# Classical Music Critic on "Who is the greatest composer?"



## hreichgott

http://classicalmusiccritic.wordpress.com/

Some worthwhile observations on the good old "Who is the greatest?" question!
An excerpt


> Assumption Seven: A greatest composer must appeal to both the wealthy elitists and the undereducated descendants of peasants. A greatest composer's music will therefore show up both in movie or cartoon soundtracks and at white tie galas. Commercially successful and academic authors alike will write frequently about his music. Salesmen will promise that recordings of his music will make your fetus smarter.


(This is the newly begun blog of my friend Sarah Denes, a classical trombonist, Gubaidulina specialist and Ph.D. student in music at Duke. She is interested in writing classical criticism that is useful to non-academics.)


----------



## Art Rock

That was a good read - and very recognizable given discussions at this board. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Vesteralen

Very nice. Tell your friend thanks not only for putting some of my vague impressions into words, but adding considerably more content to the arguments I've mulled over in my mind.

I feel confirmed in my desire not to ever argue over greatness.


----------



## niv

Brilliant article. Hits the nail in the head.


----------



## Vaneyes

The topic is way too complex, even for a Ph.D. Rather than pandering to the whats 'n whys of likes, just get on with it. Preach your own biases, and keep "just kiddings" to an extreme minimum.


----------



## Blancrocher

Vaneyes said:


> The topic is way too complex, even for a Ph.D. Rather than pandering to the whats 'n whys of likes, just get on with it. Preach your own biases, and keep "just kiddings" to an extreme minimum.


Careful, Vaneyes, or "Certified Perfect Recording" may be in her sights next!


----------



## hreichgott

Certified Perfect Recording?? is this a thing?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

All right- I'm a little late to this party... but there are questions that pop into my head-

1) The author of that piece showed pretty decent skill with the wrecking ball. What could we expect of this person behind the controls of an erector-crane, though?

2) Is the author at least as interested in dialogue as she evidently is in monologue?

One telling quote: "... people just want an excuse to wax rhapsodic." Leads to an pretty obvious syllogism-
1) People want an excuse to wax rhapsodic. 2) Author of blog belongs to the known subset, "people;" therefore...

Hey, I belong to the subset "people," too. I also recognize that I didn't pile up over 3000 posts here without a fairly strong desire for self-expression. But at least when I express myself here, readers have a full and equal opportunity to respond to my musings.


----------



## hreichgott

^ Regarding dialogue: You could leave a comment and find out.


----------



## Couac Addict

She cracked the code faster and more haphazardly than Dan Brown.
...very funny though.
It also saves me having to change my avatar (I like to make sure I'm still part of the "scene").


----------



## Guest

Some valid points, undermined by the invalid.

For example, she sets out 10 assumptions, but doesn't analyse them. Does that mean not one has any merit?
She has, of course, made her own false assumptions, not least that the only people asking the question in the first place are classical fans, who would, of course, rule out The Beatles in a conversation about the greatest classical composer.

Her best point is,


> I do not believe that we should always conflate the caliber of a composer with his influence, which is very much a function of time, geography, and politics.


but this is immediately followed by



> It is time for the public to recognize


 when she has not been talking about 'the public' but a subset of people who have made the 10 assumptions.

In all of the threads on this subject I've joined on TC, no serious contributor has made all 10 assumptions, and those who have made even one of them is willing to have that assumption tested. She does not allow for the testing of even the first, which she leads us to infer is false, but which, on closer inspection, is a false inference.


----------



## BurningDesire

This article is amazing and hits the nail on the head. There is no _greatest_ composer. The observations on biases towards Germanic composers and against women composers are really spot on.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

BurningDesire said:


> The observations on biases towards Germanic composers and against women composers are really spot on.


Ah, but what if that is no bias, but simply putting the praise where it belongs?


----------



## BurningDesire

SiegendesLicht said:


> Ah, but what if that is no bias, but simply putting the praise where it belongs?


yeah no its bias. o3o


----------



## Aramis

SiegendesLicht said:


> Ah, but what if that is no bias, but simply putting the praise where it belongs?














BurningDesire said:


> yeah no its bias. o3o


----------



## Guest

The main conclusions of the blog referred to in the OP would seem to be:

"_I have a secret to tell you, one to which I am especially privy as a musical scholar. There are hundreds of truly wonderful composers out there, from Hildegaard von Bingen in the 11th century to Sofia Gubaidulina today. While I would not argue with anyone who calls Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart some of the most influential composers in Western music history, I must insist that there are other composers of equal caliber.... My maverick opinion, for what it's worth, is that no one should pretend certainty about who the greatest composer is. There isn't one._"

My main comments on this blog are:

1. A very minor one first: Hilgegard von Bingen lived between 1098-1179 so therefore she was primarily a 12th C composer, not 11th C. Also this composer's name is mis-spelled (there is no double aa in Hildegard).

2. We are not informed by the author who are the other composers she considers to be of "equal caliber" to Bach, Beethoven, Mozart. This is major omission but probably a deliberate one made in the hope that no-one would notice so that she could avoid any sceptical or derisory comments about her selection of co-equals to the said three.

3. The fact that she considers that there are other composers of "equal caliber" to Bach, Beethoven, Mozart implies that she believes it is possible to calibrate composers. This implies that it is possible to arrive at a rank order of composers, but this would appear to contradict the central thesis of the blog that it is not possible to make any objective qualitative assessment of the relative merits of classical composers. We therefore finish up with a nonsense.

I do not find the blog to be enlightening in any way as it is very familiar territory dressed up as new.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Right now, as I am listening to Schubert's piano sonatas, it seems to me particularly mean-spirited of the author to want to take away the well-deserved glory from Schubert and others of the same musical tradition, simply because they are of a "wrong" sex and nationality.


----------



## KenOC

This reminds me somewhat of the claim made by a feminist musicologist some years back that Beethoven is only highly regarded out of habit. Seems he was "anointed" by the male power structure in Vienna at the time and we've become accustomed to it...


----------



## Aramis

You know that there is a composing competition for female composers only? Truely, there is. Now imagine what larum would be risen if there would be competition where females would be forbidden to participate. It couldn't be. And yet there is a competition which i can't enter, because I'm not female! And people think it's alright. What is this? Male composers are the discriminated ones! 

Or wait... maybe it's just accepted so the female composers have any chances to win some competition, little when there are male artists participating?

Yes, I understand now.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

KenOC said:


> This reminds me somewhat of the claim made by a feminist musicologist some years back that Beethoven is only highly regarded out of habit. Seems he was "anointed" by the male power structure in Vienna at the time and we've become accustomed to it...


Those feminist musicologists who attempt to reduce everything to the "battle of the sexes", are more of a shame to the womenfolk than anything else. They are ridiculous.


----------



## Steatopygous

KenOC said:


> This reminds me somewhat of the claim made by a feminist musicologist some years back that Beethoven is only highly regarded out of habit. Seems he was "anointed" by the male power structure in Vienna at the time and we've become accustomed to it...


BTW, I think that's my favourite emoticon.


----------



## haydnfan

That article was terrible. I think that the underlying reasons that we always identify a handful of German composers as the greatest needs to be examined, but this article does a poor job of it.

The assumptions:
#1. Wrong. We instead assume that composers can be measured in a way similar to artists and literary figures.
#2. Obviously when people ask the question they mean classical composers not John Denver. Renaissance and early baroque era composers are not usually included due to unfamiliarity. But I think anyone familiar with classical music would describe Monteverdi as one of the most influential composers who ever lived despite not being a symphonist.
#3. That's not an assumption, that is a fact. Clara Schumann is no Robert Schumann nor no Brahms. Sorry. If they were freely allowed to follow careers as their male counterparts that might be different, but that was not the reality of the past.
#4. Disagree. I call Stravinsky and Shostakovich great composers, I don't call them great Russian composers. And I don't know anyone that does.
#5. The question who is the greatest composer pre-supposes that we are discussing classical music. That's not to shun other genres, it's just the nature of the question.
#6. A great composer has to pass the test of time. It is necessary and not a frivolous assumption.
#7. Yeah so what? How can music be truly great if it doesn't have universal appeal? I think this is just an academic wanting to name atonal music that has very limited appeal as the greatest.
#8. NO. A greatest composer has to be one that has influenced a great many of COMPOSERS PERIOD. Regardless of nationality. And Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, Beethoven, Brahms have all done that.
#9. If the inquirer asked the question, why would they presuppose the answer?
#10. Oh shut up.

She then goes on to underline posts that contain valid reasons for choosing Bach, Mozart and Beethoven as the greatest. That is silly. If you caught posters not able to articulate clear reasons for their choice that is one thing, well reasoned choices with supporting evidence that most agree on is completely different.

There is a place for discussing truly if we are correctly identifying the most influential composers, but that blog post absolutely does not do it.


----------



## Strange Magic

My problem with Sarah Denes' approach and with all approaches attempting to define and measure greatness, or good and bad in the arts, is the total lack of measurable, quantifiable criteria. Over many years of pondering this issue, I conclude that I know only what pleases me more, what less. What one can say about a particular work is whether it is accurately described as to creator, history, genre, etc. Almost all that passes for serious discussion about the arts is merely opinion. After Pompey assumed the title of Magnus--Great--as part of his name, his rival Crassus remarked pointedly, "Great in relation to what?" Even J. Robert Oppenheimer, a profoundly well-educated aesthete if ever there was one, himself fell into tautology--in a letter to his brother Frank, Oppenheimer wrote that the best art was that thought best by the most educated, perceptive, and refined members of society. Talk about a circular argument!

No, it won't do. We must abandon the notion that there are some sort of standards out there in the ether that will allow us to decide "objectively" what is good, better, best, or their opposites, in the arts. I can tell you, though, with perfect accuracy, the dozen or so Rock songs that give me chills 'n' thrills; also what moments or pieces or pictures or whatever that give me pleasure--and why, often--in any of the arts. And I've found it best to say to others who wonder how it is that I cannot possibly like their particular enthusiasm, that "Sorry, but I am not the audience for whom that piece was created and to whom it is addressed."

But maybe I am terribly wrong. I await evidence, suited to the meanest understanding, that there are objective criteria for determining good and bad, right and wrong, greatness or worthlessness, in the arts.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> But maybe I am terribly wrong. I await evidence, suited to the meanest understanding, that there are objective criteria for determining good and bad, right and wrong, greatness or worthlessness, in the arts.


I'm not convinced that such criteria can be described either...but they might nevertheless exist.

Compare Mozart's 1st Symphony with his 41st. Or Sibelius' 1st with his 7th. Or Beethoven's 1st with his 9th? Are they equal in "quality"? If they are, do none of their symphonies rise above the others? If they aren't, what is it that makes the differences?

I don't think 'greatness' is a term that can be so readily applied to things compared across centuries (Mozart with Sibelius), but I think 'better' (and 'worse') can be applied to things compared within more narrow confines; that is, between things that have strong commonalities in the first place.


----------



## Strange Magic

My answer must seem simple in the extreme, but the difference among/between the symphonies mentioned (and, by extension, all other symphonies) is that they are not the same. Some are longer, some shorter. They have different notes in different patterns. Some may be thought to show "youthful energy", others, the result of years of increasing craft. I happen to prefer Sibelius' Symphony #1--the dash and brio of its stirring opening bars ring in my ears as I type this--but that's just me. And I would take a red pencil to some of Beethoven's 9th; IMO the man, genius though he might be, now and again didn't know when to stop--others have made this observation over the decades. I'd much rather hear Prokofiev's First Piano Concert than his last. Many will find my views difficult, but, Here I Stand (until something more convincing turns up).


----------



## Vesteralen

My biggest problem with the "greatest" discussions has always been that I can't figure out what purpose they serve. For the most part, it seems to me that people get a thrill out of seeing their own opinions seconded by others (and, conversely, they are disappointed when their own favorite doesn't make the cut). 

I suppose it is possible for a skilled academic to ferret out which composer was more masterful in one or another area of composition. And, it might be possible to assess which composers had more of an influence on their contemporaries and successors. But, none of those things change one's personal reactions to the music one hears.

Strange Magic referred to "thrills and chills", and I agree that it is easy for me to identify the music that, at one time or other, gave me those. And, even after forty-plus years of listening, there are still a few pieces that invariably get to me. I think of those things as "heart music". There's no right or wrong here. If something moves us personally, it just does. The composer's chachet has nothing to do with it. And, conversely, if it doesn't move us, it doesn't. The fact that the particular composer who created it is generally acknowledged to be great changes nothing.

When I first started listening, almost half of what I heard was "heart" music. Sadly, that proportion has gone way down in my older age. These days, I don't expect to be moved by what I hear. It's kind of an unexpected joy when it happens.

I'm happy now with "ear" music - stuff that sounds good. Recommendations from others introduce me to a lot of this kind of music.

I even listen to a lot of "brain" music. It satisfies my curiosity, but it's more music as mathematics. It doesn't move me, and sometimes it doesn't even sound that good. A little cold, maybe, but interesting in the way a puzzle can be interesting. For me, a lot of the "great" composers wrote a considerable amount of "brain" music.

But, that's just me - one person's music for the brain can easily be another person's music for the heart. I'm okay with that. Sometimes I wish everyone was.


----------



## Strange Magic

Vesteralen, your reference to "heart" music, thrills 'n' chills music, reminds me that here the body speaks directly to us, without equivocation, about our musical preferences. There has been, and continues to be, much research probing the phenomenon of "skin orgasms", chills, etc. induced by music, film, passages in literature, all having to do with the limbic system, and deep-seated response mechanisms triggered by inherited perceived cries of our young, or the utterances of beasts foretelling of danger. As an aside, I note that in Rudyard Kipling's Mowgli tale, Red Dog, Kipling's reference to the _Pheeal_ of the jackal "that rose and sank and wavered and quivered far away across the Wainganga. The Four began to bristle and growl" itself gives me goosebumps while describing its effects upon the creatures of Mowgli's jungle.

As luck would have it, I continue to occasionally find works, now mostly in Rock and some Pop, that induce thrills, but it has been a while since a classical piece new to me has similarly affected me. The old standbys that did chill me, though, still do. One example only: the whirlwind coda of the Prokofiev 3rd Piano Concerto. While I agree that the purpose of most lists is to have the pleasure of being agreed with, it may be useful to exchange lists of chill-inducing music because we are dealing here with a yes/no phenomenon that has a basis in physiology and neurology. Perhaps some common traits will be revealed. I did read, though, that some studies have shown that perhaps only about 50% of the population reports experiencing musical chills. An interesting topic.


----------



## Vesteralen

Strange Magic said:


> I did read, though, that some studies have shown that perhaps only about 50% of the population reports experiencing musical chills. An interesting topic.


That's amazing, if it's true. I would have thought that was a universal trait. It might go a long way toward explaining why some people refuse to discuss the topic. If one has never experienced chills when listening to music, it must seem pretty bizarre when another person refers to it.

I could list dozens of works of classical music that, at one time or another, have given me chills. Sadly, that intense feeling does seem to diminish a bit over time and with repeated listening, in most cases.

One piece of music that never fails to give me goosebumps is *Denn alles Fleisch, es ist wie Gras* from Brahms' German Requiem. That's one I always like to listen to when I'm alone, because the visible effects on me (tears in the eyes) can be embarrassing in a room full of people.

The experience when listening to certain rock music is similar, more frequent, but a little less intense. Yes' "Turn of the Century" has often produced a similar effect on me, for example.

Embarrassing as it might be to get those feelings when with other people, I don't find it embarrassing to admit that it happens after the fact. For me, it's what really makes music great (in a personal way).


----------



## Strange Magic

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4107937/

Herewith a learned article on chills, etc. My own notion about the triggering mechanisms is that there are several that can do the job. First is the link with a "cusp" experience, wherein one has been rushed along with increasing rapidity toward a sensed cusp, the cusp is reached, one totters there for a microsecond or even a second, then is rushed over the edge into a new world. A second trigger is a powerful sense of pathos, of plangency, where there is a sense of direct confrontation with another's grief. A third is a sense of mad joy as one is swept up in the ongoing rush of the music (though this may be closely allied with the cusp trigger). Yet another is a trance state induced by the music, usually through ostinato effects and, in my case, sometimes a sinuous, ophidian quality to the music. In the sci fi novel _Dune_, the author tells us about the drug and music-induced trance state of semuta. Certain rhythms can induce the same effect.


----------



## Genoveva

Strange Magic said:


> My problem with Sarah Denes' approach and with all approaches attempting to define and measure greatness, or good and bad in the arts, is the total lack of measurable, quantifiable criteria. Over many years of pondering this issue, I conclude that I know only what pleases me more, what less. etc


I wonder whether you may have misinterpreted Sarah Denes' article referred to in the OP.

You seem to think that she was attempting to define and measure greatness among composers so that they may be ranked objectively.

On the contrary, my interpretation is that she was arguing that can be no certainty about who are the greatest composers as it depends on various factors such as the quality of the music, the number of such works by each composer, and the extent to which their work inspired other composers.

In her opinion there are hundreds of other composers, some of whom are much less well known than the likes of Beethoven, Mozart and Bach, who are of equal calibre to these normally recognised titans.

Importantly, she specifically recognised that there is no scientific way of measuring musical quality, as this assessment depends on one's own personal view. Therefore it is not possible to derive objectively determined ranks among composers. This is what you believe, isn't it?


----------



## Strange Magic

Genoveva, I will meet you halfway. While Denes does not attempt to overtly define and measure greatness, she does spell out three criteria: First, "quality" of the music; that is left to your intuition. Second, production of much "quality" music. How much is much? Third, influencing other composers (more than one? How about influencing other composers that nobody ever heard of?). I think that by setting out these criteria, Denes is tacitly sinking calf-deep into the goo she wants others to break free of.


----------



## Genoveva

Strange Magic said:


> Genoveva, I will meet you halfway. While Denes does not attempt to overtly define and measure greatness, she does spell out three criteria: First, "quality" of the music; that is left to your intuition. Second, production of much "quality" music. How much is much? Third, influencing other composers (more than one? How about influencing other composers that nobody ever heard of?). I think that by setting out these criteria, Denes is tacitly sinking calf-deep into the goo she wants others to break free of.


I don't agree with you.

i. She states "quality" as the first consideration in judging the worth of a piece of music, and she stresses that this is not measurable objectively. The implication is that it's entirely a personal assessment.

ii. She next refers to the "quantity" of (high) quality works by each candidate composer. But this reference to quantity doesn't change the personal nature of the assessment, rather it strengthens it.

iii. Thirdly, she refers to "influence" upon other composers. She does not suggest that there is any objective way of measuring it, so it too is presumably a factor to be assessed on a personal basis, although we are given no clear advice on how this might be done, as it was not an issue she seemed prepared to follow up in detail.

The whole thrust and rationale of her blog is that there are no sensible objective criteria for ranking composers. Therefore people should try to unshackle themselves from the generally perceived wisdom concerning the supremacy of Beethoven, Mozart and Bach, and become like her in recognising a comparable level of genius among a host of other composers who are normally viewed in a less august light.


----------



## Strange Magic

I don't get it. If she has broken the shackles of a postulated objectivity in determining this or that, good v. bad, whatever, then what is all this talk about quality, quantity, influence? We infer that Denes says these are all totally subjective; why not just say: It doesn't matter; it's all subjective. One spin might be that she is saying: Even though it doesn't matter, you ought to consider the criteria of quality, quantity (of quality works), and influence when you think about grading composers in your own mind; don't think about their morals, their hygiene, their appearance, etc. But I think people like what they like, dislike what they dislike, and only later (some) come up with "reasons" for their choices.


----------



## Genoveva

Strange Magic said:


> I don't get it. If she has broken the shackles of a postulated objectivity in determining this or that, good v. bad, whatever, then what is all this talk about quality, quantity, influence? We infer that Denes says these are all totally subjective; why not just say: It doesn't matter; it's all subjective. One spin might be that she is saying: Even though it doesn't matter, you ought to consider the criteria of quality, quantity (of quality works), and influence when you think about grading composers in your own mind; don't think about their morals, their hygiene, their appearance, etc. But I think people like what they like, dislike what they dislike, and only later (some) come up with "reasons" for their choices.


I agree that it's a badly written blog. She goes around the houses, raising all manner of dubiously relevant issues, simply to make her main point that she doesn't go along with the widely held notion that Beethoven, Mozart, Bach were the "greatest" composers based on notions of objectively determined merit. On her reckoning, there are many composers of equal "caliber" [sic], namely the ones she happens to like. She reckons that she is entitled to this view because, according to her, there are no objective objective criteria that may be used to prove that any one composer is better than any other. It's all matter of personal choice based mainly on the individual listener's perception of the quality of the music, and how much they produced, etc


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> My answer must seem simple in the extreme, but the difference among/between the symphonies mentioned (and, by extension, all other symphonies) is that they are not the same. Some are longer, some shorter. They have different notes in different patterns. Some may be thought to show "youthful energy", others, the result of years of increasing craft. I happen to prefer Sibelius' Symphony #1--the dash and brio of its stirring opening bars ring in my ears as I type this--but that's just me. And I would take a red pencil to some of Beethoven's 9th; IMO the man, genius though he might be, now and again didn't know when to stop--others have made this observation over the decades. I'd much rather hear Prokofiev's First Piano Concert than his last. Many will find my views difficult, but, Here I Stand (until something more convincing turns up).


The fact that you can offer opinions about these composers that may contradict others' views does not invalidate the possibility that there may be valid criteria that go beyond taste and preference. The issue is whether they can be applied in any particular case, not whether they can be invalidated by finding exceptions. Besides, the fact that you want to improve Beethoven's 9th suggests you have some criteria in mind by which you judge its shortcomings.

As for the idea that "it's all subjective", I think there would still be a requirement to explain why some pieces by some composers have acquired a subjective view held by a lot of people that the music is very good. I don't buy the proposition that Mozart and Beethoven's reputations are solely received through cultural transmission ("Everyone has always said they are great, so they must be").

I'm not interested in 'greatest' or in ranking, but in considering whether there are any criteria that could be applied in certain limited circumstances. If, for example, I were to write a composition in the classical/early romantic style that is manifestly juvenile - not least because I have only a rudimentary understanding of musical notation, never mind composition - there are a number of criteria that could reasonably be used to show why it is demonstrably inferior to Beethoven's 9th.


----------



## Strange Magic

MacLeod, part of me wants to agree with you that there must be some criteria to separate sheep from goats, other than articulating accurately the name of the piece, its composer, date, genre, other such data. But i can't think of what criteria will tell me whether A is "better" than B that is not merely an opinion. I would be interested in your suggestions, if your hunch is that there might be such an elusive goal.


----------



## Mahlerian

Genoveva said:


> On her reckoning, there are many composers of equal* "caliber" [sic]*, namely the ones she happens to like.


It's the American spelling.


----------



## Morimur

Feminism makes me giggle.


----------



## Genoveva

Strange Magic said:


> MacLeod, part of me wants to agree with you that there must be some criteria to separate sheep from goats, other than articulating accurately the name of the piece, its composer, date, genre, other such data. But i can't think of what criteria will tell me whether A is "better" than B that is not merely an opinion. I would be interested in your suggestions, if your hunch is that there might be such an elusive goal.


Markets place monetary values every day on some types of works of art, like paintings and sculpture, through auctions etc. The resulting monetary values surely tell us something about the objective quality of these works, when judged against each other.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> MacLeod, part of me wants to agree with you that there must be some criteria to separate sheep from goats, other than articulating accurately the name of the piece, its composer, date, genre, other such data. But i can't think of what criteria will tell me whether A is "better" than B that is not merely an opinion. I would be interested in your suggestions, if your hunch is that there might be such an elusive goal.


Who says I've got suggestions? I'm merely observing a set of phenomena and speculating that they are not the result of random causes. The last time I offered criteria for such things they were not well-liked. I find too many members here are fond of either extreme - everything is relative/subjective ("Biber is every bit as good as Bach") or everything is absolute ("Mozart is objectively the greatest composer who ever lived") - which leaves those who think there's something going on that can't be dismissed by either polarity somewhat defensive.


----------



## Art Rock

IMO, for each individual the appreciation of each composer is relative/subjective. Taking a group of classical music lovers (optionally through the ages) one can derive an average appreciation for composers that appears to be objective, but is in the end nothing more than averaged subjective opinions. When doing this, usually the "big three" end up on top, but that does not mean that their music is demonstrably _objectively_ better than the rest.


----------



## KenOC

Art Rock said:


> ...but is in the end nothing more than averaged subjective opinions. When doing this, usually the "big three" end up on top, but that does not mean that their music is demonstrably _objectively_ better than the rest.


I tend to agree with you, but... Year after year, in group after group, the "big three" remain the big three. What, then, _does _it mean?


----------



## Art Rock

Just that on average more people prefer their music (within the subset of classical music listeners) than that of other composers. If you want to define that as best or greatest, you can. But I don't think it is an objective criterion.


----------



## Guest

Art Rock said:


> IMO, for each individual the appreciation of each composer is relative/subjective. Taking a group of classical music lovers (optionally through the ages) one can derive an average appreciation for composers that appears to be objective, but is in the end nothing more than averaged subjective opinions. When doing this, usually the "big three" end up on top, but that does not mean that their music is demonstrably _objectively_ better than the rest.


You're right that it does not mean their music is 'objectively' better than the rest - and yet there is a 'subjective consensus'. So what is it that the big three have in common that causes this phenomenon? It can't just be coincidence. You might expect a much wider range of composers to come top of the polls if our tastes were all different and the appeal of composers merely subjective - yet this does not happen.


----------



## Genoveva

I don't see why the sum of individuals' preferences regarding composers can't be regarded as an objective criterion, especially when those preferences tend to be repeated by different groups of individuals over time. 

In the world of paintings, if one painting sells for $500,000 and another at $250 at the same public auction, I'm prepared to accept that this proves that the more expensive one is of higher quality in objective terms than the other. It's not a question of personal taste.

It's much the same principle with other forms of art, that the market can usually provide an objective measure of an item's worth relative to others, whether it's by auction or by popular vote.


----------



## KenOC

I agree with Art Rock that aggregate opinion, however consistent, can never be considered an objective judgment. I can imagine the day when Beethoven, for instance, is much discounted, pleading over-earnestly the arguments of an antique and irrelevant age.

Just let me be dead then.


----------



## Art Rock

Genoveva said:


> In the world of paintings, if one painting sells for $500,000 and another at $250 at the same public auction, I'm prepared to accept that this proves that the more expensive one is of higher quality in objective terms than the other. It's not a question of personal taste.


If popularity or market value becomes the "objective" measure of quality, we are on a very slippery slope indeed.


----------



## Guest

Genoveva said:


> It's much the same principle with other forms of art, that the market can usually provide an objective measure of an item's worth relative to others, whether it's by auction or by popular vote.


I'm not sure this is so. The minute you attach monetary value, you begin an additional layer of potential distortion.

Music is not an artefact in the way that a painting is - although the manuscript could be so.


----------



## Genoveva

KenOC said:


> I agree with Art Rock that aggregate opinion, however consistent, can never be considered an objective judgment. I can imagine the day when Beethoven, for instance, is much discounted, pleading over-earnestly the arguments of an antique and irrelevant age.
> 
> Just let me be dead then.


I'm not clear what criteria you use to judge greatness among composers, and whether you consider that any of them are quantifiable.

Do you recommend that other listeners might find your criteria to be useful in their own assessments? If you do, does this not of itself impart a perceived objective value, by virtue that you recommend them for wider use.

Why do you consider that aggregate opinion can never be considered an objective judgment? For example, in the context of a public auction for certain types of art a set of prices is determined. These prices are based on the summation of individual opinions across the relevant market of buyers and sellers, but the result is an objectively determined set of prices that reflect relative valuations of the works on offer.


----------



## Vesteralen

Genoveva said:


> Why do you consider that aggregate opinion can never be considered an objective judgment? For example, in the context of a public auction for certain types of art a set of prices is determined. These prices are based on the summation of individual opinions across the relevant market of buyers and sellers, but the result is an objectively determined set of prices that reflect relative valuations of the works on offer.


I have no problem with aggregate opinion, or a number of other criteria being considered objective judgments. Personally, I can still be intrigued by opinion polls. I can also be intrigued by discussions among the musically well-educated (or among the well-trained) as to the merits of certain composers.

My point is that regardless of these "objective" ways of looking at things, what matters to me is my own subjective experience. Reading about the superiority of Beethoven to Brahms, lets say, in general TC-member-opinion, or in analysis of his compositional originality, or his influence on other composers, does not make me suddenly be thrilled by more passages in Beethoven's music than I am by Brahms'. Nothing changes in my own experience from these polls and discussions. It can't and it shouldn't be expected to.

The only way any of this would matter would be that, as a result of a TC poll or a debate over composer-value on the part of TC members, suddenly my access to the music of the composers I happen to prefer would be curtailed or cut off. There is no danger of that. So, I'm not affected by any of it. I don't really care.

Though I don't like to use the word "greatest" when referring to either music or musicians, because of the implications of superiority (or, more to the point - inferiority), I guess you could say that rated on a scale of most-moving moments to least-moving moments, I have my own personal scale of greatness. It's my own and I would never insist that it also be yours.


----------



## Strange Magic

Several responders have now opined that the auction house or the polling booth, _sensu lato_, can tell us about greatness, quality, etc., in the arts, or at least help us select what to "value" the more and the less? I am impressed with this argument: Let the bidding begin! I have long advocated for something like this in selecting candidates for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame: When did Captain Beefheart move more units than Journey? Draw bigger audiences? Yet Beefheart is in and Journey is out (I love Journey).

As I recall, Gramophone polling almost always shows Rach 2 as Número Uno. Unless we define group subjectivity as a form of objectivity, then it's still subjectivity, group or no. Yes?


----------



## Genoveva

@ Vesteralen

I agree largely with what you say.

Like you, as far as composers are concerned, what matters to me is my own subjective experience, which happens to be broadly in line with the results of polls up to a certain point. I suspect, somewhat cynically perhaps, that some people who have a completely different set of preferences are those who are most inclined to deny that the results of aggregate opinion can have any objective legitimacy. 

One must ask why some composers are more popular than others are, and tend to remain so down the ages. I suggest this is because generations of music lovers recognise intuitively that those composers (Beethoven, Mozart, Bach et al) produced very fine works in respect of a variety of factors they deem to be relevant. 

I accept that many of these factors cannot be measured with any certainty. However, it would throw the baby out with the bathwater to reject completely the notion that various objective considerations underlie these preferences. This seems to be the position of some here, and in other similar discussions I have seen elsewhere.

I maintain that an alternative way (albeit an imperfect one) of discovering the strength of the underlying forces is by observing consumer preferences in the form of things like polls, CD purchasing behaviour, concert attendance, and even the number of composer specific threads in classical music forums. The striking fact is that they all tend to point in the same direction, so it is extremely unlikely in my opinion that the revealed preferences do not mirror the underlying objective considerations, if only they could be measured. I fully accept that such preferences are, in principle, subject to change over time, but this doesn't worry me.


----------



## Strange Magic

Genoveva, your argument, I think, boils down to: Beethoven (for example) is the best composer because he is the most popular composer. And he is the most popular composer because he is the best composer. The corollary to this is that if someone thinks that not-Beethoven is the best composer, they must be wrong; everybody knows that Beethoven is the best composer because the polling says so.

I think the only information that can be gleaned from polls and auctions in the arts are the raw data:"Studies show that Beethoven is most popular composer." If somebody added: "Therefore, Beethoven is (must be) the best composer.", there would be furrowed brows indeed all around.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> As I recall, Gramophone polling almost always shows Rach 2 as Número Uno.


If this is the case, the question is...why?


----------



## Vesteralen

Genoveva said:


> One must ask why some composers are more popular than others are, and tend to remain so down the ages. I suggest this is because generations of music lovers recognise intuitively that those composers (Beethoven, Mozart, Bach et al) produced very fine works in respect of a variety of factors they deem to be relevant.
> 
> I accept that many of these factors cannot be measured with any certainty. However, it would throw the baby out with the bathwater to reject completely the notion that various objective considerations underlie these preferences. This seems to be the position of some here, and in other similar discussions I have seen elsewhere.


I think it is evident that, the larger the sampling, the more likely the list will come close to perceived wisdom. Why?

My guess is that there are two reasons - 1) The backgrounds and motives of the respondents can not be controlled. In any large sampling, there are bound to be a lot of people with very, very limited experience and whose personal knowledge comes from a relatively small sampling of probably well-known works and whose opinion is greatly shaped by what is closer to general knowledge in the field of classical music. 2) Extremes tend to get weeded out the larger the test group. Put simply, fewer people will pick Rameau and Lully or Ligeti and Penderecki as the two greatest composers than will pick Beethoven, Bach and Mozart as third, fourth and fifth.

Polls are useful because they largely reflect a combination of perceived wisdom and more objectively analyzed qualitative factors. _(Edit - Please note the second phrase here. I would never argue that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are not great composers - even in a non-subjective sense.)_

For me - it's what _*other*_ people think or feel. That's great. I like other people. But, I live in my own head. My perception is my reality when it comes to "greatness", as it is for every other person for whom the most important consideration is the emotional impact music has on oneself.

There are people who are more concerned with factors other than emotional impact. That's okay with me. Personally, I think they are missing out on something great. But, I can't control that, and I don't really want to.


----------



## Strange Magic

The Rach 2 clearly triggers more pleasurable neurophysiological responses in the minds of Gramophone voters than any/all other candidates. Also, the balance between expectations confirmed and those thwarted/surprised is optimal in the Rach 2, again releasing endorphins in the brains of more auditors. The sources of our positive feelings triggered by music have been and are being densely studied and theorized for many decades now. In another thread I referenced the pioneering work of Leonard Meyer, whose classic _Emotion and Meaning in Music_ helped define the field of study in terms of information theory and hierarchies of expectation. And there are continuing studies of the effects of music on the limbic system, etc. A whole lot is known about why/how we like what we do. But in the end, it comes down to numbers. If the Rach 2 is Number One; if Beethoven is voted Best Composer, it is because both elicit the most favorable responses in the brains of a group of listeners. But does this actually mean anything? I don't think so. I prefer to state that I like this or that; I prefer this or that. I'll try to explain why, if asked, but I eschew all talk of good, better, great, no good. It may be that I prefer Prokofiev and Brahms to your favorites, and maybe Prokofiev and Brahms don't trigger as many pleasure responses in as many people as do Beethoven and whomever; don't fit under the center of the bell curve as does Beethoven (or whomever), but it still is just a popularity contest, not an assessment of any intrinsic property that has any relevance beyond itself.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> The Rach 2 clearly triggers more pleasurable neurophysiological responses in the minds of Gramophone voters than any/all other candidates.


So there we have it: an objective criteria (if confirmed). Let me stress the indefinite article. It still doesn't confer 'greatness', but it does offer an insight into why some music appears so regularly at the top of lists.



> But does this actually mean anything? I don't think so.


You may not think so, but I do. It means at least what you've already stated it to mean, and that's worth something.




> it still is just a popularity contest, not an assessment of any intrinsic property that has any relevance beyond itself.


Well I suppose it depends what you mean by 'intrinsic property'. If we're back to musical elements (melody, rhythm, timbre, tempo etc) as opposed to musical impacts (the stimulation of an emotional or intellectual response, for example) perhaps not. But if the music intrinsically causes the 'neurophysiological response' - and it's not an extra-musical cause ("this makes me sad because it reminds me of...") then you have an intrinsic property, don't you?

It seems perverse to come up with a plausible explanation for why that Rach comes top and then say, "Ah, but it doesn't mean anything."


----------



## Strange Magic

But what meaningful statement can we make beyond that more people like Rach 2? Is Rach 2 better than Rach 3? Is it better than Prokofiev 3? How can I be persuaded to care? Should I rethink my preferences; follow the herd, change my brain? I'll even happily agree that the neurophysiology provides an "objective" criterion, but therefore, what? I am all for more studies and theorizing, but at the end of the day, all we can do is assert, with proof, that more people like A than B. Beyond getting more people to like itself--persuading a larger audience than B--is A better than B in any other, measurable, way?


----------



## Polyphemus

Strange Magic said:


> But what meaningful statement can we make beyond that more people like Rach 2? Is Rach 2 better than Rach 3? Is it better than Prokofiev 3? How can I be persuaded to care? Should I rethink my preferences; follow the herd, change my brain? I'll even happily agree that the neurophysiology provides an "objective" criterion, but therefore, what? I am all for more studies and theorizing, but at the end of the day, all we can do is assert, with proof, that more people like A than B. Beyond getting more people to like itself--persuading a larger audience than B--is A better than B in any other, measurable, way?


That's why they call it personal choice. The difference between 'subjectivity' and 'objectivity' is akin to the difference between sanity and insanity.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> But what meaningful statement can we make beyond that more people like Rach 2


Because you're explaining why...


----------



## Vaneyes

Strange Magic said:


> Several responders have now opined that the auction house or the polling booth, _sensu lato_, can tell us about greatness, quality, etc., in the arts, or at least help us select what to "value" the more and the less? I am impressed with this argument: Let the bidding begin! I have long advocated for something like this in selecting candidates for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame: When did Captain Beefheart move more units than Journey? Draw bigger audiences? Yet Beefheart is in and Journey is out (I love Journey).
> 
> As I recall, Gramophone polling almost always shows Rach 2 as Número Uno. Unless we define group subjectivity as a form of objectivity, then it's still subjectivity, group or no. Yes?


Polls are cheese, but that's okay, it keeps 'em off the streets.

Re popularity, why not just go to ArkivMusic and see how many recordings there are for works. Atleast, that "poll", has some longevity. Cheers 'n cheese!


----------



## Strange Magic

I have a feeling that, actually, we all agree......

Except for those who don't.


----------



## Guest

Polyphemus said:


> That's why they call it personal choice. The difference between 'subjectivity' and 'objectivity' is akin to the difference between sanity and insanity.


Except that if the effect that causes the popularity of the Rach is at the level of brain function, there is no choice or taste involved.



Strange Magic said:


> at the end of the day, all we can do is assert, with proof, that more people like A than B.


And the "with proof" (which should be "with evidence") is all. It's what we set out to establish - that there is a reason why this music is regarded as "better" than that - because it causes more neurons to fire in a particular way, stimulating hormones, achieving a particular effect.

You now have to connect this to the purpose of the piece/composer. If Rach wants to write a piece that moves people in the way that it evidently does, then each time he succeeds better than the last, he has written a "better" piece. This is why, returning to my earlier proposition, I believe criteria could be established to make valid comparisons within narrow confines. Not all composers want to move people in the same way; they have a different purpose, so you'd need different criteria.


----------



## Strange Magic

If "More people prefer" is to be synonymous with "better", and "Most people like" is to be synonymous with "best", then you are again correct. But after having established this profound truth, what do we do with it? Which is better, Eroica or Ninth? Vanilla or Chocolate? Eroica for me; sometimes vanilla, sometimes chocolate.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> If "More people prefer" is to be synonymous with "better", and "Most people like" is to be synonymous with "best", then you are again correct.


Not what I said. I asked what caused the phenomenon you reported that Rach always come top in popularity polls. You offered an explanation. I accepted your explanation for the purposes of exploring an example of 'criteria'. If there is a neurophysiological reason why Rach comes top, then it's not a matter of "preference" or "like" but an unavoidable fact. This is not "popularity as a proxy for greatness" by the back door.


----------



## Strange Magic

This horse is dead, so I've put my whip away.


----------



## LiBardugo

The question as such is very difficult to answer and it might even be impossible. And that is simply due to the fact that everyone of us will have their own different opinion


----------



## SixFootScowl

LiBardugo said:


> The question as such is very difficult to answer and it might even be impossible. And that is simply due to the fact that everyone of us will have their own different opinion


Exactly. There is no greatest composer in an absolute sense, but many great composers, some greater than others. We don't need to sort them out, but to listen to them as we please. Each of us will have personal favorites and it won't matter if my favorite or someone else's favorite is greatest, so long as we enjoy what we listen to.


----------



## Vox Gabrieli

I would say the Tchaikovsky's 6th symphiny is a fantastic work of art, and is fantastic such that I would say that Beethoven's 9th is also a fantastic work of art. It would be simple and pretentious to accuse one of being "lesser" than the other.

To say Scarlattis keyblard sonatas are better than Tristun un Isolde is like comparing apples to oranges!

The minority of people who say you can prestige a composer would be bluntly false, as many other people before me suggested.


Edit: Apologies in advance for necroing this discussion.


----------



## Vaneyes

Blancrocher said:


> Careful, Vaneyes, or "Certified Perfect Recording" may be in her sights next!


In re-reading this thread, thank you Blanc. I'd plumb forgotten about my CPR (Certified Perfect Recording) rating.

Maybe I can pull it out of mothballs and use it on today's generation. Yup, a generation is only about 4 years these days.


----------

