# Modern/contemporary composers as good as the big three: Bach, Beethoven and Mozart



## Morimur

Who are their modern counterparts? Do they even exist or will their genius never be equaled?


----------



## aleazk

Debussy, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Stockhausen.

All of them both extremelly influential and genius-level musical talent and craft.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

For me, Messiaen is a hero and genius, and perhaps even eclipses the big three!


----------



## DiesIraeCX

NY Times' Anthony Tommasini on Stravinsky, "_During the years when "The Firebird" and "The Rite of Spring" were shaking up Paris, Stravinsky was swapping ideas with his friend Debussy, who was 20 years older. Yet Stravinsky was still around in the 1960s, writing serial works that set the field of contemporary music abuzz. One morning in 1971 I arrived at the door of the music building at Yale, on which someone had posted an index card with this simple news: "Igor Stravinsky died today." It felt as if the floor had dropped out from under the musical world I inhabited._ *Stravinsky had been like a Beethoven among us.*" (bold mine).

I know you shouldn't pass hasty negative opinions on a composer whom you've only heard a small percentage of their total oeuvre, so hopefully I'm not as guilty by doing the reverse. I haven't heard all of Schoenberg and Stravinsky's works yet, but I feel I can say they definitely deserve the elevated status of the "Big Three" you mention.


----------



## arpeggio

*??????????????????*

I don't know and I don't care.

If there not, so what?

A person does not have to be a Mozart or a Bach or a Beethoven to compose great music.

Some of my favorite living composers are:

Einojuhani Rautvaara
John Corigliano
James MacMillan
David Maslanka
John Harbison
Michael Daugherty
Krzysztof Penderecki (early & late works)
Aulis Sallinen
Ned Rorem
John Adams
Karel Husa
Joan Tower
Kelevi Aho
Eric Whitacre
Leonardo Balada
Richard Danielpour
Joseph Schwanter
Ellen Taaffe Zwilch
Christopher Rouse
Gunther Schuller
George Walker
Tobias Picker
Ron Nelson
Frank Ticheli
And Many Others.

I know some of the members are turning green because of some of the above.

Are any of them in the same class as Bach, Beethoven or Mozart?

I don't know. Probably not. So what?

All I know is that I enjoy listening to their music.


----------



## Guest

I don't personally see anyone being _quite_ as good, but I agree that Debussy, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Messiaen, and Stockhausen are not trailing far behind. Maybe Bartok? Ravel and Berio and Poulenc are three other modern favorites of mine, but I don't consider them to be _quite_ on the same level as the others mentioned.


----------



## aleazk

aleazk said:


> Debussy, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Stockhausen.
> 
> All of them both extremelly influential and genius-level musical talent and craft.


And let me add Ligeti to that list. Superb craft, unbounded imagination, groundbreaking innovations (in his middle period, in timbre, texture and its evolution & extention in time, and polyphonic thinking; in his late period, in rhythm and also again in polyphonic thinking, most importantly in the devices for producing and developing these complex rhythms and their relation with polyphony, this allowed him to create in a constructivist way very rich rhythmic fabrics, like spider webs). More and more it's consistently cited as a major and decisive influence by contemporary (i.e., 21st century) composers, not to mention his influence in whole 'styles' like spectralism (which is in its second air today). I see his late style as the foundation of a serious post-modern style, rather than the retro-conservative and simplistic style with some hints of modernism here and there that seems to be quite popular today. He departed from pure modernism to a style that incorporates the past, but with the key element about modernism also as part of the past now, rather than a reaction, and a reactionary, take on it.

Also, I would mention Boulez as the modern Schumann. Not only a superb and influential composer, whose style vividly incarnates the ethos of his time, but also a lucid, sharp and also influential writer and music commentator. His role as supporter and champion of many modern composers (Schoenberg, Webern, Ligeti, Carter, etc.). Very similar to Schumann. But he surpass Schumann, because Boulez also established himself as one of the most renowned conductors of the second half of the 20th century...

So, we got plenty of talent in these times. There are many parallelisms and the achievements rival (and surpass in my opinion) the previous eras.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Modern/contemporary composers as good as the big three: Bach, Beethoven and Mozart...Who are their modern counterparts? Do they even exist or will their genius never be equaled?

"Good"... according to whom? By what standard? Are Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, and Thelonius Monk eligible to compete?


----------



## Alypius

At one level I agree with the spirit behind the question but I find it impossible and unnecessary to answer. Every age has a genius. Just because there was da Vinci and Michelangelo in the Renaissance doesn't diminish the brilliance of a dozen other Renaissance painters: Fra Angelico, Mantegna, Masaccio, Piero della Francesca, Rafael, Botticelli, Bellini, Matthias Grunewald, Tintoretto. The big two of Renaissance painting scarcely begins to articulate the genius of their era, let alone of Western art. And whatever the genius of those two, it does nothing to diminish the genius of Picasso or Magritte or Matisse or Chagall or Dali or Rivera or Rothko or a hundred other modern and contemporary painters. There's plenty of genius to go around in any age and across the centuries. Every age has something definitive to say.

I love modern and contemporary music. I own more of it and listen to more of it than I do of those three -- and I own a fair portion of all three and love listening to all three regularly. I don't care if there is a single genius in the last 125 years who matches that of those three or not. It doesn't matter. I still need and love the genius of Debussy, Stravinsky, and Bartok; of Schoenberg, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich; of Messian, Ligeti, and Reich. I could have Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven -- but without the music of those 9 moderns, I would be -- and we would be -- immeasurably poorer. And that nine are only the tip of the iceberg: Szymanowski, Berg, Webern, Janacek, Ravel, Kodaly, Copland, Barber, Britten, Holmboe, Villa-Lobos, Martinu, Carter, Rautavaara, Lutoslawski, Dutilleux, Takemitsu, Norgard, Pärt, Adams, Rihm, etc., etc.. And then there's that long list that Arpeggio posted of contemporaries whose work is still in progress (I would add Pascal Dusapin, Unsuk Chin, Sofia Gubaidulina). The composers of the last 125 years bring me immeasurable joy, they enrich my heart, and they speak to me in the most subtle ways in a contemporary parlance about the profundity of being alive. Better than the big three? I don't care. I do care that the genius of the last 125 years get its due.


----------



## Alypius

Lope, Let me add one thing. There's another thread out there about "the most influential composer ever ever ever in the whole wide world and the entire cosmos for all time and for all eternity" that relegates the modern and the contemporary to the grand category of "Other" (with no bias intended, of course -- nothing more, nothing less). 

I read this thread and your question as a way of celebrating modern and contemporary. And for that, let me thank you. On that note, I'm going to listen to some.


----------



## starthrower

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Are Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, and Thelonius Monk eligible to compete?




It's not a competition. Let's get rid of the sports mentality.


----------



## stevens

-The beauty is in the ear of the beholder


----------



## PetrB

Lope de Aguirre said:


> *Modern/contemporary composers ~ are any as good as the big three: Bach, Beethoven and Mozart*


*

Yes.



Lope de Aguirre said:



Do these modern counterpart composers even exist or will the genius of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart never be equaled?

Click to expand...

**They exist, the genius of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart has been equaled, time and again since those composers lived.

A truly dreadful question, imo, which is not even a real question, nor does it need any asking unless you are the sort to need your hand held, and any composers later than the three mentioned pointed out to you and 'proved worthy' by 'an authority.'*

As to your asking it, well, I can only think you've had much better days


----------



## Andreas

In terms of post-WWII composers, I'd say Boulez, Stockhausen and Ligeti have similarly towering statures. If one added Haydn and Schubert to the Bach/Mozart/Beethoven trio and make it a quintet, I'd add Nono and Penderecki as well.


----------



## Chordalrock

To be as good as those three classics, a composer should be, not just as artistically meritorious but also as universally appealing. Skill isn't enough, great sophistication and genius aren't enough, you need the touch of Midas, you need content that is gold.


----------



## PetrB

Chordalrock said:


> To be as good as those three classics, a composer should be, not just as artistically meritorious but also as universally appealing. Skill isn't enough, great sophistication and genius aren't enough, you need the touch of Midas, you need content that is gold.


Pabulum platitudes, more pabulum platitudes, that is what I like to see in thread responses, pabulum platitudes.


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Modern/contemporary composers as good as the big three: Bach, Beethoven and Mozart...Who are their modern counterparts? Do they even exist or will their genius never be equaled?
> 
> "Good"... according to whom? By what standard? Are Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, and Thelonius Monk eligible to compete?


Exactly. In our rush to defend our present day heroes, some of us forgot that the words "as good as" are meaningless. Meaningless or worse--pretending to be knowledge but really being no more than reiteration of a chimera. On what criteria are the words "as good as" based? Cage sucked at writing grand symphonies with sophisticated development. But then Mozart totally sucked at producing eai. Without a clearly articulated and generally agreed upon criteria for goodness, we ought to dispense with such facile lies as "as good as."



arpeggio said:


> I don't know and I don't care....
> 
> All I know is that I enjoy listening to their music.


Also germane. Even if there were clearly articulated and generally agreed upon criteria, what would it matter to any individual listening to any individual thing that they enjoy?


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Modern/contemporary composers as good as the big three: Bach, Beethoven and Mozart...Who are their modern counterparts? Do they even exist or will their genius never be equaled?
> 
> "Good"... according to whom? By what standard? Are Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, and Thelonius Monk eligible to compete?





starthrower said:


> It's not a competition. Let's get rid of the sports mentality.


While I agree with the sentiment, I should also note that St is not being a proponent of the sports mentality here. He's making fun of it. That is, in their different ways, I see St and starthrower as both saying that the sports mentality is impertinent.


----------



## ArtMusic

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Who are their modern counterparts? Do they even exist or will their genius never be equaled?


Modern counterparts as good as Bach, Beethoven and Mozart, I would say Berg, Shostakovich and Stravinsky, considering that I have listened to vast amounts of their music.


----------



## ArtMusic

Chordalrock said:


> To be as good as those three classics, a composer should be, not just as artistically meritorious but also as universally appealing. Skill isn't enough, great sophistication and genius aren't enough, you need the touch of Midas, you need content that is gold.


There is no doubt that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are universally appealing. That's a given, that's a fact. And they are my dear favorites. Despite that, it is good fun to discuss equivalents/counterparts in other periods or other types of music in general. Modern, jazz, rock, performers as well.


----------



## Morimur

ArtMusic said:


> Modern counterparts as good as Bach, Beethoven and Mozart, I would say Berg, Shostakovich and Stravinsky, considering that I have listened to vast amounts of their music.


Berg? Possibly. Shostakovich? A definite NO. His output is lacking in the quality dpt.


----------



## Jobis

Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Webern, Bartok, Messiaen, Xenakis, Ligeti.

They alone would be more than enough geniuses for one century, even if it wasn't for all the other modern greats!


----------



## Morimur

arpeggio said:


> I don't know and I don't care.
> 
> If there not, so what?
> 
> A person does not have to be a Mozart or a Bach or a Beethoven to compose great music.
> 
> Some of my favorite living composers are:
> 
> Einojuhani Rautvaara
> John Corigliano
> James MacMillan
> David Maslanka
> John Harbison
> Michael Daugherty
> Krzysztof Penderecki (early & late works)
> Aulis Sallinen
> Ned Rorem
> John Adams
> Karel Husa
> Joan Tower
> Kelevi Aho
> Eric Whitacre
> Leonardo Balada
> Richard Danielpour
> Joseph Schwanter
> Ellen Taaffe Zwilch
> Christopher Rouse
> Gunther Schuller
> George Walker
> Tobias Picker
> Ron Nelson
> Frank Ticheli
> And Many Others.
> 
> I know some of the members are turning green because of some of the above.
> 
> Are any of them in the same class as Bach, Beethoven or Mozart?
> 
> I don't know. Probably not. So what?
> 
> All I know is that I enjoy listening to their music.


There's a lot of FAT on that list.


----------



## Morimur

stevens said:


> -The beauty is in the ear of the beholder


Certainly, but the beholder may have a tin can for an ear.


----------



## Morimur

Jobis said:


> Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Webern, Bartok, Messiaen, Xenakis, Ligeti.
> 
> They alone would be more than enough geniuses for one century, even if it wasn't for all the other modern greats!


As of late, I've fallen out of love with Messiaen's music; it can be painfully repetitive at times!


----------



## Morimur

DiesIraeVIX said:


> NY Times' Anthony Tommasini on Stravinsky, "_During the years when "The Firebird" and "The Rite of Spring" were shaking up Paris, Stravinsky was swapping ideas with his friend Debussy, who was 20 years older. Yet Stravinsky was still around in the 1960s, writing serial works that set the field of contemporary music abuzz. One morning in 1971 I arrived at the door of the music building at Yale, on which someone had posted an index card with this simple news: "Igor Stravinsky died today." It felt as if the floor had dropped out from under the musical world I inhabited._ *Stravinsky had been like a Beethoven among us.*" (bold mine).
> 
> I know you shouldn't pass hasty negative opinions on a composer whom you've only heard a small percentage of their total oeuvre, so hopefully I'm not as guilty by doing the reverse. I haven't heard all of Schoenberg and Stravinsky's works yet, but I feel I can say they definitely deserve the elevated status of the "Big Three" you mention.


Out of all the modern composers, Tommasini's praise is reserved only for Stravinsky and Debussy, who ranks higher than the former on his list of '10 Greatest Composers'. Schoenberg, Ligeti, Stockhausen, Xenakis, etc., are nowhere to found.


----------



## Il_Penseroso

No need to be 'Counterpart' or 'Equaled' exactly, as each period of time has individual aesthetic issues; I mean no Bach or Handel comes out from the 20th. century, it is essentially Debussy or Bartok, conform to the time. But you can find many of the 20th. century composers -even - more genius than the their predecessors. (Prokofiev as for example)
With the contemporary living composers things become a little different, they are still contemporaries, so let me make a 'No Comment' over them yet. Maybe a couple of decades later.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Out of all the modern composers, Tommasini's praise is reserved only for Stravinsky and Debussy, who ranks higher than the former on his list of '10 Greatest Composers'. Schoenberg, Ligeti, Stockhausen, Xenakis, etc., are nowhere to found.


Don't forget about Bartok at #10 on Tommasini's list, though. Three out of the ten are modern era composers. That's a pretty good balance, I think.


----------



## stevens

Is this the quest for the holy grail? I like what i for the moment are listening to. I have no idols..(well, I have a few idols)


----------



## Morimur

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Don't forget about Bartok at #10 on Tommasini's list, though. Three out of the ten are modern era composers. That's a pretty good balance, I think.


Yes, forgot about Bartók. Tommassini's rationale for his top ten list is hard to dispute, but to include Stravinsky and not Schoenberg? Perplexing. And why is Verdi top 10? A good list, nevertheless.


----------



## Morimur

stevens said:


> Is this the quest for the holy grail? I like what i for the moment are listening to. I have no idols..(well, I have a few idols)


Is ABBA still big in Scandinavia?


----------



## arpeggio

Lope de Aguirre said:


> There's a lot of FAT on that list.


You want more? This is why I can not answer what are your favorite five composers questions. There are many more B level contemporary composers that I listen too. Who knows. A few may be A level. I have no idea which of the composers in my list are A level. If I enjoy the music I don't care if a composer is an A level or a Z level.

There are even some B level 19th century composers that have composed some good stuff: Raff, Fibich, Danzi and Reicha. I have recently discovered the music of Ries. In another thread I mentioned how our orchestra performed one of his piano concertos.

I know some consider Mr. Whitacre to be a Z level composer. I don't care how bad his music is I enjoy listening to it and performing it. I love his _Ghost Train Trilogy_ and I have performed it twice.

I really believe that too many are hung up on the idea that we should only listen to music that is as good as Bach's. Or maybe I am the one with problems and I like too many composers.

Note: I also enjoy listening to Mary Chapin Carpenter and Dave Mathews.


----------



## ptr

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Is ABBA still big in Scandinavia?


Not as big as they still are down under!

/ptr


----------



## Nereffid

It's amazing how many questions and problems fall away when you stop believing in the existence of objectively "good" and "bad" music.


----------



## Morimur

Nereffid said:


> It's amazing how many questions and problems fall away when you stop believing in the existence of objectively "good" and "bad" music.


Despite what our increasingly liberal society will have you believe, TRUTH isn't subjective.


----------



## Crudblud

I still don't understand the question. You seem to be hiding behind incredibly vague definitions in order to keep your kings castled.


----------



## Morimur

Crudblud said:


> I still don't understand the question. You seem to be hiding behind incredibly vague definitions in order to keep your kings castled.


You're free not to answer. :tiphat:


----------



## SONNET CLV

stevens said:


> -The beauty is in the ear of the beholder


True.
But _quality_ (whatever that may mean) remains a more objective judgment ... though the parameters of the measures of that objectivity may displace over time and place.

So ... is there a Bach, Beethoven, Mozart out there today? Yes. Who is it? I don't know. Maybe film composer John Williams.


----------



## Torkelburger

From the first half of 20th cent. I'd say: Debussy, Stravinsky, Schoenberg
From the second half to present I'd say: Penderecki, Xenakis, Henze (runners-up Boulez and Lutoslawski)


----------



## hpowders

You can name and name and name until you get blisters on your typing fingers.

The fact remains: there is/was NOBODY in the contemporary list of composers who is on the level of the super-geniuses Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.

Just be thankful that those three came along.


----------



## Morimur

hpowders said:


> You can name and name and name until you get blisters on your typing fingers.
> 
> The fact remains: there is/was NOBODY in the contemporary list of composers who is on the level of the super-geniuses Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.
> 
> Just be thankful that those three came along.


Them bold words, powders.


----------



## Nereffid

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Despite what our increasingly liberal society will have you believe, TRUTH isn't subjective.


I'd love to know what the TRUTH is about the music I like.... oh no, wait, on second thoughts I wouldn't, because to me the notion that music contains TRUTH in big shiny capitals is, uh, I guess "hilarious" is one word I'd use, "nonsensical" might be another.

If you follow through on the idea that the quality of a composer can somehow be objectively measured, doesn't this imply that there potentially exists an actual List To End All Lists, which would definitively tell us where each composer stands in the pecking order? So that, for example, if someone tells us he likes the music of Eric Whitacre then we could provide him with a numerical value describing the extent to which he has erred?
Or is this the sort of "objectivity" that relies on nebulous words like "great" and "genius" without any apparent logic to their use?


----------



## Crudblud

Lope de Aguirre said:


> You're free not to answer. :tiphat:


I'd be happy to answer if the question made any sense. I know people dislike having discussions about definitions around here, but it's very rare to find a thread like this in which the OP actually defines their terms, usually because they're looking for a means of reinforcing their opinion on a given thing without having to justify it. In this case, as with many others, unqualified use of words like "good" and "genius" makes the question pretty much unanswerable, and allows you to shoot down other people's opinions while holding the "truth" (i.e.: your opinion) to be unassailable while never really explaining what it is or why we should believe it.


----------



## Morimur

Nereffid said:


> I'd love to know what the TRUTH is about the music I like.... oh no, wait, on second thoughts I wouldn't, because to me the notion that music contains TRUTH in big shiny capitals is, uh, I guess "hilarious" is one word I'd use, "nonsensical" might be another.
> 
> If you follow through on the idea that the quality of a composer can somehow be objectively measured, doesn't this imply that there potentially exists an actual List To End All Lists, which would definitively tell us where each composer stands in the pecking order? So that, for example, if someone tells us he likes the music of Eric Whitacre then we could provide him with a numerical value describing the extent to which he has erred?
> Or is this the sort of "objectivity" that relies on nebulous words like "great" and "genius" without any apparent logic to their use?


There are reasons why Bach is a much greater composer than all of his contemporaries. The structural superiority of his fugues has been convincingly proven, and all who know his music (professionals musicians, composers and educated laymen alike) arrive at the same conclusion. In contrast with many others within the same genre, Bach is an example of a superior baroque composer. What does this mean? The study of his work is exceptionally rewarding and conducive to an enlightened understanding of music as a whole.


----------



## Mahlerian

Lope de Aguirre said:


> There are reasons why Bach is a much greater composer than all of his contemporaries. The structural superiority of his fugues has been convincingly proven, and all who know his music (professionals musicians, composers and educated laymen alike) arrive at the same conclusion. In contrast with many others within the same genre, Bach is an example of a superior baroque composer. What does this mean? The study of his work is exceptionally rewarding and conducive to an enlightened understanding of music as a whole.


As one who believes in objective aesthetic value, let me say that structural superiority cannot be "proven". It is without question that someone could replicate that same structure, bit for bit, and come up with something entirely worthless.

The same goes for harmony, or melody. One cannot simply take things and analyze them in isolation, as if there were no context to support their meaning.


----------



## Morimur

Mahlerian said:


> As one who believes in objective aesthetic value, let me say that structural superiority cannot be "proven". It is without question that someone could replicate that same structure, bit for bit, and come up with something entirely worthless.
> 
> The same goes for harmony, or melody. One cannot simply take things and analyze them in isolation, as if there were no context to support their meaning.


Point well taken.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Despite what our increasingly liberal society will have you believe, TRUTH isn't subjective.


It certainly is.
What is BLUE for me may not be blue for you; what is LOUD for me may not be loud for you. Where does one find the "truth" about what is "blue" and what is "loud"? Does a color blind person or a deaf person perceive of these truths differently from, say, you and me?
Or have the neo-conservatives, who claim to so abhor regulations, come up with regulations governing blueness and loudness?

Plato may have thought truth was objective, but it happened to be so only in his so subjectively designed World of Forms.


----------



## Mahlerian

SONNET CLV said:


> It certainly is.
> What is BLUE for me may not be blue for you; what is LOUD for me may not be loud for you. Where does one find the "truth" about what is "blue" and what is "loud"? Does a color blind person or a deaf person perceive of these truths differently from, say, you and me?
> Or have the neo-conservatives, who claim to so abhor regulations, come up with regulations governing blueness and loudness?
> 
> Plato may have thought truth was objective, but it happened to be so only in his so subjectively designed World of Forms.


Although our perceptions of blueness and loudness are certainly subjective, to draw from this fact the idea that blue and loud are completely subjective is false. We can objectively measure the stimuli that lead to these sensations. There's no need to have a Platonic form for "blue" or "loud" to declare that there are such things independent of human observers.


----------



## Nereffid

Lope de Aguirre said:


> There are reasons why Bach is a much greater composer than all of his contemporaries. The structural superiority of his fugues has been convincingly proven, and all who know his music (professionals musicians, composers and educated laymen alike) arrive at the same conclusion. In contrast with many others within the same genre, Bach is an example of a superior baroque composer. What does this mean? The study of his work is exceptionally rewarding and conducive to an enlightened understanding of music as a whole.


User Macleod a while back gave us the lovely term "collective subjectivity".
Sure, Bach is widely regarded as the best composer of his era, because there are widely agreed upon ideas about what "the best composer" should be like. But this still isn't objective.
To me, "Bach is a much greater composer than all of his contemporaries" is as "truthful" a statement as, say, "black is a much better colour for mourning than all other colours".


----------



## SONNET CLV

Mahlerian said:


> Although our perceptions of blueness and loudness are certainly subjective, to draw from this fact the idea that blue and loud are completely subjective is false. We can objectively measure the stimuli that lead to these sensations. There's no need to have a Platonic form for "blue" or "loud" to declare that there are such things independent of human observers.


Call me confused by your response.

Objective measurements (say, of audio speakers) can certainly present data for a fine spec sheet, but the "truth" of the _realness of sound _that derives from those speakers remains an individual subjective choice. Which is why objective measurement only goes so far in describing reality, or, to use another word, truth.

Objective measurement of component collective stimuli may have little effect on one's subjective appreciation of the _whole_. The "mood" that a painter can achieve (various for various viewers) by mixing certain well-measured blue and red pigments is wholly a subjective appreciation.

And, of course, appreciation of Mahler's music is wholly a subjective mannerism. Measure all the objectives you want. Some folks will love it, some will hate it, and some will remain indifferent.


----------



## Morimur

The quality of a musical work should be judged by the following criteria: Compositional structure, lyricism, harmony, hypnotism, emotiveness, temporal dynamics, resonance, playfulness, color, emotional expressiveness, and authenticity.

Beauty is subjective (to a point) but quality is not.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Lope de Aguirre said:


> The quality of a musical work should be judged by the following criteria: Compositional structure, lyricism, harmony, hypnotism, emotiveness, temporal dynamics, resonance, playfulness, color, emotional expressiveness, and authenticity.
> 
> Beauty is subjective (to a point) but quality is not.


Of course, one's opinion about what should constitute the criteria for objective measurements is purely subjective.


----------



## Mahlerian

SONNET CLV said:


> Call me confused by your response.
> 
> Objective measurements (say, of audio speakers) can certainly present data for a fine spec sheet, but the "truth" of the _realness of sound _that derives from those speakers remains an individual subjective choice. Which is why objective measurement only goes so far in describing reality, or, to use another word, truth.


You're saying, then, that the real truth of the matter is only captured in subjective perceptions of things rather than the things themselves? The loudness of a sound already has in it all possible perceptions of all possible hearers. Furthermore, the exact actual loudness of that sound can be measured. I don't see a reason to postulate the need for anything extra on top of sound in order to define what sound is.



SONNET CLV said:


> Objective measurement of component collective stimuli may have little effect on one's subjective appreciation of the _whole_. The "mood" that a painter can achieve (various for various viewers) by mixing certain well-measured blue and red pigments is wholly a subjective appreciation.


But mood here defines a subjective response. Surely the painting has in it a certain range of possible perceptions and responses, and this excludes some others, correct? It is not possible for a person that is able to see color accurately to claim that blue is yellow or vice versa (or otherwise they're wrong or lying).



SONNET CLV said:


> And, of course, appreciation of Mahler's music is wholly a subjective mannerism. Measure all the objectives you want. Some folks will love it, some will hate it, and some will remain indifferent.


Yes, but be that as it may, it does not change the fact that Mahler's structures are intricate, his orchestration individuated to a degree entirely unique at the time, or that his melodies are constantly giving birth new new forms. That I hear those structures, instrumental combinations, and melodies as "beautiful" is, I admit, purely a personal reaction, but there are certainly objective elements that can be identified as being "the things that make Mahler great in the ears of those who love his music".


----------



## PetrB

Lope de Aguirre said:


> There are reasons why Bach is a much greater composer than all of his contemporaries. The structural superiority of his fugues has been convincingly proven, and all who know his music (professionals musicians, composers and educated laymen alike) arrive at the same conclusion. In contrast with many others within the same genre, Bach is an example of a superior baroque composer. What does this mean? The study of his work is exceptionally rewarding and conducive to an enlightened understanding of music as a whole.


If structure was the lone criterion, I can think of several bridges and buildings that would trump the greatest musical work.

Besides, fugues aren't a form, so speaking of their structure is a red herring -- fugue is a process, and a composer makes one work, or doesn't. The near to simple-mindedness of thinking a baroque fugue trumps all other music in its greatness just boggles my mind. Other pieces are as ingeniously 'ordered,' but I think the Baroque, and fugues especially, are _the most obviously 'ordered-sounding' music to most people's ears._

Sign me, 'Sick to near death of Bach and fugues -- i.e. the most obvious but far from the only -- being cited as an ultimate criterion.'

P.s. B.T.W. Jean-Philippe Rameau, an almost exact contemporary, is every bit the equal 'in greatness' as Bach. So much for Bach 'towering above all his contemporaries.'


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> P.s. B.T.W. Jean-Philippe Rameau, an almost exact contemporary, is every bit the equal 'in greatness' as Bach. So much for Bach 'towering above all his contemporaries.'


Rameau? That skinny Frenchman? Wasn't he the one who said, "Why should I study the works of the old masters? After all, they didn't study mine!" Certainly an engaging fellow.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Rameau? That skinny Frenchman? Wasn't he the one who said, "Why should I study the works of the old masters? After all, they didn't study mine!" Certainly an engaging fellow.


Yeah, like he thunk up and invented baroque music all by his lonesome. Mega-genius the calibre of Bach, working in complete isolation -- just amazing, idn't it?

B.T.W. Cute collection of quotes, from which cherry-picking to argue whichever side is contrary to the one put up seems to be a sort of sport.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> B.T.W. Cute collection of quotes, from which cherry-picking to argue whichever side is contrary to the one put up seems to be a sort of sport.


Rameau is, in fact, a man after my own heart. I love that quote! Whether he is an equal of JS Bach is arguable (and I would argue not, by a good distance).


----------



## BurningDesire

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Who are their modern counterparts? Do they even exist or will their genius never be equaled?


I love Beethoven and Bach, but things have grown and expanded considerably since them, why would anybody want to be limited to being as good as them? And don't insult modern composers by comparing them to Mozart, thats like a step above a comparison with Justin Beiber.


----------



## PetrB

BurningDesire said:


> I love Beethoven and Bach, but things have grown and expanded considerably since them, why would anybody want to be limited to being as good as them? And don't insult modern composers by comparing them to Mozart, thats like a step above a comparison with Justin Beiber.


Picking that extremely personal "I don't like / get Mozart" bone has seriously worn beyond thin, not that I'm offended by anyone who doesn't much care for this music or that, but micro-thin and weightless it has become, that cant


----------



## DiesIraeCX

BurningDesire said:


> I love Beethoven and Bach, but things have grown and expanded considerably since them, why would anybody want to be limited to being as good as them? And don't insult modern composers by comparing them to Mozart, thats like a step above a comparison with Justin Beiber.


Haha, I'm not the staunchest defender of Mozart, but c'mon, now!!


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Mozart, a step above BIEBER?
Are you feeling all right?


----------



## mikey

Hans Zimmer


----------



## Blancrocher

Nereffid said:


> It's amazing how many questions and problems fall away when you stop believing in the existence of objectively "good" and "bad" music.


Some problems disappear, but new ones emerge. Have you noticed how boring music publications and blogs have gotten? One dispassionate puff piece after another.

At least in the 19th century you could know a masterpiece had been composed by the fact that all the critics started attacking it.

*p.s.* To the OP: I'll send Elliott Carter out to the peanut gallery. I love his music, and he was as industrious as any of the Classical-era masters.


----------



## Guest

What is it about "objective" that is so glamorous? And what is it about "subjective" that is so um questionable? These are just two words to describe two states of reality. And unless your definition of "reality" is "only that which is true in the absence of humans," surely it's subjective (the reality that includes humans) that is the more accurate and truthful depiction of what's real. And the people on this thread who have come out, guns blazing, to defend the superiority of objective. Wow. That was a bit of surprise to me. Maybe I just haven't been paying attention in the past....



Mahlerian said:


> ...independent of human observers.


But we are talking about observation. And to talk about observation without talking about observers seems a trifle off to me. It seems that what is desired here is to talk about things independent of observation. Leaving blue to side for the moment, consider loudness. Loud is a relative thing. Sounds are perceived as loud or soft depending on context. So if a mf sound suddenly appears after a long ppp section, it will seem quite loud. But a ffff sound coming in the context of a long fff section won't seem nearly as loud. There are things about sound that can be measured, sure. And numbers can be assigned to any particular sound. But there's very limited utility to that in the absence of anyone listening to the sounds. So what if some sound is 115 decibels if there are no ears around to be affected by it?

Not to mention that measuring is itself a type of observing....



Mahlerian said:


> One cannot simply take things and analyze them in isolation, as if there were no context to support their meaning.


Yeah. That's the true word right there. Apply that to your previous statement about looking at things in the absence of human observers.



Mahlerian said:


> As one who believes in objective aesthetic value....


But this is not a thing. "Value" is a word that applies to subjective descriptions. The values may indeed be based on facts, on objective information, but the evaluating is extra, it goes beyond objectivity into another realm. "Objective value" is an oxymoron. Value is only subjective. It will be more convincing the more it is based on objective information. Well, to certain people. To other people, expressions of value are convincing according to how closely they match the opinions those people already hold. So even there, objectivity is only going to work as a rhetorical strategy if you suppose auditors who are more interested in alignment with facts than they are in alignment with already existing opinions. And there are many more members of the latter group than the former.

Seems so often in these discussions that "objective" is used as a synonym for "good" or for "what I believe to be true." And "subjective" is used as a synonym for "inferior" or for "what you believe to be true if it differs from what I believe to be true."

That's very different from what those words mean in any other context.


----------



## PetrB

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Haha, I'm not the staunchest defender of Mozart, but c'mon, now!!


Interviewer: "B.D. what do you think about Mozart?"

B.D.:


----------



## Morimur

I, for one, love JP Rameau. In some respects he is the exact antithesis of JS Bach. At any rate, he is vastly underrated.


----------



## PetrB

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I, for one, love JP Rameau. In some respects he is the exact antithesis of JS Bach. At any rate, he is vastly underrated.


He's actually 'rated' pretty darn high -- like on the same plateau as Bach, but as you say, talk about completely different aesthetics and aims. (which is a kinda perfect example of two very great composers from just about the same moment in time who are equally good, and why to try to rate / compare one against the other, at least without a very broad set of criteria, is next to impossible


----------



## Guest

stevens said:


> -The beauty is in the ear of the beholder


Yep, I know it can be...fun.... But I can't get fully on board with this vertical thinking.


----------



## KenOC

some guy said:


> Seems so often in these discussions that "objective" is used as a synonym for "good" or for "what I believe to be true." And "subjective" is used as a synonym for "inferior" or for "what you believe to be true if it differs from what I believe to be true."


Much simpler the way I use them

Objective = me.
Subjective = you.

:lol:


----------



## Vaneyes

Schnittke, Ligeti, Berio, Nono. Next question?


----------



## Mahlerian

some guy said:


> What is it about "objective" that is so glamorous? And what is it about "subjective" that is so um questionable? These are just two words to describe two states of reality. And unless your definition of "reality" is "only that which is true in the absence of humans," surely it's subjective (the reality that includes humans) that is the more accurate and truthful depiction of what's real. And the people on this thread who have come out, guns blazing, to defend the superiority of objective. Wow. That was a bit of surprise to me. Maybe I just haven't been paying attention in the past....


The idea that there isn't music that is absolutely and utterly without merit does not compute for me personally. There is such a thing as utter tripe and nonsense. Taken as a given, of course it follows that not everything is subjective. I am sorry that I have to disagree, but I cannot be honest with myself and accept the notion of absolute subjectivity. It strikes me as inherently contradictory.



some guy said:


> But we are talking about observation. And to talk about observation without talking about observers seems a trifle off to me. It seems that what is desired here is to talk about things independent of observation. Leaving blue to side for the moment, consider loudness. Loud is a relative thing. Sounds are perceived as loud or soft depending on context. So if a mf sound suddenly appears after a long ppp section, it will seem quite loud. But a ffff sound coming in the context of a long fff section won't seem nearly as loud. There are things about sound that can be measured, sure. And numbers can be assigned to any particular sound. But there's very limited utility to that in the absence of anyone listening to the sounds. So what if some sound is 115 decibels if there are no ears around to be affected by it?
> 
> Not to mention that measuring is itself a type of observing....


Equivocation will get you nowhere.

Measurement of a sound does not create the properties that are measured. For this reason, speaking of measurement in this case is a shorthand to discuss the things about the object/sound which could potentially be measured. Given accuracy and circumstances, they will be the same every time.

There still exists a fact of the matter as to how loud the sound is, and if it were to be measured, it would be the same. Subjective perceptions differ in spite of objective sameness (and this is of course a good thing in art!).



some guy said:


> Yeah. That's the true word right there. Apply that to your previous statement about looking at things in the absence of human observers.


Taking a sense perception without an object is the worst and most limiting removal of context possible.



some guy said:


> But this is not a thing. "Value" is a word that applies to subjective descriptions. The values may indeed be based on facts, on objective information, but the evaluating is extra, it goes beyond objectivity into another realm. "Objective value" is an oxymoron. Value is only subjective. It will be more convincing the more it is based on objective information. Well, to certain people. To other people, expressions of value are convincing according to how closely they match the opinions those people already hold. So even there, objectivity is only going to work as a rhetorical strategy if you suppose auditors who are more interested in alignment with facts than they are in alignment with already existing opinions. And there are many more members of the latter group than the former.
> 
> Seems so often in these discussions that "objective" is used as a synonym for "good" or for "what I believe to be true." And "subjective" is used as a synonym for "inferior" or for "what you believe to be true if it differs from what I believe to be true."
> 
> That's very different from what those words mean in any other context.


I'm fully able to allow for my being wrong. In fact, I doubt that I'm right about much!

I certainly do not intend to say that what I think is objectively right and what others think is objectively wrong, merely that I believe there are facts of the matter (which do not amount to facile judgments like "Beethoven's Ninth is the best symphony ever!").


----------



## Guest

If a Bach fugue is broadcast in the middle of a forest, and there's no-one there to hear it, is it still a work of genius?


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Much simpler the way I use them
> 
> Objective = me.
> Subjective = you.
> 
> :lol:


Also:

Right: me and those that agree with me
Wrong: everyone else


----------



## DiesIraeCX

gog said:


> If a Bach fugue is broadcast in the middle of a forest, and there's no-one there to hear it, is it still a work of genius?


I think it would. The work has already been established as a work of genius by humanity. It would simply be a work of genius being played without a human audience in the middle of a forest. I'm probably evading the intention of your question, though, which was most likely meant to be a joke. I don't know.

I get that humans are necessary for human observation (duh) but I don't subscribe to the notion that without humans to observe things, there would be nothing there. If Earth was destroyed by an asteroid, the universe would continue to be. We have observed the universe, it's our biased observations of course, but the universe is there with absolute properties. We can call a star a ball of plasma, helium, and hydrogen, but a star is what it is independently without language and human eyes. Sorry for going off on a tangent.


----------



## Guest

Well I did have my tongue in my cheek. But it alludes to the two POV that seem apparent: there is or there is not objectivity in quality. 
And of course the original sound installation:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest


----------



## DiesIraeCX

gog said:


> Well I did have my tongue in my cheek. But it alludes to the two POV that seem apparent: there is or there is not objectivity in quality.
> And of course the original sound installation:
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest


I definitely can't coherently argue for or against objective quality, I'll have to stay hush on that one!


----------



## PetrB

gog said:


> If a Bach fugue is broadcast in the middle of a forest, and there's no-one there to hear it, is it still a work of genius?


Do the flora and fauna _care?_


----------



## Chordalrock

Doesn't really matter if the wind can tell. People respond to a Bach fugue differently based on how experienced they are as listeners - with the least experienced hearing nothing but "background noise" in it, and the most experienced savoring every nuance - this suggests that the value transcends subjectivity. A musical masterpiece seems to have potential value that is independent of the listener - it's there waiting to be discovered by those who have grown enough as listeners to appreciate it.

Whether that means a piece of music qualifies as having objective aesthetic value depends on what you mean by objective. It certainly has value beyond "it is just your opinion man", as there seems to be a tendency for experienced listeners to agree on the best composers and even their best pieces. There doesn't seem to be very much arbitrariness in there as separate from whether the listener is experienced or not.


----------



## KenOC

Chordalrock said:


> Doesn't really matter if the wind can tell. People respond to a Bach fugue differently based on how experienced they are as listeners - with the least experienced hearing nothing but "background noise" in it, and the most experienced savoring every nuance - this suggests that the value transcends subjectivity. A musical masterpiece seems to have potential value that is independent of the listener - it's there waiting to be discovered by those who have grown enough as listeners to appreciate it.
> 
> Whether that means a piece of music qualifies as having objective aesthetic value depends on what you mean by objective. It certainly has value beyond "it is just your opinion man", as there seems to be a tendency for experienced listeners to agree on the best composers and even their best pieces. There doesn't seem to be very much arbitrariness in there as separate from whether the listener is experienced or not.


On the other hand, Bach's fugues have always been popular among the unwashed in transcriptions. The Stokowski T&F in D minor certainly wowed the rubes back in the day, and the Busoni transcriptions of pieces like the TA&F in C were staples of the traveling virtuosi criss-crossing the farm belt from town to town decades earlier...


----------



## Guest

Chordalrock said:


> Doesn't really matter if the wind can tell. People respond to a Bach fugue differently based on how experienced they are as listeners - with the least experienced hearing nothing but "background noise" in it, and the most experienced savoring every nuance - this suggests that the value transcends subjectivity. A musical masterpiece seems to have potential value that is independent of the listener - it's there waiting to be discovered by those who have grown enough as listeners to appreciate it.


You refer to the level of experience as being influential in what the listener hears, but then say that this means it's the value of the music, not the subjective experience. I can't follow that.

Did I miss where someone established the basic premise of the OP, that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are the 'big three'?


----------



## Chordalrock

KenOC said:


> On the other hand, Bach's fugues have always been popular among the unwashed in transcriptions. The Stokowski T&F in D minor certainly wowed the rubes back in the day, and the Busoni transcriptions of pieces like the TA&F in C were staples of the traveling virtuosi criss-crossing the farm belt from town to town decades earlier...


The famous D minor one obviously has features that are accessible and easy to like.

In general, virtuosos could play anything virtuosic on the piano and it would impress those with little experience. Heck, almost anyone with some ability on the piano could impress those with next to no experience with music. Even I've done it. Wow, you can play! Awesome!


----------



## Guest

Hmmm. I would say that the tree falling thing is NOT a philosophical thought experiment, though, but a test of how people define "sound."

If you define "sound" as "measurable waves" (even if no one's around to do the measuring), then you will answer the question with a "yes."

If you define "sound" as "the intersection of waves and of human ears," then you will answer the question with a "no."

So easy to get side-tracked. Saying that something is subjective is not the same as saying it doesn't exist. In a certain sense, it is saying that something is objective that is to say that it doesn't exist. That is, a chair, for instance, is certain molecules arranged in a certain way combined with a human perceiver. Take the human away, and there's no "chair" any more, properly so-called. Just the molecules, spinning about in intricate patterns.

But I digress. Objective and subjective are terms. They point to different aspects of reality. Only when one of these terms (objective) gets elevated (valued) over the other are such conversations possible. There is nothing magical about objective. There is nothing inherently superior to it. It's what it is. It describes what it describes. Same for subjective. Even if we're talking about objectivity and subjectivity, we're still talking about two different aspects of reality, though here the utility of objectivity in many circumstances (courts of law, for instance) is perhaps more evident.

It might interest y'all to know this bit of trivia: the word "subjective" used to mean "the thing in itself, independent of an observer," and the word "objective" used to mean "what we think and feel about things." Sometime, as I recall it was in the 18th century, but it might have been earlier (I don't have an O.E.D. any more), their meanings simply flipped. Curious.


----------



## PlaySalieri

I suppose the same thread could apply to the stage - are there playwrights in the 20thC who are as good as Shakespeare? Maybe so but they have not his fame or stood the test of time.


----------



## PetrB

some guy said:


> Hmmm. I would say that the tree falling thing is NOT a philosophical thought experiment, though, but a test of how people define "sound."
> 
> If you define "sound" as "measurable waves" (even if no one's around to do the measuring), then you will answer the question with a "yes."
> 
> If you define "sound" as "the intersection of waves and of human ears," then you will answer the question with a "no."
> 
> So easy to get side-tracked. Saying that something is subjective is not the same as saying it doesn't exist. In a certain sense, it is saying that something is objective that is to say that it doesn't exist. That is, a chair, for instance, is certain molecules arranged in a certain way combined with a human perceiver. Take the human away, and there's no "chair" any more, properly so-called. Just the molecules, spinning about in intricate patterns.
> 
> But I digress. Objective and subjective are terms. They point to different aspects of reality. Only when one of these terms (objective) gets elevated (valued) over the other are such conversations possible. There is nothing magical about objective. There is nothing inherently superior to it. It's what it is. It describes what it describes. Same for subjective. Even if we're talking about objectivity and subjectivity, we're still talking about two different aspects of reality, though here the utility of objectivity in many circumstances (courts of law, for instance) is perhaps more evident.
> 
> It might interest y'all to know this bit of trivia: the word "subjective" used to mean "the thing in itself, independent of an observer," and the word "objective" used to mean "what we think and feel about things." Sometime, as I recall it was in the 18th century, but it might have been earlier (I don't have an O.E.D. any more), their meanings simply flipped. Curious.


"*nice*, derived from Latin nescius meaning 'ignorant', began life in the fourteenth century as *a term for 'foolish' or 'silly'*" ~ http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/10/change-in-word-meanings/


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> I suppose the same thread could apply to the stage - are there playwrights in the 20thC who are as good as Shakespeare? Maybe so but they have not his fame or stood the test of time.


Um, you do see the absurdity of alluding to the test of time when talking about someone who is alive or only recently deceased, do you not? The only people who can be compared to Shakespeare in regards to "the test of time" are people like Beaumont and Fletcher and Marlow and Greene and Massinger. Because only for them has roughly the same amount of time passed.


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> "*nice*, derived from Latin nescius meaning 'ignorant', began life in the fourteenth century as *a term for 'foolish' or 'silly'*" ~ http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/10/change-in-word-meanings/


I prefer one of the other uses...



> 2(Especially of a difference) *slight or subtle*:_there is a nice distinction between self-sacrifice and martyrdom_


And between 'subjective' and 'objective', perhaps?


----------



## Blancrocher

some guy said:


> Um, you do see the absurdity of alluding to the test of time when talking about someone who is alive or only recently deceased, do you not? The only people who can be compared to Shakespeare in regards to "the test of time" are people like Beaumont and Fletcher and Marlow and Greene and Massinger. Because only for them has roughly the same amount of time passed.


I suppose you're right, but even so I'd add Brecht and Ibsen to the list.


----------



## Guest

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I definitely can't coherently argue for or against objective quality, I'll have to stay hush on that one!


It certainly stirs people up!

Personally I'm glad to see the traditional tyranny of the all-knowing authoritative critic has mostly been dumped in the dustbin of history. I have regard for the opinions of others and am interested in being pointed in the direction of artists/composers that are new to me but at the end of the day no amount of verbiage is going to change my response to any particular piece of music. Time and repeated listening may cause a change of opinion but not the say-so of others. That would only suggest to me that I do not have faith in my own appreciative faculties.


----------



## PlaySalieri

some guy said:


> Um, you do see the absurdity of alluding to the test of time when talking about someone who is alive or only recently deceased, do you not? The only people who can be compared to Shakespeare in regards to "the test of time" are people like Beaumont and Fletcher and Marlow and Greene and Massinger. Because only for them has roughly the same amount of time passed.


I suppose it is absurd - but then Virgil is no greater than Shakespeare in my view - and yet he has stood a much longer test of time than shakespeare - absurd a test though it is


----------



## PetrB

some guy said:


> Um, you do see the absurdity of alluding to the test of time when talking about someone who is alive or only recently deceased, do you not? The only people who can be compared to Shakespeare in regards to "the test of time" are people like Beaumont and Fletcher and Marlow and Greene and Massinger. Because only for them has roughly the same amount of time passed.


Every time I hear or see _the test of time_ mentioned as a criterion -- especially when discussing music only a hair under or over one-hundred years old -- I seriously wonder about the person who brought it up, and if they are thinking... at all


----------



## Guest

Hahaha! "This piece is only three years old. It has not passed the test of time. It must be rubbish. Everyone who doesn't pass is a failure."

Time to haul out that lovely Frost quote, again? Hmmm. Maybe not. (Too soon.)


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Morimur said:


> Despite what our increasingly liberal society will have you believe, TRUTH isn't subjective.


Nature may be mathematically regular but cultural and social 'truths' (beliefs and conventions) are certainly subjective, which is easily proven when studying our own and other cultures from the most objective/scientific perspective possible. Why is it that after a moment of genius _some people_ always return to tribal values and false traditions, most of them pervasive, made-up by leader figures who took advantage of the common tendency towards ideologies that impose a 'sense of belonging'?


----------



## PetrB

stomanek said:


> I suppose the same thread could apply to the stage - are there playwrights in the 20thC who are as good as Shakespeare? Maybe so but they have not his fame or stood the test of time.


Okeedoh, the first "sulfonamide" was released for general usage in 1932. By that 'wait until it withstands the test of time,' no one should be even thinking about using antibiotics until 2032. I wonder how many people would have lived half as long or rushed to a much earlier death if the attitude of 'test of time' had been exercised re: antibiotics.

Point? You can wait until the test of time has stamped sure approval on works, which means you will miss a lot which won't be so approved until after you're well dead, or you can: 
discard the test of time; 
no longer stand about like a bleating sheep amid discussion like this; 
use your own ears, make some sort of personal decision, and take a stance:
meanwhile, this has the effect of
relieving everyone of more servings of waffles without butter or syrup.


----------



## Guest

Morimur said:


> Despite what our increasingly liberal society will have you believe, TRUTH isn't subjective.


Why associate this idea with 'liberal society'? Please explain your thinking.


----------



## mmsbls

PetrB said:


> Okeedoh, the first "sulfonamide" was released for general usage in 1932. By that 'wait until it withstands the test of time,' no one should be even thinking about using antibiotics until 2032. I wonder how many people would have lived half as long or rushed to a much earlier death if the attitude of 'test of time' had been exercised re: antibiotics.


Unfortunately, that may not be the best example. Sulfanilamide in liquid form was responsible for killing over 100 people in 1937 because no testing was performed. This tragedy led to the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requiring federal regulation. All medications are in effect required to withstand the test of time (i.e. undergo many clinical trials to make sure there are no serious negatives on a statistically relevant sample of people). Doctors are very conscious of testing to ensure that 1) the medication is actually effective and 2) the medication has few and only minor side effects. That's why Ebola vaccines are not distributed widely yet.

But your point for music is not to wait until a work passes the test of time because, for contemporary works, it will be too late to hear it. That certainly makes sense. And if someone wants to sing the praises of a given contemporary work or composer, that's wonderful in several ways. Of course, if I or even 50 people on TC love a certain composer, that won't (and shouldn't) add that composer to a list of "great" composers for a music history class. That really does require the "test of time" - in this case a large number of music "experts" agreeing over a period of time.

So I guess great or loved or valuable or interesting to an individual is one thing, but "great" to society is another matter completely. Each category has its own place.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## PetrB

mmsbls said:


> Unfortunately, that may not be the best example. Sulfanilamide in liquid form was responsible for killing over 100 people in 1937 because no testing was performed. This tragedy led to the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requiring federal regulation. All medications are in effect required to withstand the test of time (i.e. undergo many clinical trials to make sure there are no serious negatives on a statistically relevant sample of people). Doctors are very conscious of testing to ensure that 1) the medication is actually effective and 2) the medication has few and only minor side effects. That's why Ebola vaccines are not distributed widely yet.
> 
> But your point for music is not to wait until a work passes the test of time because, for contemporary works, it will be too late to hear it. That certainly makes sense. And if someone wants to sing the praises of a given contemporary work or composer, that's wonderful in several ways. Of course, if I or even 50 people on TC love a certain composer, that won't (and shouldn't) add that composer to a list of "great" composers for a music history class. That really does require the "test of time" - in this case a large number of music "experts" agreeing over a period of time.
> 
> So I guess great or loved or valuable or interesting to an individual is one thing, but "great" to society is another matter completely. Each category has its own place.


Perhaps I was naive; as a musician I plucked an analogous example casually out of the pages of science -- and never dreamed that would end up as the side-tracked topic of the opening paragraphs and the majority of one post. I do forget how literal and exacting those in the maths and sciences can be.

The ever-present mistake on the part of those who try to explain or categorize music via their preferred and believed in modes and disciplines of maths, statistics and science is simply that no matter how you slice it, dice it, and no matter the methodologies used to rate favorite or greatest, most of such similar attempts, art, or better, are never going to meet the standards within their own disciplines of what is believed to yield accuracy when they are applied to music, or better and in general, _The arts_.

Though people from one camp keep insisting, for example, that music is so near parallel to maths that it may as well _be_ maths, it is noticeable that all those in the arts are rarely barking up similar but opposite trees, i.e. they are not near as a group to collectively saying that 'music is math, music is science,' there are near to truly objective ways to determine which composer is the greatest, etc.

Fact is, sorting out anything to do with art will always show up the maths, sciences and statisticians as being wholly inadequate tools of measure, the arts are just one of the messiest things there will ever be which consumers readily consume, and that means no matter what some think, that 'the test of time,' is equally messy, not wholly reliable, and that includes it as less than wholly reliable as criterion 'for society at large.' lol.


----------



## Guest

I'd say that "loved or valuable or interesting to an individual" is the _only_ thing.* And I'd say that deciding which composers to discuss in a music history class has less to do with "greatness" than it does with who were the historically important figures. And that will mean that some people in music history classes won't even be composers. (Brandenburg, Sacher, Guggenheim.)

Anyway, I don't think that a music history class is at all pertinent to this discussion, anyway. 'Course, for such a flawed premise, perhaps "pertinent to this discussion" is a bit of a will o' the wisp in itself.

*As a practical matter, one wants to get enough support for ones favorites so that there will be enough recordings and concerts of her music for one to listen to. But if one even knows about someone, that's probably because there's already been enough interest in her, otherwise you'd never know her. But as a matter of individual experience, which was the gist of PetrB's post, loved or valuable or interesting to an individual is the only thing.


----------



## mmsbls

PetrB said:


> Perhaps I was naive; as a musician I plucked an analogous example casually out of the pages of science -- and never dreamed that would end up as the side-tracked topic of the opening paragraphs and the majority of one post. I do forget how literal and exacting those in the maths and sciences can be.
> 
> The ever-present mistake on the part of those who try to explain or categorize music via their preferred and believed in modes and disciplines of maths, statistics and science is simply that no matter how you slice it, dice it, and no matter the methodologies used to rate favorite or greatest, most of such similar attempts, art, or better, are never going to meet the standards within their own disciplines of what is believed to yield accuracy when they are applied to music, or better and in general, _The arts_.
> 
> Though people from one camp keep insisting, for example, that music is so near parallel to maths that it may as well _be_ maths, it is noticeable that all those in the arts are rarely barking up similar but opposite trees, i.e. they are not near as a group to collectively saying that 'music is math, music is science,' there are near to truly objective ways to determine which composer is the greatest, etc.
> 
> Fact is, sorting out anything to do with art will always show up the maths, sciences and statisticians as being wholly inadequate tools of measure, the arts are just one of the messiest things there will ever be which consumers readily consume, and that means no matter what some think, that 'the test of time,' is equally messy, not wholly reliable, and that includes it as less than wholly reliable as criterion 'for society at large.' lol.


Where did all this come from? Whose trying to explain music with science? You suggested an analogy that I thought could be used for both sides - listen now for yourself and check with others to get consensus - depending on one's purpose.

Incidentally, I think the scientists on the forum attack the notion that music and science are parallel pursuits much more strongly than anyone else. Other than requiring creativity, the two would seem to have little in common.


----------



## mmsbls

some guy said:


> I'd say that "loved or valuable or interesting to an individual" is the _only_ thing.* And I'd say that deciding which composers to discuss in a music history class has less to do with "greatness" than it does with who were the historically important figures. And that will mean that some people in music history classes won't even be composers. (Brandenburg, Sacher, Guggenheim.)
> 
> Anyway, I don't think that a music history class is at all pertinent to this discussion, anyway. 'Course, for such a flawed premise, perhaps "pertinent to this discussion" is a bit of a will o' the wisp in itself.


Actually I think you and I agree pretty closely. We both agree that the "good" of the thread title is hard to define. I assumed it meant good as far as the general classical musical society believes since Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart were defined as "good" (and we know many individuals don't think of them as separated from the other composers). So my "great" was meant to parallel the thread's "good". For me the question seemed more "Do you think any modern composers will ever be thought of as in the same ranks of the Big Three?".


----------



## ArtMusic

mmsbls said:


> ....For me the question seemed more "Do you think any modern composers will ever be thought of as in the same ranks of the Big Three?".


I think so too. I listed three 20th century composers who I think are my favorites - my "big three" 20th century composers earlier in the thread. I don't think it would fair to compare my named three I picked along with Bach, Mozart, Beethoven spanning a couple of centuries apart. One, obviously they wrote different music. Two, there were several more talented composers in my opinion between them. Three, it's all a personal preference at the end of the day, nothing more nothing less.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> "Do you think any modern composers will ever be thought of as in the same ranks of the Big Three?".


Until and unless we can divest ourselves of the glamour those three have accumulated over the years, which no one recently has had enough time to have accumulated, then the answer to that question, as stated, is clearly "No."

That is certainly not what the OP set out: "Who are their modern counterparts? Do they even exist or will their genius never be equaled?" (The ambiguity of the referents always makes me grin, just btw.)

But I reject the whole premise, anyway, so the "No" answer doesn't bother me. (I don't think that a "No" answer at all means that there are no extremely brilliant musical geniuses from the past fifty or sixty years. Clearly I do think that there are.)


----------



## PetrB

mmsbls said:


> Where did all this come from? Whose trying to explain music with science? You suggested an analogy that I thought could be used for both sides - listen now for yourself and check with others to get consensus - depending on one's purpose.
> 
> Incidentally, I think the scientists on the forum attack the notion that music and science are parallel pursuits much more strongly than anyone else. Other than requiring creativity, the two would seem to have little in common.


I was just surprised at the length taken to say the antibiotics as analogy was less than accurate, but then realized, now acknowledge, that is just a reflex from someone who is in science, just as I get rather nit-picky when "Romantic" is so casually misused by so many when it comes to music. It is the natural bias of one's profession, the lens through which, even unconsciously, the owner views much of the world.

Thank you for pointing out that it is usually not the professional scientists and mathematicians who make those claims of music fitting or being a direct parallel to those disciplines: while reading it, I realized in a flash you are more than likely very correct on that score, relieving me simultaneously of future frustration and irritation with such claims


----------



## OldFashionedGirl

Schoenberg is the Beethoven of the 20th century!


----------



## ArtMusic

OldFashionedGirl said:


> Schoenberg is the Beethoven of the 20th century!


That's exactly the spirit of this thread (and many other threads as well). Chill out, and have a smile, don't take things too seriously. So in that spirit, I would say Alban Berg is the Bach of the 20th century. Shostaskovich is the Beethoven on the 20th century and maybe Rachmaninoff is the Mozart piano genius of the 20th century. And so what if you might disagree? That's what I think anyway.


----------



## arpeggio

*Spirit?*

Since some of the members have such an animas toward any music composed after 1913, I thought that OP was trying to prove that there were 20th century composers who are just as creative and brilliant as Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.

I remember reading an article that stated that Britten was a greater prodigy than Mozart. If I can find it in the junk I have saved in the basement maybe I will post it.

I mentioned in another thread that I attended a lecture with the American composer Vincent Persichetti. One of the things he did was improvise a one movement piano sonata base on three random notes he solicited from the audience. In spite of his brilliance, he was a very modest fellow and never would consider himself in the same league as Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.

My point is if there are not any, so what? Every generation produces its own Mozart's. I have no idea who the current ones will be. I will let people who are smarter than I am figure that one out. Meanwhile I will be listening to this neat new symphony (2009) that was composed by Donald Grantham I just discovered: http://www.talkclassical.com/1006-latest-purchases-503.html#post722174


----------



## ArtMusic

arpeggio said:


> ... Every generation produces its own Mozart's.


Jay Greenberg


----------



## violadude

ArtMusic said:


> Jay Greenberg









........................


----------



## dieter

I'm staring at a blank wall. I hear a lot of cacophony. It's getting louder. Then there's the annoying plink plonk noises of orchestras warming up. Even worse is the algebraic/geometrical/Glass-like nauseatingly repetitiveness that's supposed to be called music. Give me Iggy Pop and Lou reed any day.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

As far as people who got their start before the 1920s, there seem to be exactly three composers about whom the critics and the masses can agree: Debussy, Bartok, and Stravinsky. (Notice that it's as though classical music moved to the FRINGES of Germany in every direction.)

After that: I dunno, maybe Morton Feldman, Karlheinz Stockhausen, and La Monte Young. Or maybe sub in Pierre Boulez, Helmut Lachenmann, and/or Gerard Grisey. Or maybe those guys are all just "experimental music." Maybe Louis Armstrong, the Beatles, and Bob Dylan. Or maybe those guys are all just popularizers. Maybe nobody. Hard to say.



dieter said:


> I'm staring at a blank wall. I hear a lot of cacophony. It's getting louder. Then there's the annoying plink plonk noises of orchestras warming up. Even worse is the algebraic/geometrical/Glass-like nauseatingly repetitiveness that's supposed to be called music. Give me Iggy Pop and Lou reed any day.


Philip Glass and Lou Reed have the same daddy though:


----------

