Greatness in Music

[Scriptavolant]

And what part of my previous statement did you miss?

Actually I didn't miss it, I've read your post about 3-4 times, but could not see any definitive straight conclusion in your arguments. Furthermore, if you say that greatness is:

"a matter of judgment, that is, neither provable fact nor personal whim, but instead the collective response of composers, performers, listeners, and scholars"

you may also admit that these judgements are doomed (to use your expression) to change sooner or later. A thing that you seem to sustain later, when you say:

"This doesn't mean either that the canon of musical greatness is ossified for all time, or that composers and works may not be reevaluated up or down, or that individuals may not depart from the generally accepted canon here and there in accordance with personal taste"

A statement that personally I couldn't reconcile with the idea by which departing from the majority implies the assumption of straw man. No, departing from the majority may imply the non-ossification and variability of judgements and frameworks throughout history. But you labeled the evidence of "mistakes of history" again as a straw man.
So probably we're talking about different things, not having achieved an agreement on the meaning of the terms we're using.

[Maciek]

Maciek, you're overreacting, he's not said that.

Well what is this supposed to mean then (especially the parts in bold):

As to Zarebski and any other of the Polish composers you mention, I know nothing of them other than your word. And that's simply not enough for me. Musical merit is not necessarily distributed among all cultures and at all times. If you are going to propose new candidates for inclusion in the canon, the burden is on you, not on the people skeptical of you.

[dtwilbanks]

Cute baby.

[Gurn Blanston]

Quote from: quintett op.57 on Today at 06:26:14 PM
Maciek, you're overreacting, he's not said that.

Well what is this supposed to mean then (especially the parts in bold):

Quote from: Larry Rinkel on Today at 02:30:56 PM
As to Zarebski and any other of the Polish composers you mention, I know nothing of them other than your word. And that's simply not enough for me. Musical merit is not necessarily distributed among all cultures and at all times. If you are going to propose new candidates for inclusion in the canon, the burden is on you, not on the people skeptical of you

Hmmm, not entirely sure what else it could mean...

[Maciek]

Cute baby.

Thanks, Dave.

[Gurn Blanston]

Greatness in music--

Notice that if I don't define anyway to distinguish between the value of one work or composer from another then we have a problem-- all works are treated equally.  We need candidates for how we rank value.  But let's first address the issue of hierarchy.

First of all I will note that we do not need a strict hierarchy of taste, just a concept of difference.  Let me illustrate this with an example in math-- you can define a notion of < with numbers, and it's well defined, so you can form a hierarchy of numbers with any finite set such as {1,2,7} you would have 1 < 2 < 7.  But what about pairs of numbers?  There is no well defined way to define a hierarchy to rate a set such as {(1,0),(-1,0),(2,5)}.  No matter how you will define it you will run into problems.  Yet you notice that we can easily distinguish between these pairs of numbers, right?  And clearly there is a relative separation between them that's easily defined, and you can rank those separations easily!  And we do have some vague sense that some points are further away than others.  This is conceptually the same issue that I'm identifying with ranking value in music.  This is what I mean, there are many potential factors in determining greatness, and separate some composers from others without defining a strict hierarchy.  And that is why it is not valid to equate a sense of ranking in music with a strict hierarchy.

Well, the crux arrives! Great post, BTW, David. But that last sentence, after the big SNIP, sums up well, not only everything you wrote before, but my own feeling on the subject. And effectively kneecaps the argument that people who enjoy the gamut of classical composers are somehow unable to differentiate between "quality" of different composers' music, or that they can't recognize "greatness". What bullcrap! Just because I can tell Mozart from Vanhal, doesn't mean I can't enjoy Vanhal, and strictly on his own terms. What, is this some feat of intellectual accomplishment that eludes the connoisseur? Hardly, it is a feat only insofar as one allows oneself to block out extramusical associations and simply listen to the music, hopefully placing it in a context that is suitable for its time. I don't even think of it as Elgarian freethinking, rather it is disassociating yourself from the comparison/contest paradigm that we seem obsessed with.

So now I pose the following open questions:
(a) by this construction of greatness, are popular artists great?  I argued that they have value, but I have not discussed their greatness.
(b) would composers that should be considered great fail to be so by this definition?  And in that case how should the meaning of greatness be augmented?

Valid questions both, and demanding of such replies as I can't give them now, without further thought on it. I'll be back.

[sonic1]

Gurn, well put!

I believe it is true that the more narrow one's listening, the more likely one is to cannonize. There are great names in music, for sure. But besides the few most agree on (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart) you will get into territorial issues and prejudice of taste. Some will want to add Mahler, others not. Some will want to add Schoenberg, others not. Some will want to add Brahms, others not. Some will want to add Wagner, others not, etc. etc. Many will want to speak of greatness within each subgenre, others not. It all gets too annoying, and makes me just want to hang out in the "what are you listening to" thread which at a great many times is the best source of information in the forum when opinions get a little thick.

[Maciek]

And remember we have at least one forum member who wouldn't even include Mozart in the canon!

[Gurn Blanston]

Gurn, well put!

I believe it is true that the more narrow one's listening, the more likely one is to cannonize. There are great names in music, for sure. But besides the few most agree on (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart) you will get into territorial issues and prejudice of taste. Some will want to add Mahler, others not. Some will want to add Schoenberg, others not. Some will want to add Brahms, others not. Some will want to add Wagner, others not, etc. etc. Many will want to speak of greatness within each subgenre, others not. It all gets too annoying, and makes me just want to hang out in the "what are you listening to" thread which at a great many times is the best source of information in the forum when opinions get a little thick.

Thanks, sonic. Oh yes, I completely agree with that. Even if we are completely willing to go along with the consensus and say that there are 3 or 4 composers that rise above all others, so what? Is that all we will listen to then? And if we listen to others, is it just an exercise to see how badly they fare in comparison with the anointed few? If it is (which I believe) that, then how can anyone else possibly come off well, as opposed to being approached with an open mind? 

[quintett op.57]

Well what is this supposed to mean then (especially the parts in bold):

that he's skeptical, nothing more

[Guido]

Indeed. Name one. The mavericks (who apparently feel affronted by the concept of a generally accepted canon) are always pushing this or that dubious candidate forward.

Charles Ives was not known for many years. If we were having this discussion in 1945, you might have said the same thing as you did above, and this would have been a prime example. Just because its unlikely, Dosn't mean its impossible. Mahler also took a long time to be truly acknowledge for his compositional greatness - only the 50s or 60s really (or even later?)

[sonic1]

Charles Ives was not known for many years. If we were having this discussion in 1945, you might have said the same thing as you did above, and this would have been a prime example. Just because its unlikely, Dosn't mean its impossible. Mahler also took a long time to be truly acknowledge for his compositional greatness - only the 50s or 60s really (or even later?)

and e-hem! Bach for christ's sake, considered a nobody until much much later.

[Josquin des Prez]

Bach for christ's sake, considered a nobody until much much later.

Incorrect. Bach was highly esteemed in his time and was well known among musicians and connoisseurs alike. His 'revival' merely popularized his name among the general audience, nothing more.

[Larry Rinkel]

and e-hem! Bach for christ's sake, considered a nobody until much much later.

And e-hem!, you have your music history wrong. He was admired, but not widely performed. Only 20 years after his death Mozart was delighted by his discovery of the motets of Bach; only 30-40 years after his demise the young Beethoven's primary course of piano study was the WTC.

In his later years and after his death, Bach's reputation as a composer declined: his work was regarded as old-fashioned compared to the emerging classical style. He was far from forgotten, however: he was remembered as a player and teacher (as well, of course, as composer), and as father of his children (most notably C. P. E. Bach). His best-appreciated compositions in this period were his keyboard works, in which field other composers continued to acknowledge his mastery. Mozart and Beethoven were among his most prominent admirers. On a visit to the Thomasschule in Leipzig, Mozart heard a performance of one of the motets (BWV 225) and exclaimed, 'Now, here is something one can learn from!'; on being given the parts of the motets, 'Mozart sat down, the parts all around him, held in both hands, on his knees, on the nearest chairs. Forgetting everything else, he did not stand up again until he had looked through all the music of Sebastian Bach'. Beethoven was also a devotee, learning the Well-Tempered Clavier as a child and later calling Bach 'Urvater der Harmonie' ('original father of harmony') and 'nicht Bach, sondern Meer' ('not a stream but a sea', punning on the literal meaning of the composer's name).
http://www.8notes.com/biographies/bach.asp#Legacy

[karlhenning]

It's simple: Beethoven and Bach and Mozart are great, Dittersorf and Elgar are not.

It's not that simple.

I won't hear that Elgar is anywhere as plain-toast as Dittersdwarf! 

[karlhenning]

What bullcrap! Just because I can tell Mozart from Vanhal, doesn't mean I can't enjoy Vanhal, and strictly on his own terms.

I agree!  Although I have little direct experience with cattle . . . .

[sonic1]

Yes, but Bach was not in the GREAT category in discussion here until later, much later, which is my point. Gosh we are getting a little snippity here.

[Larry Rinkel]

you may also admit that these judgements are doomed (to use your expression) to change sooner or later. A thing that you seem to sustain later, when you say:

Not what I said. I said what is doomed are attempts to "prove" the value of a musical composition objectively, or to go to the opposite extreme and and say that it's all subjective or personal.

[karlhenning]

I believe it is true that the more narrow one's listening, the more likely one is to cannonize.

That's an interesting remark.  Not sure it will hold up, but its interest is undeniable.

[sonic1]

That's an interesting remark.  Not sure it will hold up, but its interest is undeniable.

It seems to me that the more narrow one's listening, the more likely one is to consider "greatness" within their own listening repertoire. The music more in what is THEIR fringe will never be considered "great". People who are more open in their listening palette are more likely to accept greatness in a broader sense, or even find the practice of assigning greatness a bit silly.