Comparing Composers

[Lethevich]

Is all the name calling necessary?

It was harsh, but if you can't say negative things about people then that is an awfully large section of the expressive potential of the English language that has been designated out of bounds.

Just as a person could communicate their respect for a poster based on their various messages, some people in this thread evidently have drawn the opposite conclusion about another poster - and it was after a lot of discussion, so wasn't a snap judgement. Nothing wrong with giving the straight dime - it's going the excessively polite way that allows some people to live in ignorance of their failings.

[jowcol]

It was harsh, but if you can't say negative things about people then that is an awfully large section of the expressive potential of the English language that has been designated out of bounds.

I still see a difference between saying "that's a dumb idea" and "you are a dumb person".  Yes, a lot of ideas a given poster presents may attract flack, but we still only see a small fraction of a given person.   And there is a lot of expressive ways to illustrate how dumb an idea may be from your point of view.     

. Nothing wrong with giving the straight dime - it's going the excessively polite way that allows some people to live in ignorance of their failings.

My take on human nature may be questionable, but it seems to me that most people willingly live in ignorance of their failings no matter what well-meaning (or not-so-well meaning)  people say.  Would you really think that words (either politely stated, or blunt) will change the tightly held opinions of a poster that have changed in the past?   Based on my experience in this forum or elsewhere, that never happens, and assuming you can "convert" someone is setting yourself up for failure.  Do you really think in this case it will do any good, or is this just venting?

There are other people (on this and other forums) that have their sacred cows, and I've never seen a discussion, whether friendly or hostile, get them to change their mind.  But I've also seen threads where disagreement led to some fascinating revelations and nuances to an issue, and others where they quickly degenerated into name calling and unsubstantiated generalities.  The former I learn a lot from, even if I still disagree.  The latter are only interesting from the "viewing a train wreck" perspective.

Finally, one consider that the best way to put our of fire is not to feed it.  And the best way to get out of a Chinese Finger trap is not to apply pressure....

[Lethevich]

Fair points. Sometimes on message boards I've felt like banging my face against the screen after seeing someone after many pages of correcting still not undertanding key points, and this is what makes me lean towards feeling that an ever-increasing bluntness is a useful tool to try to prevent the cycle repeating indefinitely.

However, your temper must be less quick to rise than mine

[Scarpia]

My take on human nature may be questionable, but it seems to me that most people willingly live in ignorance of their failings no matter what well-meaning (or not-so-well meaning)  people say.  Would you really think that words (either politely stated, or blunt) will change the tightly held opinions of a poster that have changed in the past?   Based on my experience in this forum or elsewhere, that never happens, and assuming you can "convert" someone is setting yourself up for failure.  Do you really think in this case it will do any good, or is this just venting?

There have been many occasions when my mind has been changed on this board.  Most recently I expressed the opinion that Elgar's violin concerto was a senseless flurry of notes.  After considerable discussion of the work itself and the various recordings available on the Elgar thread I've come to respect the work, and realized that the recording I had of the work was not helping me appreciate it.  But there were intelligent people in that thread.  On the other hand, there are some people on this board who can't be persuaded of anything, and who are not able to put together a sentence that would persuade anyone of anything. 

[jowcol]

However, your temper must be less quick to rise than mine

Actually, I have a very healthy temper... and I've lost it in the past in discussion groups more times than I'd care to admit.  Some of the approach I take is based on the results (and lack thereof) from my losing it in the past, and also going through some unpleasant real world events  that put even the most annoying forum discussions into different  perspective. 

[MN Dave]

I think you set a better example when you state your arguments thoughtfully and politely. You are more convincing than someone who directly attacks which represents to me a loss of control.

[karlhenning]

I think you set a better example when you state your arguments thoughtfully and politely. You are more convincing than someone who directly attacks which represents to me a loss of control.

Yes, practically an admission that one's 'argument' possesses no merit.

[MN Dave]

Yes, practically an admission that one's 'argument' possesses no merit.

Or if it does, no one's going to take it seriously.

[jowcol]

There have been many occasions when my mind has been changed on this board.  Most recently I expressed the opinion that Elgar's violin concerto was a senseless flurry of notes.  After considerable discussion of the work itself and the various recordings available on the Elgar thread I've come to respect the work, and realized that the recording I had of the work was not helping me appreciate it.  But there were intelligent people in that thread.  On the other hand, there are some people on this board who can't be persuaded of anything, and who are not able to put together a sentence that would persuade anyone of anything. 

I fully agree--  particularly  with the last sentence (although that is not unique to this board-- this one is quite civilized compared to most I've been on) .  The best disagreements (and disagreements are healthy, IMO) are not circular and repetitive, but evolve, and respond to each others points.   If the disagreement is no longer bringing up any new points, it becomes a Chinese Finger trap.   

To get back on the thread, I can't really assume that there is an object standard of greatness-- the proverb  of the blind men and the elephant says a lot to me about how music is experienced and interpreted.  One can talk about composers in terms of the musical elements they apply, how they develop material, how consistent  their canon is, etc.

I've mentioned this example before, if we could only say that Wagner or Satie is great, who would we pick?  Their strengths are pretty much opposites.  For me, I'd pick Satie if I had to pick one I'd rather have on a desert Island, but that's not to say that Satie had revolutionized opera and wrote the most stirring overtures. Of course, if we had to grade Wagner by his intimate, eccentric,, understated style  and the subtle quality of his miniatures, he would not score so well.   Both of them had their followers, and a strong impact on the music world.  Defining the "greatness" they have in common would be a challenge.

So, why compare apples and oranges? (or different composers?) The only reason to make such a comparison it so get a better handle on what we are looking for in a composer, and in the  music itself.  If someone likes Bach over Mozart (such as myself) , that says something about the specific criteria the person is using to make that assessment. 

There are a few musical forms I am a sucker for-- much I've learned by analyzing what I like.  I love a ii-V vamp.  I love 3 on 4 and other polyrthmic structures, and I love polymeter as well.  I like modal music a lot.  I prefer minor key.  I like accidentals and 9 and 10 note scales, but most  twelve tone music bores me after a while(there are some great exceptions!).  I like strong multi-voice counterpoint.   I tend to like solo keyboard or orchestral works, and I'm not a keen on chamber.   Given this list of very subjective hot-buttons I carry around (I tend to think most of us are hard wired to some degree), a lot of my preferences tend to make "sense" -- but not all of them-- there is always an exception to every rule.  And also my musical needs keep evolving.  I used to have a stronger need for Avante-Garde stuff than I do now.  And, as you pointed out, sometimes it's important to go back to a work with another sense of expectations, or listen to a different interpretation.

So, to compare composers, rather than rate them on a scale from "sucks" to "awesome", I find it usually better to dig into some specifics about what elements of their style is great.  One of my favorite composers, Mussorgsky, can't really be praised for formal structure-- but his expressive, assymetrical melodies and the ability to catch emotion in sound I would rank very highly.

[Scarpia]

Ideally "greatness" is objective, although there will always be a subjective component.  I think the most workable definition of greatness in music would involve artistic innovation, perfection of craft, influence on later composers, and durable appreciation by audiences and performers.   Wagner is "great" by any measure, despite commonly perceived weaknesses in his works (mostly connected with libretti).  Satie may or may not be, I can't say.  I'll admit to never having listen to one of his works all the way through.    

[Franco]

While I am convinced that there is an objective standard for awarding a label of  greatness among composers, writers, painters, etc. I am not convinced it is an important qualifier. 

There is just such an enormous amount of very worthwhile music and art created by all the composers, writers, painters, etc.  that while arguably may not rise to the level of great, that, for me, renders the label "great" somewhat irrelevant.

[cosmicj]

I think Teresa is on pretty solid ground that musical status and greatness is subjective and personal and not objective.  (I think the name-calling is incredible partly because the people doing it have failed to even try to make their case.)  Beyond jowcol's excellent and thoughtful post, I'd like to suggest two ideas that I think present problems for the idea of objective greatness:

1) Subjective tastes are formed by repetition and social approval.  They are not innate.  Do we like Chopin because we like it or because we have been exposed it to repeatedly since childhood?  Would we still like Chopin even if we were regularly informed that it was bad by authority sources?  I'd have to say the answer is no for most humans.

2) If popular consensus is important in defining "objective greatness," how do we deal with the fact that the Black-eyed Peas outsold Mozart last year?  Well, we resort to expertise and sophistication.  That has its own problems.

[cosmicj]

Ideally "greatness" is objective, although there will always be a subjective component.  I think the most workable definition of greatness in music would involve artistic innovation, perfection of craft, influence on later composers, and durable appreciation by audiences and performers.   Wagner is "great" by any measure, despite commonly perceived weaknesses in his works (mostly connected with libretti).  Satie may or may not be, I can't say.  I'll admit to never having listen to one of his works all the way through.   

Thanks for making the case. 

artistic innovation - I deny this is important. 

perfection of craft - I believe the perception of craft is highly subjective and socially malleable

influence on later composers - who did Vivaldi ever influence?

, and durable appreciation by audiences and performers - see my point 2.  The "Elvis is way better than Beethoven - who has more gold records?" argument.

[Scarpia]

Thanks for making the case. 

artistic innovation - I deny this is important. 

perfection of craft - I believe the perception of craft is highly subjective and socially malleable

influence on later composers - who did Vivaldi ever influence?

, and durable appreciation by audiences and performers - see my point 2.  The "Elvis is way better than Beethoven - who has more gold records?" argument.

Without artistic innovation we would still be beating two sticks together to make music.  I think it is an important attribute, although I can imagine "great" composers who were not particularly innovative.

Perfection of craft may be impossible to define precisely and depends on context, but is something that people who have taken the time to study music can recognize and usually agree on.  (They may not agree on whether they enjoy the music in question).

Vivaldi influenced Bach and many other composers.  Bach transcribed numerous works by Vivaldi and studied it because he wanted to master innovative elements in Vivaldi's music.  Ultimately, I think Bach wrote music much better than Vivaldi ever could after he had assimilated these characteristics.

Elvis is a great rock singer, Beethoven was a great composer.  Greatness exists within the genre.  Some genre's have more potential for greatness.  How many "great" tic-tac-toe players are there?

[Brahmsian]

how do we deal with the fact that the Black-eyed Peas outsold Mozart last year? 

Ayyyyyy!!

Because the world is a messed up place.   

[MN Dave]

Ayyyyyy!!

Because the world is a messed up place.   

Simple pop tunes sell. Most people don't require anything greater.

[Teresa]

This thread is about the comparisons of composers as presented by Saul, in his YouTubes of Bach's Double Violin Concerto and Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No. 2.  He liked the Bach the best and I liked the Rachmaninov the best and I provided a YouTube of my favorite Rachmaninov composition Symphonic Dances.   Since no one else presented any YouTubes or even commented on the subject at hand I guess Saul and I are the only ones interested in the actual subject matter. 

Sad to say many posters came here not for the comparisons but to attack the actual meaning of words.

I've had time to sleep on some of the issues brought up and here is my personal opinions.

This idea that any composer is great outside of one's self is high offensive to me and to personal freedom in general.  The musical establishment in proclaiming certain composers as great at the detriment of others is IMHO doing severe damage to the future recruitment of new classical music listeners.  These choices should be made by the listeners NOT the establishment.  Personal opinions of greatness should never be presented as facts.  And no listener should ever be attacked for disagreeing with another listener's ideas of greatness, as greatness in all walks of life differs greatly from person and person.  By hitting people over the head with whom you personally believe is great is bullying and rude in the extreme. 

These are ALL personal opinions and personal observations based on each individual actually listening to music.

Worst
Bad
Poor
Good
Great
Greatest

These can NEVER be universal as claimed by some posters.  By the musical establishment proclaiming certain composers as great based perhaps on technical skill and number of performances or popularity over centuries is wrong.  It should be clearly stated it is ONLY their personal opinion, and that there are hundreds of other deserving composers just as talented and great as the ones the writer is pushing. 

Scarpia gave this definition of why his favorite composers are great "Because they invented new forms of music, imagined harmonies, melodies, and varieties of music that had never been heard before, because they were dominant influences on the music that came after, and above all because they wrote music that continues to excite people hundreds of years after they died."  This defines nearly every single composer (especially modern ones).  They all have their own unique composition style and recognizable sound, most are inventive, most of their new compositions are unlike anything that came before.  And music that people love excites them hundreds of years after the composers are dead.  What I strongly disagree with Scarpia is that this is NOT a constant but varies from listener to listener.  No single human being believes the exact same things are great. 

To use a food metaphor, If I ate a filet mignon and felt it was the greatest tasting steak I had ever consumed I would not expect ever single person to agree with me, especially people who do not like steak.   No because I have known for decades greatness is a highly personal issue and not to be imposed on others.   

[Saul]

It was harsh, but if you can't say negative things about people then that is an awfully large section of the expressive potential of the English language that has been designated out of bounds.

Just as a person could communicate their respect for a poster based on their various messages, some people in this thread evidently have drawn the opposite conclusion about another poster - and it was after a lot of discussion, so wasn't a snap judgement. Nothing wrong with giving the straight dime - it's going the excessively polite way that allows some people to live in ignorance of their failings.

I don't know why we can't disagree like normal human beings without destroying another person's dignity. There was no need to call Teresa an 'idiot', it was indeed in poor taste..

[MN Dave]

[cosmicj]

Scarpia - Good response.  Speaking for myself, I do think greatness features a varying combination of the traits you list.  Because the people on this forum align in many (not all) aesthetic norms, there is a consensus on whether artists qualify under your criteria.  The problem is that all of the judgements rely heavily on the weight of authority and popularity.  I fear that objective musical greatness then is the sum total of a cultural subset's group norms, which reflect/inform subjective tastes/judgements in a feedback loop.  So does this greatness exist outside of the group norms?  Probably not. 

So Theresa is making a "subjectivist" argument, I am taking an "intersubjectivist" position and Scarpia and bulldog are taking an "objectivist" position. 

Hey, at least in our undergrad days we were consuming this: