# Differences of opinion regarding a composer's use of harmony



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Someone has told me this and it has been bugging me for sometime:
"statements about A's use of harmony are not factual in the same way that saying A wrote 5 violin concertos is. There clearly are differences of opinion."

To what extent do you think the above statement is true?

So, let's say a person expresses the 'opinion' "Handel is a more expressive / capable / greater composer of harmony than Bach". 
Would you tell him "you're entitled to your opinion" OR, "WTF are you talking about?"


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

"tatements about A's use of harmony are not factual in the same way that saying A wrote 5 violin concertos is."

Huh?

It seems to me that a lot depends upon what those "statements" are. If one says that Beethoven opens his First Symphony with a C dominant seventh chord, we likely have as factual a statement as saying Beethoven wrote nine symphonies. There are many such statements about Beethoven's use of harmony that can be categorized as simple fact. Even if we propose that the opening chords of that same First Symphony's opening measure suggest the key of F major, we are still within the realm of fact.

So, I'm inclined to ask: "WTF are we talking about?"

In the mean time, I wouldn't feel so bugged out about such a statement. We may, of course, have a difference of opinion.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> Someone has told me this and it has been bugging me for sometime:
> "statements about A's use of harmony are not factual in the same way that saying A wrote 5 violin concertos is. There clearly are differences of opinion."
> 
> To what extent do you think the above statement is true?
> ...


Suppose someone says, "I enjoy Beethoven's usage of harmony more than Mozart's usage." Then that person says, "Beethoven wrote 5 violin concertos."

I'm guessing most people would call the first statement a matter of opinion while the second statement would be considered a matter of fact.

Or if someone says, "M. Haydn is more expressive with his use of harmony than J. Haydn," I'm guessing most people would consider than statement less factual than saying J. Haydn wrote 5 violin concertos.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

One can never fully comprehend or underestimate matters of subjective greatness. They exist strongly in the minds and nostalgia of people, and are just as factual as anything more consensual. They are a perspective phenomenon, and we can always learn to understand them more. There are frameworks that can explain why anything is the greatest; under given limitations, each personal response is garnered by a set of criteria, so anything can be 'the best.' An example that comes to mind is how highly I rated an old video game called Curse of Monkey Island, it brought about such strong feelings of adventure and its possibilities. Even though it may not appeal to all, one can still try to make an effort to understand how something could be the greatest under different limitations and frameworks. Because music cannot exist as anything intelligible without a subjective framework to hear it.

When we listen to critics, or compile greatest lists, we often get criticized for being old, but these are just tools to help people find probable composers they might like. They don't account for everyone's individual tastes.

*Edit*: And as Forster mentions below, a fact is never the same as an evaluative judgement. It is a fact to say "I think Monkey Island is great," and merely an evaluative judgement to say "Monkey Island is great." Evluative judgements are not objective, but since humans are widely similar, we can rely on others' evaluative judgements for recommendations.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Someone has told me this and it has been bugging me for sometime:
> "statements about A's use of harmony are not factual in the same way that saying A wrote 5 violin concertos is. There clearly are differences of opinion."
> 
> To what extent do you think the above statement is true?


It is true that factual statements of A's use of harmony can be taken as fact (as SonnetCLV says) and evaluative or judgemental statements of A's use of harmony should be taken as opinion.

It's also a fact that that is my opinion.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The problem here is not mainly that such claims can be hard to evaluate (probably they can usually be evaluated but certainly not as easily as the number of concerti). 
But that they usually show a misleading reduction and undue focus on elements that cannot easily be isolated. It is an approach similar to that that was involuntarily led ad absurdum in that notorious clip of Bernstein with Maximilian Schell where Bernstein claims how "bad" or faulty Beethoven was in so many aspects of music but magically all taken together it becomes the greatest music ever. That's not only exaggerated but actually wrong. And it would not make any sense if the supposed faults were absolute because real faults or shortcomings in all of the elements could not together make something overwhelmingly great as a whole. If there is any truth in it, it means a subordination of elements to the whole which can mean that in a particular piece the harmonies or rhythms are fairly simple or whatever. Therefore any analysis of parts has to be informed by keeping their subservience to the whole in mind.

There are people who apparently find most baroque and viennese classicism "too simple". I think they are often focussing on wrong aspects, basically taking a yardstick that doesn't fit to these pieces. 
Hemingway's "For whom the bell tolls" is written in a rather simple and straightforward style. It is not only in one or two but probably in almost any respect a critic could come up with less complex, demanding, difficult than Joyce's "Ulysses". (I think that this is hard to deny regardless of which one prefers.) Is it therefore "too simple", hardly worth reading and could it be said that Hemingway is clearly a lesser writer than Joyce? I don't think so.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

mmsbls said:


> Suppose someone says, "I enjoy Beethoven's usage of harmony more than Mozart's usage." Then that person says, "Beethoven wrote 5 violin concertos."


I acknowledge that questions like "Who, between Mozart vs. Debussy, wrote the better harmony" are meaningless. Even Beethoven who did a lot of "horizontal expansion" and broke the rules of "good taste", deviates so much from Mozart in terms of idiom that any direct comparison doesn't seem to be a meaningful exercise (at least in the context of the discussion I'm trying to evoke); even their periods of career differ significantly in terms of timeline. 
I would like to ask the hypothetical person (in your post) who holds the opinion "I enjoy Beethoven's usage of harmony more than Mozart's", questions like - "Then can you recognize what's good about late 18th century harmony?", "Would you have objections to the statement [Gluck is a more expressive / capable / greater composer of harmony than Mozart]"?
*Handel vs. Bach* ("let's say a person expresses the 'opinion' "Handel is a more expressive / capable / greater composer of harmony than Bach". Would you tell him "you're entitled to your opinion" OR, "WTF are you talking about?"") would be a perfect example for discussion in this thread, actually.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> The problem here is not mainly that such claims can be hard to evaluate (probably they can usually be evaluated but certainly not as easily as the number of concerti).


There is a difference in saying 
"Handel rarely ever wrote anything as harmonically dark-sounding as the opening chorus of Bach's St. John passion. He lacks the range of harmony of Bach. But I still like Handel's ways better personally." 
as opposed to saying
"Handel is a more expressive / capable / greater composer of harmony than Bach". 
Isn't there?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Some people may prefer a simple Alberti bass pattern to flowing, intricate counterpoint, I guess. Maybe "richness" or "complexity" would be better ways to describe harmony.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> There is a difference in saying
> "Handel rarely ever wrote anything as harmonically dark-sounding as the opening chorus of Bach's St. John passion. He lacks the range of harmony of Bach. But I still like Handel's ways better personally."
> as opposed to saying
> "Handel is a more expressive / capable / greater composer of harmony than Bach".
> Isn't there?


There are differences, one of which is that the first statement is more explanatory than the second. But both contain matters of opinion which are open to challenge.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SONNET CLV said:


> It seems to me that a lot depends upon what those "statements" are.





Forster said:


> There are differences, one of which is that the first statement is more explanatory than the second. But both contain matters of opinion which are open to challenge.


But we can clearly see on the score and hear from the music, the composers' use of dissonances and non-chord tones, for instance; how "harsh", "dark", "deep" (I don't necessarily mean "musically profound"), even "heart-wrenching" they make them sound, based on 18th century harmonic practice, and their subtle intricacies in using them, and their "capabilities" clearly differ. Don't they? You may always say you prefer Handel's over Bach's, but the things I mentioned are clearly there, and they are universally recognizable to everyone (at least to those who recognize what makes 18th century harmony sound good). Aren't they?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> But we can clearly see on the score and hear from the music, the composers' use of dissonances and non-chord tones, for instance; how "harsh", "dark", "deep" (I don't necessarily mean "musically profound"), even "heart-wrenching" they make them sound, based on 18th century harmonic practice, and their subtle intricacies in using them, and their "capabilities" clearly differ. Don't they? You may always say you prefer Handel's over Bach's, but the things I mentioned are clearly there, and they are universally recognizable to everyone (at least to those who recognize what makes 18th century harmony sound good). Aren't they?


I'm not sure whether you want to compare Bach and Handel (with an apparently built in conclusion that Bach is superior to Handel), or this is just an illustration of the issue of what constitutes statements of fact, statements of opinion and the land that lies between.

Let's assume it's the latter.

The following terms in your last post are open to challenge. By "challenge", I don't mean that the statements are incorrect, but that someone may come along who has a different opinion from yours, given your concluding point that "they are universally recognizable to everyone".

"we can clearly see on the score"
"and hear from the music"
"how "harsh", "dark", "deep" (I don't necessarily mean "musically profound"), even "heart-wrenching" they make them sound"
"subtle intricacies"
"their "capabilities" clearly differ"
"the things I mentioned are clearly there"
"what makes 18th century harmony sound good"


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

The expression "use of harmony" is vague to the point of being meaningless. Statements like X is "a more expressive / capable / greater composer of harmony than Bach" are also vague and without discernible content. They would not be used by anyone conversant with music theory and analysis. And since the only people capable of making or evaluating purportedly factual claims about harmony are those who know theory and have some analytical skills, one should begin with the assumption that anyone saying such things is incapable of making objectively true or useful statements about harmony or the harmonic language of particular composers.

So, in answer to your question: "Would you tell [such a person] "you're entitled to your opinion" OR, "WTF are you talking about?", I would tell them: "I have no idea what your opinion means and apparently neither do you," followed by "WTF are you talking about?"


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> The expression "use of harmony" is vague to the point of being meaningless. Statements like X is "a more expressive / capable / greater composer of harmony than Bach" are also vague and without discernible content. They would not be used by anyone conversant with music theory and analysis. And since the only people capable of making or evaluating purportedly factual claims about harmony are those who know theory and have some analytical skills, one should begin with the assumption that anyone saying such things is incapable of making objectively true or useful statements about harmony or the harmonic language of particular composers.


But what one notices immediately by looking at the score of Handel's and Bach's music without getting into such details; there's far more chromatics, accidentals used in Bach's. With Handel, I sometimes get the impression he is the type who writes pages after pages with barely any.
And although I don't rely on Rosen as an authority on many topics, isn't what he explains in the video "apparent" for everyone? (Isn't it more like "common sense"?):


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> But what one notices immediately by looking at the score of Handel's and Bach's music without getting into such details; there's far more chromatics, accidentals used in Bach's.


This may be factually true - but, so what?



hammeredklavier said:


> With Handel, I sometimes get the impression he is the type who writes pages after pages without any.


(Why) does that matter?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I cannot do this by analysis but as the "use of harmony" is so vague, one could probably argue that e.g. Handel's use of harmonic contrast and comparably rare but expressive chromaticism and dissonant harmonies is at least as or sometimes more effective than Bach's (or others) writing that is more dissonant and chromatic throughout and thus has rarely such effective contrasts. 

I am thinking of pieces like "The people who walked in darkness", the tenor accompagnato in the passion music of Messiah (I think one passage is "He was cut off..." or "All that seem him", not sure); also some of the choirs in that section, or even something as simple as minor - major in "As by man came death". (There are also some mad scenes in operas or Dejanira in Hercules with expressive and harmonically daring accompagnato scenes.) Nothing of this is as huge and probably not harmonically as complicated as "Herr, unser Herrscher" but I admittedly find the latter rather relentless and a bit grating. (It is a strange piece because it is the intro to a passion but at the same time a kind of doxology.)

Without trying to push the analogy too far (because it would be rather ludicrous), I think of such differences a bit like e.g. Hemingway vs. Joyce as mentioned elsewhere. Joyce is more complex, has far more allusions, interconnections, whatever. Hemingway is rather plain and direct narrative. But is either therefore more/less effective, moving etc. literature? This seems at least an open question and certainly not clearly determined by the differences in complexity.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> "statements about A's use of harmony are not factual in the same way that saying A wrote 5 violin concertos is. There clearly are differences of opinion."


I would say, for example, that one of the reasons Telemann will always sound somewhat generic, is his dull and uninspired use of harmony. Since I'm not a relativist (in that I think some composers are objectively and demonstrably greater than others) I'm untroubled by the assertion that Telemann is, factually, not as great a composer as Händel or Bach _because_ of this. Granted, every so often Telemann will surprise you with some really interesting harmonies that are all his own, but those moments are rare. I don't go to Telemann for his knowledge of harmony (as they would say in the day).


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> Without trying to push the analogy too far (because it would be rather ludicrous), I think of such differences a bit like e.g. Hemingway vs. Joyce as mentioned elsewhere. Joyce is more complex, has far more allusions, interconnections, whatever. Hemingway is rather plain and direct narrative. But is either therefore more/less effective, moving etc. literature? This seems at least an open question and certainly not clearly determined by the differences in complexity.


Not to mention that Hemingway's simplicity and directness was regarded as a brilliant innovation over his immediate predecessors which set the standard for what came after him... that may not be true of Handel, but "complexity = good" is, well, pretty simplistic.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

. . . *"the "use of harmony" is so vague"*

True.

Better to say that the Composer A uses more complex harmonies (or harmonic progressions) than Composer B, although that really doesn't necessarily mean that complex harmonies or harmonic progressions are BETTER.

This sort of discussion always brings me back to the old Musical Theatre comparison of *Andrew Lloyd Webber* vs. *Stephen Sondheim*. I prefer Sondheim over Lloyd Webber because of the more complex harmonies and harmonic progressions, but that doesn't mean I necessarily think that Sondheim is better.

Lloyd Webber tends to compose using triadic harmonies, and his harmonic progressions are often in parallel triads. But he sure knows how to write a melody that people can hum as they're leaving the theatre. And . . . there are more people that love a good melody than love a great collection of complex harmonies.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> But what one notices immediately by looking at the score of Handel's and Bach's music without getting into such details; there's far more chromatics, accidentals used in Bach's. With Handel, I sometimes get the impression he is the type who writes pages after pages with barely any.
> And although I don't rely on Rosen as an authority on many topics, isn't what he explains in the video "apparent" for everyone? (Isn't it more like "common sense"?):


What's up Hammered? Rosen and yourself must haven't heard this by Handel.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> What's up Hammered? Rosen and yourself must haven't heard this by Handel.


Sure, he did write chromatic fugues (as did Leopold Mozart), but I think the way he treats the dissonances in the part-writing is milder (or less colorful) than Bach's. Can you tell me any passages (and their intervals) in the Handel (here's a link to the score) you find particularly striking with regards to our discussion? I'm thinking along the lines of, for example,
https://www.talkclassical.com/64736-augmented-triad-tristan-chord-4.html#post2153670


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, he did write chromatic fugues (as did Leopold Mozart), but I think the way he treats the dissonances in the part-writing is milder (or less colorful) than Bach's. Can you tell me any passages (and their intervals) in the Handel (here's a link to the score) you find particularly striking with regards to our discussion? I'm thinking along the lines of, for example,
> https://www.talkclassical.com/64736-augmented-triad-tristan-chord-4.html#post2153670


I am not sure how many people are super familiar with Handel considering he composed (according to wikipedia): 42 operas, 25 oratorios, more than 120 cantatas, trios and duets, numerous arias, odes and serenatas, solo and trio sonatas, 18 concerti grossi and 12 organ concertos.

I doubt he had the same target audience as J. S. Bach. It doesn't make much sense to think both of them would be employing harmonic and melodic resources in the same way.
One of them was equivalent of a superstar composer, the other was - more like unappreciated genius?
Being a favourite of the regular people and rich patrons while you were alive or the critics and snobs, and church music lovers when you are dead, I think Handel made the right choice.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, he did write chromatic fugues (as did Leopold Mozart), but I think the way he treats the dissonances in the part-writing is milder (or less colorful) than Bach's. Can you tell me any passages (and their intervals) in the Handel (here's a link to the score) you find particularly striking with regards to our discussion? I'm thinking along the lines of, for example,
> https://www.talkclassical.com/64736-augmented-triad-tristan-chord-4.html#post2153670


There are non-chord tones and chromaticism used throughout. It doesn't fit within Rosen's description of Handel's use of harmony as much simpler than Bach, even if that could be generally true. I don't know how you can say the dissonances in the part-writing is milder than Bach's. I think you're making the mistake of taking what someone says and trying to apply it to something where it specifically doesn't apply.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

BabyGiraffe said:


> ...
> I doubt he had the same target audience as J. S. Bach. It doesn't make much sense to think both of them would be employing harmonic and melodic resources in the same way.
> One of them was equivalent of a superstar composer, the other was - more like unappreciated genius?
> Being a favourite of the regular people and rich patrons while you were alive or the critics and snobs, and church music lovers when you are dead, I think Handel made the right choice.


That's a little too simplistic and a false choice there at the end. Handel was under the pressure of public approval in a way that didn't affect Bach as much, and his music should be judged accordingly. Bach's present audience though goes far beyond "critics, snobs and church music lovers"...and anyway there are probably far more of those than fans of Baroque opera (although there's going to be overlap). It also includes organists, harpsichordists and pianists who revere Bach's keyboard work; violinists and cellists for whom the sonatas, partitas and suites are the most precious items in their repertoires. Anyway if I'm an artist I'd rather leave something for posterity that lasts than be known for 15 minutes as the composer of a universally-but-temporarily known commercial jingle that made me rich. YMMV

And hey, I love Handel's music too. Handel may have made the right choice, but subsequent listeners have also made the right choice imo.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

One probably does not need to hear all of Handel (or Bach or...) to be reasonably certain that Handel did not have the didactic/theorist/perfectionist ambition of Bach but was, even for the period, extremely pragmatic. 
With a few exceptions (mainly op.6 and the 1720 suites, maybe op.4) he couldn't even be bothered to supervise editions of his own music, leading to patchwork concerti by the editor (for some of op.3) or works included that were not by Handel at all (such as 2x2 violin sonatas in different editions of op.1).

Nevertheless, both in Italy and Britain Handel's music (and keyboard playing) was considered "full voiced" and sometimes almost too "learned German" for the style, e.g. the string accompaniment in "Cara sposa" (Rinaldo) was uncommonly elaborate for an opera aria.
I am not an expert in 1700-40 baroque opera, but the accompagnato "mad scenes" etc. mentioned above (Bajazet in Tamerlano, there is also one in Orlando and maybe Ginevra in Ariodante) and similar passages (such as the Passion recitative in Messiah) are also considered uncommonly chromatic/harmonically daring. But it is always closely tied to affect or for particularly dramatic effects, not as an exploration of part writing. I have no idea if and how far they go beyond the common baroque expressive tools for sad, mad etc. scenes.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Someone has told me this and it has been bugging me for sometime:
> "statements about A's use of harmony are not factual in the same way that saying A wrote 5 violin concertos is. There clearly are differences of opinion."
> 
> To what extent do you think the above statement is true?


It depends on what the statements are. Plenty of statements about harmony can be purely factual and not subject to differences of opinion. The more you know about a subject, the more factual your statements are likely to be.



> So, let's say a person expresses the 'opinion' "Handel is a more expressive / capable / greater composer of harmony than Bach".
> Would you tell him "you're entitled to your opinion" OR, "WTF are you talking about?"


If that's a typical example of what you mean, I might ask "What (never mind TF, it's crass) do you mean?" Or I might just smile distractedly and move on.


----------

