# Greatest - Best - Most Important - Favorite?



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

This concerns a subject I have found very interesting since I arrived at TC many years ago. When I first signed on, I'm sure I used terms like greatest/best a lot. However, as time moved on, I could see that those terms tended to induce argument and ill feelings. They are hard to define and categorize. Subsequently, I fixed on "favorite". You can't argue with someone's favorites. You can't tell other members that their favorites are not really their favorites.

Well, that's how I feel about the subject. How about you?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

"Favourite" seems to be the safest bet because, as you point out, no one can say that this or that cannot be your favourite (while they technically can, it just feels inadequate). Using "greatest", "best" or "most important" feels like making an objective statement unless one adds "I think", "in my opinion" or something of the kind.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I don't have any firm opinions on this except to say that surely there must be a middle ground between "total relativism" - i.e. "my tastes are my truth; there is no objective greatness and everyone's personal opinion is their own ultimate authority" - and "total objectivism" - i.e. some things are indisputably greater and worthier than others due to any combination of factors (popularity, critical appraisal, etc.) I do believe in objective greatness outside of one's own opinion, but I also think that personal taste can be accounted for and _dē gustibus_ can be acknowledged while still debating constructively on the merits of composers, works, performers, and recordings.


----------



## DaddyGeorge (Mar 16, 2020)

I fully agree. Constant searching for the best (greatest, top ten, all time, ...) often discourages me from participating in the threads, because I just don't have the answer to that...


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

If we do speak of greatness, perhaps it can be viewed economically if we wish to prove how great Classical music is. People have spent countless dollars and resources to produce albums for people to listen to, and for what reason but that the music is enjoyable! Various pop artists and bands have spent their chunks of change recording successful albums for the public. But that's nothing on solo keyboard works that have been recorded throughout the years. There have been a total of _2,670_ albums on Bach alone on solo keyboard from ArkivMusic. But still, that's chump change. Whole _orchestras_ by the crowds ×30-100 got payed their wage to record _1,980_ albums of Bach works, _2,175_ albums of Wagner's operas and orchestral works, which places him higher than people like to admit, and _2,597_ total albums of Beethoven orchestral works. But when it comes to spending money on musicians, that's not quite the tip-top. As a world record, there have been a total of 4,482 albums on the orchestral works of Mozart + another half on chamber. These orchestras and soloists are recording music we already have! Why? Because it's enjoyable to people. Favorite is indeed subjective, but if we ever can prove something about this genre, then the least we can say is "Mozart, Beethoven and Bach are really 'Great' at getting people to spend money on them after they're already dead."


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> if we ever can agree that Classical music is the superior art to pop, then there's an objective measure we can use to prove it.


Even if we all agreed, it wouldn't require an objective measure or doesn't prove that there is one. If there was an objective indicator of that, then it wouldn't matter at all if I personally agreed with it or not because it's objectively true. Apparently people can disagree with things which are objectively true as well. I'm not sure though, if it's smart to start the objectiviry/subjectivity talk as it has been discussed quite profoundly in earlier threads .


----------



## BlackAdderLXX (Apr 18, 2020)

I prefer favorite, but is has to be spelled 'correctly', without the U. 

I learned quickly here that favorite is the more apt phrase. Since most folks here on TC have very different ideas as to what's best. That said, when I'm searching for suggested works off-site I use best as a search term as it usually generates a ton of hits. I can ascertain for myself what is or is not 'best' as can any adult human person.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I don't have any firm opinions on this except to say that surely there must be a middle ground between "total relativism" - i.e. "my tastes are my truth; there is no objective greatness and everyone's personal opinion is their own ultimate authority" - and "total objectivism" - i.e. some things are indisputably greater and worthier than others due to any combination of factors (popularity, critical appraisal, etc.) I do believe in objective greatness outside of one's own opinion, but I also think that personal taste can be accounted for and _dē gustibus_ can be acknowledged while still debating constructively on the merits of composers, works, performers, and recordings.


I think there's a middle ground in there. I think it can be agreed that BachMozartBeethovenManyOthers are "great" composers, but there's going to be disagreement as to which is "greatest" and what the hierarchy of "value" or indispensability is going to be. I think it's Bach, others may reasonably think it's Mozart or Beethoven or whoever. What I personally find repugnant is the postmodern-ish "it's all of equal value because nothing is inherently valuable" mindset, and that mindset _is_ out there. In fact it's probably the culturally predominant one right now, and it's almost entirely political. "How dare you criticize hip-hop or Lady Gaga or any other pop or jazz performer and say they're 'worse' than Bach or Beethoven? You're just reflecting reactionary white supremacist attitudes."


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

"Favorite" strikes me as being the most appropriate. I have used some of the others when I think it will be recognized as a literary conceit.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Favorite is my favorite 

One terms that annoys me is "definitive".


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

wkasimer said:


> Favorite is my favorite
> 
> One terms that annoys me is "definitive".


What, haven't you heard that Carlos Kleiber conducted the "definitive" Beethoven 5 and Brahms 4? That Gould's Bach and Rubinstein's Chopin are the last word for those composers?:lol: Etc., etc. Yes, I'm guilty of occasionally using the term, but the idea of something being so elevated above another that there is no possible way for it to be bettered makes me squirm. Unless it's Bach. No one can be better than Bach


----------



## BlackAdderLXX (Apr 18, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Unless it's Bach. No one can be better than Bach


Isn't 'Definitive' Bach's middle name?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

DaddyGeorge said:


> I fully agree. Constant searching for the best (greatest, top ten, all time, ...) often discourages me from participating in the threads, because I just don't have the answer to that...


This is the attraction of the games for me. I absolutely think that all of our rankings are subjective, and long ago grew bored with the entire good/better/best debates. But the games add a little fun to the idea and there is a list at the end that was the result of a process.

Of course it is all meaningless. We all enjoy what we enjoy and that is all that matters, IMO.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I prefer favorite myself. Further, when I see threads with greatest or best, I interpret those words essentially as favorite so I don't bother with the arguments over objectivity or greatness. I also like recommended or most recommended which is slightly different than favorite but also a personal opinion.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Greatest was Mozart. The rest can be favourites.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

the most misused term is "overrated". People say this to mean pretty much everything, anything they consider too popular, or rated too highly (even though these aren't exactly the same thing)


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I prefer favourite, and when someone asks for 'greatest', I'll answer favourite(s) and state so explicitly. 

That still does not stop some people here questioning one's personal favourites based on ludicrous reasonings.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> the most misused term is "overrated". People say this to mean pretty much everything, anything they consider too popular, or rated too highly (even though these aren't exactly the same thing)


"Underrated" is just as bad - all it means is "other people don't like X as much as I do."


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

The one I hate is "night and day" - more often in the context of equipment. "Night and day" may be appropriate when comparing a $50 bluetooth speaker with a $100,000 stereo system, but that's about it.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Fabulin said:


> Greatest was Mozart. The rest can be favourites.


But this takes all the fun out of him now being my favorite. Oh well. At a certain point I think your ears just adjust to great music. Something has clicked inside me regarding the greats. I'm not sure how it is with the other members.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I think there is some agreement as to which composers fall into the category of greatness. This would include, among many others, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Wagner, Stravinsky, and the usual suspects that would make a substantial write-up in any guide to music "appreciation". Others, may walk a line between great and near-great: Villa-Lobos, Rodrigo, Walter Piston? If you were writing your book on music appreciation, and had to keep it down to so many pages, who would you include and who would you drop? There are others that we can probably agree are very fine composers. You may say they are second-tier, or third-tier. I try to use positive terms because I realize how much work goes into writing any type symphony, concerto, quartet; let alone a _great one. _ I have an interest in American composers (Copland, Barber, William Schuman, Piston, Barber, Sessions, Hailstork, Schwantner, Zwilich, etc.). Many of these can't possibly be compared to the likes of the heavy-hitters from Europe. I regard them as _very fine_ composers whose music I regard as sincere, and, in the case of Barber, a _favorite _of mine, bar none. Other composers such as Schoenberg, Ives, Cowell, Cage, Boulez, Berio, etc. whose music resides on the far-out fringes of the repertoire are are matter of dispute, and a good many categorizations are fluid.

As long as we're talking about a clarification of terms, what about the buiness of classical music "appreciation"? I don't _appreciate_ classical music. I enjoy it. Why can't we call it classical music _enjoyment_? I think that to _appreciate _something implies an acknowledging of something out of obligation as opposed to being moved emotionally by it; like when parents make their children send out thank you cards to all the friends and relatives who gave presents at the confirmation, bar-mitzvah, or graduation.


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

I try not to get annoyed when people make assertions about the “best” composer, era, genre, performer, orchestra, recording, and so forth. It’s usually just shorthand for “favorite,” except when they denigrate other people’s favorites. Then it’s annoying. Professional critics like Hurwitz can be expected to make assertions about the “best” recording, etc. At least he’s usually careful to avoid saying, in effect, that you’re an idiot if you don’t share his views.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Simplicissimus said:


> I try not to get annoyed when people make assertions about the "best" composer, era, genre, performer, orchestra, recording, and so forth. *It's usually just shorthand for "favorite," except when they denigrate other people's favorites. Then it's annoying.* Professional critics like Hurwitz can be expected to make assertions about the "best" recording, etc. At least he's usually careful to avoid saying, in effect, that you're an idiot if you don't share his views.


Hear, Hear. (And a few more characters)


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

When people use arguments from authority and popularity, then it's annoying and degrading. When they fight about the superiority of the music itself, ie. hammeredklavier, then it's very entertaining, dramatic and interesting. 

I realize my first post appeared like an argument from popularity was being used to defend my favorite composer nowadays. No, if I really believed such a list, then Beethoven would be my 2nd favorite. Instead I was trying to show how Classical music can be perceived as a higher form in some objective measure, but even that's probably not a wise thing to talk about. 

As long as people let the music speak for itself, using analysis and terminology, then I rather enjoy people defending who the true greatest is. And still, those who prefer Chopin might not care, that he doesn't thoroughly compose right-hand music or Classical form, or does chamber and orchestra. Their ears tell them a certain story.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

The thing with using superlatives in assessing music is not only that they are subjective but that they imply a knowledge of a good range of alternatives. A claim that "I.B. Platzhirsch's Beethoven 5 is the best" by someone who knows only 2 or 3 of the hundreds of recordings of the work might be subjective but it is also deluded. If a subjective judgment involves a claim that the subject is not in a position to make then that subjective judgment is also a lie! I suppose it is OK that someone lies to themself?

WRT to OP, I feel that it is the openness of statements - the extent to which they can be discussed with others - that matters. I am not a big fan of always using the word "favourite" (English spelling for me, I'm afraid). It sounds a little wimpy; it is a cop-out. A little specificity about the claim ("the best I have heard", "widely praised", "iconic", "legendary") are more open to examination and discussion which is what we are really concerned with, I think. Such claims are clearly based on a subjective appreciation so why make a fuss about saying so? But getting away with a closed statement just by stressing how subjective it is seems like cheating to me if the claim cannot be examined. If you are claiming something is the greatest and then just backing down behind a "hey, that's my subjective view", I find that irritating. If you think something is the best, show us what makes you think that. Even if it looks like you are claiming objectivity.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I have an absolute taste that perfectly reflects reality, so my favorite = the greatest in the objective sense. You can use my taste as an etalon


----------



## BlackAdderLXX (Apr 18, 2020)

Simplicissimus said:


> I try not to get annoyed when people make assertions about the "best" composer, era, genre, performer, orchestra, recording, and so forth. It's usually just shorthand for "favorite," except when they denigrate other people's favorites. Then it's annoying. Professional critics like Hurwitz can be expected to make assertions about the "best" recording, etc. At least he's usually careful to avoid saying, in effect, that you're an idiot if you don't share his views.


This right here. I try to understand what people are really SAYING not just the words they're using. And if they delve into the annoying but know more than me I can still mine what they say for something useful. And I suspect that at least part of the deal with Hurwitz using 'best' is that people often search for 'best xyz' on the interwebz and it generates traffic but I don't know the man, I could be mistaken.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2020)

Happy to use favourite.

But watch out for those who confuse things when they talk about "my best", when they mean "favourite".


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

You can't argue with a favorite. You like it and you know it.

Still I don't think it is difficult to tell who are the better composers -- or the better anything else. Their appeal is so much wider across emotional and intellectual bandwidth. 

They outlast the lesser composers staying evergreen even after hearing them hundreds of times while others fade after far fewer hearings.

If you listen to and pursue music for decades you find some composers never depart your interest. Some of that is probably you -- your taste -- and I think more is probably the composer.

The "important" argument carries a certain subjectivity even with revolutionary composers. J.S. Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Schoenberg, even Cesar Franck invented or perfected certain new ways, forms or styles that affected music after them for hundreds of years. 

Does that make them important? I would say probably though an argument could be made someone else may have done it later.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> WRT to OP, I feel that it is the openness of statements - the extent to which they can be discussed with others - that matters. I am not a big fan of always using the word "favourite" (English spelling for me, I'm afraid). It sounds a little wimpy; it is a cop-out. A little specificity about the claim ("the best I have heard", "widely praised", "iconic", "legendary") are more open to examination and discussion which is what we are really concerned with, I think. Such claims are clearly based on a subjective appreciation so why make a fuss about saying so? But getting away with a closed statement just by stressing how subjective it is seems like cheating to me if the claim cannot be examined.


Tomorrow's examination is at 10am, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Campus, Tuttle Hall, Room 135. Cheating is allowed as long as you don't get caught. Bring a number 2 pencil with eraser.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Sorry, Bulldog, I don't get it. Are you disagreeing or agreeing with the post you quote? And why/how?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

"Great" and "best" are meaningless on a personal level, where "favourite" is definitely preferable. While I've longed complained about the use of "greatest" and "best" beyond the personal level, they are useful terms as long as everyone's aware of the various caveats.

"Beethoven is _the_ greatest composer" is merely an opinion, but "Beethoven is _one of_ the great composers" is rather closer to some sort of objective truth because enough people with an interest in classical music have a high opinion of his music - to the extent that it's hard to imagine "classical music" without Beethoven as a key figure in it. 
What about "Saariaho is one of the great composers"? That seems closer to "opinion" than "fact" because we know there are plenty of classical music listeners for whom late-20th/early-21st-century music isn't proper music, and their criteria for judging greatness automatically exclude the sort of music Saariaho writes. But "Saariaho is one of the great _living_ composers" is surely more than mere opinion.
So context is crucial when it comes to discussions of "great" or "best". The way I see it, both terms have some sort of relationship with popularity, but nothing like a crude 1:1 correlation. Of course any time someone mentions popularity as being related to our perceptions of greatness, either Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga get trotted out as if this is some sort of clinching argument proving that greatness has nothing to do with mere popularity. But really what we call "greatness" is a reflection of a kind of aggregate of favourites.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Nereffid said:


> What about "Saariaho is one of the great composers"? That seems closer to "opinion" than "fact" because we know there are plenty of classical music listeners for whom late-20th/early-21st-century music isn't proper music, and their criteria for judging greatness automatically exclude the sort of music Saariaho writes.


I don't think anyone's "criteria for judging greatness" can _exlude _music. The word is very absolute. I would say instead that "Saariaho's music does not meet the criteria [some] have for proclaiming greatness".


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> I don't think anyone's "criteria for judging greatness" can _exlude _music. The word is very absolute. I would say instead that "Saariaho's music does not meet the criteria [some] have for proclaiming greatness".


Come on, you've been here long enough to know there's plenty of people for whom Saariaho's music (and the great majority of contemporary music; I just picked her as an example) doesn't meet the criteria for _tolerable_ music, let alone _great_ music. 
But that was off the point anyway. In case anyone thinks I'm just trying to start another modernist/anti-modernist battle, my original point also applies to early music or any other less-well-known music. "Landini is one of the great composers" will mostly be met by blank looks, whereas "Landini is one of the great 14th-century composers" seems much more like a statement of fact.


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> The thing with using superlatives in assessing music is not only that they are subjective but that they imply a knowledge of a good range of alternatives. A claim that "I.B. Platzhirsch's Beethoven 5 is the best" by someone who knows only 2 or 3 of the hundreds of recordings of the work might be subjective but it is also deluded. If a subjective judgment involves a claim that the subject is not in a position to make then that subjective judgment is also a lie! I suppose it is OK that someone lies to themself?
> 
> WRT to OP, I feel that it is the openness of statements - the extent to which they can be discussed with others - that matters. I am not a big fan of always using the word "favourite" (English spelling for me, I'm afraid). It sounds a little wimpy; it is a cop-out. A little specificity about the claim ("the best I have heard", "widely praised", "iconic", "legendary") are more open to examination and discussion which is what we are really concerned with, I think. Such claims are clearly based on a subjective appreciation so why make a fuss about saying so? But getting away with a closed statement just by stressing how subjective it is seems like cheating to me if the claim cannot be examined. If you are claiming something is the greatest and then just backing down behind a "hey, that's my subjective view", I find that irritating. If you think something is the best, show us what makes you think that. Even if it looks like you are claiming objectivity.


I stand by my previous remark that most people's assertion of "best" is shorthand for "favorite," but Enthusiast's post has made me think about the matter further. Is there a sense in which "best" and "favorite" are clearly different? Yes, I think there is. Please forgive the length and pedantry of what follows.

When there are objective performance measures, then best and favorite, as concepts pertaining to the experience of entertainment, can clearly be different. For example, an ice hockey player's performance statistics might not be the best for his/her position, but they might be my favorite player because I find them the most interesting to watch, might like their public persona, and that kind of thing. This is a common state of affairs.

When it comes to music, the performance measures are not as clear-cut as in sports, but I would argue that there are measures that we tend to use beyond just popularity or professional critics' opinions. An obvious case would be playing patently wrong notes. It's not uncommon to hear people say that a performance by Schnabel, say, is their favorite even though he played some wrong notes. Knowing that there are wrong notes would seem to make it less likely that a person would also claim that the performance was the "best," or at least make them more likely to qualify "best" by saying something like "the best interpretation if not the most accurate performance." There are plenty of other such situations in classical music, like poor sound quality, weird audio engineering, fiddling with the score and thus offending literalists, using instruments or performance practices in a way that offends some people (non-HIP or HIP, take your pick), and so forth. These deficiencies or quirks or controversial characteristics do not prevent people from claiming the affected musical works as their favorites, and some people even assert that they are the "best," though almost always with a qualification. The qualifications are a nod to the dual objective and subjective nature of artistic expressions, I would say.

Yesterday I watched a Youtube video of Hurwitz reviewing Mahler 2 recordings and of course touting the "best" of them. He described the properties of the performances by Blomstedt and others that he thought made them good, and it was interesting and understandable if you know the work and a bit of the discography. He ended by laughing about the somewhat infamous 1974 recording of the work by Stokowski with the London Symphony Orchestra, which is an absolute mad-house of Stoki-isms. What he said really resonated with me because I had the exact same experience: In some sense it's a "favorite" of his because he discovered the Mahler 2 through this recording and thought it was wonderful, but then after experiencing other, more "normal" recordings, he could no longer think it was the "best." It seems that the more experienced I become with CM, the more I am able to de-couple "best" from "favorite," maybe because I am confident in my choices and do not feel obliged to toe the "best" line even as my ability to perceive certain objective properties of the music grows more acute.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Sorry, Bulldog, I don't get it. Are you disagreeing or agreeing with the post you quote? And why/how?


I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing. I had my say in post #1 and have been reading the feedback.

Concerning the post in question, I found it professorial and noted the words "examination" and "cheating". I suddenly got a nostalgic feeling about my college years back in the late 1960's in Amherst, Massachusetts. So my subsequent posting was a humorous and nostalgic response of no significance except to myself. Later, I also remembered that the legendary basketball player Julius Erving played college ball at my school. Those were great times!! As I age, I'm finding that nostalgia builds up in me more frequently.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Could be that is the first time the adjective "professorial" has been directed in my direction!


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

BlackAdderLXX said:


> I prefer favorite, but is has to be spelled 'correctly', without the U.


British: "favourite" 
American: "favorite"

I live in Canada where either form may be used, though I favour the British.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

My favorite term is "best" but the best term is "favorite" and the definitive term for "best" is "greatest."


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> Subsequently, I fixed on "favorite". You can't argue with someone's favorites. You can't tell other members that their favorites are not really their favorites.


I agree. Of course it is partly a matter of making a judgement when a person declares their favourite(s), but it also involves revealing something of who they are and that should always be respected. On TalkClassical listener preference is a constant theme and favourite is a good word, because it suggests taste not just the capricious choice of the moment.

But as we talk of a composition, performance, and recording it is worth remembering all the prior judgments of better, worse, best, etc. that are made to reach the point where we receive the work. A large amount of evaluation is done at all stages and with factors involved far beyond the choosing of a favourite.


----------



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

greatest - bach
most important - bach
favorite - bach
only care for - bach


----------



## DaddyGeorge (Mar 16, 2020)

aioriacont said:


> greatest - bach
> most important - bach
> favorite - bach
> only care for - bach


Be glad Schubert didn't read it...


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

One vote for "niftiest."


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Favorite: preference that is based on mostly intuitive listening and feelings (not to dismiss it's importance)
Greatest/best: preference that is based influence, popular believes, but also could be based on detailed analysis with a score (attentive listening) and certain aesthetic standard


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> The thing with using superlatives in assessing music is not only that they are subjective but that they imply a knowledge of a good range of alternatives. A claim that "I.B. Platzhirsch's Beethoven 5 is the best" by someone who knows only 2 or 3 of the hundreds of recordings of the work might be subjective but it is also deluded. If a subjective judgment involves a claim that the subject is not in a position to make then that subjective judgment is also a lie! I suppose it is OK that someone lies to themself?


If you have heard a hundred different recordings of the same work, the situation is usually, that maybe seventy percent of these are very good, and you can only use your taste to choose between them. Not a very different situation from when you only have heard fewer recordings.


----------



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

DaddyGeorge said:


> Be glad Schubert didn't read it...


he did, but since he is Bach's reincarnation, it's all fine


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Favorite: preference that is based on mostly intuitive listening and feelings (not to dismiss it's importance)
> Greatest/best: preference that is based influence, popular believes, but also could be based on detailed analysis with a score (attentive listening) and certain aesthetic standard


You're using 'greatest/best' for a 'preference'? By all means 'prefer' the greatest or best, but please don't define greatest/best as anything other than a judgement based on objective criteria. Elusive though those criteria are - or more accurately, agreement here about what they should be - what one 'prefers' can't be one of them.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Thanks Bulldog for clustering into these four fundamental expressions.

'Greatest' implies a prediction of longevity. A greater work or a greater composer is the work which we predict lasts longest. The BSO decision to inscribe in their hall only the name of one composer, Beethoven, is a statement about greatness since the choice was based on longevity of importance. 

'Best' is an absolute statement about achievement of the Form of the Good. It is aspirational. 

'Most important' is a claim regarding the education of future genius.

'Favorite' is a consequence of modernity. I am not sure, as I am with the other three terms, whether in the long-run the phrase will continue to be used.


----------



## Guest (Aug 27, 2020)

MacLeod said:


> Happy to use favourite.
> 
> But watch out for those who confuse things when they talk about "my best", when they mean "favourite".


Given a query raised in another thread, I want to be clear that I'm happy to use 'favourite' when I'm referring to music that is among _my _most liked. When I use the term, I would never mean it to imply that what I most like is also what I think is the 'greatest' (objectively).

Similarly, if I were to say that 'Composer X' is the 'greatest' (not some thing I would say, actually) I would only do so if I were making a case based on objective evidence, not my subjective taste.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I think most people that know classical music have an understanding of greatness vs. popularity or favorites. You don't have to like something to be able to recognize its greatness. You certainly have to like your favorite.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

BlackAdderLXX said:


> Isn't 'Definitive' Bach's middle name?


Maybe of P.D.Q. Bach.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn (Feb 26, 2020)

The difference between a discussion of favorites and a discussion of greatness/more objective metrics is that the former discussion completely avoids the question of value. In a discussion of favorites, you can ask someone why a composer is their favorite, but you cannot challenge the importance of the values they cite. You cannot ask _why_ the elemental force of late Bruckner is a good thing, or discuss whether it is _better_ than the distilled emotion in Chopin. Each property stands alone and is protected by the nature of the discussion from comparison with others.

This can keep discussion fruitful, but it can also keep it shallow. There is certainly an objective dimension to comparison. If I asked "What is the best car", the question does not have a truly objective "correct" answer, but most people would agree that a Rolls-Royce Ghost is in some way a "better" answer than a Subaru 360. It is a mistake to classify these discussions as either "subjective" or "objective", they simply sit on a spectrum in between those two ends, and we lose a lot by declaring objective formulations off-limits.

However, there still seems to be a problem with using words like "greatest" and "best" to mean "of the highest objective quality". "Greatest" implies magnitude, grandeur, and influence, while "best" implies integrity and quality of construction, and I've often thought of certain pieces as being "greater" than others and yet not as "good" as them. 
In my opinion, much of the subjectivity comes from the words we use, and we can get far closer to objectivity than we think by using the clearest possible definitions.


----------

