# The Myth of Greatness



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

So I was reading a biography of da Vinci and although it was enjoyable, I found the constant appeal to greatness to be quite insufferable. It's not just a thing with classical music, it's ubiquitous. 

Why though? Is it just human nature, or is it cultural? When I was visiting Thailand a few weeks ago, the way some of the monks spoke about the attainment of enlightenment certainly reeked of the same stench.

I possessed this kind of ridiculous attitude when I was 16, but at 23 I already find it remarkably ignorant and cringeworthy.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

You may come full circle in another ten or twenty years and start feeling some (certainly not all) things are great again. But yes, many are overrated. May you find something truly great that is underrated you can then champion.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> So I was reading a biography of da Vinci and although it was enjoyable, I found the constant appeal to greatness to be quite insufferable. It's not just a thing with classical music, it's ubiquitous.
> 
> Why though? Is it just human nature, or is it cultural? When I was visiting Thailand a few weeks ago, the way some of the monks spoke about the attainment of enlightenment certainly reeked of the same stench.
> 
> I possessed this kind of ridiculous attitude when I was 16, but at 23 I already find it remarkably ignorant and cringeworthy.


I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Are you saying that da Vinci isn't great, or that the _biography_ of da Vinci isn't great? 

Lots of people think that what they embrace is "Great". Thai Monks are certainly going to feel that attainment of Enlightenment is "great". MAGA cultists think Trump is "Great". Catholics think the Holy Trinity is "Great". KKK-ers think that White Supremacy is "great". 

Some Classical Music enthusiasts, like, for instance, *BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist*, think Brahms is "Great". It's right there in his name. Oh, right; that's YOU, isn't it? 

Yeah, we all consciously and subconsciously all rank stuff in our lives. I think *Dawn* is great (not the sunrise, it's always way too early. I mean the dishwashing liquid; it's the best. The "Greatest").

Is _Greatness_ _Overrated? _ "I Aspire to Be Average" . . . said no one, ever. If given the choice, nobody aspires to be a five out of 10.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> So I was reading a biography of da Vinci and although it was enjoyable, I found the constant appeal to greatness to be quite insufferable. It's not just a thing with classical music, it's ubiquitous.
> 
> Why though? Is it just human nature, or is it cultural? When I was visiting Thailand a few weeks ago, the way some of the monks spoke about the attainment of enlightenment certainly reeked of the same stench.
> 
> I possessed this kind of ridiculous attitude when I was 16, but at 23 I already find it remarkably ignorant and cringeworthy.


So, you seem to think that at 23 you have found great truth and wisdom on the subject. Maybe you have more living to do. There are few Leonardo da Vincis in the history of modern man.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I possessed this kind of ridiculous attitude when I was *16*, but at *23* I already find it remarkably ignorant and cringeworthy.


Seven lousy years, it comes when you grow older. Count on it


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I think what Brahms meant to get at, is there is no one thing that is greatness. It seems to be an idea applying to many possible things, under many different contexts, most which are still highly unknown in our history and will likely remain so for a long time.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> So I was reading a biography of da Vinci and although it was enjoyable, I found the constant appeal to greatness to be quite insufferable. It's not just a thing with classical music, it's ubiquitous.
> 
> Why though? Is it just human nature, or is it cultural? When I was visiting Thailand a few weeks ago, the way some of the monks spoke about the attainment of enlightenment certainly reeked of the same stench.


Shouldn't this be the opposite in some ways? Buddhist "enlightenment" requires self-denial, renouncing the world and turning inward whereas most European "greatness" (especially since the renaissance) is self-enhancement, "improving" or enriching the world and has an outward direction. So I think you are abstracting too much and miss crucial differences.



> I possessed this kind of ridiculous attitude when I was 16, but at 23 I already find it remarkably ignorant and cringeworthy.


Trust me, this attitude is still as cringeworthy and sophomoric as you now see your stance at 16. Two opposites can both be wrong (and often are).


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> So I was reading a biography of da Vinci and although it was enjoyable, I found the constant appeal to greatness to be quite insufferable. It's not just a thing with classical music, it's ubiquitous.
> 
> Why though? Is it just human nature, or is it cultural? When I was visiting Thailand a few weeks ago, the way some of the monks spoke about the attainment of enlightenment certainly reeked of the same stench.
> 
> I possessed this kind of ridiculous attitude when I was 16, but at 23 I already find it remarkably ignorant and cringeworthy.


it's interesting that people are so offended by the idea of greatness. why is that?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Shigalyovism


----------



## khoff999 (Oct 31, 2018)

Wow, this is a great thread!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I've no problem with using adjectives like "great" for those few who do work that just make me think "wow, where did _that _come from?". I don't think this involves belittling or failing to appreciate the many who paved the way. 

But I do bridle a little against the casual use of the word "great". And therein lies the problem. We all calibrate differently and we have been again and again through discussions on this forum (they used to be common) that arrive at the conclusion that valuing a work of art is a wholly subjective activity. My own solution is to be happy with using the word great for those who seem to be extremely great (yes, Leonardo, yes, Bach). But, of course, I use the word a little more freely than that! In the end this discussion leads into ranking our favourites - and those discussions can often seem greatly tedious to me.


----------



## railssvelte (2 mo ago)

Such an interesting thread


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Rogerx said:


> Seven lousy years, it comes when you grow older. Count on it


Actually they've been the best seven years of my life. I'm quite happy now.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

DaveM said:


> So, you seem to think that at 23 you have found great truth and wisdom on the subject. Maybe you have more living to do. There are few Leonardo da Vincis in the history of modern man.


Not just any "great truth". The greatest truth!


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Weston said:


> You may come full circle in another ten or twenty years and start feeling some (certainly not all) things are great again. But yes, many are overrated. May you find something truly great that is underrated you can then champion.


It's not about things being "overrated" either. The discourse around that is equally tiresome and banal, it's just the other side of the coin.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Kreisler jr said:


> Shouldn't this be the opposite in some ways? Buddhist "enlightenment" requires self-denial, renouncing the world and turning inward whereas most European "greatness" (especially since the renaissance) is self-enhancement, "improving" or enriching the world and has an outward direction. So I think you are abstracting too much and miss crucial differences.
> 
> 
> Trust me, this attitude is still as cringeworthy and sophomoric as you now see your stance at 16. Two opposites can both be wrong (and often are).


Of course there are key differences in the two. That was kind of my point; despite these fundamental differences there are still the same appeals which foster elitism and hegemony in both circles, at best it's just lazy discourse, at worst it's something a bit (not trying to exaggerate here) more sinister. I think it's just human nature.

Also say what you will but this attitude is not not sophomoric lol. "Greatness" is, by definition, sophomoric. And very tiresome.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> it's interesting that people are so offended by the idea of greatness. why is that?


I wouldn't say I'm offended by it; quite the opposite actually. I just find it quite dull and uninspired. It smushes the qualia of everything onto a single number line, how ridiculous


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

pianozach said:


> I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Are you saying that da Vinci isn't great, or that the _biography_ of da Vinci isn't great?
> 
> Lots of people think that what they embrace is "Great". Thai Monks are certainly going to feel that attainment of Enlightenment is "great". MAGA cultists think Trump is "Great". Catholics think the Holy Trinity is "Great". KKK-ers think that White Supremacy is "great".
> 
> ...


We rank things as a matter of convenience, or because we do not really understand them on a deep enough level to recognize their intrinsic value.

It's quite a useful abstraction when needing to choose a dish soap brand, not so much, for example, here on this forum.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> In the end this discussion leads into ranking our favourites - and those discussions can often seem greatly tedious to me.


Exactly. Very tedious.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Diyf8yciyc9ycyc


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I wouldn't say I'm offended by it; quite the opposite actually. I just find it quite dull and uninspired. It smushes the qualia of everything onto a single number line, how ridiculous


It's just about recognizing what people have done and achieved.

Great men have existed in history, and they have done great things. There are people who possess great talents, abilities and gifts. Some maybe greatly gifted in one area and another in a different area.

Isn't it duller if everybody is exactly the same? Isn't mediocrity duller?

We should celebrate those who are great in their field.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

You don't need a notion of greatness to appreciate achievements and the individuals responsible for them, nor does it arise as a consequence.

Also the lack of greatness does not imply mediocrity whatsoever, mediocrity is also a myth.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> It's just about recognizing what people have done and achieved.
> 
> Great men have existed in history, and they have done great things. There are people who possess great talents, abilities and gifts. Some maybe greatly gifted in one area and another in a different area.
> 
> ...


It’s seems the point of the thread is that greatness is a myth. Nothing anyone has achieved is any greater than anything anyone else has achieved. It’s just a myth.

I absolutely disagree. But I wonder what inspires such thoughts.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> I think what Brahms meant to get at, is there is no one thing that is greatness. It seems to be an idea applying to many possible things, under many different contexts, most which are still highly unknown in our history and will likely remain so for a long time.


The main issues I have with an appeal to greatness, are that it tends to invariably induce hegemony, monotony, artificial standards, and an echo chamber, not only in discourse but in standards. It's like peer pressure, sort of.

It seems to be used as a catch-all to describe things we like but either do not understand / do not have the wherewithal to attempt to meaningfully articulate on (a) an individual level or (b) as a society.

But I remain optimistic about this. I think and hope that as we begin to understand more about how the human mind works, and how our collective conscious evolves, we will develop much more nuanced discourse around our appreciation of people places and things.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It’s seems the point of the thread is that greatness is a myth. Nothing anyone has achieved is any greater than anything anyone else has achieved. It’s just a myth.
> 
> I absolutely disagree. But I wonder what inspires such thoughts.


The point of this thread is to explore the psychology behind why people hold notions of "greatness" in their head, and translate these notions to their opinions and discourse.

I never meant to appear so dogmatic, though admittedly the OP was intentionally provocative


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

My personal approach to this is to admire people for having achieved things, while trying not to put them too much on a pedestal. This sums it up very well:


Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> There are people who possess great talents, abilities and gifts. Some maybe greatly gifted in one area and another in a different area.


Going from this, being great at something is typically a combination of having natural ability in an area, and combining that with a lot of hard work. One thing I do see, which can be dangerous, is people comparing themselves to others – a young composer comparing their music of someone much more experienced, for instance. This can lead to bitterness and disappointment.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

composingmusic said:


> . One thing I do see, which can be dangerous, is people comparing themselves to others – a young composer comparing their music of someone much more experienced, for instance. This can lead to bitterness and disappointment.


When I make music alone, I am my only critic. I still request and respect the opinions of my audience (especially experienced musicians), but ultimately it's just input that I'll give an honest try, a source of ideas. I remain the sole arbiter. This can result in some very strange music.

When I make music with my band, it's a slightly different matter.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> You don't need a notion of greatness to appreciate achievements and the individuals responsible for them, nor does it arise as a consequence.
> 
> Also the lack of greatness does not imply mediocrity whatsoever, mediocrity is also a myth.


so, if greatness is a myth and mediocrity is a myth how do you measure anything?

Can an average (mediocre) pianist be a professional pianist?

Also, you need to change your name lol


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

How about this....

What if we all went a year (2023) without using terms like "great", "favorite", etc.? I think it would result in rich discourse which would otherwise be glossed over.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> The point of this thread is to explore the psychology behind why people hold notions of "greatness" in their head, and translate these notions to their opinions and discourse.
> 
> I never meant to appear so dogmatic, though admittedly the OP was intentionally provocative


Greatness is something I observe in all walks of life. It’s not a philosophy or something I “hold in my head.”


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> How about this....
> 
> What if we all went a year (2023) without using terms like "great", "favorite", etc.? I think it would result in rich discourse which would otherwise be glossed over.


How about this...

You answer my question


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But I wonder what inspires such thoughts.


It's because average (mediocre) people of no particular distinction have a deep-rooted human desire to be special. Since they are not (whether they know it or not) they do what humans have always done: tear down a greater man. Remember all the furor over participation trophies? Or sporting events where there is no score. Schools that eliminate Valedictorian? There are a lot of unhappy people who cannot stand the idea that one person may actually be "greater" than another. Apply that to the arts: they cannot accept or understand that some art works are greater than others. What amuses me is that a 23 year old has it all figured out; give him another 40 years.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> It's because average (mediocre) people of no particular distinction have a deep-rooted human desire to be special. Since they are not (whether they know it or not) they do what humans have always done: tear down a greater man. Remember all the furor over participation trophies? Or sporting events where there is no score. Schools that eliminate Valedictorian? There are a lot of unhappy people who cannot stand the idea that one person may actually be "greater" than another. Apply that to the arts: they cannot accept or understand that some art works are greater than others. What amuses me is that a 23 year old has it all figured out; give him another 40 years.


It seems that people who hold such beliefs are looking for a "safe space" where their beliefs are not challenged. I always ask myself whether a person is trying to limit discussion or encourage it. I love the open market of ideas. I might agree with what people say, or I will disagree and let them know. That's how discussion and free exchange of ideas works, which leads to illumination and growth.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

It's quite hard to not tag someone with 'greatness' when you are practising in one room and next door in another practice room you are hearing someone the same age rattling through music written for your instrument with seeming ease and brilliance. That's when you adopt @composingmusic 's philosophy above, get your head down and push through. The worst thing in my case was that the piano playing I could hear was being played by a deaf girl..... someone called Evelyn Glennie. Greatness exists and you know and recognise it when you are near to it imo.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Cynicism is easy. 

And very tedious itself. And usually an affliction of the very young.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> We rank things as a matter of convenience, or because we do not really understand them on a deep enough level to recognize their intrinsic value.
> 
> It's quite a useful abstraction when needing to choose a dish soap brand, not so much, for example, here on this forum.


Good point. Ranking concrete items like soap is useful.

But ranking musical works or composers isn't? Granted, individual taste in your choice of music makes rankings different for every individual, but it doesn't negate that some composer's works are objectively better than others. And one person's rankings of composers is just that, only one person's opinion based on their point of view. I can Google up "Worst Composers", and get lists that have Sibelius, Mussorgsky, or Saint-Saens as the worst composers. I saw one list that had Bach and Beethoven as their numbers 2 and 3 worst.

And that's why I like it here. There's a thread for that.









Who Do You Consider To Be the Worst Composer?


Here is a more controversial one...everyone gets their own opinion. :) I would nominate Richard Strauss and Stravinsky, with Mahler coming second. I am afraid I don't consider Schoenberg and company to be classical music. That's just my own opinion.




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It seems that people who hold such beliefs are looking for a "safe space" where their beliefs are not challenged. I always ask myself whether a person is trying to limit discussion or encourage it. I love the open market of ideas. I might agree with what people say, or I will disagree and let them know. That's how discussion and free exchange of ideas works, which leads to illumination and growth.



How is this the case? If anything, iconoclasm is the spot you take if you don't want to be in a "safe space". What's safer than saying "Beethoven was a great composer"?


----------



## Hogwash (5 mo ago)

I have observed that "Greatest" and "Best" are often overused on this site. Particularly in thread titles. Site could use more: "My favorite" or "recommended" or "of highest quality" or "exceptional/excellent" and "superb" when describing worthwhile pieces of music and performances. I'll even allow "masterpiece" but whenever a thread uses the word greatest or best (especially when this is followed with a question mark at the end of the sentence) count me out.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

As anyone who uses Youtube knows, "Greatest", "Best", "Worst" or - god forbid "Overrated" is what gets the clicks and the replies.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

fbjim said:


> How is this the case? If anything, iconoclasm is the spot you take if you don't want to be in a "safe space". What's safer than saying "Beethoven was a great composer"?


A total red herring argument. There is nothing inherently iconoclastic about holding a minority opinion nor inherently “safe” about holding a majority opinion. The key is to come to your opinion honestly, whatever it is, and be open to any other opinion out there. By definition if you are telling others, “Stop calling things great,” then you are limiting discussion and not being open to the opinions of others.

I don’t think someone who seeks out only “underrated” recordings and then bristles at any disagreement with his position is being either “iconoclastic” nor open-minded. Make your case, be open to feedback, and then defend your position.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

fbjim said:


> How is this the case? If anything, iconoclasm is the spot you take if you don't want to be in a "safe space". What's safer than saying "Beethoven was a great composer"?


In fact this really hits a nerve with me because it is done quite often. Your statement “What's safer than saying "Beethoven was a great composer"?” tells us absolutely nothing about Beethoven’s music. 100% substanceless. Instead, you are putting a value judgment on opinions of Beethoven’s music. If you like it, you’re playing it safe. If you don’t like it, you must be a cool iconoclast. What kind of mindless, self-limiting attitude is that to have?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Saying "It's because average (mediocre) people of no particular distinction have a deep-rooted human desire to be special. Since they are not (whether they know it or not) they do what humans have always done: tear down a greater man." is not attacking the idea, it is attacking the person, which is a problem in discussions about art. 

Anyone would rightfully push back against their views on art being ascribed to their age, inherent mediocrity, or ideology. This is not an exchange of ideas, this is just pure insult hurling.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> In fact this really hits a nerve with me because it is
> done quite often. Your statement “What's safer than saying "Beethoven was a great composer"?” tells us absolutely nothing about Beethoven’s music. 100% substanceless. Instead, you are putting a value judgment on opinions of Beethoven’s music. If you like it, you’re playing it safe. If you don’t like it, you must be a cool iconoclast. What kind of mindless, self-limiting attitude is that to have?


My argument is that it's incredibly silly to ascribe e.g. views against Great Man Theory as somehow being related to "safe spaces" and a desire to not have views challenged, when iconoclastic views are more likely to be attacked than consensus views.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

fbjim said:


> My argument is that it's incredibly silly to ascribe e.g. views against Great Man Theory as somehow being related to "safe spaces" and a desire to not have views challenged, when iconoclastic views are more likely to be attacked than consensus views.


If you are saying “Stop calling things great,” you are by definition limiting discussion. It’s just as limiting as saying “Don’t hold a minority opinion.” In both cases you are creating a value judgment that limits free thought and exchange of ideas.

Saying that holding a minority opinion is by definition “braver” is a value judgment and also not even accurate. In this very thread it is obvious that holding a “majority” opinion is frowned upon. How about not ascribing value judgments at all and allowing people to freely express their opinions. Novel concept, huh?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If you are saying “Stop calling things great,” you are by definition limiting discussion. It’s just as limiting as saying “Don’t hold a minority opinion.” In both cases you are creating a value judgment that limits free thought and exchange of ideas.


Unless you are in a position of authority to actually enforce this, it is not limiting discussion. In fact, it simply _is_ discussion. 

I think it's relatively clear that the OP's position is also based on their perception that these terms lead to _boring_ discussion, rather than the idea that discussion should be further constrained.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

fbjim said:


> Unless you are in a position of authority to actually enforce this, it is not limiting discussion. In fact, it simply _is_ discussion.
> 
> I think it's relatively clear that the OP's position is also based on their perception that these terms lead to _boring_ discussion, rather than the idea that discussion should be further constrained.


I’m going to stop calling the sky blue because it’s boring. I’ll call it purple or orange or brown, anything except blue.

That makes me a free thinker?


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I would say any art a century old still relevant has a certain greatness about it. That makes anything two, three, four or five centuries old still relevant even more so.

I'd say that's why the greatness appellation is overused in the art form.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Just so you know...Kellogg's Frosted Flakes are GRRREAT!!!


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> In fact this really hits a nerve with me because it is
> done quite often. Your statement “What's safer than saying "Beethoven was a great composer"?” tells us absolutely nothing about Beethoven’s music. 100% substanceless. Instead, you are putting a value judgment on opinions of Beethoven’s music. If you like it, you’re playing it safe. If you don’t like it, you must be a cool iconoclast. What kind of mindless, self-limiting attitude is that to have?


Yes, you make a good point. My responses to it would be: context, context and context. Before you can begin to talk about the greatness of Beethoven's music, you may have to establish a great deal of cultural context and be prepared for some sophisticated technical analysis. Fortunately, after much listening to his music, and that of his contemporaries, your ears and mind may begin to comprehend its greatness, though not the words to fully describe it. Of course, that is only greatness to you, others may not agree.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

pianozach said:


> I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Are you saying that da Vinci isn't great, or that the _biography_ of da Vinci isn't great?
> 
> Lots of people think that what they embrace is "Great". Thai Monks are certainly going to feel that attainment of Enlightenment is "great". MAGA cultists think Trump is "Great". Catholics think the Holy Trinity is "Great". KKK-ers think that White Supremacy is "great".
> 
> ...


This is very true. But I believe admiring what appeals to you at any given time in life is fine, just allow others to do the same just as long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

pianozach said:


> ..I think *Dawn* is great (not the sunrise, it's always way too early. I mean the dishwashing liquid; it's the best. The "Greatest")..


Now we’re getting down to the important stuff in these inflationary times.  I also think Dawn Dish Soap is great. But what is even greater is the store brand that does the same thing for a dollar less.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

fbjim said:


> As anyone who uses Youtube knows, "Greatest", "Best", "Worst" or - god forbid "Overrated" is what gets the clicks and the replies.


As does anyone who's been on TC long enough ...

I should have named the thread _Greatness is Overrated_


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

IMO, It is only in this forum that people get their knickers in a knot or who are conflicted over the word ‘great’ and ‘greatest’. The word aptly applies to individuals who have met challenges, accomplished objectives and created works of art in a more demonstrably superior way than other humans who have aspired to greatness, but have either failed or come up ‘less than’.

So Beethoven, Einstein, Turing, Da Vinci, Lincoln and Churchill (to name a few) were great and among the greatest. End of story.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Assessing and discussing the relative quality of things is a hardwired biological imperative courtesy of evolution, for navigating and making sense of the world. If you can't judge why the taste of berries is preferable to cow dung in a psychosis of misguided egalitarianism, you _die_.

To rage against to concept of greatness is to defy the reality of hierarchies in nature, which is what patterns out order and gives us salvation from chaos. Then it must be said: to _not_ admire Beethoven as great is not merely tasteless, but anti-nature, anti-life... _*evil*_.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

_"Pachelbel's Canon - Even after 350 years after its composition, (I mean, freakin' 350 years(!) into the past and the sensibilities of the time; just think of it..), billions of people in the world today, even without the knowledge of how a canon works, would go into youtube to listen to it and be moved by it. If this isn't a miracle of humanity, then what is? What if this was from a non-Western music tradition? Would we have judged the music differently? In 2002, pop music producer Pete Waterman described Canon in D as "almost the godfather of pop music because we've all used that in our own ways for the past 30 years". Its influence on humanity is immeasurable."_

Refute this argument.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> _"Pachelbel's Canon - Even after 350 years after its composition, (I mean, freakin' 350 years(!) into the past and the sensibilities of the time; just think of it..). billions of people in the world today, even without the knowledge of how a canon works, would go into youtube to listen to it and be moved by it. If this isn't a miracle of humanity, then what is it? What if this was from a non-Western music tradition? Would we have judged the music differently? In 2002, pop music producer Pete Waterman described Canon in D as "almost the godfather of pop music because we've all used that in our own ways for the past 30 years". Its influence on humanity is immeasurable."_
> 
> Refute this argument.


Just because something has mass appeal, doesn't make it great. What makes something SPECIAL is what moves on on a personal level, despite popularity.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Just because something has mass appeal, doesn't make it great. What makes something SPECIAL is what moves on on a personal level, despite popularity.


Are you saying that Mozart's 40th symphony, requiem, Beethoven's 5th, 9th symphonies (notable examples of works of classical music that get as many number of views as Pachelbel's canon on youtube) are somehow "popular in a different way" from Pachelbel's canon? Are we indulging in elitism in our own minority circles?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> Are you saying that Mozart's 40th symphony, requiem, Beethoven's 5th, 9th symphonies (notable examples of works of classical music that get as many number of views as Pachelbel's canon on youtube) are somehow "popular in a different way" from Pachelbel's canon? Are we indulging in elitism in our own minority circles?



Only if you are placing your preferences in a greater light compared to other's picks.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Couchie said:


> Assessing and discussing the relative quality of things is a hardwired biological imperative courtesy of *evolution*, for navigating and making sense of the world. If you can't judge why the taste of berries is preferable to cow dung in a psychosis of misguided egalitarianism, you _die_.
> 
> To rage against to concept of greatness is to defy the reality of hierarchies in nature, which is what patterns out order and gives us salvation from chaos. Then it must be said: to _not_ admire Beethoven as great is not merely tasteless, but anti-nature, anti-life... _*evil*_.


I agree.

Although there's no such thing as evil if evolution is true.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I agree.
> 
> Although there's no such thing as evil if evolution is true.


Why not? Evolution has produced intelligent humans who can decide what's healthy or destructive to society. I think most would agree that tyranny, persecution, and mass murder is a form of evil not to be dismissed as survival of the fittest.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

So was Brahms a "great" melodist, or not?


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I agree.
> 
> Although there's no such thing as evil if evolution is true.


at the risk of being banned, I just want to point out that evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. I'm Catholic and I dont believe God put the dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith.

just sayin...please go on with your debate


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Nate Miller said:


> at the risk of being banned, I just want to point out that evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. I'm Catholic and I dont believe God put the dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith.
> 
> just sayin...please go on with your debate


In that case, who DID put the dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith???


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to worry less about what is or isn’t “great.” Yes, you can point out, in a reasonably objective way, the cultural context and specific features of a given work, making a compelling argument for why you find it admirable and/or moving—but that still doesn’t guarantee you’ll convert someone else to your opinion. And why should it?

As for the word “great,” I suppose it does get tossed around too readily. But that’s pretty far down on the list of things that bother me.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> As does anyone who's been on TC long enough ...
> 
> I should have named the thread _Greatness is Overrated_


"Greatness is objectively overrated. Michael Haydn"


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

amfortas said:


> In that case, who DID put the dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith???


the DINOUSAURS did, you silly goose!


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Nate Miller said:


> at the risk of being banned, I just want to point out that evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. I'm Catholic and I dont believe God put the dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith.
> 
> just sayin...please go on with your debate


I won't be debating, as you said I'll get told off! 

All people need to do is think about it a little and be open. 

I don't know any Christian who believes "God put the dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith" 

A Catholic is not a Christian  private message me if you liked to argue


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

no, I'll just pray for you


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Neo Romanza said:


> Just so you know...Kellogg's Frosted Flakes are GRRREAT!





Couchie said:


> Assessing and discussing the relative quality of things is a hardwired biological imperative courtesy of evolution, for navigating and making sense of the world. If you can't judge why the taste of berries is preferable to cow dung in a psychosis of misguided egalitarianism, you _die_.
> 
> To rage against to concept of greatness is to defy the reality of hierarchies in nature, which is what patterns out order and gives us salvation from chaos. Then it must be said: to _not_ admire Beethoven as great is not merely tasteless, but anti-nature, anti-life... _*evil*_.


That is an old but misguided argument that confuses cultural values with natural hierarchies. A society may need commonly-held cultural values to help bind it together, but those values are not hard-wired, permanent, inevitable and universal. That is why they differ so greatly in different societies and change over time. In modern society, there are profound differences in musical values and tastes, imo largely due to modern technology that allows easy immediate access to music from almost anywhere on Earth. 

Beethoven's music is great indeed, but great in a specific cultural context, in which a sophisticated and highly developed style of music flourished. Even though most of us still live in a fundamentally European cultural context, nearly two centuries have now passed since Beethoven's time, and some immersion in his culture and sound world is usually needed to fully appreciate his work. That doesn't make it any less great.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

fluteman said:


> ..nearly two centuries have now passed since Beethoven's time, and *some immersion in his culture and sound world is usually needed* to fully appreciate his work.


In China, Japan and South Korea apparently not.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Greatness doesn't actually mean much to anyone. What it does is to act as a better recommendation than something not-great, but try going up to most experienced audiophiles and tell them Bach is great. They will say "congratulations." The recommendation power of greatness is not _that_ perfect or certain, and that's the truly objective part of this. The reason this is, is we're used to such a small circle informing us, but preferences in a field like music are so much more varied than we're used to experiencing here. Even if I hear something in classical is great, based on me studying it I won't necessarily agree with that comprehension. A harmonic tone sounds better than a dissonant tone, mostly, but applying standards to other aspects can become more problematic.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

fluteman said:


> That is an old but misguided argument that confuses cultural values with natural hierarchies. A society may need commonly-held cultural values to help bind it together, but those values are not hard-wired, permanent, inevitable and universal. That is why they differ so greatly in different societies and change over time. In modern society, there are profound differences in musical values and tastes, imo largely due to modern technology that allows easy immediate access to music from almost anywhere on Earth.


Tonal music (which has been adopted in the vast majority of music as standard across the entire world) is based on natural hierarchies of pitch stability. A perfect cadence is as pleasant to the ear as sugar is sweet to the tongue. This is not a "cultural value", but a reality of physics and biological wiring. Music is a science! Compositions are not invented, they are discovered.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Couchie said:


> Tonal music (which has been adopted in the vast majority of music as standard across the entire world) is based on natural hierarchies of pitch stability. A perfect cadence is as pleasant to the ear as sugar is sweet to the tongue. This is not a "cultural value", but a reality of physics and biological wiring. Music is a science! Compositions are not invented, they are discovered.


As I've mentioned in several earlier posts, researchers have been trying to demonstrate your thesis using a variety of methods for centuries, to no avail. No surprise there, as the contrary view is quite convincing. See, Morris Weitz, “The Role of Theory in Aesthetics,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, XV (1956), 27-35; Ludwig Wittgenstein, Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religion (1938). As Wittgenstein famously put it, "You might think that Aesthetics is a science telling us what’s beautiful — almost too ridiculous for words. I suppose it ought to include also what sort of coffee tastes well."

Recently, researchers have tried to demonstrate the proposition that all music is based on universal principles using statistical studies. But that research has been inconclusive, if not supportive of the opposite conclusion. See Maris Fessenden, Why Music Is Not a Universal Language, Smithsonian, February 18, 2018: Why Music Is Not a Universal Language

More generally, many writers on the subject of aesthetics continue to try to chip away at the ideas of Weitz and Wittgenstein in this context various ways, and that is fair enough. But as far as I know they have yet to succeed.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Although there's no such thing as evil if evolution is true.


Nonsense. Ethical behavior and systems are to a significant extent products of evolution. They are adaptations with survival value for social species, including some non-human species.



DaveM said:


> In China, Japan and South Korea apparently not.


Musicians in and from Asia have been immersing themselves in Beethoven's culture and sound world for many decades. I met and taught many who had been immersed since birth and were fluent speakers and writers of that musical language.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

fluteman said:


> As I've mentioned in several earlier posts, researchers have been trying to demonstrate your thesis using a variety of methods for centuries, to no avail. No surprise there, as the contrary view is quite convincing. See, Morris Weitz, “The Role of Theory in Aesthetics,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, XV (1956), 27-35; Ludwig Wittgenstein, Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religion (1938). As Wittgenstein famously put it, "You might think that Aesthetics is a science telling us what’s beautiful — almost too ridiculous for words. I suppose it ought to include also what sort of coffee tastes well."
> 
> Recently, researchers have tried to demonstrate the proposition that all music is based on universal principles using statistical studies. But that research has been inconclusive, if not supportive of the opposite conclusion. See Maris Fessenden, Why Music Is Not a Universal Language, Smithsonian, February 18, 2018: Why Music Is Not a Universal Language
> 
> More generally, many writers on the subject of aesthetics continue to try to chip away at the ideas of Weitz and Wittgenstein in this context various ways, and that is fair enough. But as far as I know they have yet to succeed.


What does my post have to do with universal aesthetics? Nothing. You do not prove the validity of scientific principles by looking around and into the past and seeing if those principles were universally agreed upon by all cultures! Nonsense. Quite the opposite. Historically, cultures have been dramatically wrong about practically everything. The principles of science are universal _regardless_ of the nonsense the many cultures of the world coughed up to attempt to explain reality. It is wrong to think Beethoven didn't touch on the universal because other cultures produced a large quantity of music unlike (and worse than) Beethoven's. Those cultures were ignorant, less mature... less sophisticated.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Well, anyone COULD say Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Berlioz , Brahms, Bruckner , Mahler, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Bartok and other. world famous composers are not great, but very few people would agree with them .


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

On the other hand "Mozart is overrated" is like a constant click bait thread on classical boards


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Just because something has mass appeal, doesn't make it great. What makes something SPECIAL is what moves on on a personal level, despite popularity.


In THIS case it is the *Canon in D *that has mass appeal _because_ it's great.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Nate Miller said:


> at the risk of being banned, I just want to point out that evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. I'm Catholic and I dont believe God put the dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith.
> 
> just sayin...please go on with your debate


My wife and I used to be the regular accompanist and song leader at a liberal church. This often meant we were also the soloists, and one time we sang the song Charlie (about Charles Darwin) by Chumbawumba. My wife wrote an additional very clever verse to bring the song 'round full circle:

_So long we wondered just how God_
_The Universe created
Thank you, Charlie, for showing us
Exactly how God made it
Charlie’s theory and faith in God
Both are in alliance
God created both you and me_
_And God created science_


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> ..Musicians in and from Asia have been immersing themselves in Beethoven's culture and sound world for many decades. I met and taught many who had been immersed since birth and were fluent speakers and writers of that musical language.


From everything I’ve read and heard from Asian musicians themselves, something comparable to ‘immersion in his (Beethoven’s) culture’ is not necessary ‘to fully understand his work’. The music itself resonated without some kind of need for familiarity with the western European culture. The seeds of classical music in China were to some extent ‘planted’ by Jewish violin-playing refugees (apparently starting in Shanghai) and people were slowly drawn to for a few decades after WW2. However, that was stalled during the years of the Cultural Revolution until the mid seventies. Thereafter, classical music, over the years, became surprisingly popular to this day.

Of course, given that that was a half century ago, there are Chinese children brought up in an environment where there is exposure to classical music. My main point is that IMO, there is something universal about classical music that transcends cultures. No indoctrination is necessary (not that you were inferring ‘indoctrination’).

(Fwiw, some of my experience came from working for years in the city in the Los Angeles area that became the main destination for Chinese in the mid 80s (just 10 years after the end of the Cultural Revolution). It started mainly with Hong Kong residents anticipating the return of Hong Kong to China in 1996. It was followed not long after by mainland Chinese. I actually had to learn a little Mandarin to get by in my work. Anyway, the children took to classical violin and piano like bees to honey.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> Nonsense. Ethical behavior and systems are to a significant extent products of evolution. They are adaptations with survival value for social species, including some non-human species.


Do you have evidence that your claim is true?


----------



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

pianozach said:


> "I Aspire to Be Average" . . . said no one, ever. If given the choice, nobody aspires to be a five out of 10.


I aspire to be average. Being exceptional requires fixating on a narrow area of human experience - sure, in DaVinci's day it was possible to learn all the sciences in a lifetime _and_ be a great painter and inventor, but in the 21st century excellence amounts to tunnel vision and many personal sacrifices that are not at all justified. I want to be an aesthete, a traveller, a family man, read many great works of literature and philosophy, listen to a ton of music, maintain a decent physical shape, meet people, do many different things - and if this means I'll be an average worker and won't contribute to some narrow area of science, this is absolutely fine by me. I know people who do scientific work, I know people who are focused on making a ton of cash, I know people who aspire to excel in their narrow fields of work such as programming or law or medicine, and I don't think those people lead happy lives and I definitely wouldn't want to be like them. I don't care if others are impressed by what I do, I'd rather be happy.

The life of people who are professional musicians in the area of classical music seems downright inhumane to me. You take a 5-year-old child, hand them an instrument and this is their life now. They don't get to think over their choices, whether they maybe don't want to be a lawyer or a doctor or anything else really, they don't get to develop a wide variety of interests, they get to practice, practice, practice in order to make it. Horrible. I'd rather all music be performed by mediocre musicians than people force themselves to suffer through this.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Boychev said:


> I aspire to be average.


Maybe because you are average.


----------



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Maybe because you are average.


I am.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

pianozach said:


> In THIS case it is the *Canon in D *that has mass appeal _because_ it's great.


No. The Canon in D became hugely popular because for some inexplicable reason it started getting a lot of play time on AM top-40 stations around 1979 if memory serves. The Paillard recording hit the top of the charts and suddenly everyone knew it, wanted it played at their weddings and other functions. Never under estimate the power of mass media. The same thing happened 10 years ealier with Switched On Bach.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> No. The Canon in D became hugely popular because for some inexplicable reason it started getting a lot of play time on AM top-40 stations around 1979 if memory serves.


Probably because it was featured in the movie _Ordinary People_ - which came out in 1980 and was a huge hit.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> Probably because it was featured in the movie _Ordinary People_ - which came out in 1980 and was a huge hit.


That could certainly be it - I never saw that movie; didn't know Pachelbel was in it.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Boychev said:


> I aspire to be average. Being exceptional requires fixating on a narrow area of human experience - sure, in DaVinci's day it was possible to learn all the sciences in a lifetime _and_ be a great painter and inventor, but in the 21st century excellence amounts to tunnel vision and many personal sacrifices that are not at all justified. I want to be an aesthete, a traveller, a family man, read many great works of literature and philosophy, listen to a ton of music, maintain a decent physical shape, meet people, do many different things - and if this means I'll be an average worker and won't contribute to some narrow area of science, this is absolutely fine by me. I know people who do scientific work, I know people who are focused on making a ton of cash, I know people who aspire to excel in their narrow fields of work such as programming or law or medicine, and I don't think those people lead happy lives and I definitely wouldn't want to be like them. I don't care if others are impressed by what I do, I'd rather be happy.
> 
> The life of people who are professional musicians in the area of classical music seems downright inhumane to me. You take a 5-year-old child, hand them an instrument and this is their life now. They don't get to think over their choices, whether they maybe don't want to be a lawyer or a doctor or anything else really, they don't get to develop a wide variety of interests, they get to practice, practice, practice in order to make it. Horrible. I'd rather all music be performed by mediocre musicians than people force themselves to suffer through this.


Actually, you're supporting my argument: You aspire to be great at being an aesthete, a traveller, a family man, a reader of many great works of literature and philosophy, music lover, physical health, meeting people, and doing many different things. 
No one is great at _everything_, not even Donald Trump, who often claimed to be an expert at every subject that came up. But _most_ people aspire to be great at _something_.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> Probably because it was featured in the movie _Ordinary People_ - which came out in 1980 and was a huge hit.


It was also a pledge drive mainstay though I don't know if that predated Ordinary People.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Also to be blunt there are some fairly good reasons western culture gained such a foothold in East Asia and particularly Japan. We did occupy the place for some time, after all.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> No. The Canon in D became hugely popular because for some inexplicable reason it started getting a lot of play time on AM top-40 stations around 1979 if memory serves. The Paillard recording hit the top of the charts and suddenly everyone knew it, wanted it played at their weddings and other functions. Never under estimate the power of mass media. The same thing happened 10 years ealier with Switched On Bach.


This is amusing. I say that "the *Canon in D *that has mass appeal _because_ it's great." And you counter with it becoming popular because of "air play". SanAntone claims it became popular because it was in a somewhat popular film. I've not seen the film, nor do I recall hearing it getting copious radio play in the 70s or 80s. 

I'll counter counter that it _got_ air time, and was _in_ films, because it is _great_. It's been great for a very long time.

*Switched On Bach*, on the other hand, was a fad. Bach on new-fangled synthesizers. Those all sound pretty dated now. Even those synth albums by *Tomita (The Planets)* and others like him sound dated. Same with *Hooked On Classics*, those albums with Classical Music with Disco beats. A _fad_ that also sounds dated. 

But *Pachebel's Canon*? Never gone out of style. And people were loving long before 1979.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

It always surprises me how old some popular melodies are, especially around Christmas time.

I've been playing a game set in Bavaria around the time of the great peasant revolts of the 1500s, and while I wish more music was there, I myself wasn't aware that In dulci jubilo, which we know as "Good Christian Men Rejoice" was quite that old.

"L'homme armee" also pops up which I'm sure some aficionados of early liturgical music will like.


----------



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

pianozach said:


> Actually, you're supporting my argument: You aspire to be great at being an aesthete, a traveller, a family man, a reader of many great works of literature and philosophy, music lover, physical health, meeting people, and doing many different things.
> No one is great at _everything_, not even Donald Trump, who often claimed to be an expert at every subject that came up. But _most_ people aspire to be great at _something_.


I don't see how it supports your argument. My point was that being great at something requires sacrifices, and I'm more willing to be mediocre than be great at something. And I think most people would choose e. g. having more time with their family or for their hobbies than being a world class cellist or something.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

superhorn said:


> Well, anyone COULD say Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Berlioz , Brahms, Bruckner , Mahler, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Bartok and other. world famous composers are not great, but very few people would agree with them .


Other than the majority of people (at least in the US) who aren't interested in classical music at all and wouldn't even recognize most of those names. Not to mention people in India, or China, or Africa.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Do you have evidence that your claim is true?


Below are three of many sources citing research studies into ethical awareness and behavior in great apes. But the claim that ethical behavior is adaptive for social species like humans and chimps is so freakin' obvious it shouldn't require more than a moment's thought. Species that hunt and gather cooperatively must obviously behave with ground rules about sharing and fairness, otherwise the enterprise wouldn't work at any sustained level. 



https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html








Chimps and Bonobos Prove that Moral Behavior is a Product of Evolution


Book Review: <cite>The Bonobo and the Atheist</cite>




www.earthisland.org













Chimps are sensitive to what is right and wrong: 'Bystander effect' seen in chimps that only react when one of their own group is harmed


How a chimpanzee views a video of an infant chimp from another group being killed gives a sense of how human morality and social norms might have evolved. A new study provides the first evidence that chimpanzees, like humans, are sensitive to the appropriateness of behaviors, especially those...



www.sciencedaily.com


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I agree.
> 
> Although there's no such thing as evil if evolution is true.


Evolution tells us all life is related and has a common ancestry. It says very little about morality, except that our ancestors slowly developed the capacity for morality from protomorality (rudimentary traits like empathy that some mammals have), and protomorality from primitive instincts (simpler organisms like fish just follow blind instincts.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

ORigel said:


> Evolution tells us all life is related and has a common ancestry. It says very little about morality, except that our ancestors slowly developed the capacity for morality from protomorality (rudimentary traits like empathy that some mammals have), and protomorality from primitive instincts (simpler organisms like fish just follow blind instincts.


That's right. Morality is a cultural value that exists within the context of a specific culture. The same is true of aesthetics. That doesn't mean morality and aesthetics don't exist. That doesn't mean humans do not have an innate need for both to enable them to live and work together. That doesn't mean they are unimportant. And in a specific aesthetic context within a specific culture, it doesn't mean there cannot be great music.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I was looking at orchestral repertory, what has been performed historically, the data is from 2014-2017. But across decades the same six composers keep topping the list:

Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, Schubert, and Tchaikovsky

In that order; sometimes Mozart and Beethoven swap 1st and 2nd place, but usually Mozart is first.

I guess one could argue that these composers are the greatest since their music is consistently performed more than others, and audiences continue to pay to hear it performed.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, Schubert, and Tchaikovsky
> I guess one could argue that these composers are the greatest since their music is consistently performed more than others, and audiences continue to pay to hear it performed.


But what is the objective essence of their "greatness"? Crowd-pleasing?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> The Canon in D became hugely popular because for some inexplicable reason it started getting a lot of play time on AM top-40 stations around 1979 if memory serves.


Why discriminate against "high art" 350 years from the past? Were there any contemporaries of Pachelbel _who did better than_ him with that? Has it not stood the test of time? Yes or no?
There are unpretentious people who think it combines simplicity and complexity in an ingenious way for its time.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> But what is the objective essence of their "greatness"?


The objective fact that across decades, even centuries, these same composers have been performed by professional orchestras for audiences, i.e. they paid to hear their music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> The objective fact that across decades, even centuries, these same composers have been performed by professional orchestras for audiences, i.e. they paid to hear their music.


So? How each of us interprets such a phenomenon is subjective.
Last time I checked, you think Tchaikovsky is comparable to candy. (Am I right?)


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

It's been brought up before but what I like to see is composers who truly left a mark on musical history. There are certain composers who have works that stand tall enough that one could divide musical history into the period before, and after their works. Haydn, Beethoven, Wagner, Schoenberg, John Cage, even Reich - these are composers who were at the forefront of profound changes in the way music was created and examined. 

Now if there's a "myth" here, it's that in quite a few cases, these developments are sometimes improperly attributed to a single individual when the forces which led to these changes are more complicated than the actions and art of a solitary figure, but that's more a question for the historians and theorists.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> I was looking at orchestral repertory, what has been performed historically, the data is from 2014-2017. But across decades the same six composers keep topping the list:
> 
> Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, Schubert, and Tchaikovsky
> 
> ...


Yup. Statistical analysis of that sort is really all you can do. But that particular statistical analysis isn't especially valid for this purpose. All that really measures is the popularity of certain music with the audiences of the symphony orchestras that contribute to that database, and even that is measured only indirectly, as you acknowledge. And those orchestras may exist for the purpose of catering to a small minority niche audience that doesn't reflect the tastes of society as a whole. 

Looking at the broader picture, even those with little interest in most classical music may be big fans of the Star Wars and Harry Potter guy (a/k/a John Williams) and not even know who Schubert is (was). And the music for Star Wars and Harry Potter may or may not be classified as classical music, which is the subject of another lengthy thread here.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> So? How each of us interprets such a phenomenon is subjective.
> Last time I checked, you think Tchaikovsky is comparable to candy. (Am I right?)


I don't equate my own taste with what composers have been judged great.

I recognize that Tchaikovsky's music has stood the test of time and he is widely considered among the greatest composers. But his music does not interest me.

In fact, I can say that the idea of greatness, for me, is completely irrelevant as to which composers interest me. But I am not ignorant of the fact that there has come down to us a group of "great" composers.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> So? How each of us interprets such a phenomenon is subjective.
> Last time I checked, you think Tchaikovsky is comparable to candy. (Am I right?)


Why is it that you make the same dogmatic statement of subjectivity and/or raise questions using totally irrelevant analogies whenever this subject comes up? Not to mention that you have made countless posts about the (allegedly) unfair lack of acknowledgment of the greatness of one Michael Haydn. If your argument is that this is all subjective, then there is no point in trying to argue the greatness of any particular composer.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> If your argument is that this is all subjective, then there is no point in trying to argue the greatness of any particular composer.


How? We can discuss it and at the same time acknowledge it's subjective.



DaveM said:


> Why is it that you make the same dogmatic statement of subjectivity





DaveM said:


> So Beethoven, Einstein, Turing, Da Vinci, Lincoln and Churchill (to name a few) were great and among the greatest. End of story.


"End of story". -You mean this isn't dogmatic?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> How? We can discuss it and at the same time acknowledge it's subjective.


No. If your position is that it’s all subjective and thereby reject that there are objective reasons why some people are great in what they have accomplished, then why should I waste my time dealing with the ambivalence or hypocrisy (whichever it might be) of your arguments that Michael Haydn is great.



> "End of story". -You mean this isn't dogmatic?


It‘s common sense.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Not to mention that you have made countless posts about the (allegedly) unfair lack of acknowledgment of the greatness of one Michael Haydn.





DaveM said:


> hypocrisy (whichever it might be) of your arguments that Michael Haydn is great.


There's no hypocrisy. I was merely using Haydn as an example in those posts to prove my points—

[ _unfairly_ _ignored_? I didn't say that. I just said he's _ignored_, and I used the phenomenon as an example to explain my views of people's conception of greatness or profundity. It makes us question what is inherent in Mozart's music that objectively sets him apart from Haydn.
Of course I myself will always root for Mozart, but I'm not the kind to indulge in "blind idolatry" so I can't help but thinking - what if people were taught from youth to think subjectively that—
"-In terms of dissonance, chromaticism, and vocal-writing, Mozart isn't really that special.
-Haydn's requiem of 1771 isn't sketchy like Mozart's (which gets disappointing with its jubilant Sanctus and all the parts "not sounding like Mozart"), the structure of Haydn's Dies irae, which incorporates the Confutatis and Lacrimosa, is dramatic in a way Mozart's is not.
-At least Haydn didn't write "fluff" like Cosi fan tutte, and "potboiler" concert pieces of Alberti bass.
-Mozart's early works can't match Haydn's in terms of harmony and counterpoint,
-In his mature symphonies (most of them composed in solid 3-movement structure), Haydn writes minuets only when he must, and when he does write one, it consists of a coda and colorful harmonies, which can be seen as an "advantage" over Mozart's K425, K.543, for example, 
etc." ]

[ how can we simply assume, for instance, 'Mozart has greater objective worth than Haydn (M)' without giving both equal amounts of chance? (See "I didn't see the merits of X's music...) What if Haydn's music isn't widely known today because he didn't have his music printed? How well do we know his music to pass judgement objectively?-








(Can anyone demonstrate their knowledge by identifying these?)
Schubert, one of few figures in history who knew both intimately (while Weber and Bruckner didn't comment) said that he wanted to be like Haydn, not Mozart. Haydn's instrumental music is stylistically different from Mozart's, with greater emphasis on melodies in the bassoon in symphonies, harmonies imo having a nostalgic effect as if to say "once upon a time..", writings for the contrabass giving a "weighty feel" in chamber music, etc. His singspiels portray the rural side of Germany in a way Mozart's does not. (I'm still waiting for the release of his later works, such as Die Ährenleserin, in recording.) How does Mozart compare to him in oratorios, German songs, etc? His work can be subjectively viewed as simply "different" from (and not "inferior" to) Mozart's. ]


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> The objective fact that across decades, even centuries, these same composers have been performed by professional orchestras for audiences, i.e. they paid to hear their music.


But look at how "the masses" have been educated. For instance,
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yZ4vtpxQXw&t=56s** (Video <What Makes Debussy Sound French?> by Inside the Score)—*
It says "In the 1700s, Johann Sebastian Bach, had defined the system of Western classical tonality", (of course guys like www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFV8avEufEw (Missa Omnium Sanctorum, ZWV 21) all learned everything from Bach, didn't they) and then goes onto discuss Beethoven, and then jumps to Wagner - as if Weber and Spohr never existed in the history of Romantic harmonic practice.
It's how they always talk - it's always about what Bach or Mozart did, (and spotlighting them as some sort of "heroes"). How can we say it was a "fair game" for all the composers from the start?

Also btw, someone has pointed out that Mozart only got popular a few decades ago— "check the number of newspaper mentions per period for this purpose via the site "newspapers.com". Browse Newspapers - Newspapers.com Mozart is mentioned often since the 1980s. Before that composers of the romantic period are dominating compared to those of the classical and earlier periods. For example Richard Wagner. "Richard Wagner" has 18,222 mentions in the 1910s, while "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" has 224. Wagner has 30,323 mentions in the 1950s, while Mozart has 2,739. Wagner has 28,540 mentions in the 1990s while Mozart has 22,409."


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

DaveM said:


> No. If your position is that it’s all subjective and thereby reject that there are objective reasons why some people are great in what they have accomplished, then why should I waste my time dealing with the ambivalence or hypocrisy (whichever it might be) of your arguments that Michael Haydn is great.
> 
> It‘s common sense.


I'm not sure you are using objective correctly here. The reason for hammeredklavier's tastes are just as objective as the reason for common considered greatness. Why you would prefer discussing one over another is a mystery to all of us, as both are equally interesting case studies. As well as equally complex cases (common perceptions of greatness can be philosophically boiled down to one abstract psychology.) I actually disagree that the latter is more complex though, as hammeredklavier is provenly more invested in music than the average person, his case is indubitably more interesting than the historical one, even though intuition of 'quantity' tells you personally otherwise. I would invest more time in many of these, unusually different critical perspectives (alive in many musical genres too.) If one is 'objectively' correct, the probability of it being your convenience sample one is unknowable, even let's warrant, yours is more probable, it still leaves thousands of other probabilities. We can both proceed loosely agreeing that in English the term greatness refers the critically average within one field, although we agree loosely, as I never admitted this one field's opinions have been proven objective.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Ethereality said:


> I'm not sure you are using objective correctly here. The reason for hammeredklavier's tastes are just as objective as the reason for common considered greatness.


I would be surprised if those who have read HK’s numerous posts in numerous threads containing superlatives of Michael Haydn’s works and comparisons to the works of Mozart and other contemporaries interpreted them as anything but a promotion that Michael Haydn was an unappreciated great composer. It would not make sense for someone to do that if they didn’t feel strongly that there were objective reasons to support the position.



> *Why you would prefer discussing one over another is a mystery to all of us*, as both are equally interesting case studies.


Were you selected in some poll or election to speak for everyone?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I hope by all intents and purposes, you're actually aware of those not sharing your group's view of greatness, ie. the vast majority of people on earth, and _feel strongly_ about that, as I feel strongly about a minority imposing 'truth' over _individuals_ with no _objective_ evidence and no ounce of power to do so over us, hah. Please keep at this though, reading these posts is only funny.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Ethereality said:


> I hope by all intents and purposes, you're actually aware of those not sharing your group's view of greatness, *ie. the vast majority of people on earth*, and _feel strongly_ about that as I feel strongly about a minority imposing 'truth' over _individuals_ with no _objective_ evidence and no ounce of power to do so over us, hah. Please keep at this though, reading these posts is only funny.


So now you‘re speaking for ‘the vast majority of people on earth‘. I am truly humbled.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Ethereality said:


> I hope by all intents and purposes, you're actually aware of those not sharing your group's view of greatness, ie. the vast majority of people on earth, and _feel strongly_ about that…


The majority of people on earth believe in some concept of God and presumably their view of God is that of greatness and they _feel strongly about that_ so my group wins.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

My group . Your pagan trinity is not familiar to us.


----------



## partisan (Oct 18, 2021)

Weston said:


> Cynicism is easy.
> 
> And very tedious itself. And usually an affliction of the very young.


While true, we also live in cynical times.

Regardless, as this thread continued, the OP seemed to change the discussion's theme due to a vague, carless first post. I am not sure what is so offensive about the idea of 'greatness' with regards to music especially (plus, the added joke of OP's username, haha). It seems there is a problem with the overuse of the word more-so than the idea of 'greatness'. But maybe I'm wrong. @BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist, care to elaborate more on what you mean or how your thoughts have developed since starting this thread? Even 'favorite' is on your chopping block!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> I would be surprised if those who have read HK’s numerous posts in numerous threads containing superlatives of Michael Haydn’s works and comparisons to the works of Mozart and other contemporaries interpreted them as anything but a promotion that Michael Haydn was an unappreciated great composer. It would not make sense for someone to do that if they didn’t feel strongly that there were objective reasons to support the position.


You misunderstand me. My point is that, these composers had "objective traits" that can be "evaluated subjectively" in terms of aesthetics. Depending on context and perspective, they can be thought to be either desirable or undesirable. For instance, Paisiello was a more successful opera composer than Mozart for a reason. Listen to, for instance,




(Il barbiere di Siviglia: Ma dov'eri tu, stordito)
The majority of the opera listeners of the 18th century had their own reasons for valuing Paisiello over Mozart, and they weren't "objectively incorrect" in their aesthetic preference/evaluation.
_"At the beginning of the nineteenth century, before Berlioz's time, some influential critics - for instance, Julien-Louis Geoffroy - rejected Mozart as a foreigner, considering his music 'scholastic', stressing his use of harmony over melody, and the dominance of the orchestra over singing in the operas - all these were considered negative features of 'Germanic' music."_


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Also btw, someone has pointed out that Mozart only got popular a few decades ago—


This thread is about "greatness" not popularity. Mozart's greatness was recognized during his lifetime and by at least one composer now thought of as great. But we know that Mozart and Beethoven, and Bach, as well as many other "great" composers, were considered great by their contemporaries.

_Haydn eulogized Mozart, saying: “Posterity will not see such a talent again in 100 years.” To Mozart's father, Leopold, Haydn declared, “Sir, your son is the greatest composer known to me, either personally or by reputation.”_

Previously I offered as one data point for considering greatness those composers whose music has been consistently programmed by professional orchestras (presumably with more musical knowledge and the most at stake if they are wrong). This is not simply "popularity" but a sense that these composers are worth the time and training of these conductors and musicians to keep performing.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I sometimes talk with various people including @Woodduck about the abundance of secco recitatives and "phrase repeat patterns" (See "Cadential Phrase Repeats" in 18th Century... if you're curious what I mean by the term) in Mozart's operas. For perfectly justifiable reasons, he considers them "undesirable" and I don't think it's objectively wrong to think that way.

With that in mind, I sometimes wonder _what if_ we were taught from youth these doctrines—
"-the F minor organ Fantasie K.608 is an epitome of pedantism/scholastism in late 18th century music and the scene of "two armored men" from Die Zauberflöte is just the same pedantism placed in a different context. Ultimately, it was Mozart who always saw himself as an entertainer (by saying things like "my music is designed in such a way even the dumbest people can enjoy") and always sought to achieve the success of Paisiello (to pay off his own debts), but apparently did not have what it takes to. He resorted to the pedantism of harmony and counterpoint every time, thinking that's the best way. Everytime he tries things like Paisiello, he ends up sounding merely graceful.

-Mozart's operas were not composed with the greatest artistic integrity of his time. He didn't achieve the sense of continuity like Reichardt's, whose numbers and accompagnatos in Erwin und Elmire are all through-composed, connected in terms of transitions and modulations (It's devoid of the Buffa style of "phrase repeat patterns" and is almost contemporaneous with Mozart since Mozart died in Demember 1791 and the "quasi-liederspiel" was premiered in early 1793)."
The modulations in the free fantasy section (C major -> F minor -> A flat major (-> A flat minor, borrowed) -> A minor -> C minor); something Mozart didn't do in opera-




Mit vollen Athemzügen saug' ich, natur aus dir



SanAntone said:


> But we know that Mozart and Beethoven, and Bach, as well as many other "great" composers, were considered great by their contemporaries.


How much of Reichardt's music do we know, to deem him objectively inferior to Mozart in artistry? Mendelssohn considered him a greater composer of lieder than Schubert (according to Page 143 from "Beyond Fingal's Cave: Ossian in the Musical Imagination" by James Porter) —do we have to care about this fact now? The same reasoning applies to the composers of the past who are now famous today. 99.99% of people in the world today don't give a  about the stuff (except a few select hits like Eine Kleine Nachtmusik) for a reason.

Does anyone care about this now?— "... Among those who could have influenced Mozart are Gluck and Johann Friedrich Reichardt. In two melodramas from the 1770s, Reichardt developed an incipient form of leitmotiv, devising musical expressions of moods and ideas that recurred whenever justified by the drama rather than according to considerations of musical form. Long before Wagner, he described the process in his widely circulated _Musikalisches Kunstmagazin_ (1782). The Greek tragedies _Prokris und Cephalus_ and _Ino_ initially appealed to him as subjects for melodramas because they allowed him to create an individual musical theme "for each passion, for each shading of passion," and in so doing, "to bring more unity to the whole." Both in practice and in theory, Reichardt was an important precedent for Wagner, who also credited his motivic technique for fostering a musical unity ..." ("Motives for Allusion: Context and Content in Nineteenth-century Music" by Christopher Alan Reynolds, P. 46)


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Sure there were composers highly thought of who have disappeared from our awareness. This is why those composers who have both been acknowledged during their lifetimes as well as sustaining the assessment of greatness across centuries, and among a wide audience is evidence of their greatness.

It doesn't matter what you or Wooddock (a fan of Wagner, who stylistic indulgences are well known)) think of the style of opera buffa, or the 18th century in general, it was the prevailing style of Mozart's time. And a style that Mozart mastered and brought to its apogee.

Your hypothetical arguments are nothing more than speculation based on your own biases. We know who the composers are that are widely considered great. And that judgment of history is not simply based on false indoctrination. Their music as survived because of its inherent quality as perceived by audiences across a long period of time.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> You misunderstand me. My point is that, these composers had "objective traits" that can be "evaluated subjectively" in terms of aesthetics. Depending on context and perspective, they can be thought to be either desirable or undesirable. For instance, Paisiello was a more successful opera composer than Mozart for a reason. Listen to, for instance,
> (Il barbiere di Siviglia: Ma dov'eri tu, stordito)
> The majority of the opera listeners of the 18th century had their own reasons for valuing Paisiello over Mozart, and they weren't "objectively incorrect" in their aesthetic preference/evaluation..


You seem unaware of how often you contradict yourself. In saying that ’Paisiello was a more successful opera composer for a reason‘ and then giving an example to support that premise, you are presenting what you believe is objective evidence. Or do you see this as someone likes a composer for subjective reasons and is trying to get someone else to subjectively like that composer also and objectivity has nothing to do with it. Which doesn’t make any sense.

Every time you present an example of a composer who you feel has been under appreciated and you present examples to support it, you are entering the territory of ‘objectivity’.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

re: my personal definition of "greatness" being one with a profound impact on the course of music and art, I do find the few cases of artists (in the post-Baroque period) who did have profound impacts but didn't gain a wide following today interesting. I think Gluck is probably the most important artist of the classical period who has almost nothing in the standard repitorie, but historians and musicologists might name a few others (La Monte Young?)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> You seem unaware of how often you contradict yourself. In saying that ’Paisiello was a more successful opera composer for a reason‘ and then giving an example to support that premise, you are presenting what you believe is objective evidence.


Paisiello was the most popular opera composer of the 18th century. This was the composer the people of Mozart's time chose. Mozart's 'Germanic' harmonic/orchestral style matched with his own tragic life story in a way that later appealed to some Romantics.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> Paisiello was the most popular opera composer of the 18th century. This was the composer the people of Mozart's time chose. Mozart's 'Germanic' harmonic/orchestral style matched with his own tragic life story in a way that later appealed to some Romantics.


Welcome to the world of presenting what is perceived as objective evidence to support a premise.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Paisiello fitting a certain culture is no more objective evidence than Paisiello being the greatest we've ever seen write music like Paisiello. This is due to there being no inherent value tied to either requirement, one must input their own, the subjective preference within either an individual or average framework dictating what is more valuable, no objectivity ever alluded. Now, more to the point of these heirarchies, many like myself define greatness as correlated to critical opinions within a whole field and time, but what's important to compare is also the more valuable art and life commodities of those not focused within a specific field. For instance, in music, play something by Grieg and it will often receive better reception than something by Bach, because people aren't _focusing_ into the field. Michael Jackson and this appreciation draws even higher. Arriving at technical greatness begs the question within its circle, what music has been most studied and focused on among music scholars? The term befits one group with many opinions_, _sometimes dubbed audiophiles, but in order to claim one of their criticisms integrably, you must actually understand and enjoy it. This is why appeal to authority is generally meaningless, a real critic may find much personal overlap with the others, and influence, and some whose brain works differently may not. No one _more_ objective and less objective is establishing fact. But the most invested of these opinions will generally be most interesting to study compared to one merely assuming these people are correct, one who offers no personal analysis and feeling of their own. So if it's a competition of credibility that wishes to be sparred, hammeredklavier already wins the contest before it started. One can disagree with him, yeah okay, or one can put forth their own substantial critique of a music that others might consider.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> I don't equate my own taste with what composers have been judged great.
> 
> I recognize that Tchaikovsky's music has stood the test of time and he is widely considered among the greatest composers. But his music does not interest me.
> 
> In fact, I can say that the idea of greatness, for me, is completely irrelevant as to which composers interest me. But I am not ignorant of the fact that there has come down to us a group of "great" composers.


Very true. But consider exactly who you are referring to as "us" in your last sentence. Artistic greatness exists in specific cultural contexts. Without putting things in the relevant context, "greatness" means very little.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fluteman said:


> Very true. But consider exactly who you are referring to as "us" in your last sentence. Artistic greatness exists in specific cultural contexts. Without putting things in the relevant context, "greatness" means very little.


Since we having this discussion about the classical music canon, and classical music audiences, conductors, musicians and orchestras on a classical music forum, the only relevant context is the classical music community, history, and repertory.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

fbjim said:


> re: my personal definition of "greatness" being one with a profound impact on the course of music and art, I do find the few cases of artists (in the post-Baroque period) who did have profound impacts but didn't gain a wide following today interesting. I think *Gluck* is probably *the most important artist of the classical period* who has almost nothing in the standard repitorie, but historians and musicologists might name a few others (La Monte Young?)


LOL.

Back in the late 1970s, as a music major, we had to take *Music History*, and you'd have thought that *Glück* was the most important composer _of all time, _not just the Classical Period.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> Since we having this discussion about the classical music canon, and classical music audiences, conductors, musicians and orchestras on a classical music forum, the only relevant context is the classical music community, history, and repertory.


Those are entirely different contexts, "community, history and repertoire" are not a single context and more contexts exist.

Not to mention that attempts to use "community reputation" as a criterion are vulnerable to attempts to exclude certain listeners from the community, so as to discount their opinions.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> Their music as survived because of its inherent quality as perceived by audiences across a long period of time.


There were many composers who didn't have their music printed/published in their time. Much of it is still in manuscript form to this day. There's no substantive "consensus" formed on them cause they never had the opportunity, and exposure of their work to the public (even to the academia) has been and is still limited to this day.
On the other hand, there's this, for example (I recommend the book; it also discusses a bit of the 19th century reception of Palestrina, Handel, Mozart, etc) - www.jstor.org/stable/10.7722/j.ctt155j3qq
I'm not trying to argue any composer is overrated in any way in this thread. I'm just saying there are more complex elements and forces at work, who becomes popular and who doesn't.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Since we having this discussion about the classical music canon, and classical music audiences, conductors, musicians and orchestras on a classical music forum, the only relevant context is the classical music community, history, and repertory.


Yes, the western classical music community, history, and repertory, that is.


----------



## ccrisgreat1950 (2 mo ago)

beethoven studied under hayden said schauffler in his bio of the great LVB-n,haiden did not expend much effort for me' ludvig was a bad speller,,' me and haiden,,chicken dinner and wine ten Krone'
beethovens skill on the piano,at improvising,never found an equal,,,his abilities functioning under the duress of deafness throughout his adult life,thos F kelly wrote a book of 'first performances' in citing the performance of the ninth, and last ,in vienna,,at the thundering conclusion,the final FF chords in the chorale,at the ending measure,,the maestro was still beating time,as the audience behind him were on their feet wildly applauding,,which he could not hear,soprano caroline unger walked up to him tuggin on his sleeve spinning him around to see the people on their feet,how great it would have been to be there.
such talent,with the evil deafness always there,adds to his legend,,in the way of historical impact close and far away the ninth ode to joy was sung in a tokio outdoor stadium by a thousand singers,both germany and japan had to be pounded into their senses,before this could happen,,suprise than the US 8th airforce, now pile on boys


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm not trying to argue any composer is overrated in any way in this thread. I'm just saying there are more complex elements and forces at work, who becomes popular and who doesn't.


It doesn't matter to me one bit why one composer's music survived and the music of countless others hasn't. As far as I am concerned the generally accepted lists of the "great composers" exists, and is there for anyone to access. I also believe that all of the composers on these lists are great, to the extent a determination can be made in that regard. Whether or not there are missing names of unknown composers does not interest me.

But the only thing that is important to me is listening to and sometimes studying the music that excites my mind and soul, no matter if its composer is considered great, or over- or under-rated.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

If people stopped using the word "great" so loosely, that would be great.


----------



## ccrisgreat1950 (2 mo ago)

SanAntone said:


> The objective fact that across decades, even centuries, these same composers have been performed by professional orchestras for audiences, i.e. they paid to hear their music.


 distance from predecessors, often their fellows, E a revolutionary,,scuberts ninth the great, or schumanns manfred overture,the 2nd symphony,
must gave proven terribly hard for string players of their day,lighter woods precise and stronger longer lasting strings which stay in tune,,lighter veneers for the wood finished cellos violins,,made them easier to play


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

premont said:


> If people stopped using the word "great" so loosely, that would be great.


As I keep saying, context is all. For example, Bernstein's score for West Side Story is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest in the American Broadway musical theater tradition. Is it "classical music"? One could argue that it is, but what West Side Story most definitely is not is opera, in the sense of the 19th century European grand opera tradition of Weber, Rossini, Bizet, Donizetti, Verdi, Wagner, Gonoud, Massenet, Puccini, Strauss, et al.

It gets confusing, since Bernstein was keenly aware of and influenced by that European grand opera tradition, as well as by the classical symphonies of Mozart and Beethoven, Stravinsky's modernism, American jazz of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, the American Broadway musical tradition that had been going strong since the mid-19th century, and many other things. But with West Side Story, the idea was to create a hit Broadway musical, and that was the dominant tradition reflected in the music, lyrics and everything else. In fact, it became a major influence on that tradition, having a profound effect on Broadway musicals in the 60s, 70s and beyond. In that context, no doubt it is great music, even if it is a long way down in the classical hit parade, or not in it at all.

To analyze music clearly, we always need first to ask: What musical and more broadly cultural tradition or traditions does the music come from? What style is it in? What were the particular composer's individual artistic characteristics, skills, methods, and choices in the context of those traditions and styles? Even within the traditional European classical music canon, there are profound differences between the style of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, and that of Debussy and Ravel. But there are also important similarities that tie them together, and that are partly or entirely absent once one ventures beyond that canon.

So, yes, there is little point in using the term "greatness" loosely.


----------

