# Is your respect for artists more qualitative, or quantitative?



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Qualitative respect I would define as that of hearing one decent/good/great work of a given artist, and from then on perceiving the artist as having qualified as decent/good/great. Lack of prolificness of an artist might often be seen as circumstantial, which results in a handicap being given when artists are compared.

Quantitative is a philosophical inversion of this. It's very much about prolificness, and with this stance, it is the singular works of outstanding quality by composers who did not produce much on such level that are considered accidents. Artists are hailed this or that based on the 'level' they managed to be prolific at.

I suppose many combine the positions (assuming the dichotomy is meaningful), but lean towards one more than the other.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It all depends on how good I thnk the music is.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Great question. It's a bit of both.

I prioritize quality over quantity. To be honest, I don't care about all Vivaldi's 400 concertos, Bach's cantatas, most of Mozart and Haydn's symphonies, and most of Schubert's lieders. I would very much prefer them divert the their energy to a few more ground breaking works.

Similarly, I really don't care about the millions of recordings made by Karajan or Neeme Jarvi except a few great ones. I don't have the time.

I think being prolic at a high level is a sign of great craftsmanship rather creativity. Being a creative person myself, I understand the pain, the struggle, and the doubt during a creative process and I consider that to be essential. Maybe I am less talented than others but I belong to the Nietzchean view of suffering makes great art. To create something radically new is to dare, to struggle, and to doubt even oneself, to overcoming the fear that you will not be recognized and losing everything in the process, and ultimately to assert yourself through your work. So I need to see that drive and risk taking in any form of art, and quality is more important.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

There is an old joke about complaining that the food at a certain restaurant is bad, and the portions are small. 

It is impressive when someone like Haydn wrote not just a lot of symphonies, but symphonies where some are better or more enjoyable but none are really clunkers.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> It all depends on how good I thnk the music is.


Would you care to elaborate?


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

"Telemann wrote the most music. Therefore, he's the best."

Isn't that what the quantitative argument boils down to?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Fabulin said:


> Would you care to elaborate?


If composer A turns out inly a few works, but those works impress me enormously, I may esteem him more than composer B who turns out many fine but less impressive works. But, as I said, it depends on just how good I think the music is. I'm far more interested in Wagner's ten canonical operas than in Donizetti's nearly seventy operas, which I rarely want to hear. On the other hand, of the more than two dozen operas by Verdi, there are enough that impress me sufficiently to bring Verdi much closer to Wagner in my esteem.

There's nothing valuable about quantity of work if the work isn't interesting. I dont have a single CD of symphonies by Dittersdorf, despite the fact that he wrote about 120 of them. I may be missing something marvelous, but symphonies of the Classical period are of limited interest to me. On the other hand, I have all three symphonies of Stenhammar.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I measure it sort of like percentage-wise. I consider Wagner’s 10 mature operas to be among some of the greatest achievements of classical music and I like each one of them a lot. Even if I considered his early operas, I like a significant percentage of his artistic output. Same thing with Beethoven and Mahler - I like pretty much everything I’ve heard, with a few exceptions and in case of Beethoven, we’re talking about an immense artistic output. I tend to be more fond of composers whose body of works speaks to me as a whole. Whose composition style itself I find appealing.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

annaw said:


> I measure it sort of like percentage-wise. I consider Wagner's 10 mature operas to be among some of the greatest achievements of classical music and I like each one of them a lot. Even if I considered his early operas, I like a significant percentage of his artistic output. Same thing with Beethoven and Mahler - I like pretty much everything I've heard, with a few exceptions and in case of Beethoven, we're talking about an immense artistic output. I tend to be more fond of composers whose body of works speaks to me as a whole. Whose composition style itself I find appealing.


The question comes down to: do you like "Wellington's Victory"? (be careful)


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> The question comes down to: do you like "Wellington's Victory"? (be careful)


I said, "with a few exceptions" :lol:. It's been a looong time since I listened to _Wellington's Victory_ though...

EDIT: I'm listening to it now. That will categorise among "a few exceptions".


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

annaw said:


> I said, "with a few exceptions" :lol:. It's been a looong time since I listened to _Wellington's Victory_ though...


I can't believe Beethoven wrote this. This piece makes me feel good because I feel like I can write better music than this if I try.

But maybe Beethoven is still a closet fan of Napolean.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Quality. Quantity can seem like mass production and makes me suspicious. Also the opportunity for quantity tends to be partly a matter of the market - will people keep paying to hear more and more of you?.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Vasily Sergeyevich Kalinnikov (1866-1901) died just before he turned 35, and consequently wrote only a small number of works (including two symphonies and other mostly short works). I am extremely fond of everything by him that I have heard. What he might have done had he lived longer. Here is a case for quality.


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2020)

Originally Posted by *annaw*  I said, "with a few exceptions" :lol:. It's been a looong time since I listened to _Wellington's Victory_ though...



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I can't believe Beethoven wrote this.


He didn't. annaw wrote it 

Thread duty. Berlioz and Messiaen are two examples of composers I 'esteem', though essentially on the basis of only one composition. Haydn I esteem too, but I'm only familiar with about a dozen of his symphonies (a mix of London and Paris). Like Woodduck, it depends on the music.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I can't believe Beethoven wrote this. This piece makes me feel good because I feel like I can write better music than this if I try.
> 
> But maybe Beethoven is still a closet fan of Napolean.


I believe it was one of his most popular pieces at the time.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Being a creative person myself, I understand the pain, the struggle, and the doubt during a creative process and I consider that to be essential. Maybe I am less talented than others but I belong to the Nietzchean view of suffering makes great art. To create something radically new is to dare, to struggle, and to doubt even oneself, to overcoming the fear that you will not be recognized and losing everything in the process, and ultimately to assert yourself through your work. So I need to see that drive and risk taking in any form of art, and quality is more important.


I agree, and this 'suffering' fits in to my idea of 'being' and fully-realized identity as being essential to a good artist. The identity is "forged" in the heat of suffering, or as Jung calls it, the sacrifice of the ego.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

JAS said:


> Vasily Sergeyevich Kalinnikov (1866-1901) died just before he turned 35, and consequently wrote only a small number of works (including two symphonies and other mostly short works). I am extremely fond of everything by him that I have heard. What he might have done had he lived longer. Here is a case for quality.


Mieczysław Karłowicz (1876-1909) is another. A beautiful violin concerto, a symphony, two CD's worth of symphonic poems, and a few other compositions. Small output (because of an avalanche). Both Kalinnikov and Karłowicz belong to my extended favourites (not top 30, but not miles away from that either).


----------



## juliante (Jun 7, 2013)

The more great work as perceived by me the greater I perceive the artist. If there are only 1 or 2 perceived great works by an artist, I will not consider him or her 'great.'

Therefore I don't perceive Franck as 'Great', I do perceive Ravel as great and Schubert as greater than Ravel. 

Apologies to those who have read this post - you can't get that 30 seconds back


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I'm far more interested in Wagner's ten canonical operas than in Donizetti's nearly seventy operas, which I rarely want to hear.


Donizetti, huh? I'll definitely have to check those out.

Thread duty: Quantity is unimportant to me.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Andrew Porter once wrote that in his estimation the difference between Britten and Tippett was that between someone who aimed for the moon and hit it every time, and one who aimed for the stars and only occasionally reached the mark. 

How to choose?


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I can't believe Beethoven wrote this. This piece makes me feel good because I feel like I can write better music than this if I try.
> 
> But maybe Beethoven is still a closet fan of Napolean.


Almost every composer had an occasional off day. I like Strauss very much but his "Japanische Festmusik" is appallingly bad.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> Mieczysław Karłowicz (1876-1909) is another. A beautiful violin concerto, a symphony, two CD's worth of symphonic poems, and a few other compositions. Small output (because of an avalanche). Both Kalinnikov and Karłowicz belong to my extended favourites (not top 30, but not miles away from that either).


I have the three Chandos recordings, and the Hyperion recording of the Violin Concerto. I have not listened to them in some time, and should put them on again later.


----------



## CC301233 (Jul 14, 2020)

Qualitative for me. I don't care how many OPs they compose. As long as they're good, I'll like them.


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2020)

It's like asking if the momentum of an object depends more on the mass or the velocity. It is the product of both.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Baron Scarpia said:


> It is the product of both.


I see what you did there. But maybe it's just kinetic energy.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think the "prolific" can be applied more easily to performers and pianists rather than composers. I'll take all I can get of Richter, Bernstein, and Glenn Gould. This assumes "quality," since you've already invested in the recordings.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Always take quality over quantity. 

Even with composers such as Bach, Haydn and Mozart who rightfully own every morsel of the praise we give them, they should not be devoured with the intent of "plowing through" their zillions of works. 

It's like going to visit an art museum. If you go to a big, famous art museum in New York, Boston, or Chicago, and you try to see everything in one day, you're probably not going absorb and enjoy very much of it. But if you decide to just focus on a few galleries or, better yet, visit a small art museum in a medium-size city (where the traffic and crowds are less, and the parking is free), you'll probably get more out of it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> To be honest, I don't care about all Vivaldi's 400 concertos, Bach's cantatas, most of Mozart and Haydn's symphonies, and most of Schubert's lieders. I would very much prefer them divert the their energy to a few more ground breaking works.


It seems that the consensus is that there are relatively fewer composers in the 19th and later centuries who "churned out" works, compared to the previous eras. So it would be interesting to talk about an example of the later centuries: Liszt is a composer I regularly return to to see if he has any other stuff that matches his B minor sonata, transcendental etudes, Liebstraum, sonetto del petrarca, hungarian rhapsodies Nos. 2, 6, 9, 12, Valse oubliee, and other miscellaneous etudes, etc. But a considerable part of his huge output seems like virtuoso showpieces to me. Faust symphony seems a bit long.

C.P.E. Bach is pretty much the only 18th century composer whose entire output of symphonies I find interesting (for the most part). But he wrote significantly less symphonies (less than 20, but instead wrote a huge number of concertos. Also his symphonies tend to be smaller in scale. There was a time I listened to his music for 5 hours straight. He's that good.

I tend not to agree with people like Paulbest and Playsalieri (stomanek), who often talked as if the last 6 symphonies or 8 piano concertos or so of Mozart are his best instrumental works. While I agree these contain some of the best music Mozart ever wrote, - there are, for instance, minuets that don't seem to go beyond much from his miscellaneous sets of dances in terms of harmonic layout. (35th, 36th, 39th symphonies). While I regard the slow movements of 36th, 39th highly for their elaborate development and contrast, the minuets are not very interesting by comparison. I tend to regard the outer movements of the 31th more highly in this regard.






There are more interesting minuets in his chamber works, divertmento K.334, or the miscellaneous minuet K.335 (remarkable for its use of the augmented triad) for example. Also, there are sections of the 22nd and 26th piano concertos that strike me as a bit like "crowd-pleasers". Over time, my interest in Mozart has slightly shifted to his other works:






More than any other works, this piece makes me think of the letter Mozart wrote to his father on April 22, 1787:
"I have this moment heard tidings which distress me exceedingly, and the more so that your last letter led me to suppose you were so well; but I now hear you are really ill. I need not say how anxiously I shall long for a better report of you to comfort me, and I do hope to receive it, though I am always prone to anticipate the worst. As death (when closely considered) is the true goal of our life, I have made myself so thoroughly acquainted with this good and faithful friend of man, that not only has its image no longer anything alarming to me, but rather something most peaceful and consolatory; and I thank my heavenly Father that He has vouchsafed to grant me the happiness, and has given me the opportunity, (you understand me,) to learn that it is the key to our true felicity. I never lie down at night without thinking that (young as I am) I may be no more before the next morning dawns. And yet not one of all those who know me can say that I ever was morose or melancholy in my intercourse with them. I daily thank my Creator for such a happy frame of mind, and wish from my heart that every one of my fellow-creatures may enjoy the same."

I'm also intrigued by the "controlled violence" in this:





"the fact remains that the "Great Fugue" is "a controlled violence without parallel in music before the twentieth century and anticipated only by Mozart in the C minor fugue for two pianos (K.426)"
<Opera's Second Death, By Slavoj Žižek, Mladen Dolar, Page 128>


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

^Glad to say, HK, that I fully agree with you both on Liszt and on Mozart’s chamber music being a better representative of his genius than the late symphonies and piano concerti.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I see what you did there. But maybe it's just kinetic energy.


momentum = p = mv
kinetic energy = ke = (1/2)mV^2
p, v are vector quantities (dependent on direction) 
ke, V are scalar (not dependent on direction)
v = velocity
V = speed


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I see what you did there. But maybe it's just kinetic energy.


Well, that would make it the product of quantity and the _square_ of quality. 

Clearly if composer A wrote 1 work of utterly highest quality (according to my taste) and composer B wrote 10 works of the same quality, I would tend to hold composer B in higher regard.

If composer C write 1 work of high but not highest quality and composer D wrote 10 works of similar quality I would tend to hold composer D in higher regard.

How many works of high quality does composer D have to write to surpass composer A in my regard? I don't know. I can quantify number of compositions but I can't really quantify "quality" of a classical composition, even with regard to my taste.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> Mieczysław Karłowicz (1876-1909) is another. A beautiful violin concerto, a symphony, two CD's worth of symphonic poems, and a few other compositions. Small output (because of an avalanche). Both Kalinnikov and Karłowicz belong to my extended favourites (not top 30, but not miles away from that either).


One can add Mussorgsky or even Arensky to the mix.


----------

