# Art of Fugue, Don Giovanni, Op. 131.



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

The three densest works.
Any serious composer must study these works and compete with them.
This is not a claim about objective aesthetic quality.
This is only a claim about the optimal education of the composer of genius.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Beethoven14 said:


> The three densest works. Any serious composer must study these works and compete with them.


If you would be so kind, post the same thing in the Todays composers thread, might be helpful.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Is the question about teaching composition? Three very great works which _may _be necessary but would hardly be sufficient for training today's "composers of genius".


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> Is the question about teaching composition? Three very great works which _may _be necessary but would hardly be sufficient for training today's "composers of genius".


Thanks for your question. I'm listening to the Mass in B Minor as I type, but my position still holds that these three works contain all the discoveries made in Music so far. And so thorough study of these three works (which is surely enough study for a lifetime) is necessary and sufficient for a composer to gain the deepest understanding of the art as it stands, the purpose of this training being to increase the possibility of a new work of even higher understanding.

To be a bit more contentious essentially what I'm saying is that the supposed 'discoveries' of a Schoenberg, Ligeti, Debussy, Schubert, Brahms, Wagner, Stravinsky are not discoveries and are only derivative -- and had these secondary composers studied the three primary works more exclusively then their own genius may have been more productively utilized.

So my position here may usefully be seen as Canonical Minimalism.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Beethoven14 said:


> Thanks for your question. I'm listening to the Mass in B Minor as I type, but my position still holds that these three works distill all the discoveries made in Music so far. And so thorough study of these three works (which is obviously enough study for a lifetime) is necessary and sufficient for a composer to gain the deepest understanding of the art as it stands, the purpose of this training being to increase the possibility of a new work of even higher understanding.
> 
> To be a bit more contentious essentially what I'm saying is that the supposed 'discoveries' of a Schoenberg, Ligeti, Debussy, Schubert, Brahms, Stravinsky are not discoveries and are only derivative -- and had these secondary composers studied the three primary works more exclusively then their own genius may have been more productively utilized.
> 
> So my position may usefully be seen as Canonical Minimalism.


Without explaining why you think as you do then aren't you merely stating you musical preferences?


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

janxharris said:


> Without explaining why you think as you do then aren't you merely stating your musical preferences?


Yes you are right. I'll try to explain, though the path will be indirect.

When reading Shakespeare we find that personalities seem to emerge somehow from the words. Hamlet and Falstaff seem more alive than real humans. And this Shakespearean creation of personalities reveals the height of understanding in literature (Cervantes comes closest). So in literature the claim that Shakespeare alone can be seen as the canon is defended most simply in two steps: 1) a claim that of all the literary discoveries there is one which encompasses the others (the discovery of personality); 2) the identification of the discoverer (Shakespeare).

In philosophy a similar argument is made for Plato's Socrates having founded political philosophy by being the first to question fully the human things, instead of just natural things. This turn from nature to politics in Socrates' philosophy is expressed clearly in the middle of Plato's dialogue _Phaedo_. And so the entire canon of political philosophy is held fully in the dialogues of _The Republic_.

Now before I get to music I'll make a scientific aside. It's clearly incorrect to claim that any student of Physics now just needs to read the complete works of Albert Einstein to make their new discoveries, foregoing Newton, Maxwell and more contemporary Physics. But in the arts, especially music, the case is different because works do not build upon each other as they do in science, instead the works compete with each other for imaginative space. This perspective is fundamental to my claim, so I'll repeat it. In science works build upon each other, in art works compete with eachother.

So the most honest explanation of my position is that I have simulated a grand competition in my mind of all the works I have ever heard or heard of and I have found three works victorious. As with literature and personality my criterion is first to identify a fundamental aspect of the art which all the other aspects of the art are secondary -- in music these are harmony, melody, counterpoint. So the simple explanation for my position is that three works stand above in these most fundamental aspects of music -- harmony, melody, counterpoint.

I cringe at the lack of rigor in my arguments; however I don't think they can be made more precise, and I also think it is necessary to make such arguments. In the _Meno_ Socrates claims that humans must make speeches daily about the question 'What is virtue?' without expecting ever to find a satisfactory definition; the point is that the honest act of inquiry into the correct question is what matters. Here I have tried to identify the fundamental question in the study of composition, and still I hold this to be 'why do the Art of Fugue, Don Giovanni, Op. 131 stand above in melody, harmony, counterpoint'?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I do like your term Canonical Minimalism! But am not at all sure of your thesis. Do you think that all dramatists (and even all literature) is not needed because we have Shakespeare? Do you not think anything new has been achieved since then? I am too ignorant of music theory to say but it seems to me that many works that followed the three in your minimal canon have achieved great and new things. Of course, the greats all learn from the greats of the past but do they add nothing unique and new.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> I do like your term Canonical Minimalism! But am not at all sure of your thesis. Do you think that all dramatists (and even all literature) is not needed because we have Shakespeare? Do you not think anything new has been achieved since then? I am too ignorant of music theory to say but it seems to me that many works that followed the three in your minimal canon have achieved great and new things. Of course, the greats all learn from the greats of the past but do they add nothing unique and new.


Yes, I do not think anything new has been achieved in literature since Shakespeare (specifically since _King Lear_ and _Hamlet_).

New greats will surely learn from the greats of the past just as Shakespeare learned from Plutarch and Chaucer, but creating something new in art is like creating an entirely new way of thinking; and this can only happen rarely. Certainly we need new dramatists since the constraint of diminishing marginal returns can only be overcome by innovation. But these new dramatists (/poets/musicians/painters) are there to create entirely new ways of thinking, and this is a far more difficult task than traditionally it is made to seem, especially since the early-20th century when arose the notion that the naturalism of the plays of Ibsen had rendered Shakespeare's plays unneeded.

In the history of mathematics for example it took 2000 years for a mathematician to exhibit a deeper way of thinking than that of Archimedes -- his name is Carl Friedrich Gauss. And it is unclear how long it will take for someone to discover to think deeper than Gauss, for still we are in his age of mathematics.

Canonical Minimalism is more about patience than about conservatism or traditionalism.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Beethoven14 said:


> Yes you are right. I'll try to explain, though the path will be indirect.
> 
> When reading Shakespeare we find that personalities seem to emerge somehow from the words. Hamlet and Falstaff seem more alive than real humans. And this Shakespearean creation of personalities reveals the height of understanding in literature (Cervantes comes closest). So in literature the claim that Shakespeare alone can be seen as the canon is defended most simply in two steps: 1) a claim that of all the literary discoveries there is one which encompasses the others (the discovery of personality); 2) the identification of the discoverer (Shakespeare).


What do you think of Homer?



Beethoven14 said:


> Hamlet and Falstaff seem more alive than real humans.


That's the weakness, because it makes his work less true, less real. Modern creative writing rejects this Shakespearian conception of fictional character precisely because we've learned that other people, and maybe our selves, are never knowable in the thick, deep, way that Hamlet is. We're all dark. This is something which is central to literature since Proust, it's precisely the problem he grappled with.

And the same in music, we've learned that the sort of well made coherent musical forms of Beethoven and Bach just aren't real, they don't reflect the reality of out turbulent inner lives, and so modern composers reject that way of expression. This is something which is central to music since Schoenberg, it's precisely the problem he grappled with.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

I'm always cautious about Western chauvinism and the tunnel vision that such minimalist identification of music with ideal examples encourages.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

I'm always cautious about Western chauvinism and the tunnel vision that such minimalist identification of music with ideal examples encourages. There is education and there is inspiration and they don't always come from the same source. From this list, Debussy and Ligeti would seem to best represent that multiplicity of influence which is characteristic of musical evolution.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

philoctetes said:


> I'm always cautious about Western chauvinism and the tunnel vision that such minimalist identification of music with ideal examples encourages. There is education and there is inspiration and they don't always come from the same source. From this list, Debussy and Ligeti would seem to best represent that multiplicity of influence which is characteristic of musical evolution.


I agree that education and inspiration can come from different sources. I also agree that evolution of musical inspiration is related to a multiplicity of influences.

But I am only talking about the ideal education available for the composer of supreme genius.

I am not proclaiming these three works as ideal examples of music, but I am saying these three works are the best we currently have for deepest education in counterpoint, harmony, melody -- this is a crucial distinction. Of course there can be no definitive proof for such statements, just as one syllabus cannot definitely be proved better than another (even in courses of science).

I am convinced that selective tunnel vision focused on outstanding genius is the most verified path to human achievement. The example of Gauss's focus on Newton should suffice. But consider also Plato's preoccupation with Homer, and Goethe's celebration of Shakespeare.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Beethoven14 said:


> ...*in the arts, especially music, ...works do not build upon each other as they do in science, instead the works compete with each other for imaginative space.* This perspective is fundamental to my claim, so I'll repeat it. In science works build upon each other, in art works compete with each other.
> 
> So the most honest explanation of my position is that I have simulated a grand competition in my mind of all the works I have ever heard or heard of and I have found three works victorious. As with literature and personality my criterion is first to identify a fundamental aspect of the art which all the other aspects of the art are secondary -- in music these are harmony, melody, counterpoint. So the simple explanation for my position is that *three works stand above in these most fundamental aspects of music -- harmony, melody, counterpoint. These three works contain all the discoveries made in Music so far.*
> 
> *I cringe at the lack of rigor in my arguments*; however I don't think they can be made more precise, and I also think it is necessary to make such arguments. In the _Meno_ Socrates claims that humans must make speeches daily about the question 'What is virtue?' without expecting ever to find a satisfactory definition; the point is that the honest act of inquiry into the correct question is what matters. *Here I have tried to identify the fundamental question in the study of composition, and still I hold this to be 'why do the Art of Fugue, Don Giovanni, Op. 131 stand above in melody, harmony, counterpoint'?*


Do the _Art of Fugue_, _Don Giovanni_ and Op. 131 really "stand above" all other music in melody, harmony, counterpoint? What does it mean to "stand above"? Do they really contain all the discoveries made in music so far? Why are works of music in competition with each other? What does it mean to "compete for imaginative space"? Does _Die Zauberflote_ compete with _Don Giovanni_ for "imaginative space," or does it create its own "imaginative space"? What "imaginative space" does _Tristan und Isolde_ compete for? How about _Le Sacre du Printemps?_ or Chopin's _24 Preludes?_ Or _Londonderry Air?_ Do none of these works exhibit any "discoveries"? How original does a work have to be for you to notice "discoveries"? And do none of them "build upon each other," as you say works of art do not? If a work of art neither exhibits "discoveries" nor builds upon other works (which presumably _do_ exhibit "discoveries," since someone, somewhere, sometime has to "discover" something), can it exist at all?

So far I've seen no attempt to answer these questions. There's no need to cringe at the lack of rigor in your arguments before you've made any arguments.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> What do you think of Homer?
> 
> Modern creative writing rejects this Shakespearian conception of fictional character precisely because we've learned that other people, and maybe our selves, are never knowable in the thick, deep, way that Hamlet is. We're all dark. This is something which is central to literature since Proust, it's precisely the problem he grappled with.
> 
> And the same in music, we've learned that the sort of well made coherent musical forms of Beethoven and Bach just aren't real, they don't reflect the reality of out turbulent inner lives, and so modern composers reject that way of expression. This is something which is central to music since Schoenberg, it's precisely the problem he grappled with.


Homer is clearly the great poet of the Greeks and fit to be mentioned with Shakespeare. Homer withstands the critiques of Plato and Dante.

Your comment about modernity is interesting because, to me, the modern subjectivity really stems from Shakespeare in opposition to Homer instead of as you say Proust in opposition to Shakespeare, especially from Hamlet:

HAMLET (ACT 3 SCENE 2).
Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of
me! You would play upon me; you would seem to know
my stops; you would pluck out the heart of my
mystery; you would sound me from my lowest note to
the top of my compass: and there is much music,
excellent voice, in this little organ; yet cannot
you make it speak. 'Sblood, do you think I am
easier to be played on than a pipe? Call me what
instrument you will, though you can fret me, yet you
cannot play upon me.

I think Shakespeare first acknowledged this sense of human subjectivity you mention in opposition to Greek idealism. This contrast with the Greeks is illustrated most clearly in the play _Troilus and Cressida_ where Shakespeare rewrites Troy, Ulysses, and Achilles with exactly the sense of revised realism you describe as Proust's work. But this sense of modernity you mention is expressed most deeply in the character of Edgar from _King Lear_. Edgar is perhaps the least studied of the great Shakespeare characters. Edgar shows that Shakespeare's epic art which seems to draw personalities from eternal forms also can encompass the most turbulent of our inner lives.

I remain convinced that the modern developments of a Proust, Joyce, or Beckett sit deep within Hamlet, Edgar, Falstaff ... especially Edgar.

EDGAR (KING LEAR ACT 5 SCENE 3):
The bloody proclamation to escape 
That follow'd me so near (O, our lives' sweetness! 
That with the pain of death would hourly die 
Rather than die at once!) taught me to shift 
Into a madman's rags, t' assume a semblance 
That very dogs disdain'd; and in this habit 
Met I my father with his bleeding rings, 
Their precious stones new lost; became his guide, 
Led him, begg'd for him, sav'd him from despair; 
Never (O fault!) reveal'd myself unto him 
Until some half hour past, when I was arm'd, 
Not sure, though hoping of this good success, 
I ask'd his blessing, and from first to last 
Told him my pilgrimage. But his flaw'd heart 
(Alack, too weak the conflict to support!) 
'Twixt two extremes of passion, joy and grief, 
Burst smilingly.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Do the _Art of Fugue_, _Don Giovanni_ and Op. 131 really "stand above" all other music in melody, harmony, counterpoint? What does it mean to "stand above"? Do they really contain all the discoveries made in music so far? Why are works of music in competition with each other? What does it mean to "compete for imaginative space"? Does _Die Zauberflote_ compete with _Don Giovanni_ for "imaginative space," or does it create its own "imaginative space"? What "imaginative space" does _Tristan und Isolde_ compete for? How about _Le Sacre du Printemps?_ or Chopin's _24 Preludes?_ Or _Londonderry Air?_ Do none of these works exhibit any "discoveries"? How original does a work have to be for you to notice "discoveries"? And do none of them "build upon each other," as you say works of art do not? If a work of art neither exhibits "discoveries" nor builds upon other works (which presumably _do_ exhibit "discoveries," since someone, somewhere, sometime has to "discover" something), can it exist at all?
> 
> So far I've seen no attempt to answer these questions. There's no need to cringe at the lack of rigor in your arguments before you've made any arguments.


I have been making arguments to answer the question 'what is the ideal education available for the composer of supreme genius?'. The following answers cannot contribute to increasing the rigor of this discussion (no such questions can), but I will attempt them, and am grateful you have asked them.

-3. If a work of art neither exhibits "discoveries" nor builds upon other works (which presumably do exhibit "discoveries," since someone, somewhere, sometime has to "discover" something), can it exist at all?
A. Yes it can exist. But existence does not imply originality.

-2. What does it mean to "compete for imaginative space"? 
A. It means we posit the mind of a supreme composer of genius and place all the works of existence in his mind and see which works will be most useful to his imagination.

-1. Why are works of music in competition with each other?
A. Because our topic of study is education and therefore by necessity we are talking about canon formation.

0. What does it mean to "stand above"?
A. That a work remains in the mind of a posited supreme composer of genius while another does not.

1. Do the Art of Fugue, Don Giovanni and Op. 131 really "stand above" all other music in melody, harmony, counterpoint?
A. I do think so.

2. Do they really contain all the discoveries made in music so far?
A. Yes.

3. Does Die Zauberflote compete with Don Giovanni for "imaginative space," or does it create its own "imaginative space"?
A. It competes.

4. What "imaginative space" does Tristan und Isolde compete for?
A. The imaginative space held by these three works.

5. How about Le Sacre du Printemps? or Chopin's 24 Preludes? Or Londonderry Air?
A. Same as above.

6. Do none of these works exhibit any "discoveries"?
A. No they do not.

7. How original does a work have to be for you to notice "discoveries"?
A. It has to be more original than the three named works.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

And another thread bites the dust....


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

philoctetes said:


> And another thread bites the dust....


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

:lol: 

Can you please describe, with examples, why -- and let's use a specific example here -- Don Giovanni is more original than, say, Tristan und Isolde, and specifically what "discoveries" Mozart has attained with it that Wagner has not with Tristan? Speaking with musical language here, and avoiding allegory to literature, mathematics, etc. If you can't -- and you haven't so far -- then you really have not provided any arguments yet at all. 

I'm sure you have it worked out in your head and just haven't said any of it yet.

Also, out of curiosity: I remember that your earlier thread included only the Don and Beethoven's quartet. Can you describe the experience you had in the past month that led to your inclusion of The Art of Fugue to create a perfect trinity?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Beethoven14 said:


> Homer is clearly the great poet of the Greeks and fit to be mentioned with Shakespeare. Homer withstands the critiques of Plato and Dante.
> 
> Your comment about modernity is interesting because, to me, the modern subjectivity really stems from Shakespeare in opposition to Homer instead of as you say Proust in opposition to Shakespeare, especially from Hamlet:
> 
> ...


Yes, we're talking about very great works of literature here. The thing that impresses me about Proust is the elusiveness of Albertine, the way that despite all his efforts, she is a mystery to Marcel, who loves her. That seems to me to contain an insight about the human condition which is not elsewhere, and a very important one.

There's another aspect of modernism which is maybe worth mentioning: the behaviour of the Nazis in the last war. I'm not sure that there's anything in Shakespeare or in Mozart or in Bach which helps us to accommodate those events, which revealed so much about humanity and western civilisation. But I do think it's the first priority of an art which is truly modern to help us become clear about what it means for us now.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

flamencosketches said:


> :lol:
> 
> Can you please describe, with examples, why -- and let's use a specific example here -- Don Giovanni is more original than, say, Tristan und Isolde, and specifically what "discoveries" Mozart has attained with it that Wagner has not with Tristan? Speaking with musical language here, and avoiding allegory to literature, mathematics, etc. If you can't -- and you haven't so far -- then you really have not provided any arguments yet at all.
> 
> ...


I think in that previous thread multiple people mentioned The Art of Fugue in response to the OP's claim that Bach's Mass in B minor was by far his (Bach's) greatest work, and presumably, the OP hadn't heard it before that. Now that he has heard it (and liked it I suppose) he has decided to make another thread.

All wild speculation of course.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

philoctetes said:


> And another thread bites the dust....


It started out in the dust. Probably pixie dust.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> Yes, we're talking about very great works of literature here. The thing that impresses me about Proust is the elusiveness of Albertine, the way that despite all his efforts, she is a mystery to Marcel, who loves her. That seems to me to contain an insight about the human condition which is not elsewhere, and a very important one.
> 
> There's another aspect of modernism which is maybe worth mentioning: the behaviour of the Nazis in the last war. I'm not sure that there's anything in Shakespeare or in Mozart or in Bach which helps us to accommodate those events, which revealed so much about humanity and western civilisation. But I do think it's the first priority of an art which is truly modern to help us become clear about what it means for us now.


I'll have to reread Proust soon. The Albertine-Marcel relationship is something deep for sure.

There was something new revealed to us post-WW2. It's possible for some there really is nothing in Homer, Shakespeare, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven to accommodate these events, though for me the apocalypse of _King Lear_ helps me most understand this, even more than the great documentary _Shoah_ or the theology in _Brother's Karamazov_.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

BachIsBest said:


> I think in that previous thread multiple people mentioned The Art of Fugue in response to the OP's claim that Bach's Mass in B minor was by far his (Bach's) greatest work, and presumably, the OP hadn't heard it before that. Now that he has heard it (and liked it I suppose) he has decided to make another thread.
> 
> All wild speculation of course.


Yeah; I noticed that too.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

flamencosketches said:


> :lol:
> 
> Can you please describe, with examples, why -- and let's use a specific example here -- Don Giovanni is more original than, say, Tristan und Isolde, and specifically what "discoveries" Mozart has attained with it that Wagner has not with Tristan? Speaking with musical language here, and avoiding allegory to literature, mathematics, etc. If you can't -- and you haven't so far -- then you really have not provided any arguments yet at all.
> 
> ...


I love to play piano, and at the time of writing that earlier thread I had only practiced closely the 11th contrapunctus and 14th (unfinished) contrapunctus. I was earlier basing my judgments on those two. Recently however I began to study closely the 1st contrapunctus and now find it resonates as deep as I have felt, and so I revised my position.

In the Mozart I find only ideas expressed in music. In the Wagner I find wonderful emotions, but I do not find ideas. I think only three composers have really found how to express ideas in music, and their densest and deepest ideas occur in these three named works. So in speaking of 'discoveries' I first can fully restrict my search to just these three composers since I think only they have sufficient understanding of harmony, melody, counterpoint to be able to express ideas in music as opposed to expression of just emotion. I am definitely biased here toward music which appeals more to the head than to the heart, but again this discussion is about the optimal education for the composer of supreme genius, and so we'd agree that the ideas are better selection criteria than the emotions.

What does it mean to express ideas in music? For me the purest answer to this is 'hear the late Beethoven string quartets' or 'why does the first movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony sound so political'? But really I think there is some level of achievement (which I stress stems from supreme understanding of counterpoint, harmony, melody) beyond which music becomes more than vibrations and becomes something closer to poetry. Again I think only three composers have figured out how to do this, and I think these three works exemplify each of these composers' ability to do this. So to express ideas in music is to master the purely vibrational apparatus of music into a medium of pure metaphoric expression. And I stress that this is a discovery, and there have been three such discoverers.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> Modern creative writing rejects this Shakespearian conception of fictional character precisely because we've learned that other people, and maybe our selves, are never knowable in the thick, deep, way that Hamlet is.


Errr, Hamlet was the first unknowable character in literature. So much so that the bulk of the criticism written on that play is an attempt to explain him. Any other unknowable characters claim Hamlet as their prime ancestor. Shakespeare may have delved into the workings of Hamlet's mind, but all he did was mine mysteries rather than answers, mysteries that have plagued literature and philosophy ever since. I have my own explanations, but they remain only mine.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Beethoven14 said:


> So the most honest explanation of my position is that I have simulated a grand competition in my mind of all the works I have ever heard or heard of and I have found three works victorious.


This quote seems to confirm what the post you replied to suggested, that you were/are merely stating your musical preferences.



Beethoven14 said:


> As with literature and personality my criterion is first to identify a fundamental aspect of the art which all the other aspects of the art are secondary -- in music these are harmony, melody, counterpoint.


I'd say in music the fundamental aspects are sound, harmony, melody, and rhythm. Counterpoint is a type of harmony, and no more essential to music than zoom lenses are to filmmaking.



Beethoven14 said:


> Yes, I do not think anything new has been achieved in literature since Shakespeare (specifically since _King Lear_ and _Hamlet_).


This is a rather extraordinary claim given that these works are confined to the genre of drama, and that the genres of the novel and lyric poetry can achieve things that drama can't. Free Verse was genuinely new, and something Shakespeare didn't touch. The kind of narration that Tolstoy achieved in War & Peace and Anna Karenina is something that drama can't do at all. This is not to minimize (at all) Shakespeare's importance and influence and originality. It's rather good for the sanity of poets and novelists that Shakespeare didn't touch the latter genre and restricted his practice of the former to sonnets and two mythological narratives.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

This thread is utterly preposterous. The claim that nothing “new” has been reached in literature or music since Shakespeare and the Op. 131 is absurd.

I maintain instead that literature and music have yet to advance from The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Dithyramb.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Beethoven14 said:


> Thanks for your question. I'm listening to the Mass in B Minor as I type, but my position still holds that these three works contain all the *discoveries* made in Music so far. And so thorough study of these three works (which is surely enough study for a lifetime) is necessary and sufficient for a composer to gain the deepest understanding of the art as it stands, the purpose of this training being to increase the possibility of a new work of even higher understanding.
> 
> To be a bit more contentious essentially what I'm saying is that the supposed 'discoveries' of a Schoenberg, Ligeti, Debussy, Schubert, Brahms, Wagner, Stravinsky are not discoveries and are only derivative -- and had these secondary composers studied the three primary works more exclusively then their own genius may have been more productively utilized.
> 
> So my position here may usefully be seen as Canonical Minimalism.


Since you have made wild claims about what is necessary to educate future composers of genius, please tell us your qualifications as a music educator. How many composers of genius have you taught?

Your claim that the music of Schoenberg, Ligeti, Debussy, Schubert, Brahms, Wagner, Stravinsky is derivative of music two to three centuries old presupposes that you have studied their work extensively. In what context did you study these composers? What works of Stravinsky have you analyzed? Wagner? Debussy? Have you taken courses in their music? Have you extensively studied their scores?


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> This quote seems to confirm what the post you replied to suggested, that you were/are merely stating your musical preferences.


Yes I acknowledge that the search toward educational foundations in any discipline begins with subjectivity.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'd say in music the fundamental aspects are sound, harmony, melody, and rhythm. Counterpoint is a type of harmony, and no more essential to music than zoom lenses are to filmmaking.


For the listener or performer these four are probably most important. For the composer the most important are melody, harmony, counterpoint which are interrelated.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> This is a rather extraordinary claim given that [_King Lear_, _Hamlet_] are confined to the genre of drama, and that the genres of the novel and lyric poetry can achieve things that drama can't. Free Verse was genuinely new, and something Shakespeare didn't touch. The kind of narration that Tolstoy achieved in War & Peace and Anna Karenina is something that drama can't do at all. This is not to minimize (at all) Shakespeare's importance and influence and originality. It's rather good for the sanity of poets and novelists that Shakespeare didn't touch the latter genre and restricted his practice of the former to sonnets and two mythological narratives.


_King Lear_ and _Hamlet_ are not confined to the genre of drama. In _Hamlet_ we find deeper poetry than in the lyrics of Sappho and deeper prose than even the miraculous ending of Tolstoy's _Hadji Murad_. Consider Hamlet's prose instruction to the players in Act 3 Scene 2 and his prose meditations in the graveyard in Act 5 Scene 1. It's clear that the _Sonnets_ and alone the short poem _The Phoenix and Turtle_ have achieved far more than any lyrics of Wordsworth, Whitman, Dickinson, Akhmatova.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Littlephrase1913 said:


> This thread is utterly preposterous. The claim that nothing "new" has been reached in literature or music since Shakespeare and the Op. 131 is absurd.
> 
> I maintain instead that literature and music have yet to advance from The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Dithyramb.


I am not claiming nothing new has been reached in literature or music. I am claiming that nothing new has been reached in the foundations of literature or music. Nothing new was reached in the study of the foundations of calculus for 1800 years, from Archimedes to Newton-Leibniz, though of course there were minor contributions throughout this interval; it is not necessary that because a certain period of time has passed that the foundations must be renewed.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> Since you have made wild claims about what is necessary to educate future composers of genius, please tell us your qualifications as a music educator. How many composers of genius have you taught?
> 
> Your claim that the music of Schoenberg, Ligeti, Debussy, Schubert, Brahms, Wagner, Stravinsky is derivative of music two to three centuries old presupposes that you have studied their work extensively. In what context did you study these composers? What works of Stravinsky have you analyzed? Wagner? Debussy? Have you taken courses in their music? Have you extensively studied their scores?


My qualifications as a music educator are in my defense of The Art of Fugue, Don Giovanni, Op. 131.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

Beethoven14 said:


> I am not claiming nothing new has been reached in literature or music. I am claiming that nothing new has been reached in the foundations of literature or music. Nothing new was reached in the study of the foundations of calculus for 1800 years, from Archimedes to Newton-Leibniz, though of course there were minor contributions; it is not necessary that because a certain period of time has passed that the foundations must be renewed.


This thread is still absurd.

What _precisely_ did Don Giovanni contribute to music that isn't matched by Tristan?

What _precisely_ did Shakespeare contribute to literature that makes Proust's feats (relatively) negligible?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Beethoven14 said:


> For the listener or performer these four are probably most important. For the composer the most important are melody, harmony, counterpoint which are interrelated.


I would think that would dramatically depend on the composer in question.



Beethoven14 said:


> _King Lear_ and _Hamlet_ are not confined to the genre of drama. In _Hamlet_ we find deeper poetry than in the lyrics of Sappho and deeper prose than even the miraculous ending of Tolstoy's _Hadji Murad_. Consider Hamlet's prose instruction to the players in Act 3 Scene 2 and his prose meditations in the graveyard in Act 5 Scene 1. It's clear that the _Sonnets_ and alone the short poem _The Phoenix and Turtle_ have achieved far more than any lyrics of Wordsworth, Whitman, Dickinson, Akhmatova.


Verse drama and prose drama is still drama. It is confined to certain features of that genre including always specifying speakers and not including narration unless the character of a narrator is invented. Shakespeare also confined most of his poetry to blank verse, which is, in itself, limited, and in which he didn't exploit the full possibilities of. I'm as big a bardolater as anyone, but I can't agree he achieved all that was capable of being achieved in poetry or the novel. The sonnet itself was formally limited, and while Shakespeare made astonishingly brilliant use of that form, he could not achieve certain things that Milton, Wordsworth, Whitman, Dickinson, etc. did in their very different works.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Errr, Hamlet was the first unknowable character in literature. So much so that the bulk of the criticism written on that play is an attempt to explain him. Any other unknowable characters claim Hamlet as their prime ancestor. Shakespeare may have delved into the workings of Hamlet's mind, but all he did was mine mysteries rather than answers, mysteries that have plagued literature and philosophy ever since. I have my own explanations, but they remain only mine.


Well I don't believe that Hamlet is so mysterious, I think, for example, he took the first opportunity he reasonably could to avenge his father's death (I.e. after he'd verified the truth of The Ghost's charges, and found an opportunity to kill Claudius when he wasn't in prayer.) The play is a problem play in my opinion, it explores the moral problem of whether we should become the scourge and minister of God, without finding a solution.

But this isn't the right place for the discussion maybe!


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Beethoven14 said:


> My qualifications as a music educator are in my defense of The Art of Fugue, Don Giovanni, Op. 131.


Perhaps you can explain to me what I am missing regarding _The Art of Fugue_ then? I've tried over many months and repeated listens to find something that I can appreciate; but thus far - nothing. It's essentially a single melody that is varied through counterpoint (though it seems other subjects are introduced later as well). It doesn't go beyond an academic exercise for me.

I respect that it works for some classical lovers - so no need for anyone to fulminate.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

janxharris said:


> Perhaps you can explain to me what I am missing regarding _The Art of Fugue_ then? I've tried over many months and repeated listens to find something that I can appreciate; but thus far - nothing. It's essentially a single melody that is varied through counterpoint (though it seems other subjects are introduced later as well). It doesn't go beyond an academic exercise for me.
> 
> I respect that it works for some classical lovers - so no need for anyone to fulminate.


The problem is to find a performance which makes it into something more than an academic exercise. That's a matter of playing the cpt expressively: rubato, attack, phrasing and articulation, giving each voice its own personality etc. Let me know your preferred instruments, or the instruments you'd prefer to avoid, and I might be able to suggest something to listen to which finds some poetry in the music, as it were.

Of course, as you know, " a single melody that is varied through counterpoint" can be pretty expressive. Just think, given it's nearly Easter, of _Wir setzen uns mit Tränen nieder_ in the Matthew Passion.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> The problem is to find a performance which makes it into something more than an academic exercise. That's a matter of playing the cpt expressively: rubato, attack, phrasing and articulation, giving each voice its own personality etc. Let me know your preferred instruments, or the instruments you'd prefer to avoid, and I might be able to suggest something to listen to which finds some poetry in the music, as it were.
> 
> Of course, as you know, " a single melody that is varied through counterpoint" can be pretty expressive. Just think, given it's nearly Easter, of _Wir setzen uns mit Tränen nieder_ in the Matthew Passion.


Interesting...I've no real instrument preference - though not so keen on harpsichord. I've generally tried this: 



 but can hardly get beyond the first few minutes now.

The St. Matthew piece is very beautiful.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Beethoven14 said:


> I am not claiming nothing new has been reached in literature or music. I am claiming that nothing new has been reached in the foundations of literature or music. Nothing new was reached in the study of the foundations of calculus for 1800 years, from Archimedes to Newton-Leibniz, though of course there were minor contributions throughout this interval; it is not necessary that because a certain period of time has passed that the foundations must be renewed.


With Calculus, you are quite right. Since Newton/ Liebniz systemized it, the foundations have always held and haven't changed. With Philopsophy, you get competing views since Plato, but his views shaped Western civilization.

But there is no analogy with the Arts. What does Shakspeare have in common with Joyce's Ulysses besides using English words? The foundations of meaning and techniques are radically different. In music, what did the harmony and rhythms jn those works have to do with the highly chromatic and atonal music of Scriabin and Babbitt? The foundations from Bach and Haydn had not changed through Don Giovanni until the early 20th Century. The aesthetics and techniques of 20th C painting was very different from the 18th Century.


----------



## Bourdon (Jan 4, 2019)

janxharris said:


> Interesting...I've no real instrument preference - though not so keen on harpsichord. I've generally tried this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perhaps this one if you don't like the sound of the harpsichord.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

janxharris said:


> Interesting...I've no real instrument preference - though not so keen on harpsichord. I've generally tried this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't suggest a more expressively satisfying commercial recording of it for string quartet than the old one by Quarteto Italiano.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Bourdon said:


> Perhaps this one if you don't like the sound of the harpsichord.


There's quite a lot of harpsichord after the string beginning.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> I can't suggest a more expressively satisfying commercial recording of it for string quartet than the old one by Quarteto Italiano.


Thanks - the sound quality is not good though.


----------



## Bourdon (Jan 4, 2019)

I would recommend this beautiful recording. Put aside your reservations about the Harpsichord and get overwhelmed by the beauty of this composition.
Maybe after listening to this recording it's easier to listen to the quartet version.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

janxharris said:


> Thanks - the sound quality is not good though.


I know. But there's nothing commercial more recommendable from this point of view from a string quartet that I know of.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Bourdon said:


> I would recommend this beautiful recording. Put aside your reservations about the Harpsichord and get overwhelmed by the beauty of this composition.
> Maybe after listening to this recording it's easier to listen to the quartet version.


Ok, ta. I'll give it a go.


----------



## Bourdon (Jan 4, 2019)

janxharris said:


> Ok, ta. I'll give it a go.


That's the right spirit,don't play it too loud ! :tiphat:


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

If anyone delivered the foundation and playing field for composers, these are the creators and developers of musical instruments and of musical notation through the ages.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Beethoven14 said:


> My qualifications as a music educator are in my defense of The Art of Fugue, Don Giovanni, Op. 131.


Right. No particular qualifications, you haven't actually studied the music of the losers in your competition, and you can't back your claims that their work is derivative of the winners. Got it.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> Well I don't believe that Hamlet is so mysterious, I think, for example, he took the first opportunity he reasonably could to avenge his father's death (I.e. after he'd verified the truth of The Ghost's charges, and found an opportunity to kill Claudius when he wasn't in prayer.) The play is a problem play in my opinion, it explores the moral problem of whether we should become the scourge and minister of God, without finding a solution.
> 
> But this isn't the right place for the discussion maybe!


If you don't think Hamlet is mysterious then you aren't looking close enough. I'd recommend J. Dover Wilson's "What Happens in Hamlet" just to get started. He pointed out many mysteries I hadn't even noticed! In any case, for the one you mention, Hamlet's inaction, even Hamlet disagrees with you:


> Now, whether it be
> Bestial oblivion, or some craven scruple
> Of thinking too precisely on the event,
> A thought which, quarter'd, hath but one part wisdom
> ...


What's even stranger is that, after this resolution in Act IV, Hamlet seems content to "let be" in Act V.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> If you don't think Hamlet is mysterious then you aren't looking close enough. I'd recommend J. Dover Wilson's "What Happens in Hamlet" just to get started. .


Now that's condescendingly arrogant.

Indeed Hamlet seems changed by his adventures in England.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> Now that's condescendingly arrogant.
> 
> Indeed Hamlet seems changed by his adventures in England.


I didn't mean it that way! But I would like to know what you know that's eluded 400 years of academics and commentators...

Right, and even his change is mysterious and unexplained!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I didn't mean it that way! But I would like to know what you know that's eluded 400 years of academics and commentators...
> 
> !


Sure, but Hamlet happens to be the ONE Shakespeare play I have studied in a bit of depth. I'm not really a literature scholar, but when I was a masters student I worked for a short time on the philosophy of literary criticism with someone in Oxford who was looking at Hamlet reception history. That was a long time ago, I'm sure things have moved on.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

He had better change because it's already act V and no act VI forthcoming.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

This comment of mine got posted in the wrong thread before. 

After The Mousetrap, he knows he should kill Claudius. But he’s shipped off to England. The only opportunity he has for action before making the journey is in The Prayer Scene, and I would argue that the reasons he gives for not killing the king at prayer are sound in Elizabethan terms. Ans as far as I can see, on his return he acts as soon as he can. Don’t forget we’re talking about a king, surrounded by guards etc . . .


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> Sure, but Hamlet happens to be the ONE Shakespeare play I have studied in a bit of depth. I'm not really a literature scholar, but when *I was a masters student I worked for a short time on the philosophy of literary criticism with someone in Oxford who was looking at Hamlet reception history.* That was a long time ago, I'm sure things have moved on.


Very cool! Any good insights you remember or would like to share? It's been a while since I studied it myself, but I've put a lot of time into watching, reading and thinking about that play. It hit me like a lightning bolt the first time I read it.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

In the old Belleforest version of Hamlet, the prince is a boy who has to wait to grow up before he can exact revenge, concealing his purpose with a show of madness. There, the delay in execution is perfectly coherent. Shakespeare however presents an older prince already physically capable of killing the king. This makes the delaying and feigned madness incoherent but its very awkwardness gives occasion to all the famous dubitating soliloquies.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> This comment of mine got posted in the wrong thread before.
> 
> After The Mousetrap, he knows he should kill Claudius. But he's shipped off to England. The only opportunity he has for action before making the journey is in The Prayer Scene, and I would argue that the reasons he gives for not killing the king at prayer are sound in Elizabethan terms. Ans as far as I can see, on his return he acts as soon as he can. Don't forget we're talking about a king, surrounded by guards etc . . .


It's hard to determine the amount of opportunities he actually has just by looking at the events in the play (the passage of time is kept vague), but Hamlet himself suggests that his inaction isn't due to a lack of opportunity. See the part of the soliloquy I posted above. His reason for not acting is more like a mix of cowardice and wisdom. My own thought is that Hamlet intuitively realizes his real problem isn't with Claudius, but with what the events did to his perception of reality. Hamlet is basically wading through the waste land of his Gotterdammerung.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

T


Eva Yojimbo said:


> Very cool! Any good insights you remember or would like to share? It's been a while since I studied it myself, but I've put a lot of time into watching, reading and thinking about that play. It hit me like a lightning bolt the first time I read it.


Not that I remember, a lot of his work was about the idea of vengeance in Elizabethan thinking, and about ghosts, that sort of stuff. We were very much interested in the problem plays - Troilus, Measure for Measure, All's Well that Ends Well - and we put Hamlet in that category partly.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Bourdon said:


> I would recommend this beautiful recording. Put aside your reservations about the Harpsichord and get overwhelmed by the beauty of this composition.
> Maybe after listening to this recording it's easier to listen to the quartet version.


Thanks again Bourdon. This is a torturous listening experience for me.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Littlephrase1913 said:


> This thread is still absurd.
> 
> What _precisely_ did Don Giovanni contribute to music that isn't matched by Tristan?
> 
> What _precisely_ did Shakespeare contribute to literature that makes Proust's feats (relatively) negligible?


Don Giovanni has contributed 'Don Giovanni, A Cenar Teco' to music, which Wagner has not contributed.
Shakespeare has contributed King Lear ACT 3 SCENE 4, which Proust has not contributed.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Verse drama and prose drama is still drama. It is confined to certain features of that genre including always specifying speakers and not including narration unless the character of a narrator is invented. Shakespeare also confined most of his poetry to blank verse, which is, in itself, limited, and in which he didn't exploit the full possibilities of. I'm as big a bardolater as anyone, but I can't agree he achieved all that was capable of being achieved in poetry or the novel. The sonnet itself was formally limited, and while Shakespeare made astonishingly brilliant use of that form, he could not achieve certain things that Milton, Wordsworth, Whitman, Dickinson, etc. did in their very different works.


Milton, Wordsworth, Whitman, Dickinson, Tolstoy, Proust, Cervantes would acknowledge the deepest and most difficult themes as Death, Reality, Self, God, Love, Time, Truth, Beauty, Rarity, Silence, Pride, Family, Evil, etc.. Literature searches toward wisdom in response to fundamental dilemmas of human existence. The great poets and philosophers will agree upon these fundamental dilemmas. It is clear that even just Act 5 of _Hamlet_ offers more wisdom on the most difficult theme of Death than the other writers mentioned. It is clear that even just Act 4 of _King Lear_ offers more wisdom on the most difficult theme of Reality than the other writers mentioned. We can treat the other themes separately, but quoting the threnos from his _The Phoenix and Turtle_ should suffice:

THRENOS.
Beauty, truth, and rarity, 
Grace in all simplicity, 
Here enclos'd, in cinders lie.

Death is now the Phoenix' nest, 
And the Turtle's loyal breast 
To eternity doth rest,

Leaving no posterity: 
'Twas not their infirmity, 
It was married chastity.

Truth may seem but cannot be; 
Beauty brag but 'tis not she; 
Truth and beauty buried be.

To this urn let those repair 
That are either true or fair; 
For these dead birds sigh a prayer.

-

So I still contend that Shakespeare stands out among all literature for the depth of his ideas regarding these fundamental human conceptions -- Death, Reality etc. I emphasize that Shakespeare's ideas are independent of the form of presentation, whether the type of drama or restriction to verse.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

janxharris said:


> Perhaps you can explain to me what I am missing regarding _The Art of Fugue_ then? I've tried over many months and repeated listens to find something that I can appreciate; but thus far - nothing. It's essentially a single melody that is varied through counterpoint (though it seems other subjects are introduced later as well). It doesn't go beyond an academic exercise for me.
> 
> I respect that it works for some classical lovers - so no need for anyone to fulminate.


The main one seems to me the contrapunctus XI. Start at 46:45 of this organ performance (which is in the middle of the contrapunctus XI) and listen to the end of this contrapunctus. I hope you may appreciate these few minutes:


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

NLAdriaan said:


> If anyone delivered the foundation and playing field for composers, these are the creators and developers of musical instruments and of musical notation through the ages.


This is like saying that Euclid's having laid the axioms for Geometry makes him a higher mathematician than Archimedes. No Greek or Modern would state the superiority in mathematics of Euclid to Archimedes. Archimedes stands far above Euclid because in mathematics (as in all human activity) what is most foundational is the magnitude of invention, as exemplified in Archimedes' _On the Sphere and Cylinder_, corollary to proposition 34.

Similarly your statement is like saying the discoverer of the technique of perspective in painting is more foundational than Raphael who painted _The Transfiguration_ and The School of Athens. Yes Raphael did utilize this discovery, just as Archimedes did need Euclid, and as Bach did need these instrumental and notional pioneers. But surely in discussion of education we agree the highest human discovery (the foundation, or the sublime) in an art comes from those who have most mastered the imaginative potential of the medium, rather than those who have created the means of the medium.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> After The Mousetrap, he knows he should kill Claudius. But he's shipped off to England. The only opportunity he has for action before making the journey is in The Prayer Scene, and I would argue that the reasons he gives for not killing the king at prayer are sound in Elizabethan terms. Ans as far as I can see, on his return he acts as soon as he can. Don't forget we're talking about a king, surrounded by guards etc . . .


I think you are onto something here with regards to the plot from ACT 3 to the end. But I also think it's very important to keep in mind that Hamlet the character strangely sits so far outside the setting and narrative of the play (illustrated by his opening aside) that _Hamlet_ becomes an important play almost solely for the quality of Hamlet's philosophical musings. _Hamlet_ is not as much an interactive play (exemplified by the numerous personalities of _King Lear_) as a collection of deep musings by a figure of brilliance; even the play-within-the-play and Hamlet's interaction with the players can be seen as philosophical reflections of Hamlet. The critic Samuel Johnson would disagree with this interpretation I have given, as he sees in _Hamlet_ a play notable for the variety of its incidents.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> With Calculus, you are quite right. Since Newton/ Liebniz systemized it, the foundations have always held and haven't changed. With Philopsophy, you get competing views since Plato, but his views shaped Western civilization.
> 
> But there is no analogy with the Arts. What does Shakspeare have in common with Joyce's Ulysses besides using English words? The foundations of meaning and techniques are radically different. In music, what did the harmony and rhythms jn those works have to do with the highly chromatic and atonal music of Scriabin and Babbitt? The foundations from Bach and Haydn had not changed through Don Giovanni until the early 20th Century. The aesthetics and techniques of 20th C painting was very different from the 18th Century.


I see what you are saying, and I understand this is absolutely central to the whole discussion.

To me comparing Mozart with someone like Babbitt, is like comparing Archimedes with someone like Cantor. Having invented Set Theory, Cantor is indisputably important in mathematics (and more modern than Archimedes). But it seems clear that the geometric understanding of Archimedes and the high art of his presentations (especially in _On the Sphere and Cylinder_) are a far more difficult achievement, so much so that to compare the achievements of the two mathematicians would be like putting a heavyweight with a featherweight. Again I acknowledge fully the genius of Babbitt and Cantor, but I claim the existence of a higher level of genius which does not only extend our human capacities for understanding but which somehow provides justification to the existence of the universe. I claim that Bach/Mozart/Beethoven reach this higher level, while Babbitt/Brahms/Debussy/Schubert/Scriabin/Stravinsky do not -- I do not think this is controversial.

I make the same argument comparing _King Lear_ with _Anna Karenina_ or _Finnegans Wake_ (which I think is Joyce's masterpiece). Who could deny the genius of Tolstoy or Joyce? But Shakespeare stands on a completely different level of understanding.

I see no difference between ancients and moderns. I am viewing all art with one goal -- to gain wisdom. And though _Finnegans Wake_ quite obviously has linguistic and sonic innovations which Shakespeare has not dreamed of, in the search toward expression of the cosmic understanding (and this seems to me the purpose of great art) the wisdom of Shakespeare's greatest works has not yet been passed in literature.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Beethoven14 said:


>


A methodological aside: If we are to be selective in art (which all of us must be), then why stop at some point and say 'I cannot select any further, now all of these works are equally good'? This does not make sense to me. If we are to be selective then we must search fully to find only finished masterpieces and proclaim them above the other works. This task of selection must have subjective aspects, so it seems to me the only way to express our view of right in art is through seemingly groundless (ie aesthetic) defense. But never can I accept any statement stemming from thought of the form 'I cannot select any further, now all of these works are equally good'. So I return to my defense of Beethoven's Op. 131, which still to me stands above all other works of art in understanding and shall be fully sufficient for the education of the supreme composer of genius.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> Since you have made wild claims about what is necessary to educate future composers of genius, please tell us your qualifications as a music educator. How many composers of genius have you taught?
> 
> Your claim that the music of Schoenberg, Ligeti, Debussy, Schubert, Brahms, Wagner, Stravinsky is derivative of music two to three centuries old presupposes that you have studied their work extensively. In what context did you study these composers? What works of Stravinsky have you analyzed? Wagner? Debussy? Have you taken courses in their music? Have you extensively studied their scores?


My qualifications as a music educator are in my defense of The Art of Fugue, Don Giovanni, *Op. 131*.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Beethoven14 said:


> I see what you are saying, and I understand this is absolutely central to the whole discussion.
> 
> To me comparing Mozart with someone like Babbitt, is like comparing Archimedes with someone like Cantor. Having invented Set Theory, Cantor is indisputably important in mathematics (and more modern than Archimedes). But it seems clear that the geometric understanding of Archimedes and the high art of his presentations (especially in _On the Sphere and Cylinder_) are a far more difficult achievement, so much so that to compare the achievements of the two mathematicians would be like putting a heavyweight with a featherweight. Again I acknowledge fully the genius of Babbitt and Cantor, but I claim the existence of a higher level of genius which does not only extend our human capacities for understanding but which somehow provides justification to the existence of the universe. I claim that Bach/Mozart/Beethoven reach this higher level, while Babbitt/Brahms/Debussy/Schubert/Scriabin/Stravinsky do not -- I do not think this is controversial.
> 
> ...


With respect Beethoven14, your attempt to elevate your subjective opinion and somehow make it objective fact here is in vain.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Beethoven14 said:


> This is like saying that Euclid's having laid the axioms for Geometry makes him a higher mathematician than Archimedes. No Greek or Modern would state the superiority in mathematics of Euclid to Archimedes. Archimedes stands far above Euclid because in mathematics (as in all human activity) what is most foundational is the magnitude of invention, as exemplified in Archimedes' _On the Sphere and Cylinder_, corollary to proposition 34.
> 
> Similarly your statement is like saying the discoverer of the technique of perspective in painting is more foundational than Raphael who painted _The Transfiguration_ and The School of Athens. Yes Raphael did utilize this discovery, just as Archimedes did need Euclid, and as Bach did need these instrumental and notional pioneers. But surely in discussion of education we agree the highest human discovery (the foundation, or the sublime) in an art comes from those who have most mastered the imaginative potential of the medium, rather than those who have created the means of the medium.


I don't know why I am at all reacting to this message, as obsessed as you are with ranking totally incomparable things. My simple remark: 


> If anyone delivered the foundation and playing field for composers, these are the creators and developers of musical instruments and of musical notation through the ages.


seems too difficult to grasp. I am not ranking anyone, I just understate that your statement about three pieces of music, is irrelevant, small talk.

My last comment to this thread is that its subject once again proves that 'art education', what you claim to be your professional occupation, ruined more artistry than it created. Good luck to your students


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

janxharris said:


> With respect Beethoven14, your attempt to elevate your subjective opinion and somehow make it objective fact here is in vain.


Sir, I have agreed throughout this thread that I am speaking from subjectivity. I have no intent to create objectivities, I only had hoped to slightly modify some subjectivities -- which is the aim of all criticism practiced as literature. Above all, this thread (which seems to have caused some violence for which I apologize) has been an exploration in methodology. These interactions have been very useful to me, for which I thank the participants with highest gratitude.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

Beethoven14 said:


> Don Giovanni has contributed 'Don Giovanni, A Cenar Teco' to music, which Wagner has not contributed.
> Shakespeare has contributed King Lear ACT 3 SCENE 4, which Proust has not contributed.


Yes, Wagner didn't contribute A Cenar Teco but he did write the Love-Duet and Love-Death of Tristan, along with the Parsifal prelude, Wotan's farewell, and the Pilgrim's Chorus.

Yes, King Lear is a work of consummate genius (my favorite Shakespeare by far) but Proust has the Madeleine scene, Swann in Love, all of Time Regained and countless passages of sublime beauty and insight.

The summit may be populated by the spare few, but it is crowded nonetheless.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Beethoven14 said:


> A methodological aside: If we are to be selective in art (which all of us must be), then why stop at some point and say 'I cannot select any further, now all of these works are equally good'? This does not make sense to me.


It may not make sense to you, but it makes perfect sense to anyone humble or objective enough to acknowledge the limits of his own perceptiveness and the incommensurability of one work of art with another. There are useful measures of excellence in art, but only with respect to commensurables. _Parsifal_ and _Don Giovanni_ are in fundamental ways incommensurable, and there is nothing necessary or desirable about ranking them. The need to find "the best" is a mark of childhood ("my daddy can beat up your daddy") or, in an adult, ego insecurity.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

There have been great critics who have themselves been preoccupied with hierarchies of greatness. Matthew Arnold and George Saintsbury come to mind. I think the problem comes when these hierarchies are dogmatically clung to as if they were geometrically demonstrated, when instead they should serve as only general guidelines to further study. In the latter capacity they can be useful.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> This comment of mine got posted in the wrong thread before.
> 
> After The Mousetrap, he knows he should kill Claudius. But he's shipped off to England. The only opportunity he has for action before making the journey is in The Prayer Scene, and I would argue that the reasons he gives for not killing the king at prayer are sound in Elizabethan terms. Ans as far as I can see, on his return he acts as soon as he can. Don't forget we're talking about a king, surrounded by guards etc . . .


A king surrounded by guards one might think, and yet in Act IV the King is frightened, nearly helpless, and believes himself about to be slain when Laertes, in a flash, raises an insurrection among the people immediately following his return from France. The king is saved from the mob only because he is able to pacify Laertes' rage. Since Laertes was able to incite a dangerous rebellion with ease, why not Hamlet, who is, we are explicitly told, a great favorite with the people?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

This thread reminds me of another thread:

.



Art Rock said:


> Well, no-one can say it's a pointless thread title.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Logos said:


> A king surrounded by guards one might think, and yet in Act IV the King is frightened, nearly helpless, and believes himself about to be slain when Laertes, in a flash, raises an insurrection among the people immediately following his return from France. The king is saved from the mob only because he is able to pacify Laertes' rage. Since Laertes was able to incite a dangerous rebellion with ease, why not Hamlet, who is, we are explicitly told, a great favorite with the people?


Hamlet is a royal - hopes to be king. Why would he encourage rebellion against the royal household? Where might it end?

He is also seeking revenge of a kind that leaves him satisfied. Clearly, encouraging a rebellion does nothing to bring about the justice he seeks.

For Laertes though - the destruction of the royal household could achieve two ends - revenge for the death of his father, and the possibility of a high position in the subsequent court.

On the subject of Hamlet - he never properly avenges his father - rather he avenges himself when Laertes reveals that Claudius is behind the poisoned sword tip only then does he take action.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

PlaySalieri said:


> Hamlet is a royal - hopes to be king. .


By the time he gets back from England, Hamlet doesn't hope for anything.



> There's a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, 'tis not to come. If it be not to come, it will be now. If it be not now, yet it will come-the readiness is all. Since no man of aught he leaves knows, what is 't to leave betimes? Let be.


This is the most interesting aspect of the play for me.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

> Hamlet is a royal - hopes to be king. Why would he encourage rebellion against the royal household? Where might it end?


Why would he not encourage one, seeing that the present situation was still more intolerable? From Hamlet's perspective the royal family is already stained, not to say inwardly destroyed. In any case, Hamlet's actions do in fact lead to the destruction of the royal household, so he could not have done any worse. Why should we assume that this prince, beloved of the people, should fail in a rebellion when Laertes so easily walks to the brink of victory?



> He is also seeking revenge of a kind that leaves him satisfied. Clearly, encouraging a rebellion does nothing to bring about the justice he seeks.


I don't see that that is clear at all. In Elizabethan political thought, Hamlet would have been as justified in deposing Claudius as Henry Tudor was in deposing Richard III. Any attempt to retain a murderously acquired crown is in itself a sinful act, giving Hamlet the satisfaction of catching Claudius spiritually unprepared for death should he violently attempt to resist an insurrection.

My point in all this being that Hamlet's delaying, or inactivity if you prefer, cannot be explained (as some critics attempt to do) by saying he could not have done anything except what he did. He might have acted as Laertes did, but he chose not to do so, for whatever reason.


----------

