# In your opinion, what defines greatness in a composer?



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

This idea of greatness as applied to composers and works crops up often on TC. There has been an ongoing discussion about John Cage with more than 80% of TC voters considered him not great.

So I am wondering - what makes a composer great?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Apparently presence in the Grove Dictionary.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

And don't forget awards and honorary degrees. That's important too.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I got an award for being a charter member of our high school band. I must be greater than I realized. But no Grove greatness for me . . . at least not yet in the most current editions. (Help! I am being oppressed!)


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I would approach it from a DSM-style of analysis. How many of the following questions are answered with a "Yes?"

-Does their work elicit pleasure (or other strong emotions) while listening to it?
-Does their work stick in your head after listening to it?
-Does the composer have a large catalog of works that lie within a similar range of quality?
-Does the composer's work exhibit innovation, originality and subsequent influence compared to contemporaries?

The more "Yes" answers you get, the "greater" the composer.

Beethoven gets a yes for all 4. He is very great. Schubert (whom I like very much) probably gets 3 of 4. He is less great. Holst gets 2 of 4. He is pretty good. Etc. Etc. Appropriate caveats re: subjective evaluation apply.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

If you can whistle his tunes, definitely a plus.

Gets used in a beer commercial: clearly premium grade.

Gets used in a movie soundtrack: stardom status

Being dead: usually helps.

OK. Serious answer: there's no such thing. There are artists whose work endures, and there are artists whose work sinks into the mists of time. And sometimes they rise back out of them (Bach, for example. If you'd asked almost anyone in 1800 if Bach was up to snuff, they'd have laughed at you).

It's a moveable feast, in other words, and there's no point trying to pin that label on anyone as if it were a fixed standard. You may as well try picking up a single strand of hot spaghetti with your fingers. Blindfolded.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Listener perspective.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

If it is meaningless or entirely subjective, why does TC spend so much time trying to nail down the 200 "greatest" works or composers? Why do threads like "Do you consider John Cage a great composer?" create such a debate over the idea that Cage is NOT a great composer, because, why? And why is Mahler or Mozart or Schoenberg a great composer, or is he?

*Why does it matter if a composer is considered "great?" *

I have never placed any emphasis on it, don't use the term to describe the composers I like - but it was the first thing I noticed after joining TC. There was an emphasis on this idea of greatness.

But now, when asked - the members don't take it seriously.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

But in all seriousness? If I answer this question it's going to be one unpopular opinion after another, mainly having to do with [unpopular opinion trigger warning] popular appeal over time and objectively identifiable conclusions drawn from that appeal. Which isn't to say that mediocre composers don't have their fierce partisans.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> If it is meaningless or entirely subjective, why does TC spend so much time trying to nail down the 200 "greatest" works or composers? Why do threads like "Do you consider John Cage a great composer?" create such a debate over the idea that Cage is NOT a great composer, because, why? And why is Mahler or Mozart or Schoenberg a great composer, or is he?
> 
> *Why does it matter if a composer is considered "great?" *
> 
> ...


Speaking only for myself, I don't play those "vote 'em up and down" games. And a list of the '200 greatest works' is fine: it's just a list of 'these are the pieces we think you're going to get the most out of when you play them'. In the absence of any other way of getting 'in' to classical music, is as good a place to start as any other.

I don't think anyone will be carving them into triumphal arches any time soon, though.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I am more interested in *why TC thinks greatness is important*.

Are we more likely to listen to a composer if we think he wrote "great music"?

For myself, I don't care - but I've noticed that most TC members do seem to care. I'm asking why.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> (Bach, for example. If you'd asked almost anyone in 1800 if Bach was up to snuff, they'd have laughed at you).


Hmmm. As a trained music historian, I'd have to disagree with that. It also depended on which Bach you were discussing, but among those who were familiar with JS Bach's music, those who dismissed him (like JM Krauss and HBerlioz) were the outliers.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> *Serious answer:* there's no such thing. There are artists whose work endures, and there are artists whose work sinks into the mists of time. And sometimes they rise back out of them (Bach, for example. If you'd asked almost anyone in 1800 if Bach was up to snuff, they'd have laughed at you). It's a moveable feast, in other words, and there's no point trying to pin that label on anyone as if it were a fixed standard. You may as well try picking up a single strand of hot spaghetti with your fingers. Blindfolded.


I can see that the first few posts tended to eschew any objective measures of greatness, such as The Grove, or awards such as the Pulitzer Prize and the Prix de Rome, in favor of (I would assume) a totally subjective standard.

So are we being told that the objective notion of a "great composer" is totally void of meaning? That seems to ignore history and consensus opinion entirely, in favor of a totally subjective "my opinion is all that matters" kind of mentality.

This seems to me to be a product of the internet, where facts do not exist except in the minds of participants. It becomes a world in which "there is no objective truth or fact."


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> I can see that the first few posts tended to eschew any objective measures of greatness, such as The Grove, or awards such as the Pulitzer Prize and the Prix de Rome, in favor of (I would assume) a totally subjective standard.
> 
> So are we being told that the notion of a "great composer" is totally void of meaning? That seems to ignore history and consensus opinion entirely, in favor of a totally subjective "my opinion is all that matters" kind of mentality.
> 
> This seems to me to be a product of the internet, where facts do not exist except in the minds of participants. It becomes a world in which "there is no objective truth or fact."


Yeah, my answer above tries to answer it straight. As someone trained in philosophy, I like to think that ideas can be defined and applied consistently. Clearly people speak and behave as if "greatness" is a thing. It certainly seems like the people using the term think it has meaning. So I attempt to create a rubric for those feelings above.

There is of course subjective experience embedded in anyone's appraisal of a piece of art. But we must be able to measure an aggregate of responses to come up with some useful conclusions. At a very minimum, the people programming an orchestra's upcoming season are doing something along these lines.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> I can see that the first few posts tended to eschew any objective measures of greatness, such as The Grove, or awards such as the Pulitzer Prize and the Prix de Rome, in favor of (I would assume) a totally subjective standard.


Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question: Are prizes and awards objective measures of greatness?

And the answer is? No. They are the subjective opinions of one or more individuals.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I would approach it from a DSM-style of analysis. How many of the following questions are answered with a "Yes?" The more "Yes" answers you get, the "greater" the composer.


*1. Does their work elicit pleasure (or other strong emotions) while listening to it?*

I'd guess the music which does this for Person A may not eliict pleasure in Person B. Who is to decide?

*2. Does their work stick in your head after listening to it?*

Same as #1. Who is to decide?

*3. Does the composer have a large catalog of work that lie within a similar range of quality?*

Who decides what is meant by the term "quality"?

*4. Does the composer's work exhibit innovation, originality and subsequent influence compared to contemporaries?*

Are those the only things which should be used to define greatness?

According to these four things John Cage would qualify, at least for 3 of the 4 points. But many composers of the 20th century would fail the test of #2.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> So I am wondering - what makes a composer great?


I don't think about this stuff. I just enjoy good music that resonates with me as a listener.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> I am more interested in *why TC thinks greatness is important*.
> 
> Are we more likely to listen to a composer if we think he wrote "great music"?
> 
> For myself, I don't care - but I've noticed that most TC members do seem to care. I'm asking why.


I think that, like this forum, the world itself is a gigantic forum, and that whatever ideologies and beliefs are in the majority become the dominant force. This large consensus is developed and is eventually chronicled in textbooks and encyclpedias.

This consensus could be created by consumption: concert attendance, record sales, news articles, and other 'objective' devices which are larger collectives, not simply the subjective ideas of individual people.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> OK. Serious answer: there's no such thing. There are artists whose work endures, and there are artists whose work sinks into the mists of time. And sometimes they rise back out of them (Bach, for example. *If you'd asked almost anyone in 1800 if Bach was up to snuff, they'd have laughed at you*).


Really? Do you have evidence of anyone reacting this way to Bach in 1800? I would think anyone who had heard of him would have held the general opinion that he had been a master organist and renowned composer.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> Really? Do you have evidence of anyone reacting this way to Bach in 1800? I would think anyone who had heard of him would have held the general opinion that he had been a master organist and renowned composer.


You and I know better; that Bach was chosen by God, and would eventually transcend his regional fame and be picked up by the world at large.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

vtpoet said:


> Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question: Are prizes and awards objective measures of greatness?
> 
> And the answer is? No. They are the subjective opinions of one or more individuals.


Kudos on proper use of "begging the question."

As far as whether awards are objective measures of greatness, it depends on how you define the terms and how the awarda are assigned. If the awards are awarded because of objective criteria (e.g. sales, popularity) then they can be "objective." If they purport to be an aggregation of many subjective opinions (e.g. Oscars) then they should be able to claim at least some veneer of objectivity in that they are measuring human behavior.

There's always going to be that one person who thinks "1812 Overture" is the greatest piece of music ever written. But just because individual opinions contain such variation does not mean that overall trends cannot be identified.

Our time on Earth is limited. Knowing what is considered "great" in the aggregate can be useful in terms of apportioning one's time. I am glad, for instance, that more cinemaphiles consider Hitchcock great than Michael Bay.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> *1. Does their work elicit pleasure (or other strong emotions) while listening to it?*
> 
> I'd guess the music which does this for Person A may not eliict pleasure in Person B. Who is to decide?
> 
> ...


Repeating my mantra that all esthetics is subjective and personal, I will be happy to supply anyone with a list of "great" composers.

Sergei Prokofiev will be very high on that list (just a _Vorspeise_ of what to expect......)


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

But *why* is greatness important?


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

vtpoet said:


> Hmmm. As a trained music historian, I'd have to disagree with that. It also depended on which Bach you were discussing, but among those who were familiar with JS Bach's music, those who dismissed him (like JM Krauss and HBerlioz) were the outliers.


Yes, I meant J.S. Bach. And you as a trained music historian will know that his music was largely forgotten about until one Herr Mendelssohn in the 1820s re-discovered and performed the St. Matthew Passion. Ask almost anyone in 1800 (I was very specific about my choice of date) and they would have laughed at you because they wouldn't have known who the hell you were talking about!

Reference: https://www.loc.gov/item/ihas.200156436/. I'm not a trained music historian, but I hope that will do.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> But *why* is greatness important?


It swells our egos when we contemplate the excellence of our taste!


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> *1. Does their work elicit pleasure (or other strong emotions) while listening to it?*
> 
> I'd guess the music which does this for Person A may not eliict pleasure in Person B. Who is to decide?
> 
> ...


1. Individual listeners are to decide. If music does not elicit emotions, it will likely not be chosen for listening (e.g. Muzak).
2. Same as #1.
3. Quality does have some vagueness. Perhaps it can be explained by appealing to pop music. There are "one hit wonders." Why? Presumably (controlling for external factors like radio, promotion budgets and the like) it is because the rest of a band's oeuvre does not exhibit the same degree of "quality" that the one hit does. So it is still a measure of listener behavior.
4. Generally speaking, in any art form, imitators are not held in the same esteem as originators. Again, a measure of behavior (how people apportion esteem).


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> Really? Do you have evidence of anyone reacting this way to Bach in 1800? I would think anyone who had heard of him would have held the general opinion that he had been a master organist and renowned composer.


Good Lord. Second post saying the same thing. I thought this stuff was common knowledge! J.S. Bach was practically forgotten for about 70 years after his death. He was indeed known as an excellent organist _in his own lifetime_. Few knew of him as a composer during those years, however. But once he was dead, he was almost completely forgotten about.

Mozart only got to know of him because van Zweiten happened to have some manuscripts -but Mozart wouldn't have _heard_ Bach, unless he was able to play it himself. Beethoven was in much the same boat.

Remember that Bach's first edition wasn't printed until 1850, after all. In between his death and that first edition, the first 70 years were spent languishing in obscurity as far as most of the general music-listening population was concerned.

And the putative member of the average music-listening public of 1800 that I adduced would have laughed at *you*, not at Bach. Him, they would never have heard of. They'd be laughing at you, because you'd be mentioning as great someone they simply didn't know of.

Source (at random, so not claiming great quality, but read the first paragraph at least).

Quite some detail on Mendelssohn's rediscovery of the St. Matthew Passion in 1824 (and thence performed in 1829)


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> 1. Individual listeners are to decide. If music does not elicit emotions, it will likely not be chosen for listening (e.g. Muzak).
> 2. Same as #1.
> 3. Quality does have some vagueness. Perhaps it can be explained by appealing to pop music. There are "one hit wonders." Why? Presumably (controlling for external factors like radio, promotion budgets and the like) it is because the rest of a band's oeuvre does not exhibit the same degree of "quality" that the one hit does. So it is still a measure of listener behavior.
> 4. Generally speaking, in any art form, imitators are not held in the same esteem as originators. Again, a measure of behavior (how people apportion esteem).


So we are back to it is a subjective opinion; each person decides who's great for himself.

But the musical landscape it not limited to innovators and imitators. There are those artists who mastered and refined innovations and brought them to their highest expression. Mozart might be seen in this light, whereas Haydn might be seen as more of a prior innovator.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> But *why* is greatness important?


Honestly I don't care what the consensus says. I think many composers achieved greatness in certain works. I don't care who has a larger body of work, or how consistent they are.

What I think is greatness is the ability to touch the listener, beyond just emotion (rules out the Bieber factor). That has to be important to the listener, if it's important at all.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I would approach it from a DSM-style of analysis. How many of the following questions are answered with a "Yes?"
> 
> Does their work elicit pleasure (or other strong emotions) while listening to it?
> Does their work stick in your head after listening to it?
> ...


That is as good an approach to a casual sense of the word as I have seen.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Honestly I don't care what the consensus says. I think many composers achieved greatness in certain works. I don't care who has a larger body of work, or how consistent they are.
> 
> What I think is greatness is the ability to touch the listener, beyond just emotion (rules out the Bieber factor). That has to be important to the listener, if it's important at all.


Ah, but do you care about what the Grove Dictionary says?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Question to all:

Is there a composer, or composers, whom you admit are considered "great" but whose music you don't like?

My answer, yes: Mahler and Wagner for sure.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> So we are back to it is a subjective opinion; each person decides who's great for himself.
> 
> But the musical landscape it not limited to innovators and imitators. There are those artists who mastered and refined innovations and brought them to their highest expression. Mozart might be seen in this light, whereas Haydn might be seen as more of a prior innovator.


Greatness is an aggregation of subjective opinions measured by behavior.



SanAntone said:


> Question to all:
> 
> Is there a composer, or composers, whom you admit are considered "great" but whose music you don't like?
> 
> My answer, yes: Mahler and Wagner for sure.


And yes, I reserve the right to personally dispense with music considered great by the aggregate, e.g. Mahler. I've tried based on that "objective" appraisal of greatness, and it just doesn't do it for me.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Question to all:
> 
> Is there a composer, or composers, whom you admit are considered "great" but whose music you don't like?
> 
> My answer, yes: Mahler and Wagner for sure.


Except that I like a good deal of both of those. I am not sure that I can think of composer I would consider "great" that wrote music I don't like, although I might grant some degree of being "important," and in a specific context. I might be compelled to say Shostakovich is great, in a sense, and I generally don't like most of his work.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Greatness is an aggregation of subjective opinions measured by behavior.


How do you measure that behavior? I think you are describing the test of time. Which is the only objective standard I can think of for evaluating greatness. But the test of time has been influenced by which cultures have been dominant throughout history.

"History is written by the victors."

So is the test of time even a objective standard?

But for me the more interesting question is why do we care if a composer is considered great?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

JAS said:


> Ah, but do you care about what the Grove Dictionary says?


No. Why do you ask?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> . . . But for me the more interesting question is why do we care if a composer is considered great?


I am not sure that I do, but, then, I did not start this thread.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> No. Why do you ask?


A reference from another thread that you may have, blissfully, missed.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

JAS said:


> Except that I like a good deal of both of those. I am not sure that I can think of composer I would consider "great" that wrote music I don't like, although I might grant some degree of being "important," and in a specific context. I might be compelled to say Shostakovich is great, in a sense, and I generally don't like most of his work.


I was speaking for myself. I would expect there are more people who like their music.

So, you like the music of all composers considered great. Equally? Don't you have favorites? And if so, if all those composers are great why don't we all like their music?

Does greatness really matter when it comes down to the music we enjoy to listen to. For me, no it doesn't matter at all, which is why I am mystified why so many of our discussions revolve around if a composer is great or not.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> I was speaking for myself. I would expect there are more people who like their music.
> 
> So, you like the music of all composers considered great. Equally? Don't you have favorites? And if so, if all those composers are great why don't we all like their music?


I think I like at least a substantial number or quantity of work by every composer that I would consider great, if pressed to make such a distinction. (The possible exception being the one previously noted. I might also grant that many see Stravinsky as a great composer, although I do not.)



SanAntone said:


> Does greatness really matter when it comes down to the music we enjoy to listen to. For me, no it doesn't matter at all, which is why I am mystified why so many of our discussions revolve around if a composer is great or not.


I think a lot of people have a sense of insecurity about their opinions in this regard, and are seeking external validation of some kind. My only interest in the word, in general, would be that if a composer is widely considered "great," and it is someone with whose work I am not familiar, it might be worth checking out.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

JAS said:


> A reference from another thread that you may have, blissfully, missed.


I recall it only said Cage was an important composer, as in impact. I believe that's undoubtedly true. Whether the impact is positive, negative, or mixed (I'd go with the last as default), is beyond Grove to say.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Yes, I meant J.S. Bach. And you as a trained music historian will know that his music was largely forgotten about until one Herr Mendelssohn in the 1820s re-discovered and performed the St. Matthew Passion. Ask almost anyone in 1800 (I was very specific about my choice of date) and they would have laughed at you because they wouldn't have known who the hell you were talking about!
> 
> Reference: https://www.loc.gov/item/ihas.200156436/. I'm not a trained music historian, but I hope that will do.


First, didn't mean to trigger you with my "historian" comment.

Sorry.

"Largely forgotten" needs to be qualified. JS Bach was certainly largely forgotten by the "public" which, in those days, consisted mainly of aristocratic or well-heeled dilettantes, but I find it curious and typical that the article you linked didn't mention the Baron van Swieten, for example, who was busily re-introducing JS Bach to composers like Mozart and Kozeluch decades before Mendelssohn's "rediscovery", or Zelter. Mozart and his father discussed JS Bach. Haydn owned a copy of the Mass in B minor; and the B Minor Mass was performed publicly decades before Mendelssohn's performance of Matthew's passion by CPE:

"The first public performance of the Symbolum Nicenum section (under the title "Credo or Nicene Creed") took place 36 years after Bach's death, in Spring of 1786, led by his son Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach at a benefit concert for the Medical Institute for the Poor in Hamburg."

And:

"As recounted by George Stauffer,[38] the next documented performance (not public) in the nineteenth century was when Carl Friedrich Zelter-a key figure in the 19th-century Bach revival-led the Berlin Singakademie in read-throughs of the "Great Mass" in 1811, covering the Kyrie; in 1813 he led read-throughs of the entire work. "

So, when you say, "largely forgotten", that also begs the question: By who?

Certainly not by the professional musicians and composers of the day. This idea that Bach was dismissed after his death is only true up to a point.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

JAS said:


> I think I like at least a substantial number or quantity of work by *every composer that I would consider great,* if pressed to make such a distinction. (The possible exception being the one previously noted.)


So, you have created your own list of great composers. I'm back to the OP: what gets a composer on your list? Do you recognize any objective authority for identifying greatness? For some reason you don't respect the Grove Encyclopedia.

Or is it entirely subjective, and greatness is just a synonym for favorite?


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say writing great music makes a composer great.

Perhaps the more relevant question is: How many great compositions must a composer write before he or she is considered great? Is a one-hit wonder enough? Is it by percentage of that composer's work? 

As for Cage and other influential composers, they might be considered influential, but if their own compositions don't cut the mustard, they're not great composers. Maybe they could be on a list of the most influential composers. Nadia Boulanger was very influential, but was she a great composer in her own right? Setting aside her influence and looking at her music in a vacuum, would one consider it great? Does her music put her in the same league as Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Stravinsky, Debussy, Shostakovich, Bartok, Tchaikovsky, Mendelssohn, etc.? Of course, it comes down to personal taste, but that determination should be based on the music, not influence.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> So, you have created your own list of great composers. I'm back to the OP: what gets a composer on your list? Do you recognize any objective authority for identifying greatness? For some reason you don't respect the Grove Encyclopedia.
> 
> Or is it entirely subjective, and greatness is just a synonym for favorite?


Ultimately, it is subjective, except to the degree previously noted. It isn't that I don't respect the Grove Dictionary (or Encyclopedia), I just do not see it as an authority in regard to opinions, and greatness is mostly very much an opinion. I think at one time, Raff might have been considered "great" in a general sense, but that is a sense that has not withstood the test of time, and while I like a good deal of his music, none of it strikes me as particularly great.

Part of this issue is that many words, including "great," can have a shifting meaning, depending on context and particulars. For "great," especially, there is a strong positive sense that colors its use and interpretation.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I think people are freighting the term "great" with a lot of baggage. 

If it is narrowly defined as "how much people esteem/listen to a composer's works," it is relatively easy to determine. 

If on the other hand you are hoping that "great" denotes some metaphysically real quality of beauty or truth, then that's a tougher row to till with a farming implement.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> This idea of greatness as applied to composers and works crops up often on TC. There has been an ongoing discussion about John Cage with more than 80% of TC voters considered him not great.
> 
> So I am wondering - what makes a composer great?


That's easy; he must be white, male, and European. It also doesn't hurt if he's from the 18th century and is dead.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

JAS said:


> Ultimately, it is subjective, except to the degree previously noted. It isn't that I don't respect the Grove Dictionary (or Encyclopedia), I just do not see it as an authority in regard to opinions, and greatness is mostly very much an opinion. I think at one time, Raff might have been considered "great" in a general sense, but that is a sense that has not withstood the test of time, and while I like a good deal of his music, none of it strikes me as particularly great.
> 
> Part of this issue is that many words, including "great," can have a shifting meaning, depending on context and particulars. For "great," especially, there is a strong positive sense that colors its use and interpretation.


Here's a list of the first 25 from *Talk Classical's Most Recommended Composers*. Does "most recommended" translate into great? I don't know.

I've bolded the names that appear on my own list of 25. There are many names on my list that don't appear here.

1 *Ludwig van Beethoven* 1770 1827 Germany
2 *Johann Sebastian Bach* 1685 1750 Germany
3 *Johannes Brahms * 1833 1897 Germany
4 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart 1756 1791 Austria
5 Franz Schubert 1797 1828 Austria
6 Gustav Mahler 1860 1911 Austria
7 Joseph Haydn 1732 1809 Austria
8 Dmitri Shostakovich 1906 1975 Russian Federation
9 Antonín Dvořák 1841 1904 Czech Republic
10 *Claude Debussy* 1862 1918 France
11 *Robert Schumann* 1810 1856 Germany
12 Richard Wagner 1813 1883 Germany
13 Sergei Prokofiev 1891 1953 Russian Federation
14 Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky 1840 1893 Russian Federation
15 Felix Mendelssohn 1809 1847 Germany
16 Jean Sibelius 1865 1957 Finland
17 *Maurice Ravel* 1875 1937 France
18 *Igor Stravinsky* 1882 1971 Russian Federation
19 Béla Bartók 1881 1945 Hungary
20 Gabriel Fauré 1845 1924 France
21 Sergei Rachmaninoff 1873 1943 Russian Federation
22 Frédéric Chopin 1810 1849 Poland
23 Richard Strauss 1864 1949 Germany
24 Ralph Vaughan Williams 1872 1958 United Kingdom
25 George Frideric Handel 1685 1759 Germany

Aside from Shostakovich, from what you've said, I'm guessing you consider these composers great.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> 4 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart 1756 1791 Austria


Mozart was Bavarian, not Austrian. He spent like less than 1/3 of his life in the Hapsburgs' territory, and wrote that Germany was his fatherland. Handel was more English and Chopin was more French than Mozart was Austrian.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> That's easy; he must be white, male, and European. It also doesn't hurt if he's from the 18th century and is dead.


That's not how statistics or causality studies work. The fact that many of the most talented composers happened to be white, male and European _doesn't_ mean that they were talented because they were white, male and European. Classical music is undoubtedly a part of European cultural heritage and it's quite normal that Europeans have developed and contributed to it so much. The fact that an average man used to be more educated than an average woman (because education was more easily accessible to them) is history and past culture.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Mozart was Bavarian, not Austrian. He spent like less than 1/3 of his life in the Hapsburgs' territory, and wrote that Germany was his fatherland. Handel was more English and Chopin was more French than Mozart was Austrian.


I just copied the list from a different thread. Take your complaints to *Couchie*.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> That's easy; he must be white, male, and European. It also doesn't hurt if he's from the 18th century and is dead.


Yeah, I think it's terrible how all those Chinese and Native American composers in 18th century Germany, Italy and Austria were discriminated against. I'm sure everyone on this forum will join me in condemning that sad loss to classical music.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> Mozart was Bavarian, not Austrian. He spent like less than 1/3 of his life in the Hapsburgs' territory, and wrote that Germany was his fatherland. Handel was more English and Chopin was more French than Mozart was Austrian.


Interesting observation. I suppose a not too disimilar argument could be made for Haydn being Hungarian.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

vtpoet said:


> First, didn't mean to trigger you with my "historian" comment.
> 
> Sorry.


I didn't mean to sound triggered, so sorry too!



vtpoet said:


> "Largely forgotten" needs to be qualified.


Honestly, it was intended as a shoot-from-the-hip comment about the transitory nature of fame, so I wasn't being too precise about things. But I did carefully say 1800, not 1830. And I did carefully say "ask *almost* anyone", meaning to indicate that if you'd asked some select groups of people, you wouldn't have met that response. I meant "the general public".



vtpoet said:


> JS Bach was certainly largely forgotten by the "public" which, in those days, consisted mainly of aristocratic or well-heeled dilettantes, but I find it curious and typical that the article you linked didn't mention the Baron van Swieten, for example, who was busily re-introducing JS Bach to composers like Mozart and Kozeluch decades before Mendelssohn's "rediscovery"


True that, though I did mention van Swieten (though I think I mistyped his name!) in response to another poster. So yep.



vtpoet said:


> , or Zelter. Mozart and his father discussed JS Bach. Haydn owned a copy of the Mass in B minor; and the B Minor Mass was performed publicly decades before Mendelssohn's performance of Matthew's passion by CPE:
> 
> "The first public performance of the Symbolum Nicenum section (under the title "Credo or Nicene Creed") took place 36 years after Bach's death, in Spring of 1786, led by his son Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach at a benefit concert for the Medical Institute for the Poor in Hamburg."
> 
> ...


Sorry. I'm triggered now. You mean, "By who*m*?" !!!! 



vtpoet said:


> Certainly not by the professional musicians and composers of the day. This idea that Bach was dismissed after his death is only true up to a point.


True enough, but also true enough for the purposes to which I put my carefully-qualified claim in the first place. I hope we're quits?!


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Mozart was Bavarian, not Austrian. He spent like less than 1/3 of his life in the Hapsburgs' territory, and wrote that Germany was his fatherland. Handel was more English and Chopin was more French than Mozart was Austrian.


I've missed the point on this one. He was born in Salzburg (which is currently the fourth largest city in *Austria*), so why was he Bavarian again? I know Leopold was a native of Augsburg, which is indeed in Bavaria. But I don't get the point with Wolfgang... help me out, please?!


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> True enough, but also true enough for the purposes to which I put my carefully-qualified claim in the first place. I hope we're quits?!


Fine. We're quits. [Carefully but warily sits down on his side of the sandbox.]


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

vtpoet said:


> Fine. We're quits. [Carefully but warily sits down on his side of the sandbox.]


Don't be wary.  Sandboxes are where all the fun happens, if you join in. Well, it was either where all the fun happened or where the cat did its doings. I forget now...


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Don't be wary.  Sandboxes are where all the fun happens, if you join in. Well, it was either where all the fun happened or where the cat did its doings. I forget now...


Cats have died for less. Just sayin'.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MatthewWeflen said:


> If it is narrowly defined as "how much people esteem/listen to a composer's works," it is relatively easy to determine.


Which people?

Klaxons,ça sc,m x,m


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Greatness is an aggregation of subjective opinions measured by behavior.
> 
> .


Whose opinions?

Skjcnsc,msn mind d,m n


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> But *why* is greatness important?


Let me ask a related question which may help clarify this one: But *why* is goodness important?

(What I'm going to suggest in about 50 posts time is that you stand to aesthetics as an amoralist stands to ethics.)


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

By the way, there is no shame in being considered a good, or very good composer.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SearsPoncho said:


> By the way, there is no shame in being considered a good, or very good composer.


Well there may be something if not shame, something resembling shame, because possibly to be considered great means that you are conservative, that you're working with norms which have been preestablished and endorsed, and that suggests a lack of aesthetic courage and imagination. That, by the way, is why Perotin, Machaut, Wagner, Schoenberg and Cage are something different from Haendel and Mozart. Haendel and Mozart are the aesthetic equivalent of « good men » Perotin etc are the equivalent of heroes.

It's the difference between Beckmesser (good man) and Walter (hero) The difference between Corneille and Rabelais. The difference between Poussin and late Goya.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> Which people?
> 
> Klaxons,ça sc,m x,m


Human people. Current Population 7.5 billion. Overall historical Population ~107 billion.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Human people. Current Population 7.5 billion. Overall historical Population ~107 billion.


So we all count equally, that sounds like greatness is a sort of lowest common denominator for you.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

SearsPoncho said:


> By the way, there is no shame in being considered a good, or very good composer.


That sort of depends on your definition of good though (it's turtles all the way down, you see!)

Case in point: Benjamin Britten (Oh, there's a surprise, says absolutely no-one!) He was regarded in the late 1930s and 40s as utterly brilliant, by pretty much any critic that reviewed performances of his work. A real technical showman. And his music was castigated for precisely those reasons, too. Of his _Violin Concerto_, the Musical Times wrote, "The concerto has all the marks of character and technique that win approval except one: it makes little sense of appeal to one's sense of enjoyment. This is a game at which Britten is one of the cleverest of players: All this wizardry goes a long way, but music goes further".

In short, Britten was too "clever" and "technically proficient", but he wasn't "profound". Allegedly.

So does being 'considered a good composer' mean being 'technically good'? Or does it mean, in the words of the Musical Times, being 'musical'?

I don't have an opinion on that question, other than to say the test of time has revealed that Britten's "technical wizardry" did produce "enjoyable music" after all -and that, perhaps, technical mastery is actually a prime requirement for being able to do that in the first place.

Anyway, my point was that the Musical Times thought Britten a very good composer -but incapable of writing enjoyable music. So maybe being 'considered a good or very good composer' _is_ a mark of shame to some?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Good Lord. Second post saying the same thing. I thought this stuff was common knowledge! J.S. Bach was practically forgotten for about 70 years after his death. He was indeed known as an excellent organist _in his own lifetime_. Few knew of him as a composer during those years, however. But once he was dead, he was almost completely forgotten about.
> 
> Mozart only got to know of him because van Zweiten happened to have some manuscripts -but Mozart wouldn't have _heard_ Bach, unless he was able to play it himself. *Beethoven was in much the same boat.*
> 
> ...


Most members of the "average music-listening public of 1800" (who weren't just opera fans) would have known the names and some of the music of his famous sons. It is unlikely anyone of this description would have been surprised to hear that their father was a great composer.

Beethoven played the WTC from memory as a teen. He knew.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> Most members of the "average music-listening public of 1800" (who weren't just opera fans) would have known the names and some of the music of his famous sons. It is unlikely anyone of this description would have been surprised to hear that their father was a great composer.
> 
> Beethoven played the WTC from memory as a teen. He knew.


He did. Mozart did. Swieten did. Those who moved in elite musical circles did. His sons did. I wasn't saying _nobody_ did. I carefully said *almost* nobody did. And the context (about being forgotten and then being 'resurrected' in public esteem) made it clear, I'd hoped, that I was referring to J.S. Bach, not his sons. I could have been clearer on the subject, I admit ...but I really didn't expect a commonplace observation to excite quite so much dispute or excitement!


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> So we all count equally, that sounds like greatness is a sort of lowest common denominator for you.


No, to the extent that it can be measured objectively, it would be the greatest common denominator.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Klaxons,ça sc,m x,m
> 
> Skjcnsc,msn mind d,m n


What do these odd strings of characters mean?


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> What do these odd strings of characters mean?


I have wondered this myself on occasion, and think it's to do with the fact that the forum software won't let you reply with a post that's less than 15 characters in length (or something), so I think you just type nonsense characters to fulfil the required quota. But I'm just guessing.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Saying someone is a good composer sounds like damning with faint praise. Saying someone is a great composer reminds of those Tony the Tiger commercials, "Sugar Frosted Flakes taste GRRRREEAATTT!!!"


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Saying someone is a good composer sounds like damning with faint praise.


Well, for all known values of 'good', I think it's what living composers can expect at best.

I think to get to greatness requires your demise, at the minimum. After that, the rest is chance.

I was in Leipzig not so long ago and went to their monumental War Memorial there, the Völkerschlachtdenkmal. Extraordinary place: sort of Tolkein before Tolkein was thought of! A monument to the Battle of Leipzig of 1813, the point at which it can reasonably said that Napoleon lost it and began his descent to Elba and St. Helena.

Anyway, my point was: as I was wandering around this vast monument to war and peace, it suddenly dawned on me that French troops had occupied Leipzig for a number of weeks... and, because it was October, they'd been busy burning whatever paper they could get their hands on simply to keep warm. Including music scores. Thank God it wasn't December, because who knows how many Bach manuscripts would have gone up in flames if it had been.

Point being: Bach's 'greatness' could have disappeared in a lot of French smoke, had circumstances been just slightly different.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I have wondered this myself on occasion, and think it's to do with the fact that the forum software won't let you reply with a post that's less than 15 characters in length (or something), so I think you just type nonsense characters to fulfil the required quota. But I'm just guessing.


That would explain a great many posts, and not just the ones with strange sequences of characters.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

If you truly discover the greatness in something, you will want to share but find it stuck in your throat, because you will start to doubt your integrity of being a good person, and then you will decide the true greatness can not be described. In the end, you will try to become a better person, if you ever feel this way, you have encountered something truly great in your life. It is OK you do not need to identify what it is exactly. And same in the music, it is also unnecessary to describe what is so great about a piece or a composer if they are truly great. Only mediocre things need to be analyzed. Analytical standards will only result in mediocrity of all kinds, will never find the greatness within anything, no, they will always find greatness in mediocrity itself.

But on the contrary, if you feel always better about yourself after the encounter, and want to keep it secret to make yourself special to the others, and you will be actually living an easier life after the "change", then, you have encountered with the mediocrity. Mediocrity always appears to mediocre people as the most obvious greatness while offering many satisfactions to the self, like rotten carcass to the parasites.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

JAS said:


> That would explain a great many posts, and not just the ones with strange sequences of characters.


Neelyvideogood!

Yup. It explains quite a lot, I guess, now you make me think of it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I've missed the point on this one. He was born in Salzburg (which is currently the fourth largest city in *Austria*), so why was he Bavarian again? I know Leopold was a native of Augsburg, which is indeed in Bavaria. But I don't get the point with Wolfgang... help me out, please?!


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart's_nationality


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

vtpoet said:


> Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question: Are prizes and awards objective measures of greatness?
> 
> And the answer is? No. They are the subjective opinions of one or more individuals.


Popular appeal, whether over time or not, is the subjective opinions of individuals as well. Just because it can be a high number of individuals doesn't magically make it objective. A large number of people believing the earth is flat over hundreds of years for what they believe are good reasons doesn't make it so. And the individuals associated with awards also have objectively identifiable conclusions. Contrary to your claims in another thread, judges just don't give awards based on their agendas. An expert's education includes analysis and history of countless works we have learned from over hundreds of years to draw upon when analyzing something new. Further, if it was all based on agendas, that would mean every single prestigious award and every single judge in history never had any integrity whatsoever and would willingly award music they knew to be undeserving, and also that you yourself if asked to judge a contest would withhold your integrity and knowingly award an undeserving work. I find that extremely hard to believe.

As pointed out previously, just because opinions are subjective and are not facts does not mean that all opinions carry the same weight. A teenager's opinion who has no knowledge or experience whatsoever in reading, writing, comprehending, or identifying poetry of quality has very little weight when giving that opinion as compared to those with such knowledge and experience. Or a million of those teenagers over a hundred years.

Saying an artist today produces quality work should have nothing to do with what their reputation may or may not be over time by a high number of people, as that is completely unknown. All's we have is what we know, which includes all the criteria mentioned several times already, including the work itself. Like it or not, it is usual and customary in all walks of life in our everyday society, to give at least some credence to prestigious awards (among other criteria) in assessing the success or skills of a particular artist or whoever. And the reasons for doing so are perfectly reasonable.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> He did. Mozart did. Swieten did. Those who moved in elite musical circles did. His sons did. I wasn't saying _nobody_ did. I carefully said *almost* nobody did. And the context (about being forgotten and then being 'resurrected' in public esteem) made it clear, I'd hoped, that I was referring to J.S. Bach, not his sons. I could have been clearer on the subject, I admit ...but I really didn't expect a commonplace observation to excite quite so much dispute or excitement!


This is interesting:

"In 1799 the leading musical periodical of the day published a diagram created by Kollmann in the form of a "sun of composers". Johann Sebastian Bach was at the center, the man from whom all true musical wisdom proceeded, surrounded by George Frideric Handel, Carl Heinrich Graun and Joseph Haydn, and they in turn were surrounded by other composers."








https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Frederic_Christopher_Kollmann


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> This is interesting:
> 
> "In 1799 the leading musical periodical of the day published a diagram created by Kollmann in the form of a "sun of composers". Johann Sebastian Bach was at the center, the man from whom all true musical wisdom proceeded, surrounded by George Frideric Handel, Carl Heinrich Graun and Joseph Haydn, and they in turn were surrounded by other composers."
> 
> ...


Interesting! I see Mozart there and a lot of other names I know, including some second raters. But unless I'm missing it, Beethoven is absent even though he had been publishing and performing in Vienna for several years.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

KenOC said:


> Interesting! I see Mozart there and a lot of other names I know, including some second raters. But unless I'm missing it, Beethoven is absent even though he had been publishing and performing in Vienna for several years.


As I've mentioned in another thread, I own the 1940 6-volume Groves. Benjamin Britten gets not a single mention! Disgraceful, since he was at least up to op. 10 at that point. Basically, I think it means you can't take your cues from Groves or picturesque depictions of suns.


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

Greatness comes when somebody produces a sustained body of compositions exceptional quality over a number of years. That this body of work is recognised by others in the same field and its effect is lasting. For example, Bizet produced a masterpiece in Carmen, but does that make him a great composer in the same league as Mozart and Handel who produced one masterpiece after another? The greats produced a string of masterpieces, often in different categories. For example, Beethoven produced towering masterpieces in symphonic music, string quartet, concerto and sonatas. And a missa solemnis which ranks among the greatest. My top tier of greats would be: Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, with a fond regret that Schubert didn’t live another ten years.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> As I've mentioned in another thread, I own the 1940 6-volume Groves. Benjamin Britten gets not a single mention! Disgraceful, since he was at least up to op. 10 at that point. Basically, I think it means you can't take your cues from Groves or picturesque depictions of suns.


In 1940 it would take some time for a composer to get in. Today the online encyclopedia can be edited in a matter of minutes and entries are more up to date. I don't think it is a reflection on either Britten's lack of standing or the relative unimportance of Grove's as much as a fact of how encyclopedias were written and published in 1940.

This point is even more true for the sun created in 1799.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Handelian said:


> Greatness comes when somebody produces a sustained body of compositions exceptional quality over a number of years. That this body of work is recognised by others in the same field and its effect is lasting. For example, Bizet produced a masterpiece in Carmen, but does that make him a great composer in the same league as Mozart and Handel who produced one masterpiece after another? The greats produced a string of masterpieces, often in different categories. For example, Beethoven produced towering masterpieces in symphonic music, string quartet, concerto and sonatas. And a missa solemnis which ranks among the greatest.


What about Elliott Carter?


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> What about Elliott Carter?


Why do you mention him?


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> As I've mentioned in another thread, I own the 1940 6-volume Groves. Benjamin Britten gets not a single mention! Disgraceful, since he was at least up to op. 10 at that point. Basically, I think it means you can't take your cues from Groves or picturesque depictions of suns.


I think it was the same volume of genius that said that Rachmaninov's music would soon be forgotten!


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Handelian said:


> Why do you mention him?


Because he was the first modern composer I thought of that fit your description of "when somebody produces a sustained body of compositions exceptional quality over a number of years. That this body of work is recognised by others in the same field and its effect is lasting. ... The greats produced a string of masterpieces, often in different categories."

Carter certainly produced a sustained body of work, over a long period, his work was recognized by his peers and he produced works in a variety of categories. The open question is if the effect is lasting, which we can't know for a while. But I suspect that his music will be among the work from the 20th century that will have legs.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Handelian said:


> I think it was the same volume of genius that said that Rachmaninov's music would soon be forgotten!


I had to take up that challenge!

So in Volume 4, Rach gets slightly less than one half-page (i.e., 1 column) which describes him as "distinguished pianist and one of the most talented of the Moscow school of composers". It mentions him at aged 9; it mentions his first symphony in 1909; and it says "Since the Russian revolution, he has spent much time in America. Several of his piano pieces have attained immense popularity". And then it lists about 20 compositions.

Sadly for a good story, it doesn't say he will soon be forgotten.

His entry is followed immediately by one for 'Racket... also known as sausage-bassoon'. I feel I want to know more about sausage bassoons!

I hope the attached lets you see it for yourself...


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> In 1940 it would take some time for a composer to get in. Today the online encyclopedia can be edited in a matter of minutes and entries are more up to date. I don't think it is a reflection on either Britten's lack of standing or the relative unimportance of Grove's as much as a fact of how encyclopedias were written and published in 1940.
> 
> This point is even more true for the sun created in 1799.


He'd been published for 6 years at that point!
Tsk.
I get things work slowly in the world of moveable type, but I was (seriously) still surprised at the complete lack of mention.

I believe Groves is (and was) like the OED. They describe what is, without prescribing what should be. Mention or lack thereof is thus a product of a certain timeframe and a particular set of circumstances, not a seal of approval.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

A few years ago I suggested that TC could be considerably improved if the word 'great' and synonyms were added to the list of banned words along with ****, **** and ****. While it was said mostly in jest, doing so would reduce internet congestion and avoid the waste of a lot of electrons.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Becca said:


> A few years ago I suggested that TC could be considerably improved if the word 'great' and synonyms were added to the list of banned words along with ****, **** and ****. While it was said mostly in jest, doing so would reduce internet congestion and avoid the waste of a lot of electrons.


Although I doubt that TC contributes all that much to internet congestion, even when MillionRainbows is in a particularly loquacious mood.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Handelian said:


> I think it was the same volume of genius that said that Rachmaninov's music would soon be forgotten!


Rachmaninoff was put in his place in an edition of _Groves_ from the early '50s.

"As a composer he can hardly be said to have belonged to his time at all. His music is well constructed and effective, but monotonous in texture, which consists in essence mainly of artificial and gushing tunes accompanied by a variety of figures derived from arpeggios. The enormous popular success some few of Rachmaninoff's works had in his lifetime is not likely to last, and musicians never regarded it with much favor."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> *As I've mentioned in another thread, I own the 1940 6-volume Groves.* Benjamin Britten gets not a single mention! Disgraceful, since he was at least up to op. 10 at that point. Basically, I think it means you can't take your cues from Groves or picturesque depictions of suns.


...and so much for your 'definitive sources' and 'facts.'



KenOC said:


> Rachmaninoff was put in his place in an edition of _Groves_ from the early '50s.
> 
> "As a composer he can hardly be said to have belonged to his time at all. His music is well constructed and effective, but monotonous in texture, which consists in essence mainly of artificial and gushing tunes accompanied by a variety of figures derived from arpeggios. The enormous popular success some few of Rachmaninoff's works had in his lifetime is not likely to last, and musicians never regarded it with much favor."


Nice! Since Rachmanninoff is not one of my favorite composers, maybe I can use that in a future thread.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Becca said:


> A few years ago I suggested that TC could be considerably improved if the word 'great' and synonyms were added to the list of banned words along with ****, **** and ****. While it was said mostly in jest, doing so would reduce internet congestion and avoid the waste of a lot of electrons.





JAS said:


> Although I doubt that TC contributes all that much to internet congestion, even when MillionRainbows is in a particularly loquacious mood.


Ha ha! When I first glanced at that post, I thought it said '...doing so would reduce internet congestion and avoid the waste of a lot of _erections.'_


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Ariasexta said:


> If you truly discover the greatness in something, you will want to share but find it stuck in your throat, because you will start to doubt your integrity of being a good person, and then you will decide the true greatness can not be described. In the end, you will try to become a better person, if you ever feel this way, you have encountered something truly great in your life. It is OK you do not need to identify what it is exactly. And same in the music, it is also unnecessary to describe what is so great about a piece or a composer if they are truly great. Only mediocre things need to be analyzed. Analytical standards will only result in mediocrity of all kinds, will never find the greatness within anything, no, they will always find greatness in mediocrity itself.
> 
> But on the contrary, if you feel always better about yourself after the encounter, and want to keep it secret to make yourself special to the others, and you will be actually living an easier life after the "change", then, you have encountered with the mediocrity. Mediocrity always appears to mediocre people as the most obvious greatness while offering many satisfactions to the self, like rotten carcass to the parasites.


As far as living performers go, if you have ever been in the actual presence of a great performer, you will know it. That's what happened to me when I saw Itzhak Perlman way back in 1974.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> ...and so much for your 'definitive sources' and 'facts.'


I don't think Grove Encyclopedia should be dismissed because of a few lapses in judgment here and there from 70 years ago. It has been the primary reference text for information on music and musicians for decades and is found in every library in conservatories and music schools. The articles are written by scholars on the subject most of whom have written extensively about the composer or topic before being chosen to write the article for Grove.

I would sooner rely on it than a poster on TC. That said I usually only turn to it for background information or to refresh my memory.

It is not perfect and sometimes an article will make a statement that turns out to be false. I will also say that my sense is that later editions have been less judgmental and more about presenting factual information with less commentary.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Ha ha! When I first glanced at that post, I thought it said '...doing so would reduce internet congestion and avoid the waste of a lot of _erections.'_


Well, I guess we know where your mind is . . . when not obsessing about 18th Century, white, male, European centrism.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

JAS said:


> Well, I guess we know where your mind is . . . when not obsessing about 18th Century, white, male, European centrism.


...ooh, white male Europeans writing 18th century music...that sounds exciting!


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> ...ooh, white male Europeans writing 18th century music...that sounds exciting!


If your excitement lasts for more than four hours, please contact your physician. Other symptoms may include nausea, headaches and periods of delusion.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Bach, for example. If you'd asked almost anyone in 1800 if Bach was up to snuff, they'd have laughed at you.


Others have already pointed this out but this is inaccurate. It is fair to say that many of his works were not well known, and that his orchestral and vocal pieces weren't in heavy rotation, but he was already known far and wide as a great composer. The distribution of his Clavier-Übung and other keyboard works across Europe ensured this. It is true that the full extent of his greatness was not known to many people at that time, and actually considering how many lost works he has, it still isn't.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

7 pages and no one attempted to answer the thread question. This is not an odd occurrence whatsoever. Most members on this site tend not to talk about music, but instead about composers and performers with attributions such as "I like...", "I dislike" and "x composer liked y piece, or said it was 'grand'", void of any musical/theoretical information. It still is interesting to see 7 pages of pretty much nothing here.

Maybe people can pick just one composer each and describe in depth what they like about them?

My favorite composers tend to be tonal but harmonically creative in reaching their resolve, structured but like to throw you off by solving rhythmic puzzles, melodically catchy yet adventurous in effort, but still yet, dedicated to moving the music along without going too far, and lastly, in tune with the emotions that harmonic progression and tension provokes.

In another thread I suggested it might be better to point at specific moments of pieces one enjoys, to analyze the intricacies of what makes them "great." People tend to post *whole works* and it becomes a conundrum understanding what they most like about them: *The Official Favorite Short Musical Moments™ Thread*.

Here are some favorite moments I posted from a year ago. Nowadays I would choose even better clips:



Ethereality said:


> We know how much Brahms likes to alternate modes with twisting curious rhythms, like the beginning of his 2nd PC. I adore the whimsical alternating structures in *35:42-35:56*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See also this thread. *What is the greatest ~5 minutes of music?*


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> 7 pages and no one attempted to answer the thread question. This is not an odd occurrence whatsoever. Most members on this site tend not to talk about music, but instead about composers and performers with attributions such as "I like...", "I dislike" and "x composer liked y piece, or said it was 'grand'" blah, void of any musical/theoretical information. It still is interesting to see 7 pages of pretty much nothing here.
> 
> Maybe people can pick just one composer each and describe in depth what they like about them?
> 
> My favorite composers tend to be tonal but harmonically creative in reaching their resolve, structured but like to throw you off rhythmically, adventurous in scope but dedicated to moving the music along, melodic but full of harmonic color, and lastly, in tune with the emotions that harmonic progression and tension invokes.


I refer you to my post #5.

In your opinion, what defines greatness in a composer?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> Ethereality: "My favorite composers tend to be tonal but harmonically creative in reaching their resolve, structured but like to throw you off by solving rhythmic puzzles, melodically catchy yet adventurous in effort, but still yet, dedicated to moving the music along without going too far, and lastly, in tune with the emotions that harmonic progression and tension provokes."


Like I said, Prokofiev! Also Brahms, Bartok, Ravel, more......


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> As far as living performers go, if you have ever been in the actual presence of a great performer, you will know it. That's what happened to me when I saw Itzhak Perlman way back in 1974.


Congratulations, that is a dulcis memoria. I will definitely meet some of them.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> I am more interested in *why TC thinks greatness is important*.
> 
> Are we more likely to listen to a composer if we think he wrote "great music"?
> 
> For myself, I don't care - but I've noticed that most TC members do seem to care. I'm asking why.


The word greatness is adopted (rather than something like "my favourites" because classical music is important to people here, and using a term like "greatness" goes along with that sense of importance.

Hence, I think people have different ideas in their heads when the say a composer is great, but the reason they commonly use that word is to lift their interest in classical music to what seems like a higher level. They perhaps feel it demeans the music not to use a grand term like greatness.


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

KenOC said:


> Rachmaninoff was put in his place in an edition of _Groves_ from the early '50s.
> 
> "As a composer he can hardly be said to have belonged to his time at all. His music is well constructed and effective, but monotonous in texture, which consists in essence mainly of artificial and gushing tunes accompanied by a variety of figures derived from arpeggios. The enormous popular success some few of Rachmaninoff's works had in his lifetime is not likely to last, and musicians never regarded it with much favor."


Which is why performances of his concertos have regularly brought audiences roaring applause ever since!


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> ...and so much for your 'definitive sources' and 'facts.'


I don't have *a* definitive source. And every historian knows that facts are written by the victors. Take a look at the Memorial Fountain for Princess Diana in Kensington Park next time you're in London for proof: it's called "the gutter", which might give you a clue to its rather unique aesthetic, and is an object lesson in making sure you don't die before your in-laws.

More to the point: if I wanted to establish facts about Britten, I'd use multiple sources. I wouldn't, speaking entirely hypothetically, watch one ill-researched video on Youtube and declare myself a unique party to special insight on the subject.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

tdc said:


> Others have already pointed this out but this is inaccurate. It is fair to say that many of his works were not well known, and that his orchestral and vocal pieces weren't in heavy rotation, but he was already known far and wide as a great composer. The distribution of his Clavier-Übung and other keyboard works across Europe ensured this. It is true that the full extent of his greatness was not known to many people at that time, and actually considering how many lost works he has, it still isn't.


I cited sources. Take it up with them. He was _not_ well known as a great composer by the vast majority of music-listeners until past 1830.

Anyone else wanting to strain at gnats, feel free, but my point stands and is accurate enough for the purpose it was made.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Eclectic Al said:


> The word greatness is adopted (rather than something like "my favourites" because classical music is important to people here, and using a term like "greatness" goes along with that sense of importance.
> 
> Hence, I think people have different ideas in their heads when the say a composer is great, but the reason they commonly use that word is to lift their interest in classical music to what seems like a higher level. They perhaps feel it demeans the music not to use a grand term like greatness.


And yet I've seen discussions where there is a distinction made between saying some work or composer is "great" and "among my favorites." There is an implication that the former is more objective and the latter a subjective opinion.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> And yet I've seen discussions where there is a distinction made between saying some work or composer is "great" and "among my favorites." There is an implication that the former is more objective and the latter a subjective opinion.


As I think has already been suggested, the use of "great" can have many meanings, or presumptions of context. A personal "great" may not be the same as a more general assumption of being "great." In either case, there is no real objective measure, unless one acknowledges the degree to which other subjective views have made such an evaluation (which is a kind of objectivity, in a limited sense). And context really is important. After all, should one expect that the average Rolling Stones fan would consider Beethoven to be a great composer? I have absolutely no use for The Beatles, but I realize that they are "great," in some sense, within the world of Pop/Rock music. (But that is not the same as me thinking that they are great, because I don't.)


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

JAS said:


> As I think has already been suggested, the use of "great" can have many meanings, or presumptions of context. A personal "great" may not be the same as a more general assumption of being "great." In either case, there is no real objective measure, unless one acknowledges the degree to which other subjective views have made such an evaluation (which is a kind of objectivity, in a limited sense).


What do you think of the statement: "Beethoven is a great composer. Carl Czerny is not."


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> What do you think of the statement: "Beethoven is a great composer. Carl Czerny is not."


As a statement of personal opinion, it is fine. And without more distinct context, that would be my assumption in interpreting it.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

JAS said:


> As a statement of personal opinion, it is fine.


Do you agree with it?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Do you agree with it?


Being a big fan of Beethoven, and not being an especially big fan of Czerny, I have no problem with the statement. I may have only one or two recordings of music by Czerny. In a broader sense, I suspect a case would have to be made for Czerny as being somehow a neglected genius of great works, if one wanted to argue the point. One might use the relative number of recordings and of concert performances if one wanted to set something approaching an objective measure.

One could certainly say, with some confidence, that at the moment, Beethoven has a reputation and standing that Czerny does not.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

> Rachmaninoff was put in his place in an edition of Groves from the early '50s.
> 
> "As a composer he can hardly be said to have belonged to his time at all. His music is well constructed and effective, but monotonous in texture, which consists in essence mainly of artificial and gushing tunes accompanied by a variety of figures derived from arpeggios. The enormous popular success some few of Rachmaninoff's works had in his lifetime is not likely to last, and musicians never regarded it with much favor."


I know without trying to listen to most of them that many western modern composers are trying at smarty texture and harmonies. But the result is different from how Monteverdi tried to expand the musical languages to express the texts of his time, because the target audience was different. Nothing is worse than half-baked classicism merging with tasteless modern bourgeosie smartiness. Rachmaninovs music is indeed very simple in structure and straightforward in textures, it is why he belongs very well to our time. Many western modern connoisseurs are one of the worst audience history ever produced, like russian and korean communists.


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

Ariasexta said:


> I know without trying to listen to most of them that many western modern composers are trying at smarty texture and harmonies. But the result is different from how Monteverdi tried to expand the musical languages to express the texts of his time, because the target audience was different. Nothing is worse than half-baked classicism merging with tasteless modern bourgeosie smartiness. Rachmaninovs music is indeed very simple in structure and straightforward in textures, it is why he belongs very well to our time. Many western modern connoisseurs are one of the worst audience history ever produced, like russian and korean communists.


And some of us just enjoy music


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Handelian said:


> And some of us just enjoy music


That's just great.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I cited sources. Take it up with them. He was _not_ well known as a great composer by the vast majority of music-listeners until past 1830.
> 
> Anyone else wanting to strain at gnats, feel free, but my point stands and is accurate enough for the purpose it was made.


I could see that as quite possible. Telemann was considered the much greater composer of his time. The general public of 1800 may have looked at JS Bach as people look at L Mozart in relation to their sons achievements. The public didn't have the luxury of records and Youtube to go check out the older stuff, but are probably exposed to more of the stuff more currently played. Clementi was probably more highly regarded at the time in the public's mind.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> I could see that as quite possible.


It was.

So much so, indeed, that that they (the general music-listening public) wouldn't have thought of him as we do at Leopold Mozart, because we know Leopold existed. The point is that in 1800, most people had never heard of J.S. Bach and had no idea of his existence as a composer.

To borrow a phrase from Anna Russell, "I'm not making this up, you know!"


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

At first, I thought it's quite a stretch, but after reading this, you may have something there.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/feb/24/cpe-bach


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> It was.
> 
> So much so, indeed, that that they (the general music-listening public) wouldn't have thought of him as we do at Leopold Mozart, because we know Leopold existed. The point is that in 1800, most people had never heard of J.S. Bach and had no idea of his existence as a composer.
> 
> To borrow a phrase from Anna Russell, "I'm not making this up, you know!"


All they had to do was check their Internet, and they would have known better.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> At first, I thought it's quite a stretch, but after reading this, you may have something there.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/feb/24/cpe-bach


Thought I'd add this one, from a Jstor article I pulled mostly at random:

Thoughts on Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750), History, and Society
Author(s): William H. Scheide
Source: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society , Jun., 1997, Vol. 141, No. 2
(Jun., 1997), pp. 160-168
Published by: American Philosophical Society
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/987299

_A Dutch diplomat, Baron Gottfried van Swieten, a musical amateur and collector, in the early 1770s asked Frederick the Great about copies of Bach organ music, meaning that by his son Wilhelm Friedemann. Frederick allowed that W. F. Bach was "great," but that *his father, of whom van Swieten had never heard*, was even greater. So the baron acquired a manuscript copy of The Well Tempered Clavier, was transferred to Vienna, opened a musical salon, and introduced Mozart to Bach, with very important effects on Mozart's later works. J. S. Bach had of course taught his pupils that same work. One of them passed it down to his pupils and one of them in turn passed it on to one of his pupils. That particular great-grandpupil of Bach was Ludwig van Beethoven._

So someone busy specialising in musical matters and manuscript collection had never heard of J. S. Bach in the 1770s. Now, obviously, Frederick the Great _had_, and clearly Mozart and Beethoven were to come to do so, and none of them lived in a vaccuum (so I assume Constanze and Schickaneder had probably heard of Johann Sebastian by the 1790s!) But the story still stands to attest to the fickleness of fate and public taste when assessing "greatness".


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

JAS said:


> All they had to do was check their Internet, and they would have known better.


Too slow. You only got three semaphore signals per minute in those days. Page loads with some modest graphical content took _ages_.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Too slow. You only got three semaphore signals per minute in those days. Page loads with some modest graphical content took _ages_.


I was kidding, of course, as you clearly understood.

But my point was that it took a lot more to be really famous in Bach's day.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

JAS said:


> I was kidding, of course, as you clearly understood.
> 
> But my point was that it took a lot more to be really famous in Bach's day.


On the other hand, you were only competing with 64 million humans, not 700 million. It would have been easier to stand out from the crowd, I feel.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> On the other hand, you were only competing with 64 million humans, not 700 million. It would have been easier to stand out from the crowd, I feel.


But only if they could see you. I think regional fame might not have carried very far.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

JAS said:


> But only if they could see you. I think regional fame might not have carried very far.


Well, Mozart and Haydn travelled extensively around Europe. Handel was well-known around German and English courts, of course. Telemann seems to have been well-known... I don't frankly know: it's an interesting question.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_There has been an ongoing discussion about John Cage with more than 80% of TC voters considered him not great. So I am wondering - what makes a composer great?_

I would suggest this criteria though not all would have to be present. For instance Wagner and Chopin did not do the first but are considered great composers.:

-- The composer writes masterpieces in a broad range of genres.

-- His/her compositions are played in concert and recorded often.

-- His/her compositions hold up well over time and stay relevant over centuries.

-- S/he is a household name among classical music enthusiasts.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, Mozart and Haydn travelled extensively around Europe. Handel was well-known around German and English courts, of course. Telemann seems to have been well-known... I don't frankly know: it's an interesting question.


Bach may have been too busy having children.


----------



## ik280 (Nov 19, 2020)

I think besides the music they make it is their appearance or personality. In our everyday life we mustn't judge people without knowing them well, hence we need stars to put our prejudices into practise. Of course it often coincides with the music they make but there are alleged child torturers with great voice I would never again consider to be great singers but maybe just good singers or not even that. Back to your question: I can't tell you why but I am quite convinced that Brahms used to be a good guy and I also love his music. So he was a great composer to me. Mozart looks to me like he composed the greatest hits of the 1700s and he was without a doubt a genius. With his music not being as smooth as Brahms' he is a bit of less great than Brahms although I fancy Mozart's music as well.
_____________
https://www.patreon.com/folksongs


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

larold said:


> _There has been an ongoing discussion about John Cage with more than 80% of TC voters considered him not great. So I am wondering - what makes a composer great?_
> 
> I would suggest this criteria though not all would have to be present. For instance Wagner and Chopin did not do the first but are considered great composers.:
> 
> ...


So, basically your #3 is the test of time, which I agree is the most reliable standard of judging a work at least of lasting quality.

But #1 is problematic since the word masterpiece is hard to nail down, and a broad range of genres is not necessary as you have pointed out Wagner and Chopin are arguably great composers who worked in a limited range of genres.

#2 is okay, but in this day and age complete boxes exist for dozens of composers. Are they all great?

#4, household name, is equating fame or celebrity with greatness.

My bottomline is that the idea of greatness is subjective and doesn't much matter. But it seems to be fun to talk about on forums.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

1. Multiple works agreed by musicologists (preferably musicians and the classical-music-loving public agree*) to be great. 

*Example is Tchaikovsky, pooh-poohed by many critics in his day, but vindicated by time.

2. Breadth of composing-- a great composer should have good works in many genres. There can be exceptions, like Wagner and Verdi if their works are great enough.

Unlike many, I do not think being a pioneer is important-- indeed some great/good composers were very conservative.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

ORigel said:


> 1. Multiple works agreed by musicologists (preferably musicians and the classical-music-loving public agree*) to be great.
> 
> *Example is Tchaikovsky, pooh-poohed by many critics in his day, but vindicated by time.
> 
> ...


Does thinking that a composer is great influence your enjoyment of his/her music? IOW, do you try harder to like a composer's music even if it doesn't naturally please you, because you think you "should" like the music of a great composer?


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, Mozart and Haydn travelled extensively around Europe. Handel was well-known around German and English courts, of course. Telemann seems to have been well-known... I don't frankly know: it's an interesting question.


Bach was not well known as he was essentially parochial as a composer, writing mainly for the Lutheran church. Of course, Handel wrote operas which were vastly more cosmopolitan.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

I believe that much of aesthetics is subjective but that aesthetic quality may be objective.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Does thinking that a composer is great influence your enjoyment of his/her music? IOW, do you try harder to like a composer's music even if it doesn't naturally please you, because you think you "should" like the music of a great composer?


Yes. And it often pays off! I made myself listen to the late Beethoven quartets, Mahler symphonies, Brahms chamber music, Bartok's string quartets, and so on.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> Does thinking that a composer is great influence your enjoyment of his/her music? IOW, do you try harder to like a composer's music even if it doesn't naturally please you, because you think you "should" like the music of a great composer?


I do that a lot. Really, it's been one of the most eye-opening ways to listen. As it happens, I'm currently listening and really enjoying Shostakovich whom I found too heavy when I first listened to him. I couldn't stand opera at first but now I'm an ardent Wagnerite.

So, answering to the OP question as well, I think that "greatness" for me is defined as a combination of my own opinion but also by the opinions of people whose taste in music I respect and value. I can often even hear the greatness or talent, even if I don't like the music a lot initially. I've realised how much it all comes down to my own willingness to expand my musical comfort zone beyond what I naturally like (I've been fond of Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Schumann and the kind since I discovered classical music). There is undeniable genius in the mathematical perfection of Schoenberg, in the dramatic expressivity of Wagner, and in the emotional depth of Shostakovich, but it just takes time to become accustomed to that kind of more challenging music.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

If the opinions of others truly possessed no value in terms of making our listening choices, why would any of us be here?

I'd like to think we're doing more than just shouting our own preferences into the void.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MatthewWeflen said:


> If the opinions of others truly possessed no value in terms of making our listening choices, why would any of us be here?


I'm here to explore ideas mainly. Not to get suggestions of things to listen to!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> I'm here to explore ideas mainly. Not to get suggestions of things to listen to!


I don't know why I'm here, but I am staying until I do know.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

MatthewWeflen said:


> If the opinions of others truly possessed no value in terms of making our listening choices, why would any of us be here?
> 
> I'd like to think we're doing more than just shouting our own preferences into the void.


I am just here waiting for the dancing girls to show up.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> I'm here to explore ideas mainly. Not to get suggestions of things to listen to!


Yes, I apply this to the recordings you post, since all of them are out-of-print or obscure European issues.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

ORigel said:


> Yes. And it often pays off! I made myself listen to the late Beethoven quartets, Mahler symphonies, Brahms chamber music, Bartok's string quartets, and so on.





annaw said:


> I do that a lot. Really, it's been one of the most eye-opening ways to listen. As it happens, I'm currently listening and really enjoying Shostakovich whom I found too heavy when I first listened to him. I couldn't stand opera at first but now I'm an ardent Wagnerite.
> 
> So, answering to the OP question as well, I think that "greatness" for me is defined as a combination of my own opinion but also by the opinions of people whose taste in music I respect and value. I can often even hear the greatness or talent, even if I don't like the music a lot initially. I've realised how much it all comes down to my own willingness to expand my musical comfort zone beyond what I naturally like (I've been fond of Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Schumann and the kind since I discovered classical music). There is undeniable genius in the mathematical perfection of Schoenberg, in the dramatic expressivity of Wagner, and in the emotional depth of Shostakovich, but it just takes time to become accustomed to that kind of more challenging music.


I have done that in the past. For several years I would try to watch/listen to a Wagner opera, the Ring mostly. I read books on it, invested in several versions of the libretto. But aside from, _Tristan_, I've not been able to appreciate the "greatness" of Wagner.

Same is true for Mahler, although there's more of his music that I enjoy: I really like the 4th movement of the 5th symphony, and the first movement of the 9th and the Adagio of the 10th. I don't listen to Shostakovich much anymore, except for the string quartets, but there are other composers I listen much more than him.

I have stopped trying to enjoy the music of composers for whom it hasn't clicked in the past and now focus solely on the music that I have a strong fondness.

I have abandoned any sense of responsibility to appreciate works that are considered masterpieces if they haven't clicked for me in the past.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> If the opinions of others truly possessed no value in terms of making our listening choices, why would any of us be here?
> 
> I'd like to think we're doing more than just shouting our own preferences into the void.





Mandryka said:


> I'm here to explore ideas mainly. Not to get suggestions of things to listen to!


I am here for both. I get a few ideas about new music to listen to from the current listening thread. But mostly I'm here to find interesting discussions about music. Sometimes that happens.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

How about "grate-ness"?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

JAS said:


> I am just here waiting for the dancing girls to show up.


Sexist! I'm going to report you to the feminists!


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Sexist! I'm going to report you to the feminists!


As long as they are dancing.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I still haven't gotten many people to pick apart the music they like, nevertheless try to answer the thread question after 10 pages :lol:

The closest I've gotten to close specifics are two short segments that received the most upvotes from this page. Start picking these two apart.

However if we gather more data, I'm sure something from Beethoven's 9-4 may win the popularity contest.

Example 1. Compared to 2, this clip got more votes for shorter duration. Therefore the most precise examplar we have to conceptualize:





Example 2. This clip is regarding *17:37 to the end*:


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> I have done that in the past. For several years I would try to watch/listen to a Wagner opera, the Ring mostly. I read books on it, invested in several versions of the libretto. But aside from, _Tristan_, I've not been able to appreciate the "greatness" of Wagner.
> 
> Same is true for Mahler, although there's more of his music that I enjoy: I really like the 4th movement of the 5th symphony, and the first movement of the 9th and the Adagio of the 10th. I don't listen to Shostakovich much anymore, except for the string quartets, but there are other composers I listen much more than him.
> 
> ...


I think it is very important to give works deemed "great" several tries. If you do not like a famous work or composer after that, there is no need to waste more time on it. (Except maybe once a decade, just in case your tastes have shifted?) I am still expanding my horizons, having only listened in earnest to music for four years. Lately, though, I've been shifting more to collecting recordings of the works I like.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Schubert's Symphony No. 9 is nicknamed "the Great." The audacity!


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> Schubert's Symphony No. 9 is nicknamed "the Great." The audacity!


Especially as it's not very good!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I cited sources. Take it up with them. He was _not_ well known as a great composer by the vast majority of music-listeners until past 1830.
> 
> Anyone else wanting to strain at gnats, feel free, but my point stands and is accurate enough for the purpose it was made.


But his manuscripts were distributed across Europe, and it appears the majority of people familiar with his music revered him as a great composer. There is plenty of support for this in Christoph Wolff's bio. I think maybe you are mixing up the concept of greatness, with the idea of wide spread fame or of being a house hold name. The two things can be related but are not the same.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

tdc said:


> But his manuscripts were distributed across Europe, and it appears the majority of people familiar with his music revered him as a great composer. There is plenty of support for this in Christoph Wolff's bio. I think maybe you are mixing up the concept of greatness, with the idea of wide spread fame or of being a house hold name. The two things can be related but are not the same.


I'm mixing nothing up and I'm not getting anything wrong. Van Sweiten had never heard of him, for heaven's sake!

I'm done arguing this point.

Ask anyone of the general music listening population of 1800 and hardly any of them would have the faintest idea who you were referring to.

I've cited multiple sources. Go cite your own if you think J S Bach was a household name in music listening circles if 1800. I'm here all day...


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I'm mixing nothing up and I'm not getting anything wrong. Van Sweiten had never heard of him, for heaven's sake!
> 
> I'm done arguing this point.
> 
> ...


Well first off I didn't state he was a household name, I said your claim that _almost no one_ knew of him was inaccurate, and that being a household name is not necessarily related to 'greatness'.

Here is a quote taken from April 1750 by Padre Giovanni Battista Martini an Italian composer and theorist writing to a colleague in Germany: (emphasis mine because it demonstrates your point as false)

"_I consider it superfluous to describe the singular merit of Sig. Bach, for *he is thoroughly known and admired not only in Germany but throughout our Italy.* I will say only that I think it would be difficult to find someone in the profession who could surpass him, *since these days he could rightfully claim to be among the first in Europe.*_"

Here is a quote from Forkel's 1802 biography, right around the time you claim almost no one knew of him:

"_It is owing to this genuine spirit of art that Bach united his great and lofty style with the most refined elegance and the greatest precision in the single parts that compose the great whole, which otherwise are not thought so necessary here as in works whose only object is the agreeable; that he thought the whole could not be perfect if anything were wanting in the perfect precision of the single parts; and, last, that if, notwithstanding the main tendency of his genius for the great and sublime, he sometimes composed and performed something gay and even jocose, his cheerfulness and joking were that of a sage.

It was only through this union of the greatest genius with the most indefatigable study that Johann Sebastien Bach was able, whichever way he turned, to extend so greatly the bounds of his art that his successors have not even been able to maintain this enlarged domain to its full extent; and this alone enabled him to produce such numerous and perfect works, all of which are, and ever will remain, true ideals and imperishable models of art_."


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

tdc said:


> Well first off I didn't state he was a household name, I said your claim that _almost no one_ knew of him was inaccurate, and that being a household name is not the same thing necessarily as 'greatness'.
> 
> Here is a quote taken from April 1750 by Padre Giovanni Battista Martini an Italian composer and theorist writing to a colleague in Germany: (emphasis mine because it demonstrates your point as false)
> 
> ...


Firstly, it's no good citing someone from 1750. The guy was barely cold in the grave and I specifically mentioned 1800.

And who is Forkel? (Rhetorical question. I know. And I also know that practically no-one in 1800 would have known of something that wasn't to be written for another two years!!) And besides that admittedly pedantic point, Forkel was a professional musicologist! You can't cite him as evidence of what the general music going public thought!

I'm not equating household name with greatness: that's your invention. I'm saying that Bach sank into obscurity for a long time after his death and practically no-one in 1800 would have heard of him. Those are attested facts and I'm sorry if having mentioned them has offended anyone. Facts they remain. If it hadn't have been for Mendelssohn in 1829, you'd likely only know of J S Bach as footnotes in obscure musicological dictionaries by now.

All composers have this happen to them after death. Vaughan Williams and Saint-Saens spring to mind as more recent exemplars. Bach's case was just a bit more severe and rather more prolonged.

Oddly, but happily, it has never really happened to Benjamin Britten. At least, not to date.


----------



## Agamenon (Apr 22, 2019)

If subjectivity exists, objectivity exists. We need both aspects.

If everything is subjective, well, Bach and Beethoven, Shakespeare, Kant could be trash.

You need objectivity too: Bach, Beethoven, Shakespeare, Kant are pivotal geniuses in music,theater, Philosophy. It´s not my/our opinion. The evolution of music, theater, etc, shows who is who.

Also, composers recognize genius in other composers. Do you remember the bbc poll about great composers? 270 living composers voted on the basis of 5 criteria. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and Stravinsky at the top. Almost the same!!!

There are lots of ignored composers. Take for example Vienna (last decades -19th century): Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert were recognized as great composers, but ...the ignored composers? Did they create masterpieces? Did they change the curse of music? Did they change rythm, harmony,etc?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Agamenon said:


> There are lots of ignored composers. Take for example Vienna (last decades -19th century): Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert were recognized as great composers, but ...the ignored composers? Did they create masterpieces? Did they change the curse of music? Did they change rythm, harmony,etc?


Just because the ignored composers are not as well-known as the famous "greats" today, that doesn't mean they did nothing to music. I wrote about the topic recently: https://www.talkclassical.com/68608-how-did-bach-even-4.html#post1958204


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Agamenon said:


> If subjectivity exists, objectivity exists. We need both aspects.
> 
> If everything is subjective, well, Bach and Beethoven, Shakespeare, Kant could be trash.
> 
> ...


In my personal opinion, I think composers create "worth" when they compose, to greater or lesser extents. Some weird 'phlogiston' that they imbue in their compositions in addition to the barlines, time signatures and quarter notes. But I'm not having that tedious argument again, so I just lay it out there as an assertion.

A piece has innovation, great orchestration, some new dramatic technique, a special appeal to people for some reason. Whatever it is, it's there when the piece is composed and different people at different times, by chance, by accident, by happy circumstance discover these qualities over time.

I do therefore believe in an objective assessment of "worth", but I believe all of us will need to be dead for hundreds of years before, in the aggregate, we can say that it has been found out to be there or not.

It's all a bit metaphysical and woo, I guess. But the short version is that I don't honestly think we can call anyone "great" if he hasn't been dead for at least 300 years. Unless he was born in 1913.

It means the verdict is not yet in for J S Bach, for example...


----------



## Agamenon (Apr 22, 2019)

Hammeredklavier: You didn´t understand my post. 

If you discovered hidden geniuses and masterpieces, please announce this to the whole world.

Really,you are not new in this field. In the past century hundreds of professors have said the same:
" I am searching the hidden treasures ....." etc, etc, etc.

Results?: few , few, few, gems!

One of my professors went to Vienna in order to find forgotten operas, masterpieces. 5 years at the imperial libraries, archives. 

Results?: ZERO.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Firstly, it's no good citing someone from 1750. The guy was barely cold in the grave and I specifically mentioned 1800.
> 
> And who is Forkel? (Rhetorical question. I know. And I also know that practically no-one in 1800 would have known of something that wasn't to be written for another two years!!) And besides that admittedly pedantic point, Forkel was a professional musicologist! You can't cite him as evidence of what the general music going public thought!
> 
> ...


Ok but...thoroughly known throughout Germany and Italy in 1750, biography out in 1802, surely you must acknowledge your comment of 'almost no one knew him' is exaggerated and a little misleading.

Further, citing evidence that composers and musicologists revered him, is in my view more substantial evidence of being a 'great' composer, than the inverse, where the general public knows him and experts ignore him. So I'm just not sure I agree that your initial point is even that relevant to the thread.

Lastly the fact he was so revered by connoisseurs, written about and admired, performed by master composers, makes it highly unlikely in my mind that he ever would've faded into obscurity with or without Mendelssohn, though the Mendelssohn performance likely accelerated the process of bringing him more attention.


----------



## Agamenon (Apr 22, 2019)

Decade after decade, Year after year, Beethoven , Mozart, Brahms, etc, are well served in concert halls around the world. People consider these composers as GREAT.

Also, They inspire many living composers.

If you take in count musical aspects,...

MELODY
HARMONY
RYTHM
STRUCTURE
EXPRESSION, etc

add, CRAFTSMANSHIP, CREATIVITY and the impact of the composer in others composers...you" ll understand why some composers are considered GREAT COMPOSERS.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

tdc said:


> Ok but...thoroughly known throughout Germany and Italy in 1750, biography out in 1802, surely you must acknowledge your comment of 'almost no one knew him' is exaggerated and a little misleading.


Nope. Sorry: I've cited van Sweiten in the 1770s having to be told who on earth he was. I stand by the statement and I've cited numerous sources to back it up.

Did I exaggerate to make a point with a joke? A little. But not so much, either.



tdc said:


> Further, citing evidence that composers and musicologists revered him, is in my view more substantial evidence of being a 'great' composer, than the inverse, where the general public adored him and experts ignored him. So I'm just not sure I agree that your initial point is even that relevant to the thread.


You seem to be having a discussion with some entirely not me! I said what I said and you shouldn't try to read more into it than that. I didn't say Bach was rubbish. I didn't say he was so-so. I adore Bach (clue is in the username) and consider him the finest composer I know. But in 1800, I wouldn't have known him and, likely, neither would you.

And that's why my comment was relevant to the thread: if greatness depends on not being forgotten or the Napoleonic troops not being quite so cold that day that they decided they didn't need to burn your manuscripts, then it's a bit tricky to say what greatness is. It seems to depend, in at least one case, on changing fashions, a mad keen fan with access to one of your scores 80 years after your death and a hell of a lot of chance.



tdc said:


> Lastly the fact he was so revered by connoisseurs, written about and admired, performed by master composers, makes it highly unlikely in my mind that he ever would've faded into obscurity with or without Mendelssohn, though the Mendelssohn performance likely accelerated the process of bringing him more attention.


Well, your mind is your own and what goes on there is entirely your own affair. But the historical record is such that we can say with utter certainty that Bach's reputation hung at one point by a hair's breadth.

Mendelssohn's 1829 St. Matthew passion was an utter revelation to people at the time. It didn't accelerate a trend: it absolutely catapulted Bach into the front rank from a standing start.

The difference between general adulation and utter obscurity is not so wide as either of us might wish, in other words.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> But *why* is greatness important?


Look at the state of culture in the West as pluralism, non-judgementalism and the down-grading of serious and studied critique has occured.

'Greatness' is important. For as bleading-heart mantra about 'inclusivity', operating alongside relentless market forces, has come to dictate supply we have ended up with Billie Eilish and Cardi B as the artistic representatives of our time. I could not be more insulted and repulsed.

It doesn't matter if 'greatness' can't be defined precisely all the way down. "If God didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him".

I have little patience with defenders of atonalism, serialism, and related movements - they are part of this race to the bottom: the intellectual emaciation that resulted in the storm of the utterly vulgar. After high-moderinism, 'elitist' standards were discredited and the intellectual justification ('what people want') for unbridled market forces was impossible to rebut.

The state-funded arts that have come to to balance the vulgarity of the market in the early 21st-century are of little help. Overly ideological and moralising in most cases, obsessed with the 'Other' and human fraility.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Agamenon said:


> If subjectivity exists, objectivity exists. We need both aspects.
> 
> If everything is subjective, well, Bach and Beethoven, Shakespeare, Kant could be trash.
> 
> ...


I don't argue that greatness should be determined objectively. The question is where does this objectivity come from? What source? Whoset authority will a majority of people accept?

The only gauge for greatness I can think of is the "test of time". So for composers of the 20th century not enough time passed for us to know whose music will last and whose music will be forgotten, IOW, which composers are great.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> I don't argue that greatness should be determined objectively. The question is where does this objectivity come from? What source? Whoset authority will a majority of people accept?
> 
> The only gauge for greatness I can think of is the "test of time". So for composers of the 20th century not enough time passed for us to know whose music will last and whose music will be forgotten, IOW, which composers are great.


I think the people are sovereign on this, basically. If enough of them say "he's great" for long enough, then the consensus is he's great.

The tricky thing is time. If ten million people think Lady Gaga is great today, she merely banks a lot of money. It signifies nothing more than that. If they say it 50 years after her death, then she sort of metamorphoses into 'classic', her estate prospers and, perhaps, she gets to influence generations of subsequent music makers. And if they're still saying in 200 years' time, then maybe there's something about her that the music faculty should be analysing and teaching.

The other tricky thing is always one's interaction with the time slice. Think, today, that Lady Gaga is a bit meh, and you're just one of a crowd. Think today that Glenn Gould was a bit of a nut-job, and the weight of popular displeasure will be felt upon your head. Think today that Mozart was overrated, you're in for one hell of a time.

My point is that time will reveal the wisdom of crowds, but you as an individual always have to interact with that 'wisdom' and decide for yourself what side you're on -and whether you believe the crowds over time have been hoodwinked. And that bit of the interaction always comes down to subjective assessment.

Thus, we all "know" Shakespeare was great. 400 years of history tells us so and the aggregate opinion of entire cohorts of critics and theorists concur. But you still get to say you snooze through everything he wrote. You don't thereby invalidate his greatness for the cohorts... But their wisdom doesn't apply to you, and that's valid too. So long as you can justify your contrariness, I think.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Nope. Sorry: I've cited van Sweiten in the 1770s having to be told who on earth he was. I stand by the statement and I've cited numerous sources to back it up....


And here I called it quits only to see you take up the dance with other partners. You're nothing but a rogue and a cheat.


----------



## Kev (Oct 26, 2020)

*Greatness.*

Greatness is defined by the classical music Establishment.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Yes. The Classical Music Establishment. You should join. Great perks and dancing girls.


----------



## neofite (Feb 19, 2017)

Several years ago I enjoyed reading Alfred Einstein's book "Greatness In Music" [Da Capo Press, 1976]. Perhaps I overlooked it, but I haven't been able to find any reference to this book in this thread using either the built-in search function or Google (although I found plenty of references in TC to his far more famous distant - and _indisputably_ great - relative Albert). Has anybody else read it, and, if so, do you agree that it does a good job of answering the question posed by this thread?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I thought of bringing that book up earlier, but decided that I'm one of the few who know of it, owns it, reads it. Einstein says a lot of good things, but his Eurocentric bias, especially Germany/Austria, makes it a tough sell. What he really does is describe what makes music great in his mind without realizing that a) greatness cannot be quantified or measured, and b) there will never be universal agreement on what music is great and what is not. For modern readers, Roger Scruton in "Music as an Art" may be more valuable. 

People can rant and scream and cajole all they want: Joachim Raff was not an immortal, great composer. He wrote some fine music, very enjoyable and beautiful music, but it disappeared for the best of reasons. Mendelssohn is one of the immortals who wrote truly great music despite what many people would like to think.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> I thought of bringing that book up earlier, but decided that I'm one of the few who know of it, owns it, reads it. Einstein says a lot of good things, but his Eurocentric bias, especially Germany/Austria, makes it a tough sell. What he really does is describe what makes music great in his mind without realizing that a) greatness cannot be quantified or measured, and b) there will never be universal agreement on what music is great and what is not. For modern readers, Roger Scruton in "Music as an Art" may be more valuable.


I read _Greatness in Music_ a long time ago, in graduate school, upon its being recommended by a well-known musicologist. I agree with your comments. One thing I remember is Alfred Einstein's use of the category "Historical Greatness" for composers whose music was very important in the development of the art, but did not have much of a life in his time -- he was referring especially to those from the Medieval and Renaissance eras. Yet how hugely our views have changed since that book! Through musicology, "historically informed performance," and advances in recording and concert presentation, many of these composers live again in Early Music. It is the book that has not aged well. Nevertheless, dealing with the greatness concept is worth doing, because it is still applied so often in classical music.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

I think that the difference between "historical greatness" and "enduring greatness" is an interesting one to consider, even from a subjective and temporary point of view.

This way one can always express knowledge of and respect for certain historical composers without adding a personal stamp to their enduring greatness.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> I think that the difference between "historical greatness" and "enduring greatness" is an interesting one to consider, even from a subjective and temporary point of view.


And it is different than someone say, offhandedly, that a particular work or composer is "great," as a kind of personal response.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

In a different thread *Mandryka* posted something written by *Italo Calvino* addressing the idea of "greatness" in music and art in general.

I wish he'd post that here since I think it would be a good contribution to this discussion.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Here it is, not quite written by Calvino, but almost



> Here are some thoughts about greatness in music, stolen with slight modification from Italo Calvino's _Why Read the Classics? _ 8
> 
> 1) The greats are the pieces of music of which we usually hear people say: "I am relistening …" and never "I am listening…."
> 
> ...


N as x


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Greatness is decided and ranked by a show of hands. It depends also on whose hands are being shown and counted. Each of us, though, has a slightly--though quite often not so slightly--individual, internal notion of what is great and what is not. And this can vary through time.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Fabulin said:


> I think that the difference between "historical greatness" and "enduring greatness" is an interesting one to consider, even from a subjective and temporary point of view.
> 
> This way one can always express knowledge of and respect for certain historical composers without adding a personal stamp to their enduring greatness.


Hmm. I'd say there are the real originals (many who don't get credit, the lost historical greats who influenced popular names) and then there are the craftsmen (the popular big-hitters whose music will endure.) So much historical development happened in music during the Baroque period and much earlier, but these brilliant inventors will be lost in the wake of the later perfectionism of the Big 3 and Romantics. There was also some invention taking place during Romanticism but these origins are overblown (as described in P4 below.) Greats will be forgotten and only remembered through the major adaptations of the big names, even where a fraction of these ideas come from the big names themselves, that fraction tends to be over-estimated by the public ignorance. Very over-estimated.

To me, the former forgotten are the true *greats*, while the latter are worth more time listening to, their music is greater.
In the fundamental difference between a great composer and great music, when we typically say "a composer is one of the greatest," it's not really that accurate, however,

Aside from who's great or not, there's not much a point to over stress that a composer should be original to write the best music. If we polled a list of greatest composers from Talk Classical, I expect us to come up with a list of nonsense. But polling favorites, is valid, and the greatest minds in invention and wit are those who initially devised the music of our favorites, a chain dating back to prehistory.

To delve deeper into the subject if it's of any interest, I believe the later the original influence was, say how Mozart was to Brahms, the less valid they are as an influence, as the later big names now simply derive ideas from earlier big names out of practicality, but these weren't the original artists. One can hear Mozart in Gesualdo. Hence, the significance of a composer is _exponentially_ correlated to their antiquity. The influence of 12 influences was the influence of 144, one may say Perotin and Machaut are significant masterminds more than given credit, but the real history we may never know. The Classical institution deciding who's great, as some recommended, won't give any insight into the truth.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

> In your opinion, what defines greatness in a composer?


A certain "je ne sais quoi"


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> (...) the significance of a composer is _exponentially_ correlated to their antiquity. The influence of 12 influences was the influence of 144, one may say Perotin and Machaut are significant masterminds more than given credit, but the real history we may never know.


This is the reason why I don't blame anyone (in terms of proofs of skill) for having been born late. The notion that nobody today _could _match the skill of past geniae (whether in maths, keyboard improvisation, or most anything else) is in my view biologically implausible and intellectually suspect. Whether they actually do, that's a different question. But for example I do not hold it against Mendelssohn that he was too stubborn/conservative to be Berlioz. I consider Mendelssohn a more skilled composer than Berlioz (many do, I suppose), even though Berlioz gets through by sheer force of real (improving) innovativeness. There should always be room at the top for the "anything you can do, I will do better" artists. Otherwise the least of innovators would be greater than the best of perfectors, which is just crazy as far as the history of culture is concerned.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

While Russians like Tchaikovsky and Borodin give more due to Berlioz, Glinka and Gounod paving the way before them than Mendelssohn, I would think Mendelssohn greater due to P4 above: great influence was already embedded into Russian Romanticism before Berlioz and Gounod by the likes of Weber, Spohr, Alyabyev, even as early as Tartini whose music finds itself in Russian influence [URL="ie. "Tchaikovsky, Berlioz and Liszt had studied Alyabyev and his Nightingale was one of Tchaikovsky's favorite songs from his earliest childhood, as his mother often sang it to him." Of course it is not as though any composer like Tchaikovsky just heard Beethoven and Berlioz and decided to develop his own style. So very far from it. When I think of many true greats, they're not part of the already developed culture of Romanticism, but they're the forgotten masterminds of the Renaissance and Baroque periods, those way before their time who didn't catch on with the majority of backwards culture then. Their music already captured much of the heart of form that would be built upon centuries later.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Ambition, Achievement, Time.


----------

