# Is enduring popularity a sign of greatness?



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

I'm thinking of pieces which were not received well at the time of their inception but are still popular many decades/centuries later.
For example Tchaikovsky's 4th symphony.
Can this thinking be extended to popular music too? For example many Beatles songs are still part of our collective consciousness, half a century after they were written. Even though some of them are very simple tunes, can they be called great?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

> Even though some of them are very simple tunes, can they be called great?


Yes.
But ask me again when there's a universally agreed-upon definition of "great".


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

Definition of great
adjective

of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above average.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Taking the Beatles as an example, although they are part of our collective consciousness, they reflect an era. That doesn't say anything about the quality of the music.

Similarly, there are other composers who have written excellent music but are out of favour now e.g. Lully or some other baroque composers.

Popularity is neither necessary nor sufficient to guarantee "greatness".


----------



## Bone (Jan 19, 2013)

Popularity is definitely a contributing factor in establishing greatness.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Grieg is most 'popularly known' for "In the hall of the mountain king" and his Piano Concerto, neither 'the best / greatest of Grieg."
So much for popularity as a measure of greatness.

Enduring popularity itself is subjective, things popular for a century or more fading out of popularity, others coming to the fore which had not been popular before.

Haydn said that a work had more than an expected good run if it remained in circulation for about seventy years: Haydn, I believe, meant that if the work still 'spoke' to a completely different (second) generation, that was already beyond what even a 'great' composer could expect. (Since we still listen to Haydn, there is an irony in his estimation of what constitutes 'a good run' for a piece.)

The opera director, Peter Sellars, said of antique music which we still listen to, that they were vehicles through which our ancestors were still speaking to us.

Enduring popularity is a sign of enduring popularity, nothing more, nothing less. Ergo, 'enduring' works still speak to us. Whether they are great is a separate matter


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

Canon in D is the most "popular" piece of Art Music in the world today. That alone should put to rest any notion of linking popularity to greatness. Heck, its not even a canon.......its a passacaglia!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Without a clear and workable definition of greatness, all these discussions are meaningless.

Example:



PetrB said:


> Grieg is most 'popularly known' for "In the hall of the mountain king" and his Piano Concerto, neither 'the best / greatest of Grieg."
> So much for popularity as a measure of greatness.


Now who determines and on what grounds that these are not his greatest works? I for one consider the piano concerto the best/greatest* work Grieg wrote - and I have heard a very large part of his output.

* greatest in the only sense that I can accept - "greatest = best in my opinion".


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

PetrB said:


> The opera director, Peter Sellars, said of antique music which we still listen to, that they were vehicles through which our ancestors were still speaking to us.
> 
> Enduring popularity is a sign of enduring popularity, nothing more, nothing less. Ergo, 'enduring' works still speak to us. Whether they are great is a separate matter


it's probably got to do with how much we are still culturally linked with them. Beatles wrote only a couple generations ago, the Romantics over a hundred years ago and so on. The further it goes, the more we tend to lose contact with what a society considered culturally relevant. I also like the comment above about composers - whole eras - going in and out of fashion; there's always backlash and then rediscovery. It's normal. Something might not appear great today because our focus is on a different kind of experience.

after reading Hilltroll72's post it occurred to me that there are two different ideas in the OP:

1. some classical pieces were not received upon release well but have "aged" well and they are still popular

2. some Beatles songs', even though simple in structure, might be considered great by some, seeing as how they are still popular (but The Beatles were popular in their time, so it's not a good comparison to 1.).


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

vertigo said:


> I'm thinking of pieces which were not received well at the time of their inception but are still popular many decades/centuries later.
> For example Tchaikovsky's 4th symphony.
> Can this thinking be extended to popular music too? For example many Beatles songs are still part of our collective consciousness, half a century after they were written. Even though some of them are very simple tunes, can they be called great?


The thread title can be read in more than one way. It looks like I am the only one so far that took 'enduring popularity' as the ability to suffer through it with acceptable grace. Maybe not a sign of greatness, but certainly a sign of civility.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Popularity is cause for suspicion in my camp because of all that has been said above. However there are a few pieces that may be considered great_ in spite of _their popularity, enduring or otherwise. I would say then it has no bearing on greatness.


----------



## WavesOfParadox (Aug 5, 2012)

"if it is art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not art"

-Arnold Schoenberg


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

WavesOfParadox said:


> "if it is art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not art"
> 
> -Arnold Schoenberg


An opinion colored by his advocacy.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> Now who determines and on what grounds that these are not his greatest works? I for one consider the piano concerto the best/greatest* work Grieg wrote - and I have heard a very large part of his output.


Obviously the opinions of the most elite group of highly-cited PhD musicologists are the only ones that count.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Olias said:


> Canon in D is the most "popular" piece of Art Music in the world today. That alone should put to rest any notion of linking popularity to greatness. Heck, its not even a canon.......its a passacaglia!


Really?---who's it by ??


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

> "if it is art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not art"
> 
> -Arnold Schoenberg


As glib aphorisms go, that one's pretty special.


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2013)

I think all these discussions ultimately lead to a bunch of people all saying the same thing, but in slightly different ways.

It is all subjective. We can argue the merits of music based on the skill with which it was written. But once you get into "popularity" and "greatness," argue all you want, it still just comes down to taste. What is "great?" Surely there is some incredible music out there, written with incredible skill, that is totally neglected. 

Any given thing has two measures of value - what the creator of that thing values it at, and what the rest of the public values it at. Sometimes those two values approach one another, other times they are vastly different. And the public value can change over time. There was a time - Haydn and before - when people clearly weren't interested in the music of the past. An old work had no value to them. Hell - we revere Bach's St. Matthew Passion, but it took Mendelssohn pulling it out, dusting it off, and reviving it. 

For me - and I speak for myself alone - greatness is a measure of those works that are able to maintain a relatively high public value over an extended period of time. To be able to transcend generations. And in that sense, the field of "great" music is relatively narrow. Popularity and greatness, then, may intersect, but greatness transcends popularity. Popularity is more of a snapshot in time. Milli Vanilli, at one point, was popular. But they were never great, because they lacked that ability to speak to more than just the public at their one brief moment.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

When I taught Shakespeare, I often had this sort of discussion. I had disaffected students who thought 'Hamlet' was rubbish & even if they outnumbered the students who rated the play by three to one, it wouldn't prove that it was indeed horse. On the other hand, a comedy of the same date, 'The Shoemaker's Holiday' was set for exams & as a bright student pointed out, it worked well as a sit-com or farce but wasn't really all that good - full of characters shouting 'firk' at each other! But it was popular at the time. I think a good work of art has to be, if not 'popular', at least 'acclaimed' by an audience that knows its stuff; if it's just a fashion, it may well not last, but if only a handful of culture-snobs like it, it may not be all that great either. 
To my shame, in my teens I had a massive crush on Paul McCartney. Yuk, I think now. But I do really think that 'Yesterday' is haunting & will last.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

WavesOfParadox said:


> "if it is art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not art"
> 
> -Arnold Schoenberg


By that definition, Arnold is a pretty darned great artist! :lol:


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

^ and so am I!


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Now, see. That was the deal breaker. I would have liked it if only it had been called "Passacaglia in D."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Art Rock said:


> Without a clear and workable definition of greatness, all these discussions are meaningless.
> 
> Now who determines and on what grounds that these are not his greatest works? I for one consider the piano concerto the best/greatest* work Grieg wrote - and I have heard a very large part of his output.
> 
> * greatest in the only sense that I can accept - "greatest = best in my opinion".


Not that I check in with or know 'the cognoscenti,' but in the case of the Grieg Piano Concerto, I tend to 'agree with many of the cognoscenti,' who, if you will, consider it something akin to lumpy cheese... which also does not affect its popularity one iota


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Gounod's operas Faust and Romeo & Juliette have been popular since the mid 19th century , and they are hardly "great" music. As far as I am concerned, they are the musical equivalent of pablum . Many opera fnas love them, which is certainly their right , but compared to the operas of Wagner, Richard Strauss, Berlioz, Berg,Mussorgsky,Janacek, and others they are a nullity .


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

superhorn said:


> Gounod's operas Faust and Romeo & Juliette have been popular since the mid 19th century , and they are hardly "great" music. As far as I am concerned, they are the musical equivalent of pablum . Many opera fnas love them, which is certainly their right , but compared to the operas of Wagner, Richard Strauss, Berlioz, Berg,Mussorgsky,Janacek, and others they are a nullity .


I'm sure there are some who would not be at all happy with your assessment of Lord A.L. Weber's theater pieces.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Obviously the opinions of the most elite group of highly-cited PhD musicologists are the only ones that count.


Just as clearly, the opinions of the non-elite hoi-polloi are the only ones that count, for them.

Actually there is less similarity than you may at first think between the two groups and what they think of their 'opinions' -- that "most elite group of highly-cited PhD musicologists" being much more matter of fact about what they are and what they know, ergo far less pretentious than the hoi-polloi listeners who are often very busy preening self-conceits about listening to / knowing 'art music.'

That "elite group of highly-cited PhD musicologists" are usually done with and 'over' the need to prove anything about their relative merit to anybody, and no longer pre-occupied with silly pretentions, nor occupied in that hoi-polloi war of attrition known as 'keeping up with the Joneses.'


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> View attachment 13976


Uh, let me guess, the composer and the composer's mother? LOL.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Enduring popularity is a sign of accessibility.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Re the "elite group of highly-cited PhD musicologists," I'm amused when somebody appeals to authority in matters of musical taste. Saint-Saens? Stravinsky? Don't make me quote' em! The composer Leon Kirchner at Harvard, a student of Schoenberg, to his own student John Adams: "Don't bother to bring that kind of thing in!"

And the greatest authority of all, Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians: Rachmaninoff's music is "monotonous in texture...consisting mainly of artificial and gushing tunes." His popular success is "not likely to last." (1954 edition)


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Re the "elite group of highly-cited PhD musicologists," I'm amused when somebody appeals to authority in matters of musical taste. Saint-Saens? Stravinsky? Don't make me quote' em! The composer Leon Kirchner at Harvard, a student of Schoenberg, to his own student John Adams: "Don't bother to bring that kind of thing in!"
> 
> And the greatest authority of all, Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians: Rachmaninoff's music is "monotonous in texture...consisting mainly of artificial and gushing tunes." His popular success is "not likely to last." (1954 edition)


Ahh, that infamous and very catty entry on Rachmanoniv... that opinion was in several other similar 'authoritative' books of that time, other articles in similar editions on music (remember, books like Groves are, like encyclopediae, not single authored, with many an article 'farmed out' to individuals) had similar and even cattier entries. _What startles me about an entry like that being in those sorts of 'authoritarian' books is that it got by the editorship at all!_ I do think while that writer got the 'gushing' part right, they were completely off the mark in their assessment of the more than high craft of his writing, and -- clearly -- utterly mistaken in the guess as to how long his music would be 'popular.' [Me, I don't care for it at all; I actually find it, along with Tchaikovsky, 'intolerable,' (not my cuppa), yet am more than careful to not be foolish enough to underestimate _the quality _of Rachmaninov's writing.]

Rachmaninov is a perfect example of a fine composer who is more than popular, that popularity much greater than the degree of popularity of 'greater' composers of the same generation are given. The collective populist taste will have the more / most accessible (_doh_) as the most popular. (Ergo, Beethoven piano concerti Nos. 3 & 5 come up in popularity polls, while No. 4 is....)

Copland and Rachmaninov, both fine composers, are highly 'popular.' Puccini, also, is highly popular.

But keep in mind Copland, Rachmaninov and Puccini while pondering this Re: 'Popular = Great': 
Andrew Lloyd Weber's music has a much greater and wider popularity than the 'populist' composer John Adams. As some might argue -- if Lloyd Weber is more popular than John Adams, that must mean Lloyd Weber is 'a greater composer' than Adams  That makes 'popular,' then, not an automatic indicator of greatness.

I don't know why some seem to think along the lines of "Eighty Million People Cannot Be Wrong," that the populist 'vote' would / should have such validity in an arena all around a product which is almost entirely within the bailiwick of the intellect. Classical music is written by intellectuals for any and all who care for it: intellect IS within and behind all classical music, and there is just no getting around that.

The opinion of eighty intellectual music professionals, then, might be given a titch more 'weight' than the popular / populist opinion of 'eighty million popular listeners.' Some popular listeners beg to differ, but that could be simply remedied: any one of them could drop everything, get a lifetime worth of training and experience as a fully knowledgeable and expert musician, become an 'intellectual,' and Bob is your Uncle


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Rachmaninov is a perfect example of a fine composer who is more than popular, that popularity much greater than the degree of popularity of 'greater' composers of the same generation.


Without disagreeing for a moment, I do think your argument would be much clarified if you would provide a definition of "greatness" in music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Without disagreeing for a moment, I do think your argument would be much clarified if you would provide a definition of "greatness" in music.


I wouldn't dare, other than to be generally vague, say classical music could be likened to a swimming pool, all of 'a depth,' yet there is a shallow end and a deep end.


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

PetrB said:


> I wouldn't dare, other than to be generally vague, say classical music could be likened to a swimming pool, all of 'a depth,' yet there is a shallow end and a deep end.


Which end does Mozart swim in?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

vertigo said:


> Which end does Mozart swim in?


The end that a lot of composers might end up drowning in.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

superhorn said:


> Gounod's operas Faust and Romeo & Juliette have been popular since the mid 19th century , and they are hardly "great" music. As far as I am concerned, they are the musical equivalent of pablum . Many opera fans love them, which is certainly their right , but compared to the operas of Wagner, Richard Strauss, Berlioz, Berg,Mussorgsky,Janacek, and others they are a nullity .


This really oughtn't go unchallenged...

I think it would be fairer to say Gounod operas have had their ups and downs over the decades. Seems they're making a bit of a comeback, lately. Now (as I've said before) I yield to very few [there are two or three here] in Wagner opera appreciation, but a breezy dismissal of _Faust_ as "not great music" says more about its author than the music.

I've cited elsewhere that the famous author and opera commentator Fr. Owen Lee applied an 'acid-test' of looking at a writer's commentary on Gounod's _Faust_ to determine if he felt the author merited additional effort. In his formulation, one's breezy dismissal of _Faust_ led to Fr. Lee's breezy dismissal of its author as unworthy of any further attention.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Sorry, but to me , Faust and Romeo&Juliette just don't come remotely close to the greatness of so many other operas . I respect Father Owen Lee, but I've just never been a fan of Gounod. Other works of his, such as the St. Cecelia mass, the Petite symphonie for winds etc, are pretty but bland in the extreme .
There are other French operas such as Chausson's Le Roi Arthus (King Arthur), Ariane & Barbe Bleue by Dukas, Chabrier's Gwendoline, Massenet's Esclarmonde , Roussel's Padmavati, Magnard's Guercoeur, etc which are far,far greater, and yet they are hardly ever performed .


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

WavesOfParadox said:


> "if it is art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not art"
> 
> -Arnold Schoenberg


I suppose it's a comforting thought when no-one likes you!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DavidA said:


> I suppose it's a comforting thought when no-one likes you!


Well, he's still played and listened to over a half century after his death. Somebody must like him now.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, he's still played and listened to over a half century after his death. Somebody must like him now.


But do people really enjoy it? More like, perhaps, a cold bath. Unpleasant but you feel better for it.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DavidA said:


> But do people really enjoy it? More like, perhaps, a cold bath. Unpleasant but you feel better for it.


I enjoy it. It's great music. Do you honestly think I'm lying to you? It's not at all unpleasant.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> I enjoy it. It's great music. Do you honestly think I'm lying to you? It's not at all unpleasant.


Hah. "Unpleasantness is in the ears of the hearer." One of those sort-of-true transpositions.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Hah. "Unpleasantness is in the ears of the hearer." One of those sort-of-true transpositions.


Schoenberg has the kind of urgency of a Beethoven, with sudden shifts of dynamics and jutting rhythms. People understand Beethoven, so these things don't bother them there, but they seem unpleasant in Schoenberg because they don't understand why they're there.

My guess is that for these people, there's a cutoff point where they stop enjoying Schoenberg's music, but before that it sounds fine to them. Also, I'd wager that for most who dislike Schoenberg, that point is _before_ the first atonal pieces.


















Nothing I posted above is atonal. They go in order from top to bottom, so at least check out the first.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

It seems almost everyone acknowledges that there are works of music which are "good" or bad".... but no one is able... or willing to define just what makes a work of music "great"... or not so great. So how then can we take the position that enduring popularity is no measure of "greatness" when we can't even define what "greatness" is. It seems to me that for most "greatness" is little more than a synonym for "the stuff I really like". And thus "bad" is just another way of defining "the stuff I don't like". Grieg's piano concerto is "bad" because PeterB doesn't like it... and the opinions of all those who do is irrelevant to PeterB. Gounod's _Faust_ and _Romeo & Juliette_ are "bad" because superhorn doesn't like them... regardless to all the opera aficionados who do. Of course I can play too. Schoenberg, Xenakis, and Stockhausen are all "really, really bad" because I really, really don't like them.

So can "greatness" be defined? If not... how can we be certain that popularity... or enduring popularity have nothing to do with it. Perhaps if we employed the term "canonical" as opposed to "great" we could agree that enduring popularity... especially among those who have invested a serious degree of effort, time... even income into the study, appreciation, preservation, and promotion of a given musical style... has a certain definite bearing upon the survival of a given work.

I don't think "populism" or popularity... especially enduring popularity... can be easily dismissed with an air of superiority. In the field of literature The Lord of the Rings, Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, and the novels of Alexander Dumas are rarely put forth as examples of "great" literature by most critics or academics. But they have retained a certain popularity among readers that leads one to acknowledge that they just may be canonical... and they just might not be half-bad. By the same token, a critic such as Harold Bloom was willing to admit (sadly) that as "great" as he and other literary critics feel Joyce' _Finnegan Wake_ is... it may just be that one needs more than the admiration of a few hundred critics and academics to assure the survival of a work of art.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

_Mahlerian_:
Schoenberg has the kind of urgency of a Beethoven, with sudden shifts of dynamics and jutting rhythms. People understand Beethoven, so these things don't bother them there, but they seem unpleasant in Schoenberg because they don't understand why they're there.

"My guess is that for these people, there's a cutoff point where they stop enjoying Schoenberg's music, but before that it sounds fine to them. Also, I'd wager that for most who dislike Schoenberg, that point is before the first atonal pieces.


















Nothing I posted above is atonal. They go in order from top to bottom, so at least check out the first."

 The 1st Quartet starts off sounding a lot like Beethoven's Grosse Fugue. _However_, the Beethoven provides references to material from the earlier movements of Op. 130. Those 'handles' aren't there in the Schönberg. Still, some folks persist in listening to the Fugue by itself... so where does that leave me? Out in left field somewhere I guess.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> The 1st Quartet starts off sounding a lot like Beethoven's Grosse Fugue. _However_, the Beethoven provides references to material from the earlier movements of Op. 130. Those 'handles' aren't there in the Schönberg. Still, some folks persist in listening to the Fugue by itself... so where does that leave me? Out in left field somewhere I guess.


You mean the D minor, right? Not the D major pre-Op.1 quartet.

The theme is in the violins at the beginning. Then it moves to the cellos in the next iteration. It's actually the theme for the entire piece, in all of its "movements". All of the parts at the beginning, though, are thematically significant, even the inner viola line.

Doesn't sound too much like the Grosse Fuge to me, except that they're both very densely contrapuntal. (And to my ears, the Fugue sounds more dissonant for the most part, even though the harmony in the Schoenberg is more "advanced")


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Set each. Tie-breaker?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

superhorn said:


> Sorry, but to me , Faust and Romeo&Juliette just don't come remotely close to the greatness of so many other operas . I respect Father Owen Lee, but I've just never been a fan of Gounod. Other works of his, such as the St. Cecelia mass, the Petite symphonie for winds etc, are pretty but bland in the extreme .
> There are other French operas such as Chausson's Le Roi Arthus (King Arthur), Ariane & Barbe Bleue by Dukas, Chabrier's Gwendoline, Massenet's Esclarmonde , Roussel's Padmavati, Magnard's Guercoeur, etc which are far,far greater, and yet they are hardly ever performed .


Well, I guess than not many people agree with your opinion of their greatness. "Padmavati","Guercoeur" ?
This is a world that exists only for a chosen few.
Gounod's operas are not "great" but they are jolly good and very enjoyable to listen to.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Some works are popular from the word 'go' but others take a while to catch on. Greatness is a funny concept not only because of the strong subjective element in our evaluations of - or just our reaction to - creative arts but also because the thing about posterity and everlasting popularity involves a huge amount of hindsight. Its maybe ok to say J.S. Bach is the greatest composer now but would you say that when he was in the doldrums for about 100 years - at least as far as the general public where concerned - until Mendelssohn and others started reviving his music? I go by a mix of objectivity and subjectivity. Objectivity meaning looking at history and also things like consensus amongs musos, scholars, listeners and so on. But sometimes there is little or no consensus - so what then? Dunno, ultimately I don't care. I just go with what I like. But I try to be objective in giving credit if its due - there are composers I don't like, even hate, but in the end, their addition to classical music, big or small, is a thing I try to acknowledge despite my misgivings about them.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

This is a sensible approach, I agree. And when in doubt, one can look at the work of literature or music or art & analyse its structure, its originality, whether it's just jumped on a fashion bandwagon, if it employs clever harmonies etc - provide some justification for considering it 'great', not just 'I like it & so do a lot of other people'.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2013)

I have to agree with Sid in that ultimately, I could care less how "great" a work is judged to be - all that matters to me is how I feel about a piece. Guess what - I still love Pachelbel's Canon (or Passacaglia, or whatever it is). I like Beethoven's Fur Elise. I like Mozart's Eine kleine Nachtmusik. 

The only time I care about the popularity of a work or composer is when I am looking for new things to explore. The popular works are what I first sample. Ultimately, if I find enough that I enjoy in them, I continue to explore into some of the less popular realms. I like to at least see what all the excitement is about, even if I don't let it sweep me along in the current.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

It's a fascinating subject what constitutes greatness in music. If the ability to communicate so that the maximum number of people enjoy the music is a criterion, then it rules out some of what is regarded as the greatest music - eg the late Beethoven Quartets. They are generally regarded as some of the greatest music ever written but tend to be respected rather than loved by the masses. Then there are pieces that no-one would label 'great' but are popular. But music that combines both also exists. eg Bizet's Carmen, Handel's Messiah, Beethoven's symphony 5.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

DavidA said:


> It's a fascinating subject what constitutes greatness in music. If the ability to communicate so that the maximum number of people enjoy the music is a criterion, then it rules out some of what is regarded as the greatest music - eg the late Beethoven Quartets. They are generally regarded as some of the greatest music ever written but tend to be respected rather than loved by the masses. Then there are pieces that no-one would label 'great' but are popular. But music that combines both also exists. eg Bizet's Carmen, Handel's Messiah, Beethoven's symphony 5.


But the late Beethoven quartets weren't composed to be enjoyed by the masses. But they are popular among the cognoscenti for whom they were intended. But popular pieces of enduring popularity are also great in my opinion. I very much believe that enduring popularity is a sign that you've done something right. It doesn't work both ways though. There are composers, pieces and artists that deserve more attention than they get.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

jhar26 said:


> But popular pieces of enduring popularity are also great in my opinion. I very much believe that enduring popularity is a sign that you've done something right. It doesn't work both ways though.


A sign you've done something right is not a sign of enduring popularity????(?)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

jhar26 said:


> But the late Beethoven quartets weren't composed to be enjoyed by the masses.


Uh... From Cooper: "It is often assumed that, after the Ninth Symphony, Beethoven turned his back on the public, withdrawing into a private world to write string quartets purely for his own satisfaction. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although his late quartets were supposedly sparked off by a request from Galitzin and sustained by his own love of the genre, it was public demand, filtered through a number of publishers, that fuelled this unprecedented burst of activity in a single genre. Beethoven had been asked for quartets by both Schlesinger and Peters even before Galitzin's commission had arrived; and Schott's and probably Steiner had joined the chase before a note of Op. 127 had been written. These and other publishers then sustained Beethoven's activities with offers of high rewards unmatched, as Schlesinger confirmed, in other types of music... He had, it is true, received 600 fl. from Schott's for the Ninth Symphony -- more than the 360 fl. now being offered for a quartet -- but in proportion to the work involved the rate was lower."


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Uh... From Cooper: "It is often assumed that, after the Ninth Symphony, Beethoven turned his back on the public, withdrawing into a private world to write string quartets purely for his own satisfaction. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although his late quartets were supposedly sparked off by a request from Galitzin and sustained by his own love of the genre, it was public demand, filtered through a number of publishers, that fuelled this unprecedented burst of activity in a single genre. Beethoven had been asked for quartets by both Schlesinger and Peters even before Galitzin's commission had arrived; and Schott's and probably Steiner had joined the chase before a note of Op. 127 had been written. These and other publishers then sustained Beethoven's activities with offers of high rewards unmatched, as Schlesinger confirmed, in other types of music... He had, it is true, received 600 fl. from Schott's for the Ninth Symphony -- more than the 360 fl. now being offered for a quartet -- but in proportion to the work involved the rate was lower."


Hah. That pre-composition enthusiasm only shows that the publishers didn't know what they'd be getting.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Hah. That pre-composition enthusiasm only shows that the publishers didn't know what they'd be getting.


The enthusiasm was not all pre-publication -- it continued for at least two years. The publishers may not have known what they'd be getting, but they knew they could sell a lot of sheet music! Cooper also describes the dinner parties (with plenty of drinking) where the parties schmoozed it up, the publishers angling for exclusives and Ludwig for higher prices.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think the romantic view of Beethoven finishing with the world is something that is propagated in books like Scholes' Oxford Companion to Music. No question that he was still writing music to make money - he had to! Just as Bach had to produce church music for Leipzig. But being utter genuises, the works they produced were incredible.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DavidA said:


> No question that he was still writing music to make money - he had to!


The 9th Symphony, for which he was paid 600 florins, took about 18 months of steady work -- that's 400 florins a year.

OTOH he could turn out a quartet on average every six months, and get paid 360 florins each -- that's 720 florins a year.

Beethoven may not have been very good at math, but I'm sure he was quite good enough in this case!


----------



## Masque (Mar 6, 2013)

I believe firmly that greatness though indefinable by measurement or by an unbiased way of looking at it, and popularity, run on two different strands of thread. Let's say that X composer writes one of the most AMAZINGLY well sounding pieces(Opinionated) to hit the ears of any listener, yet it is just swept under the rug by a recording company and gets passed on by. While composer Y makes total mockery of music and makes an awful piece (still opinionated), yet the record company sells millions of copies. That's how the tidal waves can turn. It's not truly fair, I feel, to be comparing popularity to greatness. Though greatness shall always endure. This is true with things like The Jonas Brothers....I mean, who honestly hears as much about them as we used to? On the same note... Judas Priest(sorry for going into bands), though not the MOST popular band ever, has still endured to be one of the founding and defining artists in metal.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

KenOC said:


> The enthusiasm was not all pre-publication -- it continued for at least two years. The publishers may not have known what they'd be getting, but they knew they could sell a lot of sheet music! Cooper also describes the dinner parties (with plenty of drinking) where the parties schmoozed it up, the publishers angling for exclusives and Ludwig for higher prices.


You stick with your slant on it, I'll make do with mine; I like it better as a subject for contemplation. BTW was Cooper at these parties?


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Padmavati and Guercoeur etc may be extremely obscure, but anyone who enjoys opera can easily get the recordings , and I highly recommend them for these people !


----------

