# There is no "BEST" of any piece, composer, recording, piano.....



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Humble greetings.

I am new to this wonderful forum, and am enjoying it quite a bit. However, one trend I see here, and all too frequently, is this misguided obsession with "the best." So many threads on the best composer, or the best string quartet, or the best symphony, or best recording. Really? Why not threads on the best color? Or the best ice cream flavor? Or the best painting of all time? Does anyone see where I'm going with this?

There is no best. Of any element of music. There may be your favorite version/performance/recording of something. There may be several people in agreement that symphonic performance X by conductor Y on record label Z is the preferred version. Gramophone magazine, bless their Britcentric hearts, may have their proclaimed favorite version (which is likely to be by British performers of a British composer on a British label, but I still dig that mag and have a many-years ongoing subscription). But my kind fellow classical enthusiasts, just as there is no "best" color, there is no "best" symphony, conductor, composer, record label, string quartet, and on and on infinitum. 

Art is not quantifiable. It's not a sport which has things like statistics. It's not a science with precise measurements, allowing for quantification. I suspect far more enjoyment would be had from music and art if you could just let go of this misguided notion of something being "the best." It's OK to enjoy it all, even if someone else says your favorite version is no good. 

Personally, when I find a composition that I like, I get mildly obsessive about finding more versions of that composition. Why? Because with each version, I hear something new in that piece, learn something new about that piece, and this expands both my knowledge and enjoyment of that piece. I may sometimes gravitate toward a specific recording (e.g., the Emerson SQ cycle of the Shostakovich quartets), but that doesn't make that version "the best."

It's possible.... just possible.... that by discarding this notion of "the best," and just enjoying it all on its own merits, that you may derive far more enjoyment and enlightenment, and in this process, learn more about the music. Each recording of a given piece is going to be different. From that, you'll hear things in recording A that you wont' hear in recording B. New ways of hearing. New ways of getting at additional details and depths in pieces can be had. Isn't that better than worrying which is "the best," especially when that's just not possible?

Of course, the best ice cream flavor is mint chip, in case you were wondering.

And this micro-rant is nothing more than the opinion of one more classical music lover. Enjoy.

Kind regards,
-09


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Mint chocolate chip IS objectively the best ice cream flavour, YES!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Of course there is no such thing as objectively best in any art.
Subjectively, we can all state our preferences however.

By now, whenever someone asks for "the best", "the greatest", etc, I state my own preferences.

And those that still think that these "rankings" can be done objectively can dream on.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

That's true; art is subjective, and each of us changes with time. I have had "ultimate" recordings which after a while weren't so ultimate. But it is fun from time to time to compare notes with others on things like what is "best" or "greatest." Sometimes I make a great discovery and sometimes I'm left scratching my head.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Omicron9 said:


> Humble greetings.
> 
> I am new to this wonderful forum, and am enjoying it quite a bit. However, one trend I see here, and all too frequently, is this misguided obsession with "the best." So many threads on the best composer, or the best string quartet, or the best symphony, or best recording. Really? Why not threads on the best color? Or the best ice cream flavor? Or the best painting of all time? Does anyone see where I'm going with this?
> 
> ...


If you eliminate the phrase "the best", you have robbed TC of its claim to legitimacy as a classical music forum and in one fell swoop, eliminated 67% of the threads.

At the end of the day, that's the best approximation I can make going forward.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Phooey to mint choc chip BTW. Rocky Road FTW.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I agree, "best" is a red herring, though I think it's only ever really a problem when someone is adamant that the best must coincide with his own personal preference. Outside of that, people probably don't really _mean_ "the best" in a strict sense. 
As an inveterate creator of polls on TC, I find it much more useful to talk about "most popular" or "favourite", which _by sheer coincidence_ (ahem) often seem to correlate pretty well with what gets called "the best".


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Makes for good discussion what each considers is the best. Finding what I view as definitive is also an interesting journey, whether or not I succeed.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

It sounds nicely egalitarian to say it all comes down to personal preference. But I suspect most of us, if pressed on the matter, would insist that some recordings, pieces, composers, etc. are simply *better* than others, in a sense which goes beyond mere individual taste. Otherwise, the entire history of music is profoundly misguided, since the thousands upon thousands of forgotten works and composers would be objectively just as good as the select few we remember.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

amfortas said:


> Otherwise, the entire history of music is profoundly misguided, since the thousands upon thousands of forgotten works and composers would be objectively just as good as the select few we remember.


How can they be objectively just as good if the premise is that there is no objective value in art?


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2017)

Something is the best only until something better comes along.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Actually, before we go any further could we all please note that people who belive there's no such thing as an objective best _don't believe that everything should therefore be of equal merit to everyone_.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

But Beethoven is the best, right?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Better=More Popular. More people like my favorite than like yours, so there!


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Razumovskymas said:


> But Beethoven is the best, right?


Only when he's eating mint chip ice cream.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

The 3 great B's could very well be Bieber, Beyonce, and Boy George


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Mozart was known to say that chocolate ice cream and his Piano Concerto No. 17 would be the best mind-altering experience possible.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> How can they be objectively just as good if the premise is that there is no objective value in art?


Well then, objectively no better.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Art is a two-way street, which has an "objective" object (created by a subjective artist), and a "subjective" audience (which gives an "objective" life to the object). It thereby acquires an "objective" life by consensus, and by history.

An art object is judged successful (in one sense) if it presents an accurate and convincing transfer of experience to another. This "experience" is put there by the composer or artist in symbolic form, using sound, images, or words. To the degree that the intended experience is conveyed to the listener is a test of how "good" it works as a conveyor of meaning.

So, art is "objectifying experience" into a concrete, repeatable "object" or form, in order to convey meaning to an audience. Thus, the inherent process of art is too complex to simply say it is "best" at conveying a meaning, when this is an ongoing process which can continue through the entire cycle of birth and death, into succeeding generations. Art is "life's experiential DNA" which is a cycle which endlessly repeats and makes itself anew.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> Actually, before we go any further could we all please note that people who belive there's no such thing as an objective best _don't believe that everything should therefore be of equal merit to everyone_.


Of course not; people have differing tastes, and that's fine.

The question is, does all of music history come down to matters of taste?


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

There is no such thing as "best." It's a relative term and at most, a Western philosophical social construct...

In Buddhist philosophy, I think IMHO I prefer to accept things as they are .


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Animal the Drummer said:


> Phooey to mint choc chip BTW. Rocky Road FTW.


Where *do* these flavours come from? 
It should be clear to every person of discernment by now that Raspberry Ripple cannot be improved upon...


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

amfortas said:


> Of course not; people have differing tastes, and that's fine.
> 
> The question is, does all of music history come down to matters of taste?


Well, yeah, ultimately it does.

Unless you've got a few examples of composers whose music is widely acknowledged to be great and important _and also is not liked by the people who think it's great and important_.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Omicron9 said:


> It's possible.... just possible.... that by discarding this notion of "the best," and just enjoying it all on its own merits, that you may derive far more enjoyment and enlightenment, and in this process, learn more about the music. Each recording of a given piece is going to be different. From that, you'll hear things in recording A that you wont' hear in recording B. New ways of hearing. New ways of getting at additional details and depths in pieces can be had. Isn't that better than worrying which is "the best," especially when that's just not possible?


I tend to agree with this statement. I think listeners might become more critical listeners if they focus on the music itself and stop worrying about whether it's the best or not. If someone thinks that a particular piece is the best, they might just accept that fact without knowing what is (or isn't) so great about it. OTOH, if someone listens to a particular piece with a lesser reputation, they might be biased to not like it even if it is up their alley. To that extent, perhaps the discourse around music should not be which quantitative in nature as far as a rank order, but qualitative in terms of how the music/recordings differ from one another.

That said, CDs/downloads are not cheap so I can understand why someone would want to seek out "the best" CD. Perhaps after buying a CD someone would want to say that it's the best to make them feel better about the money they spent. These days, however, with a lot of recordings on streaming sites, I think listeners can preview the recordings and be more informed consumers. That's a good thing.

As a sports fan myself, I can say that even deciding who is the best in sports is a difficult thing even if someone only uses statistics to make judgements. The games change between eras in terms of equipment, rules, sports medicine, doping, training, and level of competition. It's hard to say if Babe Ruth hitting 60 home runs back in the day is equivalent to a modern player doing the same thing. Ruth didn't have the medical technology, equipment, and training that modern players have, but he didn't have to face ethnically diverse pitchers that have increased the quality of the competition. How does that even out? Who knows! Music has it's own context which must be considered.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Klassik said:


> I tend to agree with this statement. I think listeners might become more critical listeners if they focus on the music itself and stop worrying about whether it's the best or not. If someone thinks that a particular piece is the best, they might just accept that fact without knowing what is (or isn't) so great about it. OTOH, if someone listens to a particular piece with a lesser reputation, they might be biased to not like it even if it is up their alley. To that extent, perhaps the discourse around music should not be which quantitative in nature as far as a rank order, but qualitative in terms of how the music/recordings differ from one another.
> 
> That said, CDs/downloads are not cheap so I can understand why someone would want to seek out "the best" CD. Perhaps after buying a CD someone would want to say that it's the best to make them feel better about the money they spent. These days, however, with a lot of recordings on streaming sites, I think listeners can preview the recordings and be more informed consumers. That's a good thing.
> 
> As a sports fan myself, I can say that even deciding who is the best in sports is a difficult thing even if someone only uses statistics to make judgements. The games change between eras in terms of equipment, rules, sports medicine, doping, training, and level of competition. It's hard to say if Babe Ruth hitting 60 home runs back in the day is equivalent to a modern player doing the same thing. Ruth didn't have the medical technology, equipment, and training that modern players have, but he didn't have to face ethnically diverse pitchers that have increased the quality of the competition. How does that even out? Who knows! Music has it's own context which must be considered.


All well said. To add to your fine suggestions, I'll throw out something that I do. If I'm interested in a new piece/composer/whatever, I'll try various things on YouTube. Then, once I find something I like, it's off to amazon to order the CD.

Kind regards,
-09


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Nereffid said:


> Actually, before we go any further could we all please note that people who belive there's no such thing as an objective best _don't believe that everything should therefore be of equal merit to everyone_.


Agree, but for some reason that argument ALWAYS comes up in these discussions.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

If we only listen to "the best," what will we do for the rest of the day?


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

JAS said:


> If we only listen to "the best," what will we do for the rest of the day?


Four simple words: mint chip ice cream. All the livelong day.


----------



## Martin D (Dec 13, 2016)

Whenever I see the word "best" used in thread titles and polls, I take it as in invitation to people to list their most preferred composers, brands of piano, concert venues or whatever the subject happens to be concerned with. From the combined results of the polls, it may sometimes be possible to draw conclusions about the way majority opinion seems to be leaning.

Looking back at several pages of past threads and polls in this section of the Forum where "best" has appeared, I don't think that there are many instances where the people who started the threads and polls seriously thought that there is an objective best that can be ascertained by the polls. I don't recall seeing anyone make such a claim.

To this extent, I think that the OP of this thread may have rather mis-read the tea leaves, if he thinks that we're all convinced that "best" actually exists in any objective sense in the areas to which he refers. No such view is held, at least not in large numbers.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Omicron9 said:


> Four simple words: mint chip ice cream. All the livelong day.


In the spirit of this thread, is that the "best" ice cream? (I am more of a French Vanilla or Butter Pecan kind of guy.)


----------



## Norma Skock (Mar 18, 2017)

Some pieces are objectively better than others. History tends to be the ultimate judge.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Norma Skock said:


> Some pieces are objectively better than others. History tends to be the ultimate judge.


Historically some pieces are appreciated by more people than others, be it audiences or musicologists. I still do not see what is objective about that.

Please explain why Beethoven 9 is *objectively *better than Beethoven 6 (or the other way around if that's how the dice fall).


----------



## Norma Skock (Mar 18, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> Historically some pieces are appreciated by more people than others, be it audiences or musicologists. I still do not see what is objective about that.
> 
> Please explain why Beethoven 9 is *objectively *better than Beethoven 6 (or the other way around if that's how the dice fall).


Well you'd have to define quality in terms of overall historical appreciation of a piece. A piece is good or bad after all, by virtue of the effect it has on people. If you choose to define quality in a different way, you will get a different scale, but whatever your definition is, you will always be able to objectively arrange pieces by quality in accordance with your definition.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Norma Skock said:


> Well you'd have to define quality in terms of overall historical appreciation of a piece. *A piece is good or bad after all, by virtue of the effect it has on people.* If you choose to define quality in a different way, you will get a different scale, but whatever your definition is, you will always be able to objectively arrange pieces by quality in accordance with your definition.


(my bolding)

Pieces tend to have different effects on different people. That's why any ranking based on this will be subjective.


----------



## Norma Skock (Mar 18, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> (my bolding)
> 
> Pieces tend to have different effects on different people. That's why any ranking based on this will be subjective.


You could rank it by overall historical appreciation. There has to be something objective that separates a random soon-forgotten rap track from great historical works.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> Historically some pieces are appreciated by more people than others, be it audiences or musicologists. I still do not see what is objective about that.
> 
> Please explain why Beethoven 9 is *objectively *better than Beethoven 6 (or the other way around if that's how the dice fall).


If creating a new sound world, breaking moulds, dramatic instensity are objective ideals then the 9th is way better than the 6th, whether or not you like the 6th more because of its warmth, which I know a lot of people do.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Phil loves classical said:


> If creating a new sound world, breaking moulds, dramatic instensity are objective ideals then the 9th is way better than the 6th, whether or not you like the 6th more because of its warmth, which I know a lot of people do.


If creating a new sound world, translating nature sounds to music, dramatic contrasts between movements are objective ideals then the 6th is way better than the 9th, whether or not you like the 9th more because of its ode to joy, which I know a lot of people do.

So your objectivity is not my objectivity - hang on, maybe objectivity is not the right word then. I know, let's call it subjective.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Norma Skock said:


> You could rank it by overall historical appreciation.


Isn't appreciation subjective?


----------



## Norma Skock (Mar 18, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> Isn't appreciation subjective?


I think you missed the point. Are you saying that nothing could objectively place the great works of history above a random soon-forgotten rap track?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> Isn't appreciation subjective?


Very true...they sort of base objectivity on consensus, which is technically not right.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> If creating a new sound world, translating nature sounds to music, dramatic contrasts between movements are objective ideals then the 6th is way better than the 9th, whether or not you like the 9th more because of its ode to joy, which I know a lot of people do.
> 
> So your objectivity is not my objectivity - hang on, maybe objectivity is not the right word then. I know, let's call it subjective.


The objectivity I was referring to is more critical consensus, which as in last post is not objectively right, as you see the numbers change over time


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Norma Skock said:


> I think you missed the point. Are you saying that nothing could objectively place the great works of history above a random soon-forgotten rap track?


I love how you edited away your first response (which was "appreciation is subjective").

I don't think I'm missing any points here, thank you. I have not seen any workable definition of how to come to an *objective *ranking ("there has to be" is not a good reason).

More people may indeed appreciate "the great works of history" over "a random soon-forgotten rap track", but that is still subjective. There will also be people who prefer "a random soon-forgotten rap track" over anything classical.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Critical consensus has its uses in defining what is "better", but can be wrong also, like the Grammy's usually are, in my opinion. There is no perfect objective scale, that is the objective truth. But there is criteria which more experienced listeners value, which can judge works more generally. That is very likely a truth, except for the impossibly naive.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Norma Skock said:


> Every single thing ever created would be on an equal footing in your eyes.


BINGO!

15 characters


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Norma Skock said:


> Don't get all worked up now, this is a rational discussion between adults.
> 
> My point is that your theory seems ridiculous. Every single thing ever created would be on an equal footing in your eyes. A car with square wheels wouldn't be objectively better than one with round wheels, it would all be "in the eyes of the beholder", and the consensus means nothing. Just seems a bit of a childish worldview.


Both theories are ridiculous. If the set designer decides that the script calls for a car with square wheels, then square wheels it will be. One must clearly spell out the criteria, and assert (for assertion and only assertion can and will do the job) that one's criteria are the only valid operative criteria.


----------



## Norma Skock (Mar 18, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Critical consensus has its uses in defining what is "better", but can be wrong also, like the Grammy's usually are, in my opinion. There is no perfect objective scale, that is the objective truth. But there is criteria which more experienced listeners value, which can judge works more generally. That is very likely a truth, except for the impossibly naive.


"Impossibly naive" illustrates the problem here. You cannot derive everything logically, because that requires an axiom, and many people cannot properly see things as they are, hence they cannot properly obtain the axioms. It's like commissioning a social science paper, which costs thousands of dollars and takes hundreds of hours to complete, to generate a result that others could have learned just by looking out the window.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Norma Skock said:


> "Impossibly naive" illustrates the problem here. You cannot derive everything logically, because that requires an axiom, and many people cannot properly see things as they are, hence they cannot properly obtain the axioms. It's like commissioning a social science paper, which costs thousands of dollars and takes hundreds of hours to complete, to generate a result that others could have learned just by looking out the window.


But the thing is just by looking out the window cannot prove anything for some people, as cannot by spending the money on the paper. These are philosophical arguments which can't be proven. We basically have to accept in some ways Bieber is as good as Beethoven. You can point to the critic's consensus, but that's the most we can do.

Ps. Heck, we don't need to accept that, but you can't really argue against it in objective terms.


----------



## Norma Skock (Mar 18, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> But the thing is just by looking out the window cannot prove anything for some people, as cannot by spending the money on the paper. These are philosophical arguments which can't be proven. We basically have to accept in some ways Bieber is as good as Beethoven. You can point to the critic's consensus, but that's the most we can do.
> 
> Ps. Heck, we don't need to accept that, but you can't really argue against it in objective terms.


Yes, but Bieber is NOT as good as Beethoven. That's the point. These guys will mumble along, "bla bla subjective bla bla", and still, Bieber will continue not being as good as Beethoven.

Ps: You cannot prove an axiom. The only thing that can be proven is logical consistency in a thread of arguments derived from an axiom. But if different people see the immediate in different manners, there will be disagreement in any argument that derives. There will always be subjectivity of perception in any axiom, even in those that are connected to a reality that is one and objective. This has been the case in science aswell, a lot of it came down to the individual skill of each scientist to perceive the axioms and principles as close to reality as possible.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Norma Skock said:


> Yes, but Bieber is NOT as good as Beethoven. That's the point. These guys will mumble along, "bla bla subjective bla bla", and still, Bieber will continue not being as good as Beethoven.


You can't prove it objectively is their point. Better not to get into it. I get into the same arguments with others. I just start coming across as a condescending snob. And you can say the consequences of that are not objectively better.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Norma Skock said:


> Yes, but Bieber is NOT as good as Beethoven. That's the point. These guys will mumble along, "bla bla subjective bla bla", and still, Bieber will continue not being as good as Beethoven.


Assertion. Pure and simple. Few, if any, have mastered being more Bieberish than Justin Bieber. Beethoven doesn't even come close. How can one even speak of Beethoven when one is speaking of Bieber?

It would be useful to list, in order, the ten best ice cream flavors, and then--this is critical-- defend the eating of any other than the very best.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Norma Skock said:


> Yes, but Bieber is NOT as good as Beethoven. That's the point. These guys will mumble along, "bla bla subjective bla bla", and still, Bieber will continue not being as good as Beethoven.
> 
> Ps: You cannot prove an axiom. The only thing that can be proven is logical consistency in a thread of arguments derived from an axiom. But if different people see the immediate in different manners, there will be disagreement in any argument that derives. There will always be subjectivity of perception in any axiom, even in those that are connected to a reality that is one and objective. This has been the case in science aswell, a lot of it came down to the individual skill of each scientist to perceive the axioms and principles as close to reality as possible.


I see your last part. The problem is art is not science. Science can be proven, in fact needs to be, but art cannot, nor does it need to be. Art can be quite paradoxical


----------



## Norma Skock (Mar 18, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I see your last part. The problem is art is not science. Science can be proven, in fact needs to be, but art cannot, nor does it need to be. Art can be quite paradoxical


Perceiving realities in society and art is not rigorous, it comes down to an ability to perceive. If throughout my life, I see that something is repeatedly the case, would I be stupid to generalize that it will always be the case? There will always be some guy who scolds you for making the generalization, but were people of the past stupid for assuming the sun would also rise tomorrow?

Logical rigour forgets the importance of perception. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. But many people will still say it's a horse.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> Assertion. Pure and simple. Few, if any, have mastered being more Bieberish than Justin Bieber. Beethoven doesn't even come close. How can one even speak of Beethoven when one is speaking of Bieber?
> 
> It would be useful to list, in order, the ten best ice cream flavors, and then--this is critical-- defend the eating of any other than the very best.


Are you saying crunchier, Chocolatier, and mintier is not necessarily better?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Norma Skock said:


> Perceiving realities in society and art is not rigorous, it comes down to an ability to perceive. If throughout my life, I see that something is repeatedly the case, would I be stupid to generalize that it will always be the case? There will always be some guy who scolds you for making the generalization, but were people of the past stupid for assuming the sun would also rise tomorrow?
> 
> Logical rigour forgets the importance of perception. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. But many people will still say it's a horse.


It is more scientific to say the duck is a duck. But some would say it is more artistic to say it is a horse. Ie. the art of Frank Zappa, and Captain Beefheart. I can't remember that brand or art called, but it is considered by some to be serious art.


----------



## Norma Skock (Mar 18, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> It is more scientific to say the duck is a duck. But some would say it is more artistic to say it is a horse. Ie. the art of Frank Zappa, and Captain Beefheart. I can't remember that brand or art called, but it is considered by some to be serious art.


Well, perhaps the subjectivist arguments are a form of "contemporary art" :lol:.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> Are you saying crunchier, Chocolatier, and mintier is not necessarily better?


They are, if you think they are.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> They are, if you think they are.


And my bro who thinks soggy, bitter and warm is better, then that is better too because he thinks it is. And both can be right, even with conflicting opinions. I get it!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I return again to the guidance that J. Robert Oppenheimer--physicist, aesthete, polymath of exquisite taste and sensibility--gave to his young brother Frank about Art, and how to approach it. He told Frank that those members of society with the best education and most refined and subtle taste should be his mentors. The beauty (there, I've said it) of this position is that one can readily identify that stratum of society by their choices in the arts. Works every time!


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

I don't think there is a best. Performances and recordings are to an individual's taste. E.g. There could be a symphony that some people might like it fast and others might prefer it a bit slower!!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> It is more scientific to say the duck is a duck. But some would say it is more artistic to say it is a horse. Ie. the art of Frank Zappa, and Captain Beefheart. I can't remember that brand or art called, but it is considered by some to be serious art.


I think it is called Absurdism, or at least the artists are called Absurdists It is not only music that used that brand of art. The intent is to deconstruct knowledge, and undermine any meaning in Life. It may not be your cup of tea


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

One can argue and say John Cage's 4'33" is better than Beethoven's 9th, in that it is much more free in expression, and he'd be 100% objectively right.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

I'd rather eat broccoli than mint chocolate chip.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Omicron9 said:


> There is no best. Of any element of music. There may be your favorite version/performance/recording of something. There may be several people in agreement that symphonic performance X by conductor Y on record label Z is the preferred version. Gramophone magazine, bless their Britcentric hearts, may have their proclaimed favorite version (which is likely to be by British performers of a British composer on a British label, but I still dig that mag and have a many-years ongoing subscription). But my kind fellow classical enthusiasts, just as there is no "best" color, there is no "best" symphony, conductor, composer, record label, string quartet, and on and on infinitum.
> 
> Art is not quantifiable. It's not a sport which has things like statistics. It's not a science with precise measurements, allowing for quantification. I suspect far more enjoyment would be had from music and art if you could just let go of this misguided notion of something being "the best." It's OK to enjoy it all, even if someone else says your favorite version is no good.


This is something that I have been saying since I joined this forum. Yes there is favourite but if that is what is meant, then why not say so directly. I know that many do indeed use 'best' as meaning 'favorute' but It sometimes seems to me that 'best' is used as a subtle put down of alternative views, a way of saying that 'my judgment is more correct than yours.' As I have said on a number of occasions, I would like to believe that something (music, recording art work, book, etc., etc.) better is on the way rather than to believe that the 'best' is already with us.

_When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all._


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

I think you can judge art to be objectively better but only with the element of time. For instance, no other names come up when you ask any seasoned english professor, linguist, or dramatist who the greatest playwright of all time was, and this is not just english language here, we're talking internationally, everyone says the same guy, ole Bill Shakes. They'll tell you no one had more influence on the art of writing plays and all the greats owe him a debt for the forging the way. 

I'm not at all saying subjectivity doesn't figure into it (surely there are people who think Bieber is the greatest music on earth and I won't argue that this is probably what's most important) but I do think it is justifiable to say that certain artists are better than others for clearly Bach had more influence than say Charpentier or Albinoni, and because there is something to a majority as well. When Bach, Beethoven, & Mozart are the most consistently performed, sold, & analyzed by scholars, I don't think you can just sweep all that under the rug and say no all art is subjective and no one artist is greater. 

Surely there are scientists who made more worth wild contributions to science than others, I think most anyone will tell you that Michael Jordan(now I don't know sports but I know the name Michael Jordan and there is a reason for this) is one of the if not the greatest basketball player of all time, now you may like (insert your favored basketball players name here) but that doesn't change the fact that more people know who MJ is because he was objectively greater than someone who never had any books written about them. 

This is not to detract from the experience each individual has which is of course subjective and what makes life so wonderfully diverse the yin and yang element of everything in life, as such I think there is room for both theories...


----------



## Norma Skock (Mar 18, 2017)

Fugue Meister said:


> I think you can judge art to be objectively better but only with the element of time. For instance, no other names come up when you ask any seasoned english professor, linguist, or dramatist who the greatest playwright of all time was, and this is not just english language here, we're talking internationally, everyone says the same guy, ole Bill Shakes. They'll tell you know one had more influence on the art of writing plays and all the greats owe him a debt for the forging the way.
> 
> I'm not at all saying subjectivity doesn't figure into it (surely there are people who think Bieber is the greatest music on earth and I won't argue that this is probably what's most important) but I do think it is justifiable to say that certain artists are better than others for clearly Bach had more influence than say Charpentier or Albinoni, and because there is something to a majority as well. When Bach, Beethoven, & Mozart are the most consistently performed, sold, & analyzed by scholars, I don't think you can just sweep all that under the rug and say no all art is subjective and no one artist is greater.
> 
> ...


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> More people may indeed appreciate "the great works of history" over "a random soon-forgotten rap track", but that is still subjective. There will also be people who prefer "a random soon-forgotten rap track" over anything classical.


One thing missing from this discussion is specificity. One cannot reasonably say Beethoven's 6th is objectively better than a good rap track. But one could well say that it is better at doing certain things. For example, one could probably safely say that Beethoven 6 is better at evoking the moods of an individual walking in the 19thc German countryside than any rap track - at least any rap track I have heard.  One might also say that Beethoven's 5th is better at embodying a unified and evolving drama of inner life in instrumental terms than your average rap track. Bottom line: When someone says this is greater than that, my first response would be: Greater at accomplishing what exactly? Not that this will address all issues of subjectivity, but it might at least result in a fruitful discussion.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> One thing missing from this discussion is specificity. One cannot reasonably say Beethoven's 6th is objectively better than a good rap track. But one could well say that it is better at doing certain things. For example, one could probably safely say that Beethoven 6 is better at evoking the moods of an individual walking in the 19thc German countryside than any rap track - at least any rap track I have heard.  One might also say that Beethoven's 5th is better at embodying a unified and evolving drama of inner life in instrumental terms than your average rap track. Bottom line: When someone says this is greater than that, my first response would be: Greater at accomplishing what exactly? Not that this will address all issues of subjectivity, but it might at least result in a fruitful discussion.


Playing Devil's advocate here. Rap music never intended to sound like a walk in the countryside. Based on your argument, rap is better at expressing anger from a racial minority. It has a much stronger beat and is groovier than the Pastorale Symphony (if that is important to the listener).


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

The best is yet to come. 'Best' is a subjective word in art, since there are no measure objective enough to measure it.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I'm all for classical being the greatest form of music, and truly believe it in my heart, but there are very well known philosophers with greater reputations than music critics that state there is no truth beyond perception. And it seems the world is becoming more accepting of these alternative views than ever before, with contemporary art, etc. For better or worse.


----------



## Norma Skock (Mar 18, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm all for classical being the greatest form of music, and truly believe it in my heart, but there are very well known philosophers with greater reputations than music critics that state there is no truth beyond perception. And it seems the world is becoming more accepting of these alternative views than ever before, with contemporary art, etc. For better or worse.


Perception has to do with brain structure. There are studies to show that. Liberals will lean towards subjectivism, people with a more authoritarian character will lean towards objectivism.


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

Perception is reality. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Norma Skock (Mar 18, 2017)

pcnog11 said:


> Perception is reality. Nothing more, nothing less.


Quite the opposite. This thread is proof enough of that.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Playing Devil's advocate here. Rap music never intended to sound like a walk in the countryside. Based on your argument, rap is better at expressing anger from a racial minority. It has a much stronger beat and is groovier than the Pastorale Symphony (if that is important to the listener).


Exactly! And Beethoven's 6th is inferior to Justin Bieber's music in setting teenybopper butts in motion - if that is what is important to the listener. But Beethoven didn't intend to … do that. Yes! Which is why I say always ask: Better at what? Greater for what purpose?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm all for classical being the greatest form of music, and truly believe it in my heart, but there are very well known philosophers with greater reputations than music critics that state there is no truth beyond perception. And it seems the world is becoming more accepting of these alternative views than ever before, with contemporary art, etc. For better or worse.


Greatest at accomplishing what?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> Exactly! And Beethoven's 6th is inferior to Justin Bieber's music in setting teenybopper butts in motion - if that is what is important to the listener. But Beethoven didn't intend to … do that. Yes! Which is why I say always ask: Better at what? Greater for what purpose?


You can't place yourself in the 3rd person and say which purpose is greater. Making butts move may be as noble a task as speaking for all humanity in a world of tragedy. Some would say the 2nd is totally useless, like talking to a rock, and at least the first one can make people feel good about themselves.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Norma Skock said:


> Perception has to do with brain structure. There are studies to show that. Liberals will lean towards subjectivism, people with a more authoritarian character will lean towards objectivism.


Yes, you are right about liberals and conservative views (didn't want to make it political). And there is still no side which can be said to be right.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Unless all conceivable minds intelligent enough to understand a question and its potential answers would agree about the answer, there is no objective answer. 

Which is a complex way of saying that the flavor of ice cream doesn't matter as long as there is caramel sauce on it and that musical taste is subjective.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> You can't place yourself in the 3rd person and say which purpose is greater. Making butts move may be as noble a task as speaking for all humanity in a world of tragedy. Some would say the 2nd is totally useless, like talking to a rock, and at least the first one can make people feel good about themselves.


Hey, some of my best friends are rocks! Seriously though, I wasn't saying anything about which purpose is greater. Nor would I make fun by saying butts prefer Bieber and brains prefer Beethoven - except that all the alliteration was irresistible. Seriously though, and I'm serious this time: I know which purposes are more important for me in my life. Far be it from me to say what should be important to others.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Reading this type of threads on TC I'm always astonished by the almost complete lack of consciousness where it comes to the role of history and marketing. Some people really seem to believe that history is some sort of unproblematic filtering and selection process that results in a canon of objectively 'best composers' and 'best music'. I would like to point out that history is continously rewritten and the rewriting that reaches you is almost always from the perspective of the ones that "won the war" (and the people that represent them to sell more records). There is no objectivity in what the historical process results in at any given point in time. Around 1800 Bach for instance would not have appeared in any list.
Secondly power structures, hypes, marketing (air time) play an enormous role in the talents that get a chance to develop, to compose, publish, get played etc. and in what ultimately reaches the public and is appreciated over time. 

I think it is more safe to say that much of "the best" (whatever that is) is filtered out in the process long before it could ever reach our ears or is still waiting for us to be (re)discovered.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Casebearer said:


> Reading this type of threads on TC I'm always astonished by the almost complete lack of consciousness where it comes to the role of history and marketing. Some people really seem to believe that history is some sort of unproblematic filtering and selection process that results in a canon of objectively 'best composers' and 'best music'. I would like to point out that history is continously rewritten and the rewriting that reaches you is almost always from the perspective of the ones that "won the war" (and the people that represent them to sell more records). There is no objectivity in what the historical process results in at any given point in time. Around 1800 Bach for instance would not have appeared in any list.
> Secondly power structures, hypes, marketing (air time) play an enormous role in the talents that get a chance to develop, to compose, publish, get played etc. and in what ultimately reaches the public and is appreciated over time.
> 
> I think it is more safe to say that much of "the best" (whatever that is) is filtered out in the process long before it could ever reach our ears or is still waiting for us to be (re)discovered.


The notion that Bach wasn't on any lists in the 1800's is false, any serious musician was aware of Bach, there are many different accounts of composers, musicians, and the great tutors of the day referencing his works for keyboard with surprising regularity. The whole story about him being unknown to the world until Mendelssohn dusted off his St. Matthews Passion is largely about the paying public, but amongst the sage musicians and composers his music was very much in circulation.

I think history ultimately remembers the great personalities of humankind regardless who is writing it. The work someone leaves behind is the gauge not accounts of the person who did the work.


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

Norma Skock said:


> Quite the opposite. This thread is proof enough of that.


I respectfully disagree. Everyone perception is different. Perception makes up of past experience and assumption. These 2 elements are different for everyone.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Exactly! And Beethoven's 6th is inferior to Justin Bieber's music in setting teenybopper butts in motion - if that is what is important to the listener. But Beethoven didn't intend to … do that. Yes! Which is why I say always ask: Better at what? Greater for what purpose?


This reminds me of the thread where someone claimed that no butts are better than any other butts and that beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. It was a pretty good, philosophically interesting thread until the mods told us we couldn't include pictures. They finally closed the thread when someone compared Queen's "Fat Bottomed Girls" to Bach's "Auf Christi Himmelfahrt allein" and everyone started insulting each other.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Omicron9 said:


> It's possible.... just possible.... that by discarding this notion of "the best," and just enjoying it all on its own merits, that you may derive far more enjoyment and *enlightenment* [...]


No thanks I'm neither religious nor trying to bring back the (17)80s.



Omicron9 said:


> and in this process, learn more about the music.


I learn more about the music by looking for the best recording - better yet, looking for the best accessible live performance - and thus gradually sorting out what's great in the composition from the inadequacies of the performers.

And if I wasn't interested in distiguishing better from worse composers, I wouldn't have learned to like 90% of what I listen to today,


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> Well, yeah, ultimately it does.
> 
> Unless you've got a few examples of composers whose music is widely acknowledged to be great and important _and also is not liked by the people who think it's great and important_.


Countless examples. Pick any "great and important" composer; there are plenty of people who don't care for his or her work, but nonetheless acknowledge it's greatness and importance.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Fugue Meister said:


> The notion that Bach wasn't on any lists in the 1800's is false, any serious musician was aware of Bach, there are many different accounts of composers, musicians, and the great tutors of the day referencing his works for keyboard with surprising regularity. The whole story about him being unknown to the world until Mendelssohn dusted off his St. Matthews Passion is largely about the paying public, but amongst the sage musicians and composers his music was very much in circulation.
> 
> I think history ultimately remembers the great personalities of humankind regardless who is writing it. The work someone leaves behind is the gauge not accounts of the person who did the work.


Excellent point! Just one example: Beethoven played the whole WTC from memory in his youth, and no doubt the many connoisseurs who heard him play parts of it registered his devotion and love of this music. Immortality isn't necessarily about how many people know your work, but about who knows it. If the great composers and performers of the next generation revere your work, eventually there is a good chance everyone (everyone in the community of classical listeners, that is) will.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> If the great composers and performers of the next generation revere your work, eventually there is a good chance everyone (everyone in the community of classical listeners, that is) will.


Yep, because it's probably pretty darned good (in terms that are, if not wholly objective, at least close enough).


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Magnum Miserium said:


> And if I wasn't interested in distiguishing better from worse composers, I wouldn't have learned to like 90% of what I listen to today,


In my case, better composers are those I like more, and worse composers are those I like less. I have no other way of sorting them out other than whether or not I like their music. Sad but true.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

amfortas said:


> Countless examples. Pick any "great and important" composer; there are plenty of people who don't care for his or her work, but nonetheless acknowledge it's greatness and importance.


I will not name names because it only upsets people, but I can assure you that there are composers whom I acknowledge as important, but not "great" (whatever that means) and important.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Casebearer said:


> Reading this type of threads on TC I'm always astonished by the almost complete lack of consciousness where it comes to the role of history and marketing. Some people really seem to believe that history is some sort of unproblematic filtering and selection process that results in a canon of objectively 'best composers' and 'best music'. I would like to point out that history is continously rewritten and the rewriting that reaches you is almost always from the perspective of the ones that "won the war" (and the people that represent them to sell more records). There is no objectivity in what the historical process results in at any given point in time.


Here's a question. Let's say a sudden mass amnesia strikes humanity, so that everyone forgets such a thing as music ever existed--no recollection of theory, works, composers, genres, etc. No writings on the subject survive either. But all the music itself survives in recordings (without liner notes). People could discover this strange phenomenon afresh, without any preconceptions.

Initially, of course, this rediscovery would be a chaotic and exhilarating free-for-all. But would we eventually see, over decades or centuries, a consensus of opinion--a hierarchical ranking of types of music, composers, and works--that corresponds at all to our current musical canons? Shorn of history and marketing, is there a "cream" that rises once again to the top?


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> In my case, better composers are those I like more, and worse composers are those I like less. I have no other way of sorting them out other than whether or not I like their music. Sad but true.


Most of the composers you like, you'll never do anything but like. A composer you hate, you can learn to love.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

amfortas said:


> Shorn of history and marketing, is there a "cream" that rises once again to the top?


Yes, probably, because if you have both the great works and the lesser works that they improved upon, or that are derivative of them, you can tell which is which. That's why we know Sophocles is great and Seneca sucks.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

amfortas said:


> Here's a question. Let's say a sudden mass amnesia strikes humanity, so that everyone forgets such a thing as music ever existed--no recollection of theory, works, composers, genres, etc. No writings on the subject survive either. But all the music itself survives in recordings (without liner notes). People could discover this strange phenomenon afresh, without any preconceptions.
> 
> Initially, of course, this rediscovery would be a chaotic and exhilarating free-for-all. But would we eventually see, over decades or centuries, a consensus of opinion--a hierarchical ranking of types of music, composers, and works--that corresponds at all to our current musical canons? Shorn of history and marketing, is there a "cream" that rises once again to the top?


My belief is that in such a scenario the masses would almost immediately start listening to Mozart and Beethoven and would whistle Schoenberg in the streets, but that very quickly the socioeconomic elite would learn to differentiate itself through its cerebral cultivation of the ostensible musical simplicity and initially unappealing vocal timbre of Justin Bieber.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

amfortas said:


> Countless examples. Pick any "great and important" composer; there are plenty of people who don't care for his or her work, but nonetheless acknowledge it's greatness and importance.


No, I'm not talking about a general "plenty of people" - that's a trivial thing. There's no composer in history who's liked by everyone. I'm talking about consensus from those in the know. Are there composers whom a great majority of experts (however you want to define that) regard ("acknowledge" was a bad word choice) as a great and important composer, and a great majority of _those self-same experts_ don't like their music?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> No, I'm not talking about a general "plenty of people" - that's a trivial thing. There's no composer in history who's liked by everyone. I'm talking about consensus from those in the know. Are there composers whom a great majority of experts (however you want to define that) regard ("acknowledge" was a bad word choice) as a great and important composer, and a great majority of _those self-same experts_ don't like their music?


Probably not. But just because judgment and taste tend to correspond, does that mean judgment is solely a matter of taste?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

amfortas said:


> Probably not. But just because judgment and taste tend to correspond, does that mean judgment is solely a matter of taste?


I would say that judgement affects taste, and taste affects judgement. Sure, you can be coldly rational when assessing the technical aspects of a piece of music, but when judging the actual effects of that music taste has to take over.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> I would say that judgement affects taste, and taste affects judgement. Sure, you can be coldly rational when assessing the technical aspects of a piece of music, but when judging the actual effects of that music taste has to take over.


But if "judgement affects taste," the idea of taste "taking over" from judgment is itself problematic.

(And yes, I know our spellings differ. Bloody Americans.)


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Most of the composers you like, you'll never do anything but like. A composer you hate, you can learn to love.


Thank you for this insight .


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Most of the composers you like, you'll never do anything but like.


Not always true of composers, any more than it is of people. Just ask my ex-wife.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> Hey, some of my best friends are rocks! Seriously though, I wasn't saying anything about which purpose is greater. Nor would I make fun by saying butts prefer Bieber and brains prefer Beethoven - except that all the alliteration was irresistible. Seriously though, and I'm serious this time: I know which purposes are more important for me in my life. Far be it from me to say what should be important to others.


Some of my arguments were from taken from my reading literary criticism, which is relevant to all art. I think it is enough to say that those who used to like Bieber, or other obviously less talented musicians/songwriters, that get to appreciate Beethoven will never go back to Bieber and such.


----------



## ido66667 (Aug 29, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Mint chocolate chip IS objectively the best ice cream flavour, YES!


Blasphemy! Strawberry is the best!

Regarding the OP, I think you are correct, people are always trying to find "The Best" and "The Worst" while truthfully, it's almost always completely arbitrary how you choose them. This actually applies to most things in life (Including Ice cream), and I think people can be more satisfied with what the have if they accept it.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

ido66667 said:


> Blasphemy! Strawberry is the best!
> 
> Regarding the OP, I think you are correct, people are always trying to find "The Best" and "The Worst" while truthfully, it's almost always completely arbitrary how you choose them. This actually applies to most things in life (Including Ice cream), and I think people can be more satisfied with what the have if they accept it.


Too many live in fear, admittedly from a society that reinforces concepts such as better/worse in the arts especially, that their tastes are wrong and some live thinking theirs are superior. I live satisfied and inspired by my taste because it reflects me, and I love being me and having a me!


----------



## ido66667 (Aug 29, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Too many live in fear, admittedly from a society that reinforces concepts such as better/worse in the arts especially, that their tastes are wrong and some live thinking theirs are superior. I live satisfied and inspired by my taste because it reflects me, and I love being me and having a me!


It's not only the pointless and arbitrary dichotomy of best/worst, but also other dichotomies like bad/good, winning/losing. It appears to me that people are obsessed with dichotomizing every situation in their life to simple x vs y, even if it obviously doesn't apply. I think it is unfortunately just a trait of human nature.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> Some of my arguments were from taken from my reading literary criticism, which is relevant to all art. I think it is enough to say that those who used to like Bieber, or other obviously less talented musicians/songwriters, that get to appreciate Beethoven will never go back to Bieber and such.


Bieber and such covers a lot of ground. I think it is possible to love Beethoven and, if not Bieber, then Amy Winehouse, or Led Zeppelin, or even John Lee Hooker. I used to like all three of the aforementioned, and like them still. Beethoven's OK too.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> Bieber and such covers a lot of ground. I think it is possible to love Beethoven and, if not Bieber, then Amy Winehouse, or Led Zeppelin, or even John Lee Hooker. I used to like all three of the aforementioned, and like them still


Sure it is. I still love some song by Pink Floyd, Dire Straits, Santana, hey even Michael Jackson. But I love Beethoven so much more. Bieber? Well, that ain't music, it's just teen entertainment.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Sure it is. I still love some song by Pink Floyd, Dire Straits, Santana, hey even Michael Jackson. But I love Beethoven so much more. Bieber? Well, that ain't music, it's just teen entertainment.


Ahhhh, another whole thread. Whom do we love more? Whom less? When I want to hear Beethoven, and am listening to him, I do love him so. Ditto with Led Zep--"Mama, I've been flyin'," and so it goes......


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Some of my arguments were from taken from my reading literary criticism, which is relevant to all art. I think it is enough to say that those who used to like Bieber, or other obviously less talented musicians/songwriters, that get to appreciate Beethoven will never go back to Bieber and such.


Actually, some of my teenage piano students (particularly the girls) actually do like both Beethoven and Bieber--as unlikely as that sounds!  They like Beethoven for the great music, while they like Bieber for (what they perceive as) his sex appeal/coolness.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> Bieber and such covers a lot of ground. I think it is possible to love Beethoven and, if not Bieber, then Amy Winehouse, or Led Zeppelin, or even John Lee Hooker. I used to like all three of the aforementioned, and like them still. Beethoven's OK too.


Whoa, when I mean obviously less talented, I don't mean LEd Zeppelin or John Lee Hooker. Those are masters of different styles. Classical music cannot replace those. I mean Bieber, Swift, and such. Hope there are no die hard fans of those in this group that'll take offence.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Bettina said:


> Actually, some of my teenage piano students (particularly the girls) actually do like both Beethoven and Bieber--as unlikely as that sounds!  They like Beethoven for the great music, while they like Bieber for (what they perceive as) his sex appeal/coolness.


Ok, but do they actually like his music? If you take away Bieb's "super-coolness", do they want to listen to his stuff? It is the power of suggestion.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Ok, but do they actually like his music? If you take away Bieb's "super-coolness", do they want to listen to his stuff? It is the power of suggestion.


They associate Bieber's music with his trendy image, and as a result they like his music--or at least they think they do. But maybe that doesn't count as actually liking the music itself. I'll have to question them further on their preferences and report back!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

At first I thought you guys were talking about some composer named Bieber, then I realized, not so! :lol:


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> At first I thought you guys were talking about some composer named Bieber, then I realized, not so! :lol:


LOL! There is a Baroque composer named BIBER, but we're definitely not talking about him. We are discussing Justin Bieber, who certainly does not qualify as a composer--or even as a singer! :lol:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

This is probably the best song of his, the most legit one: I was at least impressed that a vocal/guitar song only was a hit.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Fugue Meister said:


> The notion that Bach wasn't on any lists in the 1800's is false, any serious musician was aware of Bach, there are many different accounts of composers, musicians, and the great tutors of the day referencing his works for keyboard with surprising regularity. The whole story about him being unknown to the world until Mendelssohn dusted off his St. Matthews Passion is largely about the paying public, but amongst the sage musicians and composers his music was very much in circulation.
> 
> I think history ultimately remembers the great personalities of humankind regardless who is writing it. The work someone leaves behind is the gauge not accounts of the person who did the work.


Yes, well, we're not talking here about insiders preferences but about the public view on 'the best' composers/music. Bach was not in the eye of the public for quite some time and there are many other examples of composers that go up or down on history's list.

Saying that history ultimately is right in remembering the great personalities of human kind raises many questions on how that would work. One of these is whether you think history by now has delivered us the names of the best composers of the past. Or should we wait some more for history to do its job in achieving an objective end result? I'd also like to know where and when history publishes its final results. And do you think the list might change when maybe China becomes the leading world power or maybe Islam dominates cultural preferences?


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Excellent point! Just one example: Beethoven played the whole WTC from memory in his youth, and no doubt the many connoisseurs who heard him play parts of it registered his devotion and love of this music. Immortality isn't necessarily about how many people know your work, but about who knows it. If the great composers and performers of the next generation revere your work, eventually there is a good chance everyone (everyone in the community of classical listeners, that is) will.


All you describe is how (one work by) one composer got saved from being forgotten. To prove the point that history remembers 'the best' objectively would take a lot more than that. You'd have to know who where the best in their time, who tended to be forgotten and how all of these unjustly forgotten 'best' were saved in the end by the mechanism you describe.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

All of you thinking along these lines are just reasoning backwards based on the assumption that our present canon of 'the best' is histories final answer.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> Whoa, when I mean obviously less talented, I don't mean LEd Zeppelin or John Lee Hooker. Those are masters of different styles. Classical music cannot replace those. I mean Bieber, Swift, and such. Hope there are no die hard fans of those in this group that'll take offence.


No offense taken. But your post as quoted above again exhibits the utter relativism of these hierarchies of taste and talent, of goodness and badness and "best"ness in the arts. Obviously we all have our own hierarchies of what we personally prefer, and by sampling large populations, whether pre-selected or general, we can arrive at figures showing relative popularities. We can, we should, be content with these findings as popularity contests, but once we attempt to analyze the results as indicators of goodness and badness, we become lost in a wilderness of tautologies and circular arguments. John Lee Hooker, incidentally, is demonstrably the best bluesman ever. Also Sprach Strange Magic.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Casebearer said:


> All of you thinking along these lines are just reasoning backwards based on the assumption that our present canon of 'the best' is histories final answer.


First, being "history's final answer" doesn't necessarily make you right either.

Second, canons are historically very stable. It's the attempts at revisionism that are here today, gone tomorrow. (I hear the metaphysical poets up in heaven are still traumatized from when T. S. Eliot sent them into battle with Shakespeare.)


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

<Narrator voice>...later that same thread...</Narrator voice>

Gratitude to all who have shared thoughts, ideas, and opinions in this thread. I suppose some slight clarification may be in order. I'm all for the asking and recommending of favorite and alternative versions of pieces. Have done both here: asked for and even supplied some recommendations. But I am not looking for "the best," as I've stated, IMHO, there is no such beast. But finding versions about which I'd previously not known has been helpful and even exciting. My recommendations are often couched in verbiage such as "recommended," "favorite," "alternative," but never "best," or even "superior to" or anything similar.

Another consideration is other recordings. By that, I mean something as complex as Ives 4, wherein even a different recording will show details not present in other recordings. Something with the complexity of Ives 4 will reveal further hidden mysteries even by differing microphone techniques. This doesn't even call into account the different performance.

All that said... I sometimes see the unsettling trend of personal favorite = best. Even more disturbing, I sometimes see personal favorite = genius. Sadly, the words "genius" and "virtuoso" have become all but meaningless due to extreme misuse and overuse. Just because you love a composer's work does not make that composer a genius.

Again, all just the opinions of a mint chip-addled mind. :cheers::cheers:

Kindest regards,
-09


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Is Beethoven a genius? I don't care if he is. I don't care to get into debates about what genius is. Is Beethoven the best? Who cares! All I care about is that his music gives me the greatest pleasure. 

And I take"definitive" recordings lists with a big grain of salt as through experience I've found that I disagree with them more often than not. Had I blindly taken definitive as truth, I would have missed on a ton of favorite recordings.

But I guess it is human nature to seek to justify our likes so we try to convince ourselves that what we like is the best. And as has been started numerous times the best in art does not exist objectively.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> But I guess it is human nature to seek to justify our likes so we try to convince ourselves that what we like is the best. And as has been started numerous times the best in art does not exist objectively.


............... This.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

ido66667 said:


> It's not only the pointless and arbitrary dichotomy of best/worst, but also other dichotomies like bad/good, winning/losing. It appears to me that people are obsessed with dichotomizing every situation in their life to simple x vs y, even if it obviously doesn't apply. I think it is unfortunately just a trait of human nature.


"There are two classes of people, those who divide every group into two and those who don't"


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Casebearer said:


> All you describe is how (one work by) one composer got saved from being forgotten. To prove the point that history remembers 'the best' objectively would take a lot more than that. You'd have to know who where the best in their time, who tended to be forgotten and how all of these unjustly forgotten 'best' were saved in the end by the mechanism you describe.


I wasn't trying to prove anything objectively, just suggesting that it takes only a small number of influential people - the best composers, performers and critics of an era - to ensure that the really good stuff of the previous couple generations doesn't get lost. CPE Bach is a great example. He was an obscure footnote in history for generations but in the long run it was inevitable that three resounding endorsements, those of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, would assure his immortality.

Who are these great and unjustly forgotten composers of whom you speak?


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> But I guess it is human nature to seek to justify our likes so we try to convince ourselves that what we like is the best.


But I don't like the best.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Magnum Miserium said:


> But I don't like the best.


Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. The Dark Side often beckons.....


----------



## Vox Victoriae (Oct 6, 2016)

I tend to agree with Magnum Miserium and Fugue Meister concerning the standing of value judgments in art, but there were also many other posts by other members which I really liked and identified with, like EdwardBast's claim for the importance of specificity. For the sake of my argument, though, I'm going to highlight in special millionrainbows' statement that artistic experience is mostly a mixed kind of experience composed by an objective formal product and the audience's subjective reception of it. I believe it's in most cases a spot on description, and, even when it's arguable how much of the product itself is not actually constituted by aspects of reception, like in performative or conceptual works, like 4'33'' and "Ceci n'est pas un pipe", respectively (at least that's how I tend to classify them at the moment), I believe we can (almost?) always agree that there is at least an objective medium of expression upon which reception must occur.

Therefore, I do agree with Strange Magic and the OP that every judgment of value concerning art deep down is, in fact, subjective and, to a certain point, relativistic. However, judgments can be based on different criteria, and these criteria can certainly be objective. Even subjective criteria, like appreciation, can sometimes be reduced by a perceptive and/or sufficiently informed member of the audience to objective factors (the formal elements of the work and their historical relationships with those of other works) and subjective ones (why they appeal to him). Which means that, when critics or audience members agree that Beethoven or Mozart or Shakespeare or Sophocles are among the best of the best, there are, more often than not, objective criteria involved in their judgment. Sometimes there is some margin of argument to such criteria, while, in other circumstances, they are actually unarguable to some extent. Now, that does not mean that this judgment ceases to be relativistic, or that Beethoven, for instance, is factually among the best of the best. However, it can mean that according to objective criterion X or Y he certainly is, and, more often than not, to deviate from such a judgment, the audience member will have to value other criteria over these. And yes, he or she is completely free to do so.

I would argue that canons or, at an individual level of judgment, value comparisons are generally formed by more or less careful balances between both reception criteria and objective criteria, and also, more often than not, by a combination of both. We can say that Beethoven is better than each individual major romantic because his contributions are more widespread and his influence more enduring, which, although arguable in part, can easily be broken down to the analysis of objective, formal elements of his work and that of his successors. However, if his work did not really touch anyone at all, we would probably not care about him all that much. The fact we do collectively care, however, although subjective, is also important for we to consider him one of the greatest. And I would also argue that, while we often do not like best that which is usually thought to be best, we do tend to like more than not like that which is usually thought to be best, and more original and more influential. I believe the reason for this, in terms of influence criteria, is the fact that new generations of artists tend do be more influenced not only by those predecessors that they think are more original, but also by those that touch them more. When someone innovates something, but, borrowing millionrainbows' words, fails to convey that experience in the eyes of the majority, then we tend to care more about the successor that, in our eyes, did use those innovations in a way that touches us. And is not that new use an innovation, that is, a new idea, in its own merits? That's why, I think, we care more about Debussy than Satie (though I do like him!) or more about Wagner than about Meyerbeer (who I don't like that much). That's certainly part of the reason I care more about Schönberg than about Richard Strauss (though I also care more about him because I feel he was more consistent in how he presented those innovations, while Strauss used them briefly and then settled in a style I'm less satisfied with), even though I know this is not yet quite as consensual, and even though I know people who dislike atonal music tend to better appreciate Strauss almost by default. Disagreement is common in the history of reception, however, and whether my preference for Schönberg will eventually prevail in the judgments of most of our remote, future descendants, only history will tell.

That's why, however, I do think Fugue Meister and Magnum Miserium are right in their belief that the canon is more or less stable for most of the time, even though I still acknowledge SM's and OP's view that, deep down, deep down, all value judgments are subjective. I do think, though, that a certain degree of revisionism is expectable and quite possibly enduring! For instance, I have gradually come to the realization that, even though the Middle Ages were in average less rich in their literature than either the Renaissance or golden age Antiquity, some outlier (or even not all that outlier, but certainly sparser) works, like the Eddas and Sagas of Old Norse literature, or a great many of the surviving Latin hymns left for us do are quite great and may well come to be regarded as a relevant part of the Western canon. Granted, they are probably not as great as Dante and Shakespeare and Cervantes, or Homer and Aeschylus and Virgil and Ovid, but they may well be in equal standing with a great part of Romanticism or Modernism. That's what I'm coming to believe, even though, admittedly, such works were certainly sparser in the larger scale of history, while our Modern and Contemporary age movements occurred in a quick succession of opposing ideas. When (and if, though I predict it's going to happen soon) Medievalist and Contemporary criticism start to coincide, I think these works are going to be situated in the canon under a better light, even though they are probably not going to take either Homer's or Shakespeare's place. And even so, I'm going to agree with Magnum Miserium that the kind of radical revisionism that is reflected in Eliot's claim for the superiority of the metaphysical poets over Shakespeare and Milton, or in the Enlightenment's claim for the superiority of Tasso and their own works over Dante, is much more fragile and very unlikely to endure. Which does not mean that their short-lived fame does not end up influencing in a positive light how History sees these works, but the fact stands that there is a degree of actual revisionism that is actually expectable.

Thus, regarding Strange Magic's statement that



> In my case, better composers are those I like more, and worse composers are those I like less. I have no other way of sorting them out other than whether or not I like their music. Sad but true.


I personally think it's as acceptable a way of receiving and judging art as any other. It's not the only one, however - and, to clear up any misunderstandings, I'm saying this for the sake of my argument only; I'm not trying to suggest that it was what Strange Magic implied. Many throughout history, including me, have different ideas of which works are best and which we like the most. That's probably because the balance we do between our subjective criteria and the objective criteria (or mixed criteria) taken into account is quite often uneven. Even some great artists do experience art like SM does, however, and they quite often strongly deviate from the consensus and, in posterity, are seen as eccentric in most or, in other cases, only in a tiny minority of their views. In certain cases I do believe, perhaps wrongly, that such great artists are entirely honest, like in Rilke's case regarding all of art (or in that of Schumann's evaluation of Bach). In others, I think there is enough biographical and formal evidence that their claims may have been influenced by personal, ideological or artistic grudges or biases, like in Tolstoy's moralistic criticism (or in Tchaikovsky's reprobation of so many great composers). Either way, although one form of reception is not objectively better than the other, I do think my form of reception tends to better reflect that of most critics and historians, since it's more important for them, at least more than it is for the rest of the audience, to evaluate importance and make comparisons, and, in the greater scale of history, that may also play a role in keeping a part of the canon intact.

Though, of course, these are only my own thoughts on the matter 

EDIT: Another conclusion I just reached is that, if I'm right about my analysis of different types of criteria and how they affect our personal reception, if a part of the canon remains intact throughout history, it could be conjectured that it may also be in part because there are certain criteria that tend to come up again more frequently in each era's judgment. I do think there are some criteria (like gender, LGBT, class and cultural recognition) that, from now on, will start to also come up more often than in the past, since our society is fortunately changing in such areas. However, since these criteria do not actually exclude the significance of the others, I personally believe they are more likely to add new things to the canon and, chiefly, influence the canon of future generations than they are to incur in an Eliot-style radical revision of the aesthetic standing of all past art.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Is Beethoven a genius? I don't care if he is. I don't care to get into debates about what genius is. Is Beethoven the best? Who cares! All I care about is that his music gives me the greatest pleasure.
> 
> And I take"definitive" recordings lists with a big grain of salt as through experience I've found that I disagree with them more often than not. Had I blindly taken definitive as truth, I would have missed on a ton of favorite recordings.
> 
> But I guess it is human nature to seek to justify our likes so we try to convince ourselves that what we like is the best. And as has been started numerous times the best in art does not exist objectively.


If one wanted to find a "best" version of a work, although we know this does not objectively exist, one could simply use an objective criteria, such as record sales. The more a CD sells, the better it is. That's the simplistic answer, and, after all, isn't that the way our lives are run?


----------



## ido66667 (Aug 29, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> If one wanted to find a "best" version of a work, although we know this does not objectively exist, one could simply use an objective criteria, such as record sales. The more a CD sells, the better it is. That's the simplistic answer, and, after all, isn't that the way our lives are run?


It's just the good old argumentum ad populum fallacy. The fact that many or most people agree on something does not mean that it is correct. The whims of the crowd are definitely not objective criteria, not to mention that when it comes to art, objective criteria don't exist.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Vox Victoriae said:


> However, since these criteria do not actually exclude the significance of the others, I personally believe they are more likely to add new things to the canon and, chiefly, influence the canon of future generations than they are to incur in an Eliot-style radical revision of the aesthetic standing of all past art.


New things are being added to the canon--to all canons--in a varying but unending stream in the New Stasis in the arts. All audiences are being satisfied; all bins are filled though new bins are being created constantly, and then they too are filled. Things change, yet they remain the same: there are just more of them. A most dynamic stasis. Brownian motion as Zen.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

ido66667 said:


> It's just the good old argumentum ad populum fallacy. The fact that many or most people agree on something does not mean that it is correct. The whims of the crowd are definitely not objective criteria, not to mention that when it comes to art, objective criteria don't exist.


The whim of the crowd at any given point in time, if and as monitored and recorded, is an objective criterion. The question is whether one chooses to accept such as the defining criterion.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> The whim of the crowd at any given point in time, if and as monitored and recorded, is an objective criterion. The question is whether one chooses to accept such as the defining criterion.


Last I checked, the soundtrack to Titanic was the best selling classical album ever.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

bharbeke said:


> Mozart was known to say that chocolate ice cream and his Piano Concerto No. 17 would be the best mind-altering experience possible.


Bless. It sounds like Mozart led quite a sheltered life


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> New things are being added to the canon--to all canons--in a varying but unending stream in the New Stasis in the arts. All audiences are being satisfied; all bins are filled though new bins are being created constantly, and then they too are filled. Things change, yet they remain the same: there are just more of them. A most dynamic stasis. Brownian motion as Zen.


When Meyer wrote that book, classical music sounded like this: 




Now classical music sounds like this:


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Andy Warhol is old.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Andy Warhol is to today's young artists what Wagner was to Debussy and Stravinsky. (Joyce is Bach.)

http://www.octopuspie.com/2008-03-26/125-the-beauty-of-pop-culture/


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> I wasn't trying to prove anything objectively, just suggesting that it takes only a small number of influential people - the best composers, performers and critics of an era - to ensure that the really good stuff of the previous couple generations doesn't get lost. CPE Bach is a great example. He was an obscure footnote in history for generations but in the long run it was inevitable that three resounding endorsements, those of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, would assure his immortality.
> 
> Who are these great and unjustly forgotten composers of whom you speak?


That might be true in one or more cases but would then raise the question if this mechanism (the luck of being recognized and having influential friends) applies to all great composers. I wouldn't know, I wasn't there to monitor it, but it seems very unlikely to me. Only some have influential friends or marketing power behind them.

To ask me who these great and unjustly forgotten composers are is a strange question considering my posting on this. I'm not supernatural and I wasn't (omni)present when they got more or less forgotten. I'm not talking about the ones we know but about the ones we don't know or hardly know. So how would I know them?

Recently I've advocated the idea of having an unknown composer of the month on TC as a sort of mechanism to actively raise attention on composers that are mostly forgotten or were never in the picture. This idea has been followed up on by mmbls and KenOC's neglected composers. Maybe some great music and great composers will meet the public eye this way and maybe some of them will become part of 'the canon'.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

amfortas said:


> But if "judgement affects taste," the idea of taste "taking over" from judgment is itself problematic.


I guess all I'm saying is that there will be many reasons why we (as individuals) decide that something is worthy of our (and by extension others') attention, including technical excellence, historical importance, and other objective-seeming measures, but ultimately it's because (for whatever reason) we _like_ it.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Magnum Miserium said:


> When Meyer wrote that book, classical music sounded like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Some does. Some doesn't.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

amfortas said:


> Here's a question. Let's say a sudden mass amnesia strikes humanity, so that everyone forgets such a thing as music ever existed--no recollection of theory, works, composers, genres, etc. No writings on the subject survive either. But all the music itself survives in recordings (without liner notes). People could discover this strange phenomenon afresh, without any preconceptions.
> 
> Initially, of course, this rediscovery would be a chaotic and exhilarating free-for-all. But would we eventually see, over decades or centuries, a consensus of opinion--a hierarchical ranking of types of music, composers, and works--that corresponds at all to our current musical canons? Shorn of history and marketing, is there a "cream" that rises once again to the top?


A very interesting thought, the above. I believe the view of the past works and classical music in general would be radically different, with the historical context taken away. A lot of music was built on or a reaction to previous ideas. Without knowing what came first John Williams' music could be seen as masterpieces having been ripped from so many other composers. 12-tone music could become accepted as much as Bach, They might sound just as alien to someone without the theory having been passed down through generations.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> A very interesting thought, the above. I believe the view of the past works and classical music in general would be radically different, with the historical context taken away. A lot of music was built on or a reaction to previous ideas. Without knowing what came first John Williams' music could be seen as masterpieces having been ripped from so many other composers. 12-tone music could become accepted as much as Bach, They might sound just as alien to someone without the theory having been passed down through generations.


I'm not an expert, but the only caveat I would note in that regard is the existence of natural harmonics. Could that, on some unconscious level, cause a drift toward certain tonalities?


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Without knowing what came first John Williams' music could be seen as masterpieces having been ripped from so many other composers.


He could be seen as a Vivaldi, maybe - inventor of good themes who surrounded them with padding - though Vivaldi's themes are _so_ much greater than Williams'.

Also, if Korngold's film scores survived, everybody would immediately recognize Williams as a lesser relative of them.

You're probably correct that people wouldn't necessarily be able to figure out which came first - I'm reminded of the debate on the different parts (if they are different parts) of the Pentateuch.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

jegreenwood said:


> I'm not an expert, but the only caveat I would note in that regard is the existence of natural harmonics. Could that, on some unconscious level, cause a drift toward certain tonalities?


Yes, but of course 12 tone composers may have subconsciously done the same (or consciously, even if they don't admit it).


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

jegreenwood said:


> I'm not an expert, but the only caveat I would note in that regard is the existence of natural harmonics. Could that, on some unconscious level, cause a drift toward certain tonalities?


True, natural harmony would likely still appeal more to those brainwashed individuals. I don't know if it's studied in music classes, but I came across in my engineering classes, which also deal with harmonics (in power), that an octave is exactly a factor of 2 in frequency between the notes. Dominant 5th is exactly a factor of 1.5 between the notes. Our ears or brains are natural relative frequency tuners.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> True, natural harmony would likely still appeal more to those brainwashed individuals. I don't know if it's studied in music classes, but I came across in my engineering classes, which also deal with harmonics (in power), that an octave is exactly a factor of 2 in frequency between the notes. Dominant 5th is exactly a factor of 1.5 between the notes. Our ears or brains are natural relative frequency tuners.


Ps. It is also interesting that it is in binary instead of decimal. As all primary logic in computers is done in binary, as are the electrical impulses of our nerves.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Razumovskymas said:


> But Beethoven is the best, right?


I believe that is the point.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

This thread is like talking to my mother in law. She's deceased but we still converse.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

"Best"? A futile exercise.

One person's "best" is another person's "worst"!


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Oldhoosierdude said:


> This thread is like talking to my mother in law. She's deceased but we still converse.


Post of the day!!!!!!!:lol:


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> I guess all I'm saying is that there will be many reasons why we (as individuals) decide that something is worthy of our (and by extension others') attention, including technical excellence, historical importance, and other objective-seeming measures, but ultimately it's because (for whatever reason) we _like_ it.


Fair enough--but then I would attach particular importance to that final "we." Evaluations about what's "best" are based, not on the likings of a single individual, but on a rough consensus of opinion from countless listeners over time. So if judgments of value ultimately come down to matters of taste, it's on a collective rather than purely individual level.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

amfortas said:


> Fair enough--but then I would attach particular importance to that final "we." Evaluations about what's "best" are based, not on the likings of a single individual, but on a rough consensus of opinion from countless listeners over time. So if judgments of value ultimately come down to matters of taste, it's on a collective rather than purely individual level.


I agree completely!


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> If one wanted to find a "best" version of a work, although we know this does not objectively exist, one could simply use an objective criteria, such as record sales. The more a CD sells, the better it is. That's the simplistic answer, and, after all, isn't that the way our lives are run?


So. If two recordings of the same composition were released at the same time, and one of them had a larger marketing budget, thus selling more copies, then that one would be more artistically valid because it sold more copies. Problem solved. :lol:


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Omicron9 said:


> So. If two recordings of the same composition were released at the same time, and one of them had a larger marketing budget, thus selling more copies, then that one would be more artistically valid because it sold more copies. Problem solved. :lol:


Not always true though, think of what Brilliant did, ( rebranding old recordings) they sell loads of that stuff.


----------



## quietfire (Mar 13, 2017)

I beg to differ. You can still quantify the quality of someone's interpretation on a scale. So, in a sense, there is still a best.

Musician 1: plays badly.
Musician 2: plays better than 1.

Musician 2 > Musician 1.

If there are only two musicians in the world. Then Musician 2 is the best.

There are so many musicians and interpretations now, and so the ranking would be much more complex. Just because it is complex, doesn't mean we cannot rank them.

I do not believe in subjectivity in art. Subjectivity is an excuse for mediocrity.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

quietfire said:


> I beg to differ. You can still quantify the quality of someone's interpretation on a scale. So, in a sense, there is still a best.
> 
> Musician 1: plays badly.
> Musician 2: plays better than 1.
> ...


Your quantifying system only works if there is a single standard for interpretation which is nonsense. If you sample a group of knowledgeable people, such as here on TC, do you really expect that they will come anywhere close to agreeing on the value of an interpretation or the quality of a performance? Of course they don't and never will, just look at the Barenboim/Klemperer/Beethoven thread. It is all subjective opinion. What is important to me is probably irrelevant to many others, etc.


----------



## quietfire (Mar 13, 2017)

Becca said:


> Your quantifying system only works if there is a single standard for interpretation which is nonsense. If you sample a group of knowledgeable people, such as here on TC, do you really expect that they will come anywhere close to agreeing on the value of an interpretation or the quality of a performance? Of course they don't and never will, just look at the Barenboim/Klemperer/Beethoven thread. It is all subjective opinion. What is important to me is probably irrelevant to many others, etc.


The standard of interpretation is what the composer intended.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Thank you, that's the funniest thing I have read all month.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

What the composer intended is in the composers head, which is probably in his/her grave.


----------



## ido66667 (Aug 29, 2016)

quietfire said:


> The standard of interpretation is what the composer intended.


I take it that you met Beethoven... Was he really an old crank like they say?


----------



## quietfire (Mar 13, 2017)

ido66667 said:


> I take it that you met Beethoven... Was he really an old crank like they say?


Yeah, pretty much.


----------



## Martin D (Dec 13, 2016)

Omicron9 said:


> .....I suppose some slight clarification may be in order. I'm all for the asking and recommending of favorite and alternative versions of pieces. Have done both here: asked for and even supplied some recommendations. But I am not looking for "the best," as I've stated, IMHO, there is no such beast.


Confining attention to composer rankings, I'd be interested to hear what significance you attach to the fact that in most polls that have been conducted at T-C the top 3 favourites are normally Beethoven, J S Bach, and Mozart (in varying order). These three are usually followed by the likes of Brahms, Schubert, Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Haydn - also in slightly varying order depending on the particular poll.

Do you believe that this ranking implies anything at all about relative quality, even very roughly, compared with those who normally appear much further down the lists?

If you do think it says something useful about relative quality, what is wring with people using words like "best" to indicate a distinction between those in the top part of the table compared with those who normally appear much further down?

If you don't think it implies anything useful about relative quality, what is the point of seeking and giving recommendations from/to other people on composers worth listening to?


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Martin D said:


> If you do think it says something useful about relative quality, what is wring with people using words like "best" to indicate a distinction between those in the top part of the table compared with those who normally appear much further down?


The problem is that you would have to define quality. People are going to use different criteria to rank items and people may use a hierarchy of different factors. Some may vote based on who they like listening to the most. Some might vote based on reputation. Some on who they respect the most even if it's not who they like to listen to. Some may vote based on who was the most innovative. In terms of a hierarchy, someone may vote mostly based on who they like the best, but they might not be an opera fan so they'll mix in composers best known for opera works based on reputation. And, of course, some people may vote in a particular way to avoid being disrespected if it's a public poll (it can happen with private polls as well). Someone may truly believe, for example, that Jacques Offenbach is a top-3 composer, but they might not admit to it because they'd probably have a very hard time convincing others of that opinion.

So, anyway, stuff like this is very tricky to nail down. I think even a social science Ph.D. well versed in quantitative research design and the scientific method would have a hard time researching something like this.


----------



## Martin D (Dec 13, 2016)

Klassik said:


> The problem is that you would have to define quality. People are going to use different criteria to rank items and people may use a hierarchy of different factors. Some may vote based on who they like listening to the most. Some might vote based on reputation. Some on who they respect the most even if it's not who they like to listen to. Some may vote based on who was the most innovative. In terms of a hierarchy, someone may vote mostly based on who they like the best, but they might not be an opera fan so they'll mix in composers best known for opera works based on reputation. And, of course, some people may vote in a particular way to avoid being disrespected if it's a public poll (it can happen with private polls as well). Someone may truly believe, for example, that Jacques Offenbach is a top-3 composer, but they might not admit to it because they'd probably have a very hard time convincing others of that opinion.
> 
> So, anyway, stuff like this is very tricky to nail down. I think even a social science Ph.D. well versed in quantitative research design and the scientific method would have a hard time researching something like this.


I agree that different people will use different criteria to rank their selections. I also accept that some may give fake readings either to hide their ignorance or to avoid being disrespected, but I can't believe that these people are normally sufficiently important in number to make all that much difference.

As for the use of different criteria, I don't see why this should be a problem. On the contrary it's not for me or anyone else to dictate which criteria should be used to determine the factors people should use in selecting their favourite composers. Those decisions are best left to the people themselves to decide. I know what my criteria are, and I suspect that a lot of other people may share something along similar lines, but it doesn't matter whether this is true or not.

The picture that results, when aggregated over a large number of participants, should produce a preference order that implies something about peoples' perception of quality amongst these composers. I agree that things are likely to become very hazy and uncertain after a small number, maybe under 10. If people then want to select the top few and call them the "best" I don't see any harm in this. They would the "best" in terms of popular rating, not in terms of any technical performance measures, e.g. innovation, gift of melody, etc as these things are either unquantifiable in this area or subject to wide margins of uncertainty.

Of course, I'm assuming that the polling procedures are set up correctly in the first place, and that the respondents are randomly drawn. All of the T-C polls that I've seen are a far cry from achieving this, by their very nature (e.g. self-selection being a potentially big problem). I therefore accept that there are technical issues that make the individual poll results subject to a pinch of salt, but the same pattern of results tends to emerge in most polls which probably indicates that the biases can't be all that great, at least among the very top echelons of classical composers.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Casebearer said:


> To ask me who these great and unjustly forgotten composers are is a strange question considering my posting on this. I'm not supernatural and I wasn't (omni)present when they got more or less forgotten. I'm not talking about the ones we know but about the ones we don't know or hardly know. So how would I know them?


That was why I asked 



Casebearer said:


> Recently I've advocated the idea of having an unknown composer of the month on TC as a sort of mechanism to actively raise attention on composers that are mostly forgotten or were never in the picture. This idea has been followed up on by mmbls and KenOC's neglected composers. Maybe some great music and great composers will meet the public eye this way and maybe some of them will become part of 'the canon'.


This sounds like a good idea. I will check it out.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

quietfire said:


> The standard of interpretation is what the composer intended.





Casebearer said:


> What the composer intended is in the composers head, which is probably in his/her grave.


I would question whether "the composer" intended something as specific as you seem to be suggesting. Perhaps some composers wanted many degrees of freedom in interpretation of their work? Maybe there wasn't anything that definitive in heads live or dead?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> I would question whether "the composer" intended something as specific as you seem to be suggesting. Perhaps some composers wanted many degrees of freedom in interpretation of their work? Maybe there wasn't anything that definitive in heads live or dead?


Perhaps in a few cases we can get an idea of the interpretation that a composer envisioned for a work by looking at whether the work was composed with a specific performer in mind. We know that Brahms composed several works with Joachim in mind--if we had access to recordings of Joachim playing these pieces, we could get a glimpse. Ditto for Ravel and Ricardo Viñes. Another approach would be to see/hear performances by soloists closely linked with the composer even though a work was not written for that performer--the recordings, and we have them, of György Sandor and the Bartok piano concertos, would seem to be quite to the composer's taste, given their close relationship in Bartok's later years. And at second or third hand would be performances by students of the original and presumably composer-favored performers.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I neglect, of course, the examples of Bartok plays Bartok; ditto Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, etc.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I would really hope that a composer is open-minded enough to examine well-considered alternative interpretations on their own merits rather than to be dogmatic about only one being possible.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

quietfire said:


> I beg to differ. You can still quantify the quality of someone's interpretation on a scale. So, in a sense, there is still a best.
> 
> Musician 1: plays badly.
> Musician 2: plays better than 1.
> ...


I agree..there are certain aspects of music performance that may be judged objectively - ie - accuracy of notes, clean technique correct rhythm, proper intonation, evenness of tone, etc, etc...when you get into tempo, articulation, phrasing, dynamics, things become more subjective.


----------

