Greatness in Music

[Varg]

When referring to "deep subjects," what do you mean by "deep" ?



(let's try this from another angle .........)

That's exactly what i'm talking about. Ridiculous, isnt it?! We could do this with every single word; and mister sonic-something has contradicted himself by following the path "You can think anything about anything, but greatness! So many things are coming to my mind right now, but i'll stop here, since i dont like to bash or ridiculise people.

[Varg]

That short reply (Joe Satriani vs Jimi Hendrix) makes all you previous posts on that topic useless. What's the difference between depth and superficiality, greatness or lack of, black and white? Are you saying that you can attribute a "greatness" opinion to anything, but doing it with clasical music is idiotic? You denie the "greatness" judgement notion as soon as others speak in it's favor, but you keep talking about it yourself. "Greatness doesnt exist... but, wait, let me tell you what i think is great..."

Personnaly, i dont give a shit about neither of these guitarists, but that doesnt make your own personnal (or maybe you were influenced by a group?!) judgement "false", lame or idiotic, right?

As i said earlier, it all comes down to individuals. What is great to a person is great to that person. That's it. No need to preach and try to convince and convert anyone to our own taste and understanding or to embrace the ones from others. "The whole world must know and agree!!!". What the fuck is that? Why always speaking of time and recognition? Do you think that popularity means or prove the superior value of something? You really base your idea of "greatness" on that? A bunch of people must say "he is great" before you began to believe it (and succeding the test of time means nothing else)?

In closing, the moon image i gave you was misunderstood, as you should've understood it yourself by reading the parenthesis following it. It was an example of a unity and the judgements of others towards it. Obviously, if 20 thousands people have listened to the same composer, there will be alot of "group" forming, but not because they all open they're ears to hear what others have said about him. Every one of them would have make an opinion in solitude; if they ended in a group, it was beyond they're control, because a unity is a unity, and those who are looking at the same unity are multiple; you cant avoid "opinion sharing" in these cases. If one wants to have a unique opinion about something, one must find a unique unity and be the only one looking at it, not looking at a unity that everyone is looking at. But that's another story...


From a man who honored Socrate as a great spirit, some things that you said (the whole foundation, in fact) are pretty disappointing. Havent you heard what Socrate told to Platon about beauty (which is just an example on the matter of perception, which is related to pretty much everything)? How far we, as individuals, are able to understand, our level of intelligence, our body, which is the most busy, honest and conscience free (that should ring a major bell) part of our constitution... you want to put a ruler on this, you want to measure the judgement of individuals by using mass-or-group-or-circle-or-whatever judgement? But you cant even measure unity with unity! You just cant get all the things that happens in a body alone (instincts, nerves...etc), and that's different from person to person. Now try to blend together what is conscient in us and what is unconscient! You cant even do it with your own self, how could you do it with someone you know nothing about? You seem to like the word "impossible"; i just describe a thing that is truly impossible, and that makes everything you said... impossible

[FideLeo]

You're still missing the point.  Frederick's invitation demonstrates that he understood the distinction between [ what I like ] and [ what is great ].  There ought to be overlap, of course;  but it is a perceptual failure to define greatness as "what I like best."  BTW, the non-use of the dedication copy is something of a red herring that you're offering (sic) to the discussion;  that was an artifact, a regal present, it was not a delivery of workaday publication.  You seem to imply (a) that Frederick did a lot of playing (which I expect he did not, at that point;  he hired musicians to do a lot of playing -- he himself played occasionally, as a diversion), and (b) since he did not do much of this lot-of-playing from the dedicatory copy, it "means" that he had scant regard for Bach.  That is nonsense, and especially means nothing in comparison to the event of inviting Bach to court.

What did Frederick consider "great" in Bach?   I still don't think it's his merits as a composer.  It is clear that Bach was better known in his days as a keyboard virtuoso, and a look at his activities at the court confirms that to true rather than contradicts it.  Most of the time Bach was asked to do there is try out instruments here and there, or improvise on a given theme (much like what young Mozart was asked to do in those "showoff" events).  True, the king would have high regards for Bach as a technician (and a contrapunctalist), but that is hardly the same as our reason for ranking him among the greatest composers ever.  We have no evidence of the "royal gift" of Musical Offering ever receiving any attention it deserved (and the King actually did a lot of playing and composing himself at this time) and is not unlike the other dozens of works dedicated to the monarch in that it was soon delegated to storage in one of the royal libraries. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_Offering#Reception)

[sonic1]

That short reply (Joe Satriani vs Jimi Hendrix) makes all you previous posts on that topic useless. What's the difference between depth and superficiality, greatness or lack of, black and white? Are you saying that you can attribute a "greatness" opinion to anything, but doing it with clasical music is idiotic? You denie the "greatness" judgement notion as soon as others speak in it's favor, but you keep talking about it yourself. "Greatness doesnt exist... but, wait, let me tell you what i think is great..."

Personnaly, i dont give a shit about neither of these guitarists, but that doesnt make your own personnal (or maybe you were influenced by a group?!) judgement "false", lame or idiotic, right?

As i said earlier, it all comes down to individuals. What is great to a person is great to that person. That's it. No need to preach and try to convince and convert anyone to our own taste and understanding or to embrace the ones from others. "The whole world must know and agree!!!". What the fuck is that? Why always speaking of time and recognition? Do you think that popularity means or prove the superior value of something? You really base your idea of "greatness" on that? A bunch of people must say "he is great" before you began to believe it (and succeding the test of time means nothing else)?

In closing, the moon image i gave you was misunderstood, as you should've understood it yourself by reading the parenthesis following it. It was an example of a unity and the judgements of others towards it. Obviously, if 20 thousands people have listened to the same composer, there will be alot of "group" forming, but not because they all open they're ears to hear what others have said about him. Every one of them would have make an opinion in solitude; if they ended in a group, it was beyond they're control, because a unity is a unity, and those who are looking at the same unity are multiple; you cant avoid "opinion sharing" in these cases. If one wants to have a unique opinion about something, one must find a unique unity and be the only one looking at it, not looking at a unity that everyone is looking at. But that's another story...


From a man who honored Socrate as a great spirit, some things that you said (the whole foundation, in fact) are pretty disappointing. Havent you heard what Socrate told to Platon about beauty (which is just an example on the matter of perception, which is related to pretty much everything)? How far we, as individuals, are able to understand, our level of intelligence, our body, which is the most busy, honest and conscience free (that should ring a major bell) part of our constitution... you want to put a ruler on this, you want to measure the judgement of individuals by using mass-or-group-or-circle-or-whatever judgement? But you cant even measure unity with unity! You just cant get all the things that happens in a body alone (instincts, nerves...etc), and that's different from person to person. Now try to blend together what is conscient in us and what is unconscient! You cant even do it with your own self, how could you do it with someone you know nothing about? You seem to like the word "impossible"; i just describe a thing that is truly impossible, and that makes everything you said... impossible

We are having language problems here. I am not suggesting that we don't have any sort of personal hierarchy, and I don't wish to see greatness banned from the english language. I couldn't give a rats ass whether anyone thought what I think is great, terrible. In fact, I already know that most of you would cringe at some of the stuff I listen to. I am experimenting with blasphemy, and a tearing down of idolatry within myself and doing so publicly. Bach sucks buttcrack. Ahhh...that is refreshing....

what was I saying?

Oh yeah. I think it would be incredibly healthy if, just once in a while, we let go of this ass licking of dead composers. I am being crude here, but I just get tired of it. And I really do think more than the other arts, the giants of the past overshadow the present in classical music. I don't think it is entirely healthy. I don't think it is good for music to have so few roots. Now I know that not everyone feels that all leads to Bach, Beethoven and Mozart. But you have to admit those guys weigh pretty heavily on the art, and I believe way out of proportion to their importance.

The very fact that we still call all of this music CLASSICAL music says a lot. What the hell about Luigi Nono is classical? What about George Crumb? Hell, I would even argue that Shostakovitch is far from "classical". There just seems to be this resistance to change in classical music. Look at the visual arts, and how much change has happened in the same time span as music. Look at the point that modernity hit painting, as compared to classical music. Jesus, modern art is gone to so many places in painting and accepted by the art community, while Schoenberg still upsets people. And Schoenberg just did away with one aspect (tonality). Rhythmically Schoenberg had not innovated enough to note about. Classical music whines the entire way through any innovation. I am not sure why this is, but it is incredibly different than any other art I can think of. That is not to say the innovations are not there. They are. But the resistance is great, and the importance of Bach is so great, and heavy. There is no equivalent in the visual arts. No visual artist is forced to reckon with Michelangelo or Di Vinci. Not all composers, mind you, "deal" with Bach. But Bach's gravity on the modern composer is arguably much greater than Di Vinci, or whatever artist would be Bach's equivalent. See, I can't even come up with the equivalent of Bach in art. Because it really doesn't exist that way.

[karlhenning]

True, the king would have high regards for Bach as a technician (and a contrapunctalist), but that is hardly the same as our reason for ranking him among the greatest composers ever.

There are divers quibbles I might take with your post, but they would not be much to the purpose (and would duplicate earlier attempts to refine this or that point).

This statement of yours, though, I certainly agree with.

[karlhenning]

Oh yeah. I think it would be incredibly healthy if, just once in a while, we let go of this ass licking of dead composers. I am being crude here

And, while I will not descend to crudity, I am tiring a bit of pointing out that you paint with a broad brush when you imply that any notion of artistic greatness is essentially a form of this disgusting simile of yours.

And I really don't see why any of us should show particular respect to such a blatantly insulting simplification.

I do hope I made that as plain as possible, in as few words as possible.  One wishes to avoid tiring you further, lest your remarks become yet further off-color.

[karlhenning]

The very fact that we still call all of this music CLASSICAL music says a lot.

It does;  but not all of us find it something inherently to be enraged at.

[longears]

...the importance of Bach is so great, and heavy. There is no equivalent in the visual arts. No visual artist is forced to reckon with Michelangelo or Di Vinci.

You are, of course, welcome to your own opinions.  This, however, is a statement of fact, and it is false.  Virtually every serious painter, for instance, wrestles with the giants of the past.  Don't confuse art with the "art world,"  which is more akin to the money-making machine of pop music.

[Haffner]

Please?

I'll give him a dollar.

[Haffner]

And, while I will not descend to crudity, I am tiring a bit of pointing out that you paint with a broad brush when you imply that any notion of artistic greatness is essentially a form of this disgusting simile of yours.

And I really don't see why any of us should show particular respect to such a blatantly insulting simplification.

It's sad to see anyone on this forum have to use such garbage language.

For me, it's almost impossible not to gush over my favorite music.

[DavidW]

Now I know that not everyone feels that all leads to Bach, Beethoven and Mozart. But you have to admit those guys weigh pretty heavily on the art, and I believe way out of proportion to their importance.

I concur, especially if you listen to Karl's favorite radio station.

[greg]

Joe Satriani vs Jimi Hendrix

interesting comparison

Satriani exemplifies, for me, mastery in technique without much depth.

then you must think of depth a LOT differently than i do. 
i've realized the whole reason Satriani is the guy whose music caught my attention before anyone else's is because the thought process in his music is a bit deeper than just any other rock band on the radio, and the complexity is what attracted me when i was, what, 11 or so...

especially the live version of Memories on the Dreaming #11 album, with the super-long solo (possibly my favorite solo ever), sounds like a cadenza of a violin concerto in a way. And it goes all over the place, reminds me of music of Romantic composers. 
But i'd say that Satriani has both technique and depth, while Hendrix has technique but not as much depth because he doesn't need to be quite as deep for the music that he wrote.

[greg]

The very fact that we still call all of this music CLASSICAL music says a lot. What the hell about Luigi Nono is classical? What about George Crumb? Hell, I would even argue that Shostakovitch is far from "classical". There just seems to be this resistance to change in classical music. Look at the visual arts, and how much change has happened in the same time span as music. Look at the point that modernity hit painting, as compared to classical music. Jesus, modern art is gone to so many places in painting and accepted by the art community, while Schoenberg still upsets people. And Schoenberg just did away with one aspect (tonality). Rhythmically Schoenberg had not innovated enough to note about. Classical music whines the entire way through any innovation. I am not sure why this is, but it is incredibly different than any other art I can think of. That is not to say the innovations are not there. They are. But the resistance is great, and the importance of Bach is so great, and heavy. There is no equivalent in the visual arts. No visual artist is forced to reckon with Michelangelo or Di Vinci. Not all composers, mind you, "deal" with Bach. But Bach's gravity on the modern composer is arguably much greater than Di Vinci, or whatever artist would be Bach's equivalent. See, I can't even come up with the equivalent of Bach in art. Because it really doesn't exist that way.

i hate this fact, too, but i think the main reason is that you have to sit through music, and with art, you can just look at a picture and enjoy it. Usually, there's extra to learn about the painting, but it's usually understand in a few minutes.

just a wild guess

[greg]

i was going to post my thought about defining "greatness" in music, but maybe later. i'll try to sort them out.

[Larry Rinkel]

You are, of course, welcome to your own opinions.  This, however, is a statement of fact, and it is false.  Virtually every serious painter, for instance, wrestles with the giants of the past.  Don't confuse art with the "art world,"  which is more akin to the money-making machine of pop music.

Of course. Manet and Picasso in their own ways each wrestled with Velázquez, for example. Other artists wrestle with the command buttons on their computer-painting software.

[karlhenning]

See, I can't even come up with the equivalent of Bach in art. Because it really doesn't exist that way.

Of course not.  It doesn't really work even within the same discipline (there is no "20th-c. musical equivalent" to Bach, either, e.g.).

Of course. Manet and Picasso in their own ways each wrestled with Velázquez, for example.

And the wrestling is one of the positives in cultural history.  It were tendentious to consider such "wrassling" only in terms of Sysiphus.

[sonic1]

Karl, I apologize for my crude language. My sentiments are unchanged, but it is not my hope to offend, so much as to express frustration. And I think I am NOT the only one who feels this way. I understand why you say that the very thing that frustrates me is something you value. I can understand that, even feel the same, without encountering conflict. As I have said before, I obviously love Bach.

It seems some people here DO have some trouble, however, questioning their own values. I mean, you cannot, for a second, question whether or not it is healthy for so few composers to weigh so heavily on the art? Or even to admit that it is true?

Yeah, and in reference to art: Longears, I didn't say visual artists don't wrestle with the past. I said that there is not the limited heavy gravity coming from just a few painters. Bach is, by a LOT of people, seen as the fulcrum of western music, or the base. I have taken many music theory courses and Bach is always presented as the basis for our music-we study Bach cantatas and harmonizations as primary to our learning. One man has an awful lot of gravity in the art. That is NOT true in the visual arts. While there are a lot of giants in the past to wrestle with, there are at least many to choose from, no one being the center of it all, and you choose according to your submedium.

It is this aspect of "greatness" I take issue with, the limited center of gravity. The one fulcrum. And please, if I am wrong, prove to me that classical music is NOT the most conservative of the arts. Some of you may not have any issue with this, and might even value the slow-evolving nature of music. That is fine. But for me, classical music history is too wrought with forward-looking geniuses who get utterly abused by their peers and the audience. No wonder many modern composers have to adopt such an annoying defensive, preachy nature.

I think I have a very valid point here, but some of you are afraid to admit any such thing occurs-like your art will be degraded if you admit its faults.

Karl, you have mentioned that the wresting with the past can be healthy. I agree. But do you not see what I mean about the limited center of gravity in classical music?

My point is that, fine, Bach was incredible: indispensable to western music history, father of modern harmony and counterpoint, yada yada...

But must we put all musical innovation that came before and after on some lower stratus and always keep Bach as the zenith of western music theory? And if we don't all believe that Bach is this zenith (I believe many of us do NOT think that) then can we change our rhetoric to reflect this sentiment? Because whether or not you all believe this sentiment, it is the sentiment that is communicated very strongly.

I am not speaking, of course, to the people who BELIEVE that Bach IS the zenith to be raised above all in western music. If you believe that, that is your belief to have. However, if we really believe that music theory and history is much richer than that, much more diverse, much less centered on the gravity of Bach, then can our greatness rhetoric reflect that, because that is not what is communicated by the greatness rhetoric. THEN, I can accept this concept of greatness.

[Haffner]

I honestly find more than a few pieces by Bach to be too numerical,  sterile. 

That written, I too am amazed by the compositional complexity of WTC and the Brandenburg Concertos (the latter is one of my favorite pieces by anyone). In fact, when a colleague of mine asserted that the D minor Toccata and Fugue by was the most impressive composition ever written, I kept my mouth shut because I could easily see how that could be.

However, I found Joseph Haydn's use of fugal finales in his String Quartets to often be more exciting; that could be because they just seemed to be a bit more fresh-sounding, less calculated for some reason. And whenever I'm reccomending spine chilling fugues to my guitar students, I mention the finale of Mozart's Jupiter at least as much as (my favorite) c# minor WTC fugue by Bach.

So I really don't see Bach as the "pinnacle" of Western Music. In fact, it could be asserted that Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven advanced music much further by seemingly freeing up the fugal form, and thus making it seem far less stuffy sounding. Wagner and Verdi applied LvB's example, incorporating fascinating free-form segments in many of their operas. I realize that Bach and Handel both laid much of the foundation, but I simply feel that the entire form was advanced powerfully in the years proceeding Bach's death by the names listed above, as well as others during the 19th century.

[BachQ]

but maybe later. i'll try to sort them out.

We await your final draft, Greg ........

[Varg]

We are having language problems here. I am not suggesting that we don't have any sort of personal hierarchy, and I don't wish to see greatness banned from the english language. I couldn't give a rats ass whether anyone thought what I think is great, terrible. In fact, I already know that most of you would cringe at some of the stuff I listen to. I am experimenting with blasphemy, and a tearing down of idolatry within myself and doing so publicly. Bach sucks buttcrack. Ahhh...that is refreshing....

what was I saying?

Oh yeah. I think it would be incredibly healthy if, just once in a while, we let go of this ass licking of dead composers. I am being crude here, but I just get tired of it. And I really do think more than the other arts, the giants of the past overshadow the present in classical music. I don't think it is entirely healthy. I don't think it is good for music to have so few roots. Now I know that not everyone feels that all leads to Bach, Beethoven and Mozart. But you have to admit those guys weigh pretty heavily on the art, and I believe way out of proportion to their importance.

The very fact that we still call all of this music CLASSICAL music says a lot. What the hell about Luigi Nono is classical? What about George Crumb? Hell, I would even argue that Shostakovitch is far from "classical". There just seems to be this resistance to change in classical music. Look at the visual arts, and how much change has happened in the same time span as music. Look at the point that modernity hit painting, as compared to classical music. Jesus, modern art is gone to so many places in painting and accepted by the art community, while Schoenberg still upsets people. And Schoenberg just did away with one aspect (tonality). Rhythmically Schoenberg had not innovated enough to note about. Classical music whines the entire way through any innovation. I am not sure why this is, but it is incredibly different than any other art I can think of. That is not to say the innovations are not there. They are. But the resistance is great, and the importance of Bach is so great, and heavy. There is no equivalent in the visual arts. No visual artist is forced to reckon with Michelangelo or Di Vinci. Not all composers, mind you, "deal" with Bach. But Bach's gravity on the modern composer is arguably much greater than Di Vinci, or whatever artist would be Bach's equivalent. See, I can't even come up with the equivalent of Bach in art. Because it really doesn't exist that way.

I totally agree with everything you just said. The ass licking is most disgusting to me as well, among many other things in classical music (the evolution, the perception, the worshipping of the same old composers and works...). There's only one way to free yourself from all those sickness, and that is staying out from community, i mean from all the prejudices and trends it promotes.