IMO)
There are composers (many of them) for whom this is true, and I don't doubt that at times Mendelssohn is one of them. But it is less true for him than it is for so many others - Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin, Bach - the list is very long indeed, actually.
I've already gone into this - prodigy and fluency is not a way to measure a composer's greatness, and what is more, as I said a couple of paragraphs back, being too good too soon can inhibit further growth because to be a truly human artist one must go through the normal human process of learning (the Berlioz quotation again - 'He knows everything, but lacks inexperience'). There used to be another group of musicians who were so skilled in their childhoods that they were not allowed to go through the usual processes to develop naturally, and instead were kept, artificially, as boy-men - they were called castrati ;) In a certain respect, compositional prodigies run the danger of this same artificiality too, because although they are not literally denied the ability to develop naturally, they don't have a technical need for it, and so risk passing by the personal development it can entail.
I would suggest that this is an accomplishment shared by more than one other composer......
Luke,
The point is not when you write the work, but the greatness of the work you write at that age.
Clearly Mendelssohn composed Great works as a boy.
I Recall
That Mr. Saul
Has done it all!
As an autodidact
He can contradict
And reduct and redact
Which makes him
An autocontradict
And maybe an autocontraquack!
QED
Saul, take that road to Oberlin and convert to being like your hero Mendelssohn! Find qualified professors who can tell you that they can teach you nothing more!
Quote from: Cato on March 11, 2008, 06:21:52 AM
Saul, take that road to Oberlin and convert to being like your hero Mendelssohn! Find qualified professors who can tell you that they can teach you nothing more!
He who is incapable of learning from others, clearly cannot be taught anything more.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 06:18:36 AM
Luke,
The point is not when you write the work, but the greatness of the work you write at that age.
Clearly Mendelssohn composed Great works as a boy.
MendelssohnOr, Saul's Argument, Wherein Our Noble Correspondent Proves, Once and For All Time, That Mendelssohn Is The Greatest.
Prefatory Hymn:
And did those feet in Nineteenth-Century time,
Walk upon Greatness' mountains green:
And was the holy Mendelssohn,
On Greatness' pleasant pastures seen!
I will not cease from Mental Mixture,
Nor shall my Keyboard sleep in my hand:
Till we have proved Mendelssohn,
The greatest in greatness' green & pleasant Land.
Argument, as Promised Above:
I like Mendelssohn quite a bit.
I decide what the standards for 'objective' greatness are.
I decide that Mendelssohn meets my standards.
I find, in fact, that Mendelssohn meets all my standards perfectly.
I conclude, then, that Mendelssohn is the greatest composer.
I end by realizing that I am justified in my Mendelssohn-love, as he is the greatest.
I like Mendelssohn quite a bit.
It's like Harry Kupfer or August Everding designed this argument.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 06:18:36 AM
Luke,
The point is not when you write the work, but the greatness of the work you write at that age.
Not quite. The point is the greatness, never mind the age. But at least that's a bit closer. However, the next bit:
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 06:18:36 AM
Clearly Mendelssohn composed Great works as a boy.
doesn't follow on from the first, necessarily. The works Mendelssohn composed as a boy are extraordinary things for a youngster to produce, as are those composed by the young Mozart, Britten, Saint-Saens, Thomas Linley Jr, Julian Scriabin etc. Viewing them in this context, they appear to us interesting, fascinating, potentially even awe-inspiring. But we need to divorce them from this context and simply assess them as music, side by side with other composers' music if we are going if we really want to play the 'greatness' game. I have no doubt that prodigies can compose 'Great works' - I think one or two of Britten's youthful pieces are as good as any of his mature pieces, for instance - but generally speaking the interest in this music lies in the age of the composer rather than in the music itself.
A personal example - my daughter is 6 but has a reading age of at least 14 (can't be precise because she's off her school's scale for measuring such things); so let's pretend that she is, in a
verysmall way, a 'prodigy'. The point is, though, that she is advanced
for her age - she's still only reached a level attained by almost everyone who's reached the age of 14. It doesn't mean she is 'the greatest'*. Similarly, Mendelssohn's early works are extraordinary for someone
of that age - but they only reach a level far surpassed by every other 'great composer' before or after.
*(although she is, of course)
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 06:18:36 AM
At least you got that one right.
Bubby,
The point is not when you write a foolish comment, but the foolishness of the comment you write at whatever point in the debate.
Clearly Saul wrote some Foolish comments in this thread.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on March 11, 2008, 06:38:48 AM
Not quite. The point is the greatness, never mind the age. But at least that's a bit closer. However, the next bit:
doesn't follow on from the first, necessarily. The works Mendelssohn composed as a boy are extraordinary things for a youngster to produce, as are those composed by the young Mozart, Britten, Saint-Saens, Thomas Linley Jr, Julian Scriabin etc. Viewing them in this context, they appear to us interesting, fascinating, potentially even awe-inspiring. But we need to divorce them from this context and simply assess them as music, side by side with other composers' music if we are going if we really want to play the 'greatness' game. I have no doubt that prodigies can compose 'Great works' - I think one or two of Britten's youthful pieces are as good as any of his mature pieces, for instance - but generally speaking the interest in this music lies in the age of the composer rather than in the music itself.
A personal example - my daughter is 6 but has a reading age of at least 14 (can't be precise because she's off her school's scale for measuring such things); so let's pretend that she is, in a verysmall way, a 'prodigy'. The point is, though, that she is advanced for her age - she's still only reached a level attained by almost everyone who's reached the age of 14. It doesn't mean she is 'the greatest'*. Similarly, Mendelssohn's early works are extraordinary for someone of that age - but they only reach a level far surpassed by every other 'great composer' before or after.
*(although she is, of course)
I would however argue that in Mendelssohn's case, some of the earlier works are unusually valuable in themselves - and that unlike (say) Beethoven, Janacek, or Verdi he "peaked early" in works like the Octet, MND Overture, and the first two quartets, the first two of these written by age 17-18 and all completed by about age 20. In the third movement of the Octet, Mendelssohn had already arrived at one of his most individual musical fingerprints - the "fairy scherzo" type of music whose nearest antecedent could have been the third movement of Beethoven's Op. 130, and which preceded the Queen Mab scherzo by Berlioz written around 1840.
The Mendelssohn idolaters (or idolater) here will of course not agree, but I feel there is often a falling off in Mendelssohn's imagination in some of the later work. Of course there are triumphs like the Hebrides Overture, Violin Concerto, and Italian Symphony. But for a composer who died relatively young (38, 1809-47), a lot of the spark seems to have been extinguished early. Many of the Songs without Words are to my mind really dreary, and with Elijah one finds an example of religious Kitsch far removed from the efferverscent champagne of the Octet. Still, I value enormously the works I consider his best, more than enough to include Mendelssohn as one of the finest of 19th-century composers.
Quote from: Sforzando
I would however argue that in Mendelssohn's case, some of the earlier works are unusually valuable in themselves - and that unlike (say) Beethoven, Janacek, or Verdi he "peaked early" in works like the Octet, MND Overture, and the first two quartets, the first two of these written by age 17-18 and all completed by about age 20. In the third movement of the Octet, Mendelssohn had already arrived at one of his most individual musical fingerprints - the "fairy scherzo" type of music whose nearest antecedent could have been the third movement of Beethoven's Op. 130, and which preceded the Queen Mab scherzo by Berlioz written around 1840.
The Mendelssohn idolaters (or idolater) here will of course not agree, but I feel there is often a falling off in Mendelssohn's imagination in some of the later work. Of course there are triumphs like the Hebrides Overture, Violin Concerto, and Italian Symphony. But for a composer who died relatively young (38, 1809-47), a lot of the spark seems to have been extinguished early. Many of the Songs without Words are to my mind really dreary, and with Elijah one finds an example of religious Kitsch far removed from the efferverscent champagne of the Octet. Still, I value enormously the works I consider his best, more than enough to include Mendelssohn as one of the finest of 19th-century composers.
I think that's an answer full of valid points, and I don't really disagree. I think that I have been making a distinction between the works of 'extreme young age' - which to me are incredible mostly because of this alone - and those of the Mendelssohn in his later teens, such as those which you mention, which are without doubt wonderful no matter Mendelssohn's age*. As you imply, though, this is really (and necessarily) a very small group of works, and I agree with you in finding it hard not to discern a falling-off, a few great chamber pieces, the Violin Concerto and the Italian Symph notwithstanding.
*The thing with prodigies who die young - like Mendelssohn and Mozart - is that it is hard with hindsight not to see the works of the 16 or 17 year old as relatively mature!
Quote from: lukeottevanger on March 11, 2008, 07:30:23 AM
I think that's an answer full of valid points, and I don't really disagree. I think that I have been making a distinction between the works of 'extreme young age' - which to me are incredible mostly because of this alone - and those of the Mendelssohn in his later teens, such as those which you mention, which are without doubt wonderful no matter Mendelssohn's age*. As you imply, though, this is really (and necessarily) a very small group of works, and I agree with you in finding it hard not to discern a falling-off, a few great chamber pieces, the Violin Concerto and the Italian Symph notwithstanding.
*The thing with prodigies who die young - like Mendelssohn and Mozart - is that it is hard with hindsight not to see the works of the 16 or 17 year old as relatively mature!
We might agree too that the 12 string symphonies, enjoyable as they are, can be classified as juvenalia. (Mendelssohn of course suppressed them, and they were only rediscovered around 1955. I can't even find reasonably priced scores.) He probably started hitting his stride around age 16-17.
Quote from: Sforzando on March 11, 2008, 08:24:40 AM
We might agree too that the 12 string symphonies, enjoyable as they are, can be classified as juvenalia. (Mendelssohn of course suppressed them, and they were only rediscovered around 1955. I can't even find reasonably priced scores.) He probably started hitting his stride around age 16-17.
As I said, a sluggard. ;D
Quote from: Mark on March 11, 2008, 06:00:36 AM
Saul, you're such a troll that if you ever holiday in a Norwegian forest, you'll have lots of big-nosed, spiky haired dwarves declaring you king.
The title
King of Trolls belongs to
71 dB .........
Quote from: lukeottevanger on March 11, 2008, 06:38:48 AM
Not quite. The point is the greatness, never mind the age. But at least that's a bit closer. However, the next bit:
doesn't follow on from the first, necessarily. The works Mendelssohn composed as a boy are extraordinary things for a youngster to produce, as are those composed by the young Mozart, Britten, Saint-Saens, Thomas Linley Jr, Julian Scriabin etc. Viewing them in this context, they appear to us interesting, fascinating, potentially even awe-inspiring. But we need to divorce them from this context and simply assess them as music, side by side with other composers' music if we are going if we really want to play the 'greatness' game. I have no doubt that prodigies can compose 'Great works' - I think one or two of Britten's youthful pieces are as good as any of his mature pieces, for instance - but generally speaking the interest in this music lies in the age of the composer rather than in the music itself.
A personal example - my daughter is 6 but has a reading age of at least 14 (can't be precise because she's off her school's scale for measuring such things); so let's pretend that she is, in a verysmall way, a 'prodigy'. The point is, though, that she is advanced for her age - she's still only reached a level attained by almost everyone who's reached the age of 14. It doesn't mean she is 'the greatest'*. Similarly, Mendelssohn's early works are extraordinary for someone of that age - but they only reach a level far surpassed by every other 'great composer' before or after.
*(although she is, of course)
What are you talking about? the composers you mentioned had nothing to offer that comes close to Mendelssohn's great works of early age.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 09:07:07 AM
What are you talking about? the composers you mentioned had nothing to offer that comes close to Mendelssohn's great works of early age.
For one thing, I thought we'd established that the age thing really isn't important in assessing a composers musical greatness. For a second thing, I would say that Mozart's works composed at 18 or so are as impressive as those by Mendelssohn at a similar age, and likewise things like Britten's A Boy Was Born (maybe this isn't an obvious one, as Britten isn't as big a name, but the musical quality of that piece is beyond doubt - it's a piece that has been universally acclaimed and easily stands musical comparison both with the very finest music Britten wrote later and with the finest other works of its type by other composers.)
I forgot Rossini - aged 12 he wrote a series of 'sonate a quattro' which are every bit as 'charming' and about as skillful as the works of Mendelssohn at a comparable age. I used to listen to them when I was about the same age thinking 'I wish....' ;D
Quote from: lukeottevanger on March 11, 2008, 09:22:09 AM
For one thing, I thought we'd established that the age thing really isn't important in assessing a composers musical greatness. For a second thing, I would say that Mozart's works composed at 18 or so are as impressive as those by Mendelssohn at a similar age, and likewise things like Britten's A Boy Was Born (maybe this isn't an obvious one, as Britten isn't as big a name, but the musical quality of that piece is beyond doubt - it's a piece that has been universally acclaimed and easily stands musical comparison both with the very finest music Britten wrote later and with other works of its type by other composers.)
I forgot Rossini - aged 12 he wrote a series of 'sonate a quattro' which are every bit as 'charming' and about as skillful as the works of Mendelssohn at a comparable age.
Mendelssohn's first mature Symphony in C minor was completed at 15.
His Octet at 16.
His Midsummer's night dream at 17.
End of story.
Oh and by the way, Bernstein's favorite composer was Mahler. How can you have a favorite composer and then claim that a different composer was the greatest. Truely Odd.
Arent we suppose to give greatness to what we feel connected to most?
For me Mendelssohn was the greatest composer. For others its Beethoven.
Reason?
I enjoy his music the most.
Not a good enough reason?
So its not a good enough reason.....
"His favourite play was the magical comedy A Midsummer Night's Dream, which inspired him at the age of 17 to write his famous concert Overture. This was completed in the summer of 1826, and first played in the family home in Berlin; it was performed in public in Stettin (now Szczecin) early the following year, and later included in many of Mendelssohn's concert programmes, not least on his visits to England. But it was not until 1843 that Mendelssohn returned to the play, to write incidental music for a production at the Prussian royal palace in Potsdam. He added to the Overture another 12 numbers: entr'actes, songs for women's (or children's) voices, shorter cues for entrances and exits, and melodramas to accompany key speeches. In some of these he quoted ideas from the Overture; and in all of them he re-entered the world which he had conjured up so miraculously 17 years earlier."
Only the overture was written when he was 17, he was much older when the rest of the music was written. I have many times read that it is remarkable that he was so consistant in style; however, looked at another way, perhaps it might be argued that he did not much develop after 17.
Mike
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 09:28:21 AM
Mendelssohn's first mature Symphony in C minor was completed at 15.
His Octet at 16.
His Midsummer's night dream at 17.
End of story.
What story? You're just throwing facts out there and expecting us to extrapolate an argument. Not cool.
QuoteOh and by the way, Bernstein's favorite composer was Mahler. How can you have a favorite composer and then claim that a different composer was the greatest. Truely Odd.
Not if you don't take your own opinions to be normative. That is, not unless you're both intellectually incurious and hopelessly arrogant. Bernstein was neither. He might have been a bit arrogant, but it wasn't hopeless and he was
that good.
QuoteArent we suppose to give greatness to what we feel connected to most?
Sure. If you're willing to admit that there are no objective standards for greatness, and my tuneless piano-mashing is as great as the
Hammerklavier, because someone connects with my tuneless piano-mashing more.
QuoteFor me Mendelssohn was the greatest composer. For others its Beethoven.
Reason?
I enjoy his music the most.
Not a good enough reason?
So its not a good enough reason.....
Sure. Fine. However, your error comes into being when you start behaving as though your opinions are normative.
Quote from: knight on March 11, 2008, 09:43:48 AM
"His favourite play was the magical comedy A Midsummer Night's Dream, which inspired him at the age of 17 to write his famous concert Overture. This was completed in the summer of 1826, and first played in the family home in Berlin; it was performed in public in Stettin (now Szczecin) early the following year, and later included in many of Mendelssohn's concert programmes, not least on his visits to England. But it was not until 1843 that Mendelssohn returned to the play, to write incidental music for a production at the Prussian royal palace in Potsdam. He added to the Overture another 12 numbers: entr'actes, songs for women's (or children's) voices, shorter cues for entrances and exits, and melodramas to accompany key speeches. In some of these he quoted ideas from the Overture; and in all of them he re-entered the world which he had conjured up so miraculously 17 years earlier."
Only the overture was written when he was 17, he was much older when the rest of the music was written. I have many times read that it is remarkable that he was so consistant in style; however, looked at another way, perhaps it might be argued that he did not much develop after 17.
Mike
Have you listened to Elijah and his Piano concerto in E minor No.3?
Two works of his "Mature" style...
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 09:28:21 AM
Mendelssohn's first mature Symphony in C minor was completed at 15.
His Octet at 16.
His Midsummer's night dream at 17.
End of story.
End of what story? This silly playing with ages proves less than nothing about anything. It is undoubtedly true that Mendelssohn was a great prodigy, but that fact itself doesn't make him the greatest composer, nor can it even contribute to any argument that he could be. The age of a composer has no bearing on the greatness of the piece - it's either good or it isn't.
End of story.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 09:28:21 AM
Oh and by the way, Bernstein's favorite composer was Mahler. How can you have a favorite composer and then claim that a different composer was the greatest. Truely Odd.
Not odd at all. I've already done so on this thread - my favourite composer is Janacek, but I recognise that Beethoven is a greater composer. On another thread, Josh has recently said something similar re Debussy and Beethoven. Bernstein evidently felt similarly re Mahler and Beethoven. The fact that you find this hard to grasp - witness
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 09:28:21 AM
Arent we suppose to give greatness to what we feel connected most?
is really the heart of the issue. I feel most connected to Janacek, so he is my favourite, he is the greatest so far as my own brain's music appreciation goes, but I recognise that this is a personal connection and a personal taste, and I don't give myself enough importance to assume that if it connects most to me it ought to connect to the world in the same place.
But then
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 09:28:21 AM
For me Mendelssohn was the greatest composers. For others its Beethoven.
Reason?
I enjoy his music the most.
Not a good enough reason?
So its not a good enough reason.....
is absolutely 100% fine, and it is certainly a good enough reason - please carry on thinking that Mendelssohn was the greatest of composers. If it stopped there no one was argue with you for even a moment, nor would they argue with Poju re. Elgar or Paul re. Schnittke etc., just as no one has ever for a moment argued with me about my own preference for Janacek or my extreme admiration for Havergal Brian (even though the latter is not universally admired round here). But it doesn't stop there - there is always some attempt to lift personal preference and opinion onto a global plane, usually by a negative comparison with a composer who the rest of the board and the rest of the classical music world accept is not worthy of such silly, degrading nonsense. Beethoven in this case, Bach in the case of Rod Corkin.
I was going to post, but Luke's said it all much better.
And probably with more patience 0:)
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 09:28:21 AMOh and by the way, Bernstein's favorite composer was Mahler. How can you have a favorite composer and then claim that a different composer was the greatest. Truely Odd.
Really? I think it attests to Bernstein's musical maturity-- the ability to acknowledge more than one great composer, without resorting to a restrictive hiearchy, and at the same, to be secure in one's love in their personal favourites.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 11, 2008, 09:50:04 AM
I was going to post, but Luke's said it all much better.
Luke's post are some of my all time favorites,his comments are always brilliant ,fairand with-out rancour.A real pleasure to read.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on March 11, 2008, 09:47:37 AM
Not odd at all. I've already done so on this thread - my favourite composer is Janacek, but I recognise that Beethoven is a greater composer. On another thread, Josh has recently said something similar re Debussy and Beethoven. Bernstein evidently felt similarly re Mahler and Beethoven. The fact that you find this hard to grasp - witness
Yeah, this starting to feel a bit like deja vu... LOL
Quote from: just josh on March 11, 2008, 09:57:40 AM
Yeah, this starting to feel a bit like deja vu... LOL
yeah, i think i just read this thread....... today :o
Quote from: lukeottevanger on March 11, 2008, 09:47:37 AM
End of what story? This silly playing with ages proves less than nothing about anything. It is undoubtedly true that Mendelssohn was a great prodigy, but that fact itself doesn't make him the greatest composer, nor can it even contribute to any argument that he could be. The age of a composer has no bearing on the greatness of the piece - it's either good or it isn't.
End of story.
Not odd at all. I've already done so on this thread - my favourite composer is Janacek, but I recognise that Beethoven is a greater composer. On another thread, Josh has recently said something similar re Debussy and Beethoven. Bernstein evidently felt similarly re Mahler and Beethoven. The fact that you find this hard to grasp - witness
is really the heart of the issue. I feel most connected to Janacek, so he is my favourite, he is the greatest so far as my own brain's music appreciation goes, but I recognise that this is a personal connection and a personal taste, and I don't give myself enough importance to assume that if it connects most to me it ought to connect to the world in the same place.
But then
is absolutely 100% fine, and it is certainly a good enough reason - please carry on thinking that Mendelssohn was the greatest of composers. If it stopped there no one was argue with you for even a moment, nor would they argue with Poju re. Elgar or Paul re. Schnittke etc., just as no one has ever for a moment argued with me about my own preference for Janacek or my extreme admiration for Havergal Brian (even though the latter is not universally admired round here). But it doesn't stop there - there is always some attempt to lift personal preference and opinion onto a global plane, usually by a negative comparison with a composer who the rest of the board and the rest of the classical music world accept is not worthy of such silly, degrading nonsense. Beethoven in this case, Bach in the case of Rod Corkin.
I don't know why after tasting 2 apples I cant make a thoughtful decision regarding which apple tastes better...
I have listened to Beethoven and Mendelssohn extensively. And I just cant find anything of Beethoven that sparks superiority On the contrary, Mendelssohn's music is of such high quality in all aspects that it made me believe that his music is superior.
It has nothing to do with religion.
As I said my favorite composer was a German, Bach and a Pole, Chopin , before Mendelssohn.
I also met German listeners who consider Mendelssohn the greatest composer who ever lived.
So why should they choose a Jew instead of someone of their own?
Well, I guess the many thousands or millions who consider Mendelssohn as the greatest composer ever, are just naive and ignorant?
Catch my drift?
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 09:46:28 AM
Have you listened to Elijah and his Piano concerto in E minor No.3?
Two works of his "Mature" style...
I have both sung in chorus and as soloist in Elijah. I am not taken with large slabs of it; which are basically turgid. There are some memorable stretches, but a deal of notespinning in the choruses. 'Mighty kings by Him were overthrown' is at the level of a football chant.
St Paul is even worse. I found that although I am not a great sightreader, the first encounter I had with the piece St Paul was at audition where I had to plough through roughly twenty pages. The person conducting the audition kept me going until I made a mistake, he assumed I knew the piece. That says nothing about its quality as such; except that the music seemed to have an inevitability that I felt was unoriginal.
BTW, I like Mendelssohn's music, some of it a great deal, but I don't fettishise my personal taste to the point that what I love best must be the best music. Bernstein perhaps loved Mahler most, but to him, Beethoven was greater. He could distinguish between what was closest to his heart and who he felt displayed the greatest ability. However, I am not really interested in ranking composers. Many of them were great.
As an aside and referring back to the first pages here; if none of your posts are even implicitly about religion; why is it that
all the YouTube links I have seen you connect us to are of Jewish musicians.
I guess some like to live in a ghetto of their own making.
Mike
Quote from: knight on March 11, 2008, 10:02:52 AM
As an aside and referring back to the first pages here; if none of your posts are even implicitly about religion; why is it that all the YouTube links I have seen you connect us to are of Jewish musicians.
I guess some like to live in a ghetto of their own making.
Mike
Oh Albinoni is Jewish?
Beethoven was Jewish?
So what if its Rubinstein who performs it.. big deall.. everyone heard of him and there is nothing new about it...
Looks like you are more interested in turning every single post of mine into a religious post , then me.
Quote from: knight on March 11, 2008, 10:02:52 AM
Bernstein perhaps loved Mahler most, but to him, Beethoven was greater. He could distinguish between what was closest to his heart and who he felt displayed the greatest ability.
If by greater, you mean appealing to more people then yes, Beethoven is greater. But there really is no test for "greatest ability", so if he were to say that Beethoven has the "greatest ability" there would be no way to prove it. (unless ability is the measure of appeal to most people)
It is a serious disappointment to me, that Elijah and St Paul are not better than they are . . . .
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on March 11, 2008, 10:07:30 AM
If by greater, you mean appealing to more people then yes, Beethoven is greater. But there really is no test for "greatest ability", so if he were to say that Beethoven has the "greatest ability" there would be no way to prove it. (unless ability is the measure of appeal to most people)
It was not me who said it. I dont get into that kind of wrangle. I don't suppose we can get much further enlightenment there; unless someone cares to do a bit of research...Greg, that would be a splendid thing for you to do with your questing mind and I suspect you have the time and the ability to rip through any on-line information.
Mike
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 10:07:04 AM
Oh Albinoni is Jewish?
Beethoven was Jewish?
So what if its Rubinstein who performs it.. big deall.. everyone heard of him and there is nothing new about it...
Looks like you are more interested in turning every single post of mine into a religious post , then me.
I have not seen the Albinoni post. I am referring to
performers, not composers. It is no good you going all innocent, with a what me gov, no not me? YES
you.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 10:01:17 AM
I don't know why after tasting 2 apples I cant make a thoughtful decision regarding which apple tastes better...
You can.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 10:01:17 AMI have listened to Beethoven and Mendelssohn extensively. And I just cant find anything of Beethoven that sparks superiority On the contrary, Mendelssohn's music is of such high quality in all aspects that it made me believe that his music is superior.
Fine. Again, there is nothing wrong with this. And, in fact, I'd go so far as to say there is be nothing wrong with stating your opinion loud and clear here, as you do: I think Mendelssohn is better than Beethoven. Only then, things being as they are, and Beethoven being pretty universally acknowledged as one of the very greatest of composers, you'd better be prepared to back this up with convincing musical, analytical detail, something you've never done. And so, as you don't do this, I'm afraid you are just going to get the same sort of treatment - I can't see how this can surprise you.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 10:01:17 AMIt has nothing to do with religion.
I believe you, though with difficulty. Mendelssohn seems to me just to be unlikely material for 'greatest composer' - great, yes, greatest, no. He doesn't do anything exceptional enough, new enough, different enough, profound enough [insert preferred indicator of greatness] enough to be a likely candidate. And so, given your posting history, it is hard not to conclude that his Jewish birth doesn't have something to do with your opinion. But if you say it doesn't, I'll believe you.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 10:01:17 AMAs I said my favorite composer was a German, Bach and a Pole, Chopin , before Mendelssohn.
I also met German listeners who consider Mendelssohn the greatest composer who ever lived.
So why should they choose a Jew instead of someone of their own?
I thought he
was German ??? It's possible to be both German and Jewish, you know. But in any case, why should religion have anything to do with their 'choice' (if one can choose these things)
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 10:01:17 AMWell, I guess the many thousands or millions who consider Mendelssohn as the greatest composer ever, are just naive and ignorant?
I think you overestimate the number, because I am pretty sure that most Classical music lovers are able to distinguish between their favourite composer and the greatest composer. I'm fairly convinced that, asked who the
greatest composer of all was, votes would be split above all between Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, a significant minority for Wagner, maybe the odd modernist or pre-Baroque fan who stubbornly votes for Monteverdi or Webern. If the same vote was carried out for
favourite composer, the results would certainly be completely different, fragmented between hundreds of composers, because, once again, the two things - greatest and favourite - are not the same, as almost everyone else recognises.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 10:01:17 AM
Catch my drift?
No, I think I lost it at the end there.
And there's some drift don't bear catching, if you catch . . . if you take my meaning.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 10:01:17 AM
Well, I guess the many thousands or millions who consider Mendelssohn as the greatest composer ever, are just naive and ignorant?
Care to provide a directory of this group? Thousands, millions. I think rather a group of one. :D
Quote from: Sforzando on March 11, 2008, 10:19:48 AM
Care to provide a directory of this group? Thousands, millions. I think rather a group of one. :D
More than a million people in the world actually listen to classical music? Really?
Oh, wow! :D
How much again is a brazzilian?
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 10:01:17 AM
And I just cant find anything of Beethoven that sparks superiority
Does it really have to come down to this? ??? Funny, I listen to music for its beauty, not its "superiority."
Quote from: knight on March 11, 2008, 10:15:35 AM
I have not seen the Albinoni post. I am referring to performers, not composers. It is no good you going all innocent, with a what me gov, no not me? YES you.
Grow up, Mike...
I am talking about many other things beside religion,so stop spaming this site with your constant accusations on me...
Can we talk about Beethoven and Mendelssohn without your religious hunting?
Bernstein also thought Copland was really hot.
What? :-*
Quote from: karlhenning on March 11, 2008, 10:21:51 AM
How much again is a brazzilian?
It's a "Billion" in the Brazilian (ahem, Portuguese) language ;)
Quote from: lukeottevanger on March 11, 2008, 10:17:42 AM
No, I think I lost it at the end there.
You're not alone . . .
True story: during my teenage years, I was packed off every summer by my parents to a summer music camp for six weeks. One summer it was decided to do a semi-staged version of Elijah, and I was chosen as the piano accompanist. I had to live with that piece for three weeks straight, day in and day out. Fortunately they cut some of it. It took me 30 years following before I could bear to listen to any of Elijah again, and frankly, I wasn't missing much . . . . ;D
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on March 11, 2008, 10:20:50 AM
More than a million people in the world actually listen to classical music? Really?
Oh, wow! :D
Yes. The actual number is 1,209,337. It's documented somewhere.
Quote from: Sforzando on March 11, 2008, 10:23:30 AM
True story: during my teenage years, I was packed off every summer by my parents to a summer music camp for six weeks. One summer it was decided to do a semi-staged version of Elijah, and I was chosen as the piano accompanist. I had to live with that piece for three weeks straight, day in and day out.
(* shudder *)
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 11, 2008, 10:22:47 AM
Bernstein also thought Copland was really hot.
What? :-*
Well, they did sleep together.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 11, 2008, 10:19:25 AM
And there's some drift don't bear catching, if you catch . . . if you take my meaning.
This should be a line in the lord of the rings...
Quote from: Sforzando on March 11, 2008, 10:24:19 AM
Yes. The actual number is 1,209,337. It's documented somewhere.
Wow, cool! Maybe if I get to know 6 thousand people in my lifetime, one will listen to the same music i listen to (besides this forum, of course) 8)
Quote from: Sforzando on March 11, 2008, 10:25:02 AM
Well, they did sleep together.
I know, I was commenting that Bernstein's taste may not be for all. 0:)
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 11, 2008, 10:27:10 AM
I know, I was commenting that Bernstein's taste may not be for all. 0:)
A witty approach to the topic. Too bad it didn't occur to Saul.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 10:22:31 AM
Grow up, Mike...
I am talking about many other things beside religion,so stop spaming this site with your constant accusations on me...
Can we talk about Beethoven and Mendelssohn without your religious hunting?
This is really quite amusing stuff coming from you. I did not suggest ALL your posts are about or inspired by religion, try reading what I wrote. I am quite accustomed to your trait of trying to turn the tables on anyone who deals directly with you. People can judge for themselves who the zealot is here.
Mike
Quote from: Saul on March 10, 2008, 07:24:26 PM
I disagree.
Though Beethoven was a great composer , I am not ready to call him the greatest composer ever.
Mendelssohn's early (age 13-14) piano trios concertos and quartets contradict Bernstein's assertion. Even Mozart's symphony No.40 in G minor would discredit his comments.
He makes this comment in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZYn865RiRE&feature=related
I agree, Bernstein in this 1970's clip has gone a tad too far in his opinion. Now had Bernstein said "quite possibly the world's most enjoyed , respected and influential composer ", then he has a strong case for his opinion.
IOW its very possible Beethoven has the greater edge in terms of popularity over Mozart. So in a broad sense Bernstein would havea ligitimate POV.
I am not so sure he held onto that statement he made in 1970's, later in his life.
Quote from: knight on March 11, 2008, 10:33:03 AM
This is really quite amusing stuff coming from you. I did not suggest ALL your posts are about or inspired by religion, try reading what I wrote. I am quite accustomed to your trait of trying to turn the tables on anyone who deals directly with you. People can judge for themselves who the zealot is here.
Mike
Now, I am a zealot?
Ok mike, you are not a 'Zealot' ... go now and march with your trophy..
Quote from: karlhenning on March 11, 2008, 10:21:51 AM
How much again is a brazzilian?
I believe it's as little as you can get away with..... >:D
Quote from: paulb on March 11, 2008, 10:35:44 AM
I agree, Bernstein in this 1970's clip has gone a tad too far in his opinion. Now had Bernstein said "quite possibly the world's most enjoyed , respected and influential composer ", then he has a strong case for his opinion.
IOW its very possible Beethoven has the greater edge in terms of popularity over Mozart. So in a broad sense Bernstein would havea ligitimate POV.
I am not so sure he held onto that statement he made in 1970's, later in his life.
Fine post...
You guys are all guilty on what you are blaming me of.
You threw your hands when I say Mendelssohn is the greatest composer, but say not a word when Bernstein said that Beethoven was the greatest composer.
Utter favoritism.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 11:00:29 AM
You guys are all guilty on what you are blaming me of.
You threw your hands when I say Mendelssohn is the greatest composer, but say not a word when Bernstein said that Beethoven was the greatest composer.
Utter favoritism.
Or perhaps, we think Beethoven
is the greatest composer?
Quote from: paulb on March 11, 2008, 10:35:44 AM
I agree, Bernstein in this 1970's clip has gone a tad too far in his opinion. Now had Bernstein said "quite possibly the world's most enjoyed , respected and influential composer ", then he has a strong case for his opinion.
IOW its very possible Beethoven has the greater edge in terms of popularity over Mozart. So in a broad sense Bernstein would havea ligitimate POV.
(Throws up hands.)
Quote from: paulb on March 11, 2008, 10:35:44 AM
I am not so sure he held onto that statement he made in 1970's, later in his life.
By 1970, the year of the Beethoven bicentennial, Bernstein was already 52. What reason do you have to believe he changed his mind between then and his death in 1990?
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 11:00:29 AM
You threw your hands when I say Mendelssohn is the greatest composer, but say not a word when Bernstein said that Beethoven was the greatest composer.
a) Bernstein has a lot more credibility.
b) Bernstein is a lot closer to generally accepted opinion.
c) Bernstein states a point of view that many here agree with.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 10:41:59 AM
Fine post...
back in the early 60's just abput every household that hada *phonograph player* *stereo console*, and bought classical, owned the ubiquitious Joseph Krips set of Beethoven 9 syms/1960 relesaed Like for $15 one could own all 9 syms in one set.
This is the latest incarnation of that set, which originally was issued ina big blue box. ahh I remember going to friends house listening to those LP's, .. ..after a few months ownership, the LP's had lots and lots of scratches.
We didn't mind, we trained to learn to listen w/o scratch distortion ;D
sure Mozart was also in people's collection, but nothing, except Tchaikovsky, took precedence over Beethoven. Bernstein may have been caught in that wave of enthusiasm in the 1960's over Beethoven's gripping and powerful 9 syms.
This is the *tin box* release ;D
Quote from: Sforzando on March 11, 2008, 11:06:32 AM
a) Bernstein has a lot more credibility.
b) Bernstein is a lot closer to generally accepted opinion.
c) Bernstein states a point of view that many here agree with.
Also, Bernstein did not seem to imply that anyone who did not agree with him is in some way defective.
Mike
Quote from: Sforzando on March 11, 2008, 11:04:25 AM
(Throws up hands.)
By 1970, the year of the Beethoven bicentennial, Bernstein was already 52. What reason do you have to believe he changed his mind between then and his death in 1990?
read my new post above for one possibilty of explaination.
I am saying he *might have changed* his POV.
Quote from: paulb on March 11, 2008, 11:08:54 AM
sure Mozart was also in people's collection, but nothing, except Tchaikovsky, took precedence over Beethoven. Bernstein may have been caught in that wave of enthusiasm in the 1960's over Beethoven's gripping and powerful 9 syms.
I kind of got the impression he arrived at his decisions through working with the scores and analysing them.
Mike
Quote from: Mark on March 11, 2008, 11:03:02 AM
Or perhaps, we think Beethoven is the greatest composer?
very many people actually do believe and hold this POV.
Everyone has the right to their persaonl opinion.
I own no cds (one vc recording with Oistrakh, perhaps) of Beethoven.
Quote from: paulb on March 11, 2008, 11:08:54 AM
back in the early 60's just abput every household that hada *phonograph player* *stereo console*, and bought classical, owned the ubiquitious Joseph Krips set of Beethoven 9 syms/1960 relesaed Like for $15 one could own all 9 syms in one set.
This is the latest incarnation of that set, which originally was issued ina big blue box. ahh I remember going to friends house listening to those LP's, .. ..after a few months ownership, the LP's had lots and lots of scratches.
We didn't mind, we trained to learn to listen w/o scratch distortion ;D
sure Mozart was also in people's collection, but nothing, except Tchaikovsky, took precedence over Beethoven. Bernstein may have been caught in that wave of enthusiasm in the 1960's over Beethoven's gripping and powerful 9: NB syms.
We had the Toscanini set - 7 LPs from the Book of the Month Club. Enthusiasm for Beethoven, I assure you, dates far back from the 1960s.
Quote from: knight on March 11, 2008, 11:09:08 AM
Also, Bernstein did not seem to imply that anyone who did not agree with him is in some way defective.
Mike
Where did I emply that anyone who disagrees with me is defective?
Mike... what's with you.. such blatant accusations?
Quote from: paulb on March 11, 2008, 11:10:46 AM
read my new post above for one possibilty of explaination.
I am saying he *might have changed* his POV.
There's not an iota of possibility that was the case. At his very last concert, at Tanglewood in 1990, he programmed the Beethoven 7th while deathly ill from emphysema. One month later he keeled over dead in his Manhattan apartment.
Quote from: knight on March 11, 2008, 11:11:00 AM
I kind of got the impression he arrived at his decisions through working with the scores and analysing them.
Mike
But if this is so, then how could Bernstein miss the incredible passages in Mozart's 25th pc and the 41st sym, and then go on to make that statement as to Beethoven the greatest.
I just feel he made the comment *off the cuff*, and if challenged later in life would have responded * did I say that?, huh, of well*
Quote from: Sforzando on March 11, 2008, 11:14:36 AM
There's not an iota of possibility that was the case. At his very last concert, at Tanglewood in 1990, he programmed the Beethoven 7th while deathly ill from emphysema. One month later he keeled over dead in his Manhattan apartment.
Well then this does stand against my idea.
So Bernstein was a Beethovenian. Nothing wrong with his personal POV, that Beethoven was for him , the greatest of all composers.
but obviously Bernstein had the greatest respect and love almost equal to Beethoven, for Mozart and his cherished Mahler.
We are talking minor, unimportant details about how Bernstein valued his favorite composers.
Quote from: James on March 11, 2008, 11:09:56 AM
Just to play devil's advocate for sec..Is this necessary though.?..I don't think it is; personally I think most people realize that Beethoven (and Mozart) were great formal innovators who laid down a lot of groundwork for future composers, they were important in otherwords... but I too just don't care much for their music either and how it sounds, and could easily live without... I believe the over emphasis on their great achievements is a bit misguided, heavy-handed and overstated. It's overhyped. So much so that we're continously beaten over the head with it & other composers who have did great things are rather underexposed and undervalued in comparison; many great things in the 20th century are grossly neglected...and take J.S. Bach for instance, he is rather under exposed in terms of actual concert performance time - considering his towering stature. People pay lip service but he is more revered in name than celebrated in the concert hall. While Mozart & Beethoven (YAWN) and safe romantic stuff is overestimated and dominating...
That doesn't seem too much the 'devil's advocate' for me, I must say. It seems a perfectly sensible, thought-through post - you offer a personal opinion on Beethoven (and Mozart); then you say it is
your opinion that they may be a bit overhyped, and possibly to the detriment of other composers. I don't necessarily agree with this at all, but I can respect it. Who knows, you may have a point... that's a bigger discussion than we've got here, though!
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 11:14:01 AM
Where did I emply that anyone who disagrees with me is defective?
Mike... what's with you.. such blatant accusations?
Where did I say that you did? Start reading what is there.
Mike
Quote from: paulb on March 11, 2008, 11:12:29 AM
I own no cds (one vc recording with Oistrakh, perhaps) of Beethoven.
And I own every note of his work, either in boxed sets or on countless individual CDs. I can't pretend I've heard it all yet, but what I have heard tells me that Ludwig was far and away a greater innovator than Felix - not to mention more imaginative, inventive and epoch-defining. No one points to a work by Mendelssohn and says, 'That piece changed music forever'. But Beethoven's music
did have an impact on the course of musical history. That, in my book, is just one way in which Herr Beethoven might be considered greater than Herr Mendelssohn.
The secret of a fast growing thread at GMG is to have both paulb an Saul in the...uh...discussion.
Beethoven at different times said Handel and Cherubini to be the greatest composer until that time in history. Why are we even discussing the validity of opinions, especially when participants have little or no qualification other than the ability to give their own personal opinion. It is a bit like someone who knows the answer to 1+1=2 giving their opinion on who is the greatest mathematician in history.
I am out!
Quote from: knight on March 11, 2008, 11:23:27 AM
Where did I say that you did? Start reading what is there.
Mike
Ok got it, there are two ways to understand your comment, its clear now.
Quote from: Mark on March 11, 2008, 11:25:45 AM
And I own every note of his work, either in boxed sets or on countless individual CDs. I can't pretend I've heard it all yet, but what I have heard tells me that Ludwig was far and away a greater innovator than Felix - not to mention more imaginative, inventive and epoch-defining. No one points to a work by Mendelssohn and says, 'That piece changed music forever'. But Beethoven's music did have an impact on the course of musical history. That, in my book, is just one way in which Herr Beethoven might be considered greater than Herr Mendelssohn.
well Saul does go over board if he made that opinion about Mendelssohn as more important a composer than Beethoven
HI Paul, how ya bin?
Why would you bring up Saul and I as associated in any way? ???
If you go to a any shopping mall in america, and ask 5 quick questions on various topics, , response has to be in one second, one of the questions being
Name one composer?
Beethoven would be #1 answer.
Quote from: springrite on March 11, 2008, 11:33:17 AM
Beethoven at different times said Handel and Cherubini to be the greatest composer until that time in history.
Beethoven might have named Cherubini because of how French composers handled the orchestra, which sometime around his 2nd or 3rd symphony he very clearly began to incorporate into his own orchestral writing. For example, Grétry, Cherubini, and others had the "Beethoven Sound" with regards to orchestral writing in many ways back in the late 1780s or early 1790s. The use of orchestra in Grétry's 1784 opera
Richard Cœur de Lion would probably really surprise a lot of people. Or hear the overture to Méhul's
Stratonice... would you believe that was from 1792?!?! Holy cow. Beethoven didn't even do that sort of thing with orchestra until around his Symphony #5. To anyone not familiar, and not expecting, the dates on some of that French music and its use of orchestra could really floor them. I mean, not only the general texture, but the striking hammer-chords and stuff, some of Beethoven's favourite tricks, right there to hear. To me, I think it was great Beethoven did this, because I love what he came up with using this "French orchestral style", usually I feel he improved on a good thing. I just wish more people could hear the overture to Méhul's
Stratonice or something. It places Beethoven more in the context of his time, rather than if he existed in vacuum.
Okay, enough rambling.
Anyways, I've often wondered what was behind Beethoven's high opinion of Cherubini. I really like Cherubini myself, but I've never really heard much specific from Beethoven on the matter except translations of some brief, general quote. There's no accounting for taste, but I wonder if there was more to it than simple like, but something along the lines of similarity, or influence, or something.
Quote from: paulb on March 11, 2008, 11:39:34 AM
If you go to a any shopping mall in america, and ask 5 quick questions on various topics, , response has to be in one second, one of the questions being
Name one composer?
Beethoven would be #1 answer.
yes, unfortunately for me........
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 11, 2008, 11:46:37 AM
Okay, enough rambling.
Relative to many other posts spewed forth today, your post embodies sleek elegance ........ :D
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 11:00:29 AM
You threw your hands when I say Mendelssohn is the greatest composer, but say not a word when Bernstein said that Beethoven was the greatest composer.
Bernstein's remark is plausible.
Yours is not.
Quote from: paulb on March 11, 2008, 11:15:46 AM
But if this is so, then how could Bernstein miss the incredible passages in Mozart's 25th pc and the 41st sym, and then go on to make that statement as to Beethoven the greatest.
Because there are passages of supreme excellence in
Beethoven,
too, Paul.
Quote from: springrite on March 11, 2008, 11:33:17 AM
The secret of a fast growing thread at GMG is to have both paulb an Saul in the...uh...discussion.
0:)
Quote from: karlhenning on March 11, 2008, 11:52:52 AM
Bernstein's remark is plausible.
Yours is not.
Hardly.
He said the same thing...'He is the greatest'...
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 11, 2008, 11:46:37 AM
Anyways, I've often wondered what was behind Beethoven's high opinion of Cherubini.
He probably felt there was little competition. And following Haydn's death between 1810-25 he was probably right.* Schubert would have been little known (though Beethoven did admire the songs of his that he saw), and he regarded Rossini with a mixture of envy and disdain for his enormous popularity ("The Italians take weeks to write operas that take us Germans months.") He did come to admire Cherubini's Requiem (I assume the C minor) over Mozart's. And I believe the Triple Concerto is considered Beethoven's most Cherubini-like composition.
----
* Bullet-proof vest on, knowing this crowd.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 11:58:04 AM
Hardly.
He said the same thing...'He is the greatest'...
He did not say "the same thing." He applied that adjective to an artist of greater stature than
Mendelssohn.
Quote from: Dm on March 11, 2008, 11:52:16 AM
Relative to many other posts spewed forth today, your post embodies sleek elegance ........ :D
Indeed, though much of it is already well-known to musicologists.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 11, 2008, 12:22:45 PM
He did not say "the same thing." He applied that adjective to an artist of greater stature than Mendelssohn.
Not true.
He said his "opinion" about Beethoven , just as I about Mendelssohn.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 01:18:31 PM
Not true.
He said his "opinion" about Beethoven , just as I about Mendelssohn.
All opinions are equally valid? You're treading on dangerous ground here, methinks.
Quote from: edward on March 11, 2008, 01:21:22 PM
All opinions are equally valid? You're treading on dangerous ground here, methinks.
Welcome to planet Earth.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 01:28:54 PM
Welcome to planet Earth.
Can you please take some trolling lessons? You're not even any good at it.
Quote from: edward on March 11, 2008, 01:48:05 PM
Can you please take some trolling lessons? You're not even any good at it.
Thank goodness...
Quote from: paulb on March 11, 2008, 11:39:34 AM
well Saul does go over board if he made that opinion about Mendelssohn as more important a composer than Beethoven
Yeah, that's basically Saul's premise: Mendelssohn is greater than Beethoven.
As to why you got dragged into this farce, maybe something you posted gave people the impression that you agree with Saul's premise.
Quote from: Mark on March 11, 2008, 02:03:45 PM
Yeah, that's basically Saul's premise: Mendelssohn is greater than Beethoven.
As to why you got dragged into this farce, maybe something you posted gave people the impression that you agree with Saul's premise.
Yes .. How could you.. Paul.. how?
Claim that Felix Mendelssohn is greater then Beethoven.. a crime!!!! shame on you!!!
Almost agreed there with Saul!!!!
How can that be?
Are you crazy!!!?
Mendelssohn against Beethoven? are you normal?
(http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/img/health/yawn150807.jpg)
Yawn.
Quote from: pjme on March 11, 2008, 02:24:58 PM
(http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/img/health/yawn150807.jpg)
Yawn.
This might cheer you up..
Cherry cake
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1178/1098543426_e10b5eb179.jpg?v=0)
Quote from: Sforzando on March 11, 2008, 05:55:16 AM
At age 18 I was accepted as a composition major at the Oberlin Conservatory of Music. Bit that.
I decided on another career path after realizing (unlike some of the wannabees here) that I did not have the drive or talent to pursue music professionally. A word to the wise should be sufficient.
You were rude to attack me as a personaly. It was uncalled for, and contributed nothing to the discussion.
The discussion was about Beethoven and Mendelssohn, not me, but you somehow managed to divert it.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 02:35:10 PM
You were rude to attack me as a personaly. It was uncalled for, and contributed nothing to the discussion.
The discussion was about Beethoven and Mendelssohn, not me, but you somehow managed to divert it.
Yawn. I refer you to your post #55.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 02:35:10 PM
The discussion was about Beethoven and Mendelssohn, not me, but you somehow managed to divert it.
Saul started this thread because he can't tolerate anyone preferring whatever composer over his treasured Mendelssohn. Just a case of sour grapes.
Now Saul is holding himself up as a composer of music. I suppose he does write notes on pieces of paper, but that's about it for his compositional skills; I've listened to some of his stuff.
Quote from: Saul on March 11, 2008, 02:17:15 PM
Yes .. How could you.. Paul.. how?
Claim that Felix Mendelssohn is greater then Beethoven.. a crime!!!! shame on you!!!
Almost agreed there with Saul!!!!
How can that be?
Are you crazy!!!?
Mendelssohn against Beethoven? are you normal?
Could it be we actually got through to you?!
Keep up the good work, Saul!
;D
Quote from: Don on March 11, 2008, 03:31:05 PM
Now Saul is holding himself up as a composer of music. I suppose he does write notes on pieces of paper, but that's about it for his compositional skills; I've listened to some of his stuff.
Thanks for listening...!
Quote from: edward on March 11, 2008, 01:21:22 PM
All opinions are equally valid?
I'd say, with regards to matters of personal taste, "Yes". How can it possibly be otherwise?
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 05:33:34 AM
How can it possibly be otherwise?
Some people are more intelligent and have greater sensibility then others not to mention experience and exposure.
Of course; and let's say again (for this is a road we've been down several times already) that artistic evaluation is not solely a matter of personal preference. I.e., it is not "purely" either 'subjective' or 'objective'.
So, yes, yes, a thousand times yes, Saul is entitled to like Mendelssohn above all other composers, just as Poju is entitled to like Elgar above all other composers, and paulb is entitled to like Pettersson above all other composers.
The question of which of the three is the greater composer, is something subtly other than liking this or that composer's music the most.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 12, 2008, 05:44:31 AM
Of course; and let's say again (for this is a road we've been down several times already) that artistic evaluation is not solely a matter of personal preference. I.e., it is not "purely" either 'subjective' or 'objective'.
You recognize, of course, that this conclusion is purely subjective .........
Quote from: karlhenning on March 12, 2008, 05:44:31 AM
So, yes, yes, a thousand times yes, Saul is entitled to like Mendelssohn above all other composers, just as Poju is entitled to like Elgar above all other composers, and paulb is entitled to like Pettersson above all other composers.
We can agree that, as between Elgar, Pettersson, and Mendelssohn ........ Elgar is surely the
least great ........
Quote from: Dm on March 12, 2008, 05:47:57 AM
You recognize, of course, that this conclusion is purely subjective .........
I think so.
QuoteWe can agree that, as between Elgar, Pettersson, and Mendelssohn ........ Elgar is surely the least great ........
I'd watch with considerable interest a tag-team grudge match between
St Paul and
The Apostles . . . .
Staying with the subject of the thread would definitely be an improvement! :D
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 05:33:34 AM
I'd say, with regards to matters of personal taste, "Yes". How can it possibly be otherwise?
Taste is obviously subjective and I probably like som crappy music myself.
It is when one substitutes "prefer" with "greater than" that one runs into trouble.
Quote from: uffeviking on March 12, 2008, 05:58:10 AM
Staying with the subject of the thread would definitely be an improvement! :D
I'm okay with
Bernstein saying that
Beethoven was the greatest composer. I mean, I thnk it's problematic to light on any
one composer as "the" greatest, but it's a defensible, ineccentric proposal on
Bernstein's part.
Well, what one important factor is what sort of influence a composer has over other composers-- he serves as a standard-bearer for what a composer can and should aim for and acheive in terms of musical expression.
The musical world would certainly be more impoverished without Mendelssohn, but the musical world without Beethoven would be utterly devestating. Beethoven had radically changed the whole landscape in terms of individual expression, emotional intensity, musical construction, etc. (I think we easily forget sometimes just how radical he was)
Even when composers REJECT Beethoven, they are influenced by him, even if only negatively. Beethoven has PROVOKED composers in such a way that he had to be answered. Mendelssohn simply has not had that same sort of hold over composers, as a challenge, as a standard-bearer.
That's not to say Mendelssohn is a bad composer-- but practically ALL composers have had to come to terms with Beethoven, whereas the same cannot be said for Mendelssohn. Anyway, that's how I understand the word "great."
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on March 12, 2008, 05:43:16 AM
Some people are more intelligent and have greater sensibility then others not to mention experience and exposure.
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.
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 06:14:37 AM
"Good" and "bad" by their very definitions cannot be objective.
I've got a bag of bad walnuts for you, then.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 12, 2008, 06:18:27 AM
I've got a bag of bad walnuts for you, then.
I would personally
choose to accept your evaluation of the walnuts as "bad", and not want them. This is one matter where I would
choose to adopt your rating, for a huge list of reasons. However, if you said you had a "bad" banana, I might take it and see for myself, since I only like them when they have green on them, and most people consider them "bad" in that state. In that case, I would not
choose to blindly heed your opinion. The personal taste remains mine: if I took the walnuts I might find them great (but probably not).
The list of reasons as to why this is different (for me) over your personal taste or assessments on music would probably end up being very long, including such things as (1) walnuts are not of crucial importance to me, (2) I tend to share majority opinions on "good" or "bad" when it comes to whether food is "spoiled" or not.
Nonetheless, Josh, there are plenty of applications of objective good-VS.-bad in the arts.
You do realize this, don't you?
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 06:14:37 AM
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.
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 06:14:37 AM
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.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 12, 2008, 06:26:09 AM
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 :P
Quote from: Sforzando on March 12, 2008, 06:54:56 AM
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.
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/ngmg/bUTTHEAD.gif)
Amen, brother!
No worries, Josh, a good reply.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 12, 2008, 07:57:57 AM
No worries, Josh, a good reply.
Its what happens when I multi-task :-[
Quote from: karlhenning on March 12, 2008, 06:26:09 AM
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.
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 08:31:30 AM
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.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 12, 2008, 08:37:20 AM
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on March 12, 2008, 06:54:56 AM
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.
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 08:39:59 AM
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.
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 08:39:59 AM
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.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 12, 2008, 08:50:11 AM
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.
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 08:53:13 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on March 12, 2008, 08:50:44 AM
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.
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 06:14:37 AM
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...
Quote from: Sforzando on March 12, 2008, 08:50:44 AM
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. $:)
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 09:03:02 AM
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:
Quote from: paulbI 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.
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 09:03:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on March 12, 2008, 09:37:30 AM
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)
Quote from: Sforzando on March 12, 2008, 09:37:30 AM
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.
:-)
Quote from: Sforzando on March 12, 2008, 09:37:30 AM
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? >:D 0:)
Quote from: lukeottevanger on March 12, 2008, 09:40:50 AM
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.
(Just a quote from Hamlet, not imputing any knavery to our esteemed Sforzando)
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 09:03:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on March 12, 2008, 09:37:30 AM
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).
Quote from: Sforzando on March 12, 2008, 09:37:30 AM
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?
Quote from: Sforzando on March 12, 2008, 10:04:45 AM
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on March 12, 2008, 10:04:45 AM
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
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 11:27:47 AM
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.
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 11:27:47 AM
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.
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 11:29:32 AM
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.
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 11:27:47 AM
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. ;D
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.
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.
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 11:55:43 AM
...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)
Quote from: lukeottevanger on March 12, 2008, 11:53:01 AM
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.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on March 12, 2008, 11:53:01 AM
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.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on March 12, 2008, 11:53:01 AM
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.
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 12:02:27 PM
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.
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 12:02:27 PM
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.
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 12:02:27 PM
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.
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 12:02:27 PM
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.
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 12:02:27 PM
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on March 12, 2008, 12:30:33 PM
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. ;D 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.
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 12:41:43 PM
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. ;D 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?
Quote from: Sforzando on March 12, 2008, 12:47:05 PM
That all sounds good to me. So where are we in dispute?
Quick ........ lock the thread .........
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 12:02:27 PM
What I do like is better. What else does "better" mean?
If all that
better means is "I like it," why do we need the word
better?
Time for a poll . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on March 12, 2008, 12:49:58 PM
If all that better means is "I like it," why do we need the word better?
We had better ponder that ........
It's one word instead of three. Why do we have the word "car" instead of "horseless carriage"? ;)
Quote from: Roger DaltreyI say, "I love you," you say, "I'm better" . . . .
You're not my type.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on March 10, 2008, 07:30:10 PM
Beethoven's late piano sonatas and quartets contradict your assertion.
This is an excellent point. I guess Saul just really happens to like Mendellssohn (I love alot of his works as well...not like LvB tho!). There's another member here (whom out of respect will remain nameless by me) whom prefers Elgar uber alles. It's probably fortunate that we don't have a board completely filled with LvB-admirers (like ME!), to keep things...juicy?
or something...
Quote from: Haffner on March 14, 2008, 12:24:24 PM
This is an excellent point.
I would have to agree. The work, once one encounters it, is so extraordinary as to make all quibbling about individual taste and objectivity/subjectivity seem besides the point. At least, that's how it seems to me, and I'm not alone.
Quote from: Haffner on March 14, 2008, 12:24:24 PM
There's another member here (whom out of respect will remain nameless by me) whom prefers Elgar uber alles.
.......
Andy, at least give us some clues as to whom this mystery
Elgarian might be ...... Don't leave us dangling in suspense and wonder ....... tell us ......
TELL US lest we fret beyond consolation .......
Quote from: Dm on March 14, 2008, 12:43:31 PM
.......Andy, at least give us some clues as to whom this mystery Elgarian might be ...... Don't leave us dangling in suspense and wonder ....... tell us ...... TELL US lest we fret beyond consolation .......
(laughing) oh it
can't be that hard!
I guess sometimes I try to hard to be fair. But op. 110 just seems to kind of supercede (by itself) the entirety of Mendellssohn's output.
Just my opinion, and again, whaddaIknow?
Quote from: Haffner on March 14, 2008, 12:46:12 PM
op. 110 just seems to kind of supercede (by itself) the entirety of Mendellssohn's output.
Just my opinion, and again, whaddaIknow?
Not just your opinion.
Quote from: Sforzando on March 14, 2008, 12:53:29 PM
Not just your opinion.
Nor is it anything like the only Beethoven work for which I find this to be the case (though I admit that I probably give Mendelssohn less attention than he deserves).
Quote from: edward on March 14, 2008, 01:44:38 PM
Nor is it anything like the only Beethoven work for which I find this to be the case (though I admit that I probably give Mendelssohn less attention than he deserves).
I agree. I believe Mendelssohn is a great composer, and in particular his chamber music (at least for me) bears this out. I really love his Violin Concerto especially. But...you know,
Beethoven...
Quote from: Haffner on March 14, 2008, 12:24:24 PM
It's probably fortunate that we don't have a board completely filled with LvB-admirers
Not like one may admire more then one composer or anything like that.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on March 14, 2008, 05:28:46 PM
Not like one may admire more then one composer or anything like that.
Heaven forbid (laughing)!
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on March 14, 2008, 05:28:46 PM
Not like one may admire more then one composer or anything like that.
Is that permitted?
Quote from: Dm on March 15, 2008, 05:59:48 AM
Is that permitted?
You are allowed to like a maximum of two, e.g., Handel and Beethoven.
Quote from: Sforzando on March 15, 2008, 06:08:04 AM
You are allowed to like a maximum of two, e.g., Handel and Beethoven.
What a corkin' idea!
(Sorry, couldn't stop myself.)
Quote from: edward on March 15, 2008, 06:11:20 AM
What a corkin' idea!
(Sorry, couldn't stop myself.)
Pray, continue.
Quote from: SforzandoYou are allowed to like a maximum of two, e.g., Handel and Beethoven.
Quote from: edwardWhat a corkin' idea!
I disagree - as far as favourites go, you can have only one, and that Saul.
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 12, 2008, 11:55:43 AM
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.
Is that anything like the childish malice you showed when you threatened to kill someone because they didn't elevate Mozart to your level of "greatness?"