# "Evolving the profile of genius" - Alex Ross



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Alex Ross has an article on Florence Price in this week's New Yorker. Obviously it's worth reading as an object lesson about how a composer (especially a minority one) can be neglected, but he also touches on a larger point that's been the subject of many discussions on TC:



> In progressive musicological circles these days, you hear much talk about the canon and about the bad assumptions that underpin it. Classical music, perhaps more than any other field, suffers from what the acidulous critic-composer Virgil Thomson liked to call the "masterpiece cult." He complained about the idea of an "unbridgeable chasm between 'great work' and the rest of production . . . a distinction as radical as that recognized in theology between the elect and the damned." The adulation of the master, the genius, the divinely gifted creator all too easily lapses into a cult of the white-male hero, to whom such traits are almost unthinkingly attached.
> 
> I feel some ambivalence about the anti-masterpiece line. Having grown up with the notion of musical genius, I am reluctant to let it go entirely. What I value most as a listener is the sense of a singular creative personality coalescing from anonymous sounds. I wonder whether the profile of genius could simply evolve to include a broader range of personalities and faces. But there's no doubt that the jargon of greatness has become musty, and more than a little toxic. I recently had a social-media exchange with the Harvard-based scholar Anne Shreffler, who wrote of instilling different values in her classes. She said, "Instead of telling students it's Great, you can say it's worth their while: historically fascinating, well crafted, genre bending, or just listen-to-this-amazing-moment-at-the-end. Rather than a religious icon." If we are going to treat music as a full-fledged art form-and, surprisingly often, we don't-we need to be open to the bewildering richness of everything that has been written during the past thousand years. To reduce music history to a pageant of masters is, at bottom, lazy. We stick with the known in order to avoid the hard work of exploring the unknown.


I'm not as ambivalent as Ross on the masterpiece issue - I've heard too many works that I love to bits that are nowhere close to being in the canon - and I think Shreffler's quoted advice is very good. And I certainly agree that steering away from the existing canon is a good thing if it makes classical music more inclusive.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

The "limited number of real masterpieces or great composers" idea does not appeal to me at all. Too many are in there that leave me cold (or worse), too many not in there that I love. As an average approach it has some merits I guess.


----------



## insomniclassicac (Jan 15, 2018)

I agree. Unbridled veneration of "The Canon" has only served to ossify the repertoire, to the point where it has blunted the excitement of participating in the community for a lot of aficionados. Oh, my local symphony is programming the Dvořák New World Symphony for the umpteenth time? Yawn. 

There is a plethora of wonderful, amazing music out there waiting to be discovered and appreciated, and those who confine themselves to the "sanctified" names are really cheating themselves and each other. MHO


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

There are many, many fine works that audiences would enjoy if only given the chance. James DePriest once told me "there's no shortage of great music, there's a shortage of performance time". And I should add, a shortage of conductors/orchestras/audiences willing to give unknown music a chance. There have always been conductors willing to buck the trend, and a surprisingly number of record companies who explore(d) the fringes of the repertoire. If anyone wants to listen to off-beat music, he can. There's no shortage of cds and Youtube videos to explore. So the real complaint must be about live performances. To survive, orchestras have to sell tickets and let's face it, Beethoven and Brahms sell better than Balakirev or Bendix. There is indeed a plethora of music waiting to be discovered and appreciated, but it's never going to happen in the concert hall - it's going to happen in the recording studio. All that's needed is a listener to get off his butt and try it. Of course, with the demise of record stores the ability to browse for hours and find something "new" is gone. Browsing for recordings on the internet is not the same.

In regards to this, I want to share my experience with this: I get to conduct sometimes, and recently I did a concert that opened with the Festival Overture by Dudley Buck, and closed with the Festival March by Victor Herbert. Both works by American composers, both fun to play. They're well-written and tremendously exciting. The audience loved both works - the cheers and applause was loud and long. Great response. But the board of directors? One member said we need to be sure to get back to the core repertoire and not play these unknown, obscure works that no one knows. Typical board mentality.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Bravo!

I agree that the only problem is live performances in the concert hall. New music not by big names and not by people labeled geniuses are available online for free in an avalanche of abundance, and can lead to sales or the growth of that person’s reputation. I’ve heard so much new music that’s not part of the standard repertory that is hard to keep track—the neglected masters of the past that had big names during their era, such as the American Edward McDowell, contemporary composers such as Penderecki, and up-and-coming youngsters who are not tied to the past in anyway and feel they have something to say. It’s out there. In fact with a modicum of curiosity it’s impossible to avoid. It’s the Golden Age for hearing new music, either by design or serendipity. No one is being denied a hearing, except maybe in Carnegie Hall, at least for the time being.

The primary problem is live performances, and it’s a big one. If a community had affordable weekly concerts, such as certain cities conveniently have, it’s not a problem performing more contemporary works, because the audience over time will have heard just about everything else in the way of the mainstream. But when people go to a concert maybe three or four times a year, they’re not as inclined to take a chance on the unknown and pay big bucks to perhaps be disappointed. So there’s a big problem in the public supporting live music, and then there’s fewer orchestras and fewer live concerts, and then the time to get anything unknown on stage is more competitive than ever.

The meantime, I’m not for bashing the idea of genius and trying to drag some of these extraordinary people down to the level of the ordinary in how they did things. Genius points to the creative revelation that’s possible with some people, and I think the 21st-century still needs a reminder of what human beings are capable of. The study of genius is also the study of the creative process, and that’s why some listeners are interested in it, because maybe they want to be more creative themselves and the lives of the composers can be instructive. It’s a terrible mistake to think that the same level of genius as a Mozart will never happen again, and I believe that’s patently false even if humanity has to wait for another 200 years. In the meantime, there’s an avalanche of new music that can be heard 24/7, much of it is surprisingly good and it’s saying something about today rather than 200 years ago.


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

Unfortunately, I think the trend of sticking to maybe 20 or so 'top' composers and ignoring the rest will if anything continue thanks to the growing habit of those organising concerts going for what is familiar to get bums on seats (and pay the bills - an important consideration, admittedly) rather than introducing audiences to neglected works of value. So it is Elgar, Vaughan Williams, Walton and Benjamin Britten that appear when a modern British work is required. When did Alwyn, Arnold, Franklin, Parry, Bliss, Box, Rubbra last appear in most provincial concert halls in the UK? There may be one or two contemporary works, but they are usually quite short and comfortably sandwiched between a couple of the usual warhorses. I don't know what the answer is to this, and I'm afraid those of us who wants to hear less familiar composers will have to turn to our CDs or other sources of non-live reproduction.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

This is an excellent thread and I agree with all of the posts. The CD era really opened up exploration of unknown Composers, although labels such as Nonesuch issued interesting fare in the lp era. Naxos, in particular, has done yeoman service in bringing
forth little known Composers. Downloads and stream each offer additional potential for exploration.
The problem will forever be the Concert Hall,and I don’t see that ever changing. There is simply to much at stake, from the salaries of the players and administrators, the costs of the Hall itself, etc. it is much less financially challenging to alert cognoscenti to an interesting new work on Spotify or downloadable via iTunes then to get conservative audiences to buy in


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

This is an excellent thread and I agree with all of the posts. The CD era really opened up exploration of unknown Composers, although labels such as Nonesuch issued interesting fare in the lp era. Naxos, in particular, has done yeoman service in bringing
forth little known Composers. Downloads and stream each offer additional potential for exploration.
The problem will forever be the Concert Hall,and I don’t see that ever changing. There is simply to much at stake, from the salaries of the players and administrators, the costs of the Hall itself, etc. it is much less financially challenging to alert cognoscenti to an interesting new work on Spotify or downloadable via iTunes then to get conservative audiences to buy in


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2018)

Nereffid said:


> "Instead of telling students it's Great, you can say it's worth their while: historically fascinating, well crafted, genre bending, or just listen-to-this-amazing-moment-at-the-end."


Excellent advice...not least because instead of simplistic labelling, it actually offers criteria.


----------



## Boston Charlie (Dec 6, 2017)

It seems that the concert hall has been identified as a problem in terms of bringing forth a varied, challenging and thoughtful repertoire that might better promote lesser known/contemporary composers. Might I suggest that the time of the concert hall has past in the sense that the concert hall is no longer the focal point of the classical music experience. Just as classical music was once born and thrived in the church, then moved to the concert hall, now it has long since moved from the concert hall to the world of the studio and sound recordings. Maybe we should ask ourselves to what extent the concert hall has become the obligation of both musician and audience where we go almost as a matter of tradition or to support the "culture" of classical music, while the bulk of our enjoyment actually comes on a more individual level where modern technology is our venue.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

A few random thoughts:

-- There is music that is (however you define it) "better" than other music.

-- There are composers whose output contains a higher percentage of "better" music than others. And face it, people want to hear Beethoven over Clementi because it's more worth their time.

-- Whether you choose to call these composers geniuses is up to you, but in general they are outliers on the bell curve of musical artistry/creativity.

-- Concert programs are indeed shaded toward these composers by the necessity of putting fannies in seats. (I will say, however, that when I was a teen in the '60s and had subscription seats to the BSO, I did hear Schoenberg and Webern and Gunther Schiller, and Irving Fine and (unusually for the time) Kodaly and Scriabin and Prokofiev and Shostakovich . . .)

-- Just about everything else that's worth listening to (and much that isn't) has been recorded for those who wants it. And there's an amazing amount of music that is worth only an occasional listen, and an amazingly greater amount for which one listen in a lifetime is more than enough.

-- Up to the middle of the last century, CM was almost an exclusively white male domain and that was cultural and there is little we can do to change the past. Revivals of pieces by Fannie Mendelssohn or Amy Beach can be curiosities and we can lament that they were prevented from developing, but sorry, they're dead.


----------



## insomniclassicac (Jan 15, 2018)

MarkW said:


> -- Up to the middle of the last century, CM was almost an exclusively white male domain and that was cultural and there is little we can do to change the past. Revivals of pieces by Fannie Mendelssohn or Amy Beach can be curiosities and we can lament that they were prevented from developing, but sorry, they're dead.


I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But your phrasing here seems to imply that not only do the works of Fanny Mendelssohn-Hensel and Amy Beach fail to meet the threshold of "greatness"--a debatable point, perhaps--but that the quality of their music can, at best, be judged mere "curiosities"; a sentiment I would strongly protest, if so. Moreover, the broader inference in your comment above is that the same judgment applies to *all* female composers from these earlier eras, not just the cited Mmes. Mendelssohn-Hensel and Beach; in which case, I even more strongly protest.

Do I misconstrue?


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2018)

MarkW said:


> A few random thoughts:
> 
> -- There is music that is (however you define it) "better" than other music.


One may as well start at the beginning and point out that your comment in parentheses cannot be so lightly set aside. Without defining the criteria for 'better', we cannot really cross the start line, never mind reach a finish.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Greatness is in this context more a matter of degree than of kind. Some composers were undeniably better at what they did, being more gifted, knowledgeable and skilled, and, accordingly, composed better music, reflecting their greatness, just like how a better painter will paint better paintings, how a better cook will make better food, or how a better sprinter will run faster; this should not be difficult to understand.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Improbus said:


> Greatness is in this context more a matter of degree than of kind. Some composers were undeniably better at what they did, being more gifted, knowledgeable and skilled, and, accordingly, composed better music, reflecting their greatness, just like how a better painter will paint better paintings, how a better cook will make better food, or how a better sprinter will run faster


All else being equal, that is. Someone could of course decide to mess up consciously in some way.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

I'm doubtful that anything like a definitive "canon" of classical music exists. I've seen many lists purporting to represent the "best" or "greatest" in classical music but most of them look pretty unconvincing. Some of these have been organised by classical music radio stations based on listener polls. I suppose one of the biggest is the annual Classic FM (in the UK) "Hall of Fame" exercise. Personally, I'm rather doubtful of the universal validity of those results as they seem to be rather biased towards British composers. I suppose these lists may have some value but I'm not sure that I would so far as to suggest that they approximate what might be called a classical music "canon".

Others include forum-based polls that involve far few voters. These, however, suffer from the problem of how many pieces are permitted to be included, on whose opinions the list was compiled, and how exactly the voting procedures were organised, as the results can be sensitive to each of these factors. I'm not suggesting that these polls are entirely useless but I'm always suspicious of the results as they rely upon self-selecting samples, which is not good news statistically if bias is to be minimised. It seems fairly certain from these, or in fact any, polls that the shorter the intended list of items to be counted the more scope there is for doubt and disagreement over the merit of any particular work's inclusion or ranking within it. 

Ignoring the fact that no definitive list exists that defines the "canon" in classical music, I would argue that a rough and ready list of "great music" (if that's the best than can be achieved) is far better than nothing at all, especially to students and beginners in this area who are just getting into either studying or becoming interested in classical music. Any such list should, however, only be a temporary educational device to guide the novice listener, rather than to be seen as a definitive and exhaustive view of what is worth listening to. Such an educational device is necessary to guide the beginner because if they simply plunged in to explore the delights of say, J S Bach, in random fashion, without any kind of road-map, they might well find a lot of material not to their liking, and be put off that composer for a long time. 

Once a person has progressed beyond the initial stages of the classical music learning curve, it ought to be a lot easier to make further progress using one's own procedures. I have occasionally found some classical music forum based poll results rather useful, and several of the T-C ones are good. But more generally I rather prefer to use other sources of information, e.g. the "Presto" lists of best-liked works by the various composers, and the associated recommended recordings. However, I guess it's each to his/her own devices on this matter of further progression. That's one of the main things about classical music: you never run out of new works that are worth investigating.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Some repomses to the reponses to my random thoughts:

Insomniclassicac: I'm not meaning to impugn anyone. It's just that Mendelssohn-Hensel and Beach are the only nineteenth century female composers whose music I have heard -- and Fannie was prevented from developing her talent/skills by cultural factors so we can only ask What if? And what I have heard of Mrs. Beach''s music is uneven -- which is no crime, bur wishing it were better will not make it so. :=) Ruth Crawford Seeger, on the other hand, is first class all the way.

MacLeod: If you can definitively define what it means for a piece of art to be "better," I take my hat off to you. People have tried for years. And the best I can come up with is that a "great" piece of music contains more "greatness" than a lesser one. 
We can pretty much all see that a landscape on view at the Met is "better" than one produced by Bob Ross on PBS, but how we all qualify that is mysterious and not easily succeptible to rule-based definition.

cheers --


----------



## insomniclassicac (Jan 15, 2018)

MarkW said:


> Insomniclassicac: I'm not meaning to impugn anyone. It's just that Mendelssohn-Hensel and Beach are the only nineteenth century female composers whose music I have heard -- and Fannie was prevented from developing her talent/skills by cultural factors so we can only ask What if? And what I have heard of Mrs. Beach''s music is uneven -- which is no crime, bur wishing it were better will not make it so. :=) Ruth Crawford Seeger, on the other hand, is first class all the way.


Might I humbly suggest you expand your horizons a bit to include the art of other fine women composers of this earlier era? Perhaps exploring the music of Mélanie Bonis, Lili Boulanger, Rebecca Clarke, Lūcija Garūta, Dora Pejačević, Cécile Chaminade, Louise Farrenc, etc.--all of which are freely available in some capacity on YouTube--may refine your perspective on the relative merits of female-authored works during this time period? 

For the record, I would put Mendelssohn-Hensel's op. 11 piano trio and E-flat string quartet up against any of her brother's works in corresponding genres, respectively.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2018)

MarkW said:


> MacLeod: If you can definitively define what it means for a piece of art to be "better," I take my hat off to you. People have tried for years. And the best I can come up with is that a "great" piece of music contains more "greatness" than a lesser one.


If _I _can? Or if _one _can? It seems a difficult position to hold, that _"this _work is better than _that, _but I offer no criteria that might help you understand why: it just is."



MarkW said:


> *We can pretty much all see* that a landscape on view at the Met is "better" than one produced by Bob Ross on PBS, but how we all qualify that is mysterious and not easily succeptible to rule-based definition.
> 
> cheers --


Except that we can't all pretty much see (or, more importantly, hear). What we can see is that what one person thinks is greater, another thinks is less so or more so, but, according to you, neither is obliged to justify their taste or their judgememt.

I don't think anyone is asking for a "rule-based definition" (I'm not), but at least some sense of the points of comparison.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Hi MacLeod --

I'm not trying to be argumentative -- but the subject is a fascinating one, all the more so for seeming to be unanswerable. It's a conundrum of aesthetics. In science you have Occam's razor; in mathematics elegance; in sports the final score. But in the arts? It's true that the more familiar you are with CM, or jazz, or Broadway, or Heavy Metal, the more comfortable you are with making judgments about goodness -- and the more likely people at the same familiarity level will agree in general terms with your judgment. But the "objective" reasoning behind that judgment goes completely out the window. As I wrote once, musicologists can count and define all the little things that go into a piece of great music, but they can't find its soul -- and the soul is what makes it great. It's like a thesis I read once by a grad student trying to characterize Thurber's humor by counting adjectives and adverbs. 

Most every CM person will admit that the Eroica is great. But exactly where in the Pantheon of greatness -- compared to the Fifth or Ninth or Mozart or Brahms or Mahler, . . . -- is subject to the individual's taste. You won't, however, find many (or any) who classify it a minor work. And although I can point to many admirable qualities -- harmonic daring, simplicity of material, foreshadowing, orchestration, etc. -- that it possesses, I can't point to any one that distinctively and unequivocally makes it "great." Except that its overall effect transcends that of many other pieces of music.

I'm rambling and it's past my bedtime, but you get my point. 

cheers --


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I can sympathize with both sides of the coin, and both have valid points. There are undeniably some music that works better than others, while there tends to be some overgeneralization of the greatest composers and works. Original maverick composers like Prokofiev are given less credit than certain “heavyweights”, even in their less oustanding work. But some composers wrote obviously more derivative stuff of their times.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2018)

MarkW said:


> I can point to many admirable qualities -- harmonic daring, simplicity of material, foreshadowing, orchestration, etc. -- that it possesses,


But there, you just did it. You offered the criteria by which you make your judgement. I made no mention of 'objective' - I'm not looking for that. Subjective would be a better starting point than just 'he's a genius'!


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

Another contributory factor in the public rating of composers has been the influence of received opinion, or even of individual commentators. Donald Tovey put the Reger Böcklin Suite in the list of estimable works when he wrote an essay on it, yet it virtually disappeared in the mid-20th century, and something similar happened with the Cesar Franck Symphony, firmly in the repertoire in the 1950s, but only an occasional visitor these days. Then we have the interesting phenomenon of Sibelius, held by many as the greatest symphonists since Beethoven when I was in school in the 1950s, to be attacked by Aaron Copland in the next decade. In contrast, many of his talented Scandinavian contemporaries simply faded away and have only been rescued by companies like CPO, Chandos and Ondine. To sum up, I think we can leave it to time itself to sort all this out, but we do need the occasional prod to put neglected composers who would otherwise remain neglected on the map


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> One may as well start at the beginning and point out that your comment in parentheses cannot be so lightly set aside. Without defining the criteria for 'better', we cannot really cross the start line, never mind reach a finish.


That is a tired argument. It's not that difficult, and it's like the former U.S. Supreme Court Justice who said he couldn't define Pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. Let's be real, the Composers that are frequently performed and recorded are Great Composers. You and I might quibble about preferences-a little Puccini goes a long way for me, for example-but I'll grudgingly acknowledge his All Star Status.
The controversies involve the other Composers. Are there any under appreciated Masters out there who might be future Mahler or Bruckners, just to name 2 that had to wait a few generations after their demise to have their day in th the sun.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Triplets said:


> That is a tired argument. It's not that difficult, and it's like the former U.S. Supreme Court Justice who said he couldn't define Pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. Let's be real,* the Composers that are frequently performed and recorded are Great Composers.* You and I might quibble about preferences-a little Puccini goes a long way for me, for example-but I'll grudgingly acknowledge his All Star Status.
> The controversies involve the other Composers. Are there any under appreciated Masters out there who might be future Mahler or Bruckners, just to name 2 that had to wait a few generations after their demise to have their day in th the sun.


There is not a single speck of objectivity, visible with the most powerful electron microscope, in determining "worth" or "value" or "greatness" in music and art, other than how many like this or that. We can, and often do, measure attendance, sales; conduct polls, with varying degrees of satisfaction as to the results, or especially as to the methodology. But it all comes down to personal preference, and who agrees with one's assessment. I highlighted in bold the tautology that underlies all similar statements about the arts: Great Art is What Most People Like, or, alternately, What The Best People Like. Even the brilliant physicist (Black Hole theory; Atomic Bomb) and lifelong aesthete and all-around genius J. Robert Oppenheimer could not escape tautology when, in one of his many letters to his younger brother Frank, he instructed him that Great Art was what the Best People appreciated. And one can always identify the Best People--the're the ones who love Great Art!


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2018)

Hang on, did all those polls we did prove _nothing_ ? Their whole purpose was to confirm objectively the obvious superiority of certain composers.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Genoveva said:


> I'm doubtful that anything like a definitive "canon" of classical music exists.


I don't think anyone believes in a _definitive_ canon. As a concept I'd describe it as something with a large nebulous outer region but a reasonably solid inner region. I think we'd probably all agree that Beethoven's 3rd symphony is canonical and Farrenc's 3rd symphony isn't. The 3rd symphonies of, say, Bruckner or Shostakovich are in that nebulous outer region but the composers are canonical... which raises the question of whether a little-known symphony by a canonical composer is inherently more worth the average listener's time than a little-known symphony by a noncanonical composer.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

When people listen instinctively, they may be drawn to certain works without consciously knowing why. Labels don’t matter. Opinions aren’t important. History doesn’t matter. Analysis isn’t important. But an instinctive curiosity does matter to follow and hear where it leads. Something chooses the music for certain listeners. It’s not a conscious choice. They have to find out on their own regardless of circumstances or the opinions of others. It’s more of an adventurous road that frees them from the limitations of constant intellectual analysis and takes them into a realm beyond the mind. It can be far more enjoyable and rewarding than being preoccupied with drawing boundaries and attaching permanent labels on everything. What’s worth hearing, the ultimate value of things, sorts itself out within a lifetime by doing. It’s instinctive to find out for oneself.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

"The masterpiece cult " of Thomson is nothing but straw man used to attack America's orchestras and pooh-pooh them . There is no such thing .


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Actually looking at Thomson's original "Masterpieces" essay of 1944 (Google Books has it), I see that by "masterpiece" he had a particular kind of music in mind - referring in particular to Shostakovich's recent symphonies and other unnamed composers whose works are "chiefly rehashing bits of Borodin and Mahler". 
But he then makes a more general point: "If the idea can be got rid of that a proper concert should consist only of historic "masterpieces" and of contemporary works written in the "masterpiece" tone, our programs will cease to be repetitive and monotonous." And: "If the Appreciation Racket were worth its salt, if the persons who explain music to laymen would teach it as a language and not as a guessing game, the fallacy of the masterpiece could be exposed in short order. Unfortunately, most of them know only about twenty pieces anyway, and they are merely bluffing when they pretend that these (and certain contemporary works that sort of sound like them) make up all the music in the world worth bothering about".


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

There are other musical traditions, where people don't trouble themselves with concerns like Thomson's. They simply want to hear their favorites played well, like most US concert audiences. Here's a blind khaen master.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> When people listen instinctively, they may be drawn to certain works without consciously knowing why. Labels don't matter. Opinions aren't important. History doesn't matter. Analysis isn't important. But an instinctive curiosity does matter to follow and hear where it leads. Something chooses the music for certain listeners. It's not a conscious choice. They have to find out on their own regardless of circumstances or the opinions of others. It's more of an adventurous road that frees them from the limitations of constant intellectual analysis and takes them into *a realm beyond the mind*. It can be far more enjoyable and rewarding than being preoccupied with drawing boundaries and attaching permanent labels on everything. What's worth hearing, the ultimate value of things, sorts itself out within a lifetime by doing. It's instinctive to find out for oneself.


I was with you up until the bold part. I'm only surprised you didn't actually say "the twilight zone."

Well, actually, I wasn't sure about what it means to "listen instinctively", but I was willing to see where we went and of course, there are times when just listening and enjoying will do. But "far more rewarding"? You're comparing two valuable activities - one tending to appeal to the intellect and the other to the spirit/emotions (a crude separation, but it'll do for now) and to suggest one is more rewarding than the other is overstating. Is it more rewarding to eat food or excrete?



Triplets said:


> That is a tired argument. It's not that difficult, and it's like the former U.S. Supreme Court Justice who said he couldn't define Pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. Let's be real, the Composers that are frequently performed and recorded are Great Composers. You and I might quibble about preferences-a little Puccini goes a long way for me, for example-but I'll grudgingly acknowledge his All Star Status.
> The controversies involve the other Composers. Are there any under appreciated Masters out there who might be future Mahler or Bruckners, just to name 2 that had to wait a few generations after their demise to have their day in th the sun.


Music is like pronography, eh? :lol:

Well if it's a "tired argument" it's no more worn out than "it's instinctive" and "there are no criteria". What you really mean is you're tired of it.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

I can't seem to wrap my brain around a world with no outliers, mainly because such a world doesn't exist:


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> I was with you up until the bold part. I'm only surprised you didn't actually say "the twilight zone."
> 
> Well, actually, I wasn't sure about what it means to "listen instinctively", but I was willing to see where we went and of course, there are times when just listening and enjoying will do. But "far more rewarding"? You're comparing two valuable activities - one tending to appeal to the intellect and the other to the spirit/emotions (a crude separation, but it'll do for now) and to suggest one is more rewarding than the other is overstating. Is it more rewarding to eat food or excrete?
> 
> ...


Hey, I get tired easily! I just turned 60!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

MarkW said:


> A few random thoughts:
> 
> -- There is music that is (however you define it) "better" than other music.
> 
> ...


a strange choice of composer to make your point - I have never once seen Clementi piece appear on the concert platform

you must be one of those rare Clementi champions


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> I don't think anyone believes in a _definitive_ canon. As a concept I'd describe it as something with a large nebulous outer region but a reasonably solid inner region. I think we'd probably all agree that Beethoven's 3rd symphony is canonical and Farrenc's 3rd symphony isn't. The 3rd symphonies of, say, Bruckner or Shostakovich are in that nebulous outer region but the composers are canonical... *which raises the question of whether a little-known symphony by a canonical composer is inherently more worth the average listener's time than a little-known symphony by a noncanonical composer.*


As a Mozart fanatic I cant pretend I would rather spend time listening to his 4th symphony than an epic overblown symphony by Tubin. The latter would be rather fun if I had the time.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> *There is not a single speck of objectivity, visible with the most powerful electron microscope, in determining "worth" or "value" or "greatness" in music and art, other than how many like this or that.* We can, and often do, measure attendance, sales; conduct polls, with varying degrees of satisfaction as to the results, or especially as to the methodology. But it all comes down to personal preference, and who agrees with one's assessment.


Actually there are many specks - many qualities which make some works of art superior to others. We're just not very good at describing them. It isn't hard to demonstrate this. All we have to do is start fiddling around with works of art: changing the notes in a Beethoven symphonic movement, changing the colors in a painting, changing the words of a poem. We'll recognize quickly that the artist knew what he was doing.

Composers who slave far into the night searching for just the right progression of a melody are not just satisfying their tastes; they're working out the "logical" implications of their material and their previous decisions. When they get it right, they know it - and so, if we're perceptive, do we. That rightness - the opposite of randomness and chaos - is primary in giving art the capacity to communicate meaning, to touch our emotions, and to earn acclaim. Of course this in no way negates the reality of personal preference.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

stomanek said:


> As a Mozart fanatic I cant pretend I would rather spend time listening to his 4th symphony than an epic overblown symphony by Tubin. The latter would be rather fun if I had the time.


I took the time. Sometimes it's fun and sometimes it isn't.

I recommend Tubin's 4th, "Sinfonia Lirica."


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I took the time. Sometimes it's fun and sometimes it isn't.
> 
> I recommend Tubin's 4th, "Sinfonia Lirica."


I have only ever heard 1 Tubin sy - or rather the last 5 minutes of a sy I caught on r3- cant recall which - but it sounded epic big time - huge sweeping late romantic drama.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Actually there are many specks - many qualities which make some works of art superior to others. We're just not very good at describing them. It isn't hard to demonstrate this. All we have to do is start fiddling around with works of art: changing the notes in a Beethoven symphonic movement, changing the colors in a painting, changing the words of a poem. We'll recognize quickly that the artist knew what he was doing.
> 
> Composers who slave far into the night searching for just the right progression of a melody are not just satisfying their tastes; they're working out the "logical" implications of their material and their previous decisions. *When they get it right, they know it - and so, if we're perceptive, do we.* That rightness - the opposite of randomness and chaos - is primary in giving art the capacity to communicate meaning, to touch our emotions, and to earn acclaim. Of course this in no way negates the reality of personal preference.


What if you--yes, You--don't like what many, many others consider a "great" work? Who is wrong? Who is perceptive?

So some like superior art (sometimes) and inferior art (other times). This is personal preference in operation, in the aesthetic world of Good and Bad. I confess that there are many times and places listening to some very highly praised works, works I like overall, where I would have inserted different notes or sent a melody off in another direction or just not have bothered. I'm also not sure where randomness and chaos fit into this discussion. Aleatory, perhaps?

The problem, as I see it, with Greatness/Inferiority or Good/Bad discussions in music and the arts is that they lead inexorably to the question: How Does One Spend One's Time? What can be the possible justification for not listening to the Single Greatest Work or contemplating the Single Greatest Painting? For if we counter by saying there are many, many works all equally good (yet better than others, and also worse than others), then we throw the whole idea of grading and ranking out the window. Motherwell v. Pollock? Richard Dadd's psychotically hyper-detailed _The Fairy Feller's Master Stroke_ or a Mark Rothko glowing rectangle? Bach v. Mozart v. Beethoven? Beethoven v. Bartók?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> What if you--yes, You--don't like what many, many others consider a "great" work? Who is wrong? Who is perceptive?
> 
> So some like superior art (sometimes) and inferior art (other times). This is personal preference in operation, in the aesthetic world of Good and Bad. I confess that there are many times and places listening to some very highly praised works, works I like overall, where I would have inserted different notes or sent a melody off in another direction or just not have bothered. I'm also not sure where randomness and chaos fit into this discussion. Aleatory, perhaps?
> 
> The problem, as I see it, with Greatness/Inferiority or Good/Bad discussions in music and the arts is that they lead inexorably to the question: How Does One Spend One's Time? What can be the possible justification for not listening to the Single Greatest Work or contemplating the Single Greatest Painting? For if we counter by saying there are many, many works all equally good (yet better than others, and also worse than others), then we throw the whole idea of grading and ranking out the window. Motherwell v. Pollock? Richard Dadd's psychotically hyper-detailed _The Fairy Feller's Master Stroke_ or a Mark Rothko glowing rectangle? Bach v. Mozart v. Beethoven? Beethoven v. Bartók?


Personal valuation and recognition of quality have always been different perceptions for me. I feel no obligation to love music in proportion to the magnitude of the composers achievement, insofar as I can even determine that. But I do recognize differences in magnitude. Flotow's _Martha_ is a delightful opera; Wagner's _Tristan_ is not delightful, and listening to it is not a lark, but it's an artistic Everest that changed the world's sense of the possible. I thoroughly enjoy the fado singing of Amalia Rodrigues, but I don't set her vocal art alongside that of Maria Callas, nor the beautiful music she sings alongside that of Verdi or Puccini. I remember a pleasant article in a record magazine from the '60s titled "In Praise of the Second-rate." I second the sentiment it expressed, and I offer a toast to the third-rate as well. Without my Strauss waltzes I wouldn't have become who I am.

May I have this dance?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I'm convinced we will never reach agreement on this matter of goodness/badness/"quality"/second rate/third rate, etc. in discussions of what I understand to be the 100% subjective areas of music and the arts. You did post above of "magnitude", so I had a brief hope of reading of something quantifiable, and so "magnitude" is, if defined as length, number of notes, number of instruments or vocalists required, weight of printed score, volume (decibels: peak & sustained), length of time being composed, even density or intricacy or detail, however defined, either peak or average per unit of time, or overall. Beethoven's _Wellington's Victory_ as measured against Chopin _Polonaise in A Flat Major_: here can be made comparisons of quantifiable variables, and Beethoven will be the clear winner. Otherwise, we are adrift on an infinite ocean of preference, relative popularity, bell curve positioning, and who/what each individual really likes and wants to devote their time to. I'll take the Polonaise, thank you!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Every time this subject of "quality" comes up, I think of Pirsig's book _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values_. The book explores Pirsig's "metaphysics of quality" in the context of a motorcycle trip with his young son.

If you haven't read it, you can be assured that it's not what you think it is. Very highly recommended.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Triplets said:


> It's like the former U.S. Supreme Court Justice who said he couldn't define Pornography, but he knew it when he saw it.


A true connoisseur.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

If two people have the same subjective response to the same piece of music, does that help objectify the music’s value as much as it can be evaluated? How about 1000 people or 1 million people? Worthless to consider? I don’t think so, though ultimately it probably doesn’t matter unless one patterns one’s responses after the herd. The question I have is why are certain listeners so reluctant to grant that there’s such a thing as a composer of genius in music like there are in other fields of endeavor? The paucity of it is pitiful, like pulling hens teeth for some to grudgingly grant anything as exalted or miraculous as genius, even a composer who’s been exalted by millions as a genius around the world for over 200 years.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC, you will recall that we had an excellent discussion, begun by you, _What is "Profundity"_, two years ago:

What is "profundity"?

I recommend revisiting (or visiting for the first time) this fine thread; it was profound .


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> I'm convinced we will never reach agreement on this matter of goodness/badness/"quality"/second rate/third rate, etc. in discussions of what I understand to be the 100% subjective areas of music and the arts. You did post above of "magnitude", so *I had a brief hope of reading of something quantifiable, and so "magnitude" is, if defined as length, number of notes, number of instruments or vocalists required, weight of printed score, volume (decibels: peak & sustained), length of time being composed, even density or intricacy or detail, however defined, either peak or average per unit of time, or overall. * Beethoven's _Wellington's Victory_ as measured against Chopin _Polonaise in A Flat Major_: here can be made comparisons of quantifiable variables, and Beethoven will be the clear winner. Otherwise, we are adrift on an infinite ocean of preference, relative popularity, bell curve positioning, and who/what each individual really likes and wants to devote their time to. I'll take the Polonaise, thank you!


If we recognized truth and value only in that which is quantifiable, we would be even more foolish and pathetic than we already are.

How much do you love me? _No, no, no!_ How much _exactly?_ What's your standard of measurement? What brand of love guage are you using? How accurate is it? Can I order one on Amazon?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

If not quantifiable, how can I tell whether your truth/value is better than mine? How can you tell? I like Colbert on "truthiness".


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

I just read all the pages of this thread and I don't think this has come up before. Forgive me if it has.

1- Is it possible that a piece of art can be called genius and at the same time be something I don't care for. I believe yes. Maybe not in all cases but in many many cases.

2 - A criteria I have heard that I think is pretty robust; is to ask "has the artist achieved what the artist has set out to do?" If the composer, or painter, or author, or ... has accomplished his or her goal extreeeeeemly well, better than most, better than almost everyone, I have no problem calling that genius. 

3 - I may not like or prefer the art that has that goal, it may not be to my taste, or it may not be what I am in the mood for, or I may have gotten quite tired of it, but... in none of those cases is its genius called into question. (With the above "definition".)

4 - If I do not understand the goal, or am not familiar with music or art that has this goal, I may not be able to determine if the goal has been accomplished, well or otherwise. I need to learn more and become more familiar with the piece in that case. Still; its genius (or lack of) is not affected by my knowledge (or lack of).

5 - Art that has no goal could, (by that definition) be considered to be of not great quality. This especially if one were to ask the artist, composer, etc., "what did you mean to accomplish with this piece. What were you trying to evoke, express, show, figure out, demonstrate..." and if the the artist has no answer, or only a vague sort of all encompassing or pseudo-intellectual nonsensical answer - by the above definition we are not wrong to consider the artist as inferior, and to consider the art as of lesser quality.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> There is not a single speck of objectivity, visible with the most powerful electron microscope, in determining "worth" or "value" or "greatness" in music and art, other than how many like this or that. We can, and often do, measure attendance, sales; conduct polls, with varying degrees of satisfaction as to the results, or especially as to the methodology. But it all comes down to personal preference, and who agrees with one's assessment. I highlighted in bold the tautology that underlies all similar statements about the arts: Great Art is What Most People Like, or, alternately, What The Best People Like. Even the brilliant physicist (Black Hole theory; Atomic Bomb) and lifelong aesthete and all-around genius J. Robert Oppenheimer could not escape tautology when, in one of his many letters to his younger brother Frank, he instructed him that Great Art was what the Best People appreciated. And one can always identify the Best People--the're the ones who love Great Art!


Yes. And that is also why no competition, no matter how well run and no matter how expert the judges, can consistently pick the best musicians or music. It is the audience, meaning everyone in the entire world willing and able to look at or listen to the work, that is the ultimate and only real arbiter. However, and this is why the main thesis of this thread is so accurate and significant, only those artists marketed with some effectiveness will be sufficiently accessible to be considered by the general public audience as a "genius", or if that word chafes, a legitimate and significant contributor to our culture. And especially during their own lifetimes, some artists are marketed far more effectively than others, either because they are more charismatic or more effective advocates for themselves (though this advantage often disappears at death), better connected, not mentally ill, alcoholic, drug addicted or otherwise handicapped with major personal problems, born into an aristocratic, wealthy or more prestigious socio-economic background, or perhaps simply white and male.

Sometimes long after artists disadvantaged by some of these issues and the eras in which they lived and worked have both passed away, some diligent scholar brings them back to the public eye and bolsters their reputations. Sometimes you just have to dig through obscure CDs, or go to the few concerts devoted to this music. I posted in another thread about someone who formerly was just such a neglected composer, Scott Joplin. Ironically, his music roared back to such popularity in the 70s thanks to Joshua Rifkin's records for Nonesuch and the Hollywood movie "The Sting", now the debate seems to be whether his music is taken too seriously. Ya can't win.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

“Is it possible that a piece of art can be called genius and at the same time be something I don't care for. I believe yes. Maybe not in all cases but in many many cases.”
—-
Yes, I believe so. But the matter gets hopelessly confused when somebody assumes that a prodigiously productive and imaginative genius is universally liked, admired or understood, such as a Richard Wagner. Then it’s much easier to parcel out the designation of genius as if it doesn’t exist at all in music because it can’t be measured with a slide rule. Some evidently want to consider genius without the heart or the human element being involved.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Two arguments I have gotten for the above:

1 - What if the art is entertaining, or decorative, moving, or appealing in some sense, yet these are not the stated goals of the artist?

I would respond that it genius is deliberate, and that the piece's virtues, though very real, are accidental.

2 - What if the artist is just not a great communicator and is not able to articulate his or her goal in a way you can grasp.

I would respond that until I can understand the goal, I cannot determine the genius. If I don't know what you are trying to do, I cannot tell if you have done it. If you can't tell me what you are trying to do, we both maybe need to work on understanding each other. If you honestly don't know yourself what you are trying to do, I am not even sure what you have done is art.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

1. Yes. You can call it genius. I do not.

2. My dream painting is one on black velvet, perhaps set up for roadside sale, of Jesus and Elvis together in heaven. I haven't seen (yet) such a painting, but I'm sure an artist can execute such a subject extremely well.

3. If you still want to call it a work of genius, you may.

4. If everybody else says it is a work of genius, then it is.

I don't mean to be flip, but the previous "profundity" thread dealt with many of the same issues in the arts. My own position, spelled out in that thread, is that genius is best understood as a descriptor of works and workers in quantifiable fields, not in the oceanic realm of the arts.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

> the tautology that underlies all similar statements about the arts: Great Art is What Most People Like,


My thinking above is, flawed as it is, is the only way I have been able to think of to get beyond this tautology. The tautology is uncomfortable for those who like music or art that is outside the popular taste. And determining the _right_ people can be endlessly circular.

Best I could do anyway.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> If not quantifiable, how can I tell whether your truth/value is better than mine? How can you tell? I like Colbert on "truthiness".


I suspect there are quantities present in all valuations, in any sphere, but in matters of consciousness (mental/emotional factors) we are so poor at identifying and measuring them that we have to rely largely on gestalts. Of course, even everyday perception is a matter of gestalts: we constantly know what we're seeing and how to react to it without having to break it down into separate sensations and measure them. And that would do us no good anyway, since the whole is something different from the sum of its parts. Similarly, we can point to elements in a piece of music that make it good - we can talk of quantities to an extent - but that will be of no use to someone who can't sense the significance of the relationships among those parts, and the way they constitute a whole which is greater than the sum of its constituents.

To say that some forms of knowledge depend on incommunicable perceptions does not invalidate their claim to be knowledge. That this applies to aesthetic perception is easily observable in the prevalence of broad consensus as to quality, but that consensus is only evidence of quality, not proof of it.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

My argument falls apart in the case of many a "true" genius who has expressed that his attempts, however great we might think they are, have never measured up to his conception. I have not thought this part through enough.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

"the tautology that underlies all similar statements about the arts: Great Art is What Most People Like."

I question whether that statement is accurate but rather that great art has been known to _coincide_ with what most people like. Something that's popular doesn't necessarily represent its ultimate value or worth to the individual or to the public, only that at one time there's a great deal of interest in it for a reason. Quality is like a vertical consideration; the number of people who like something is horizontal-and sometimes the planes will intersect, such as with Michelangelo's _David_ or Mozart's _Don Giovanni_.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> To say that some forms of knowledge depend on incommunicable perceptions does not invalidate their claim to be knowledge. That this applies to aesthetic perception is easily observable in the prevalence of broad consensus as to quality, but that consensus is only evidence of quality, not proof of it.


When we begin to speak of incommunicable perceptions, I believe we are ascending to heights where the air is very rarefied indeed. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln: "Has it [the concept of incommunicable perceptions] not got down as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death?" It seems that we are marching away just as rapidly as possible from subjects suitable for robust discussion when we begin to invoke the incommunicable to strengthen our case. And invoking consensus brings us right back to popularity among this or that audience as the measure of The Good in music and art--no advance at all.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

JeffD said:


> Art that has no goal could, (by that definition) be considered to be of not great quality. This especially if one were to ask the artist, composer, etc., "what did you mean to accomplish with this piece. What were you trying to evoke, express, show, figure out, demonstrate..." and if the the artist has no answer, or only a vague sort of all encompassing or pseudo-intellectual nonsensical answer - by the above definition we are not wrong to consider the artist as inferior, and to consider the art as of lesser quality.


This criterion isn't of much use for artists long dead who left us no record of their intentions.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

I admit I only read the excerpt but I think the masterpiece cult is just a reflection of a the human mind and we order things. That there is some agreement, to me, does not mean that what constitutes 'great art' is democratic - rather, that it has some spiritual quality that can be ascertained by many people but certainly not most. Since we live in a spiritually dead era of the world this concept is sure to draw objections from some but it is just what I believe. Great art, like good taste, is undemocratic.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I would suggest that the artist's intrentions may often be a non-starter as a scaffolding for rendering a judgment. For some artists (I'm thinking Beethoven and Brahms) the intention may be as simple as "Write the best piece of music I can within the parameters I have set for myself." For others (for instance, Ravel's accepting Kousevitsky's commission for orchestrating "Pictures...") it may be as practical as "make a lot of money."

I remember hearing in Jr. High that Goethe wrote once that critics should ask themselves three questions: 1) What is the artist trying to say? 2) How well does he say it? 3) Was it worth it? I think that's a good start, but still wonder if Number One is always evident. (He was a writer, after all, with a problematic taste in music.)


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Outliers exist. In other areas of human endeavor that we can measure we know that outliers exist. To think that music composition is somehow immune from this effect seems to fly in the face of logic. 

Our problem is not that outliers exist, our problem is that our measuring device is a mass of variables inherent to each one of us, and that those variables can change over time. Variables such as education, IQ, geography, experiences, and even the amount of TSH coursing through your endocrine system!

The best any of us can do is to invoke a personal Sturgeon's Revelation and celebrate our musical diversity.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Not unexpectedly, the discussion has begun to focus on whether such things as greatness, genius, or masterpieces truly exist, but I think it's fair to say that wherever you stand on that particular issue - whether you think a work is acclaimed as a masterpiece because it's inherently and objectively better than most everything else, or because it got lucky with clever marketing - you'll accept the fact that there _are_ works that are widely regarded as much more worthwhile than any others.

So the question I'm more interested in is whether this fact could be in some way problematic for classical music as a whole. Some comments here (which I agree with) indicate that concert programmers' desire to focus on great/popular works has a stultifying effect overall, making it difficult if not impossible for any work that isn't already popular to get a foothold into the repertory.

There's also the issue of representation of women and ethnic minorities - Florence Price was the impetus for Ross's article, after all. Now, obviously it's true that until quite recently the vast majority of composers were white men, so classical music as a whole will never be able to offer equal time. And when we're talking about what are traditionally referred to as "the great composers", that _vast majority_ becomes _all_. I know many people will just shrug and say well, that's just historically how it's been and we can't change the past for the sake of political correctness. But the world is changing, and the longer classical music retains its "dead white males" image the less relevant it will seem (not that it seems very relevant now anyway, but...).

I mentioned Louise Farrenc in a post above. She wrote 3 symphonies in the 1840s, which is in the same timeframe as Robert Schumann's 4. Under the "great composer" or "masterpieces" regime, we already know Schumann's a great composer who wrote masterpieces, so we know we should listen to those pieces. Or, looking at it slightly differently, we already know that many people like Schumann's symphonies, so we know we probably should listen to them. The question is, how focused should we (I mean "we the classical audience as a whole", not "we as individuals") on those Schumann symphonies versus all the other symphonies of the time? This is where part of the Ross quote I provided comes in: "If we are going to treat music as a full-fledged art form-and, surprisingly often, we don't-we need to be open to the bewildering richness of everything that has been written during the past thousand years. To reduce music history to a pageant of masters is, at bottom, lazy."
He refers to a whole millennium, but I'm zooming in on one decade. Should our perception be "The 1840s: Schumann wrote 4 symphonies and Mendelssohn wrote his "second"" or should it be "The 1840s: various symphonies by (among others) Berwald, Farrenc, Gade, Gouvy, Mendelssohn, Onslow, Schumann, and Spohr; Schumann's have been the most popular" (or even, in a more extreme case, leaving out that highlighting of Schumann)?
There has been a bit of social-media discussion lately about the latest programs from various symphony orchestras, which have been devoid of women; the critic Jens F Larson made the reasonable point that the orchestras don't just ignore women composers, they ignore composers generally. Avoiding a focus on the established "great composers"/"masterpieces" can address both issues at once: it gives pro-diversity people the chance to advocate for someone like Farrenc without having to be accused of special pleading or affirmative action.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> This is where part of the Ross quote I provided comes in: "If we are going to treat music as a full-fledged art form-and, surprisingly often, we don't-we need to be open to the bewildering richness of everything that has been written during the past thousand years. To reduce music history to a pageant of masters is, at bottom, lazy."


Mea culpa: lazy as charged.

But now that it's clear I need to listen to everything written during the past thousand years, I'll finally know what to do with all that free time on my hands.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2018)

Nereffid said:


> I know many people will just shrug and say well, that's just historically how it's been and we can't change the past for the sake of political correctness.


At least the first step for some of us is to give Farrenc (whose work I've never heard) a try - and to at least the same extent we would give a 'name' composer whose work we also don't know (I've not heard any symphony by Mendelssohn, and only one by Schumann, once).


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Bumping this thread to highlight an article on the lack of diversity in orchestral programs by Douglas Shadle: _Systemic Discrimination: the Burden of Sameness in American Orchestras_. He succinctly outlines how the various components involved in putting together an orchestral program are collectively at fault, and how each of those components can change to encourage greater diversity.


----------

