# What makes a piece of music great as opposed to mediocre?



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

This is what Sir Georg Solti had to say,

"I think it is very easy to define that. A good composition makes music that sounds great naturally. A very good performance helps. When you play even the most wonderful piece of music badly, you can take away some of its greatness but you cannot kill it. Even the lousiest performance cannot kill Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. You cannot! A good performance of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony lifts you up into heaven." _What are the ingredients of great music?_ "A great composition, naturally. Great human geniuses create great music and only a few of them come into this world."

source: http://www.bruceduffie.com/solti.html


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Solti obviously never heard of Maximilian Cobra, who very clearly killed Beethoven (if only for the moment).


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

In my experience musical greatness is elastic, meaning what the listener brings to it can have as much impact as the performance or the composition.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

IMHO, at least two facets of music are valued:
1.Compositional techniques. Ideas of the composer are mostly expressed through the approaches they used to create music, at least for serious music. So if a piece is well written, it convinces people who can read through it. 
2.Natural features to attract common audience that have little knowledge about composing.

For serious/art music including the major part of classical compositions, both of the 2 points are crucial. That is why music by Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc can not only be studied/examined by generations of professional musicians, but also be performed to and liked by audience during the past centuries.

If a piece is produced only to entertain, attract or share feeling with a large group of people without further knowledge on music, point one is not necessary to gain popularity. If a piece is created for sheer academic/scholar purpose, point two can be neglected completely, and the work will never be popular.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

Much as I like Solti's conducting, those are archetypal tautologies. 

Not that it matters.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

I assume Solti was praising Schoenberg's Moses und Aron when he said that.










In my experience a mediocre performance of a great work can be deadly. I've heard second-tier recordings of the Goldberg Variations and the Mass in B minor - two of my most loved works - that have made me ask myself if I really like these dull pieces and hadn't been fooling myself all along.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Adam Weber said:


> Much as I like Solti's conducting, those are archetypal tautologies.


He uses the word "define" and is relating his definition of great music. It is not an argument, it is a definition. Only an argument can be a tautology. A definition is just a definition, i.e. an explanation of the meaning of a word. If a definition weren't a "tautology" - if you insist on misapplying a word - I'd be more than a little bit surprised.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2016)

Klassic said:


> What are the ingredients of great music? A great composition.
> 
> Great human geniuses create great music.


With this passing for thinking, this man should have been creating polls.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2016)

Chordalrock said:


> Only an argument can be a tautology.


That didn't seem right, so I checked. A tautology is simply repetition but with different words. Solti seems to transcend a mere tautology by repetition with not even attempting to use different words (and apparently believing that he has explained something in the process).


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

As far as I'm concerned, what makes a piece of music "great" is that it is liked a lot by enough people such that liking it a lot seems the norm.

As to _why_ lots of people like it, that's down to culture and individual neurology. The actual musical content of the composition is, in of itself, not sufficient as an explanation for greatness.

And aside from the tautological nature of that Solti quote, what does "naturally" mean, anyway?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> As far as I'm concerned, what makes a piece of music "great" is that it is liked a lot by enough people such that liking it a lot seems the norm.
> 
> As to _why_ lots of people like it, that's down to culture and individual neurology. The actual musical content of the composition is, in of itself, not sufficient as an explanation for greatness.
> 
> And aside from the tautological nature of that Solti quote, what does "naturally" mean, anyway?


Oh no, music being great because the actual music itself is great. What a ridiculous idea.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Difficult to define - except to say "one instinctively knows when something is right"

Like early on in my journey when I had much to discover - I was listening to a piece on the radio - a mindblowing symphony - I said - I dont know what this is but it's one of those eternal pieces like Beethoven's 5th or Mozart's jupiter. At the end of the piece the presenter came on and said - that was Dvorak's new world symphony.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Unanswerable question.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

To paraphrase the opening sentence of Tolstoy's _Anna Karenina_: Every mediocre work is the same [that is, essentially the same as countless others] but every great work is great in its own way. This is why your question is destined to yield mostly tautologies and vague platitudes. Any interesting discussion of great pieces requires talking about great pieces. I can tell you why Beethoven's "Appassionata" is great, but it is part and parcel of its greatness that those features and qualities are not going to generalize in an interesting and enlightening way.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

dogen said:


> Solti seems to transcend a mere tautology by repetition with not even attempting to use different words (and apparently believing that he has explained something in the process).


He is basically saying that (1) great music is music that sounds great. He could have defined 'great music' very differently:

2) Great music is music that is loved by a majority of people.

or

3) Great music is music that has had a great influence.

or

4) Great music is music that has a great reputation among experts.

He went with definition (1) instead of (2) or (3) or (4). There is nothing tautological about going with one of these definitions. We have not defined "great reputation", we have not defined "great influence", we have not defined "sounds great" or even "a majority of people", but we have defined "great music" in four separate ways.

So at this point it's not valid to complain that we haven't defined great music. It is valid to complain instead that you don't understand what it means for something to sound great, or to have a great reputation, or to have had great influence. But you didn't say this, instead you started speaking nonsense about tautologies, as if merely mentioning a fancy word were enough to discredit Solti's claims.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Also:



EdwardBast said:


> To paraphrase the opening sentence of Tolstoy's _Anna Karenina_: Every mediocre work is the same [that is, essentially the same as countless others] but every great work is great in its own way. This is why your question is destined to yield mostly tautologies and vague platitudes. Any interesting discussion of great pieces requires talking about great pieces. I can tell you why Beethoven's "Appassionata" is great, but it is part and parcel of its greatness that those features and qualities are not going to generalize in an interesting and enlightening way.


Words are not fundamental, experience is fundamental. You can define a thing until the cows come home and still not be making any sense to a person who lacks experience or a person who is wilfully blind to experience. They can always go one level further down in the spiral of definitions and ask yet another "well, what does THIS mean?".


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2016)

Chordalrock said:


> a fancy word


What word are you struggling with? Or was it a nonsense word?


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

dogen said:


> What word are you struggling with? Or was it a nonsense word?


It seems to be a catch-word that people never apply properly, regardless of how much they enjoy using it all the time and citing authoritative definitions and giving very fine explanations of its meaning. It's like a car mechanic reading outloud from a repair manual before doing the opposite of what is recommended and proceeding to utterly destroy your car with a giant-sized hammer in a scene straight out of Looney Tunes.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Chordalrock said:


> Words are not fundamental, experience is fundamental. You can define a thing until the cows come home and still not be making any sense to a person who lacks experience or a person who is wilfully blind to experience. They can always go one level further down in the spiral of definitions and ask yet another "well, what does THIS mean?".


Who is talking about experience? The question is what makes a piece great, which means, I assume, what musical and aesthetic features. And, in any case, what do your ruminations about definitions have to do with what I wrote? I wasn't asking for a definition of any kind.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2016)

Chordalrock said:


> It seems to be a catch-word that people never apply properly, regardless of how much they enjoy using it all the time and citing authoritative definitions and giving very fine explanations of its meaning. It's like a car mechanic reading outloud from a repair manual before doing the opposite of what is recommended and proceeding to utterly destroy your car with a giant-sized hammer in a scene straight out of Looney Tunes.


Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> Who is talking about experience? The question is what makes a piece great, which means, I assume, what musical and aesthetic features.


And how are you going to identify those features except via experience, and how are you going to understand someone when he speaks of greatness if you haven't experienced that greatness??

That's why it's as enlightening to say "this music is great because it sounds great" as it is to give a book-length explanation of the greatness of that piece of music. You either know what is meant or you don't know what is meant, entirely depending on whether you have experienced that greatness yourself and can recall it adequately.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Chordalrock said:


> And how are you going to identify those features except via experience, and how are you going to understand someone when he speaks of greatness if you haven't experienced that greatness??
> 
> That's why it's as enlightening to say "this music is great because it sounds great" as it is to give a book-length explanation of the greatness of that piece of music. You either know what is meant or you don't know what is meant, entirely depending on whether you have experienced that greatness yourself and can recall it adequately.


No, it is not as enlightening to say "this music is great because it sounds great" as it is to demonstrate its unity, expressive coherence, daring and originality in a detailed explanation. On the theory that people are educable  , such an explanation can be a guide to understanding and experiencing first hand the greatness of a work. Saying "this music is great because it sounds great," on the other hand, is not at all enlightening, except to identify a commonality of feeling about a particular work.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> Any interesting discussion of great pieces requires talking about great pieces.


.......Here! Here!


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> to demonstrate its unity, expressive coherence, daring and originality in a detailed explanation. ... such an explanation can be a guide to understanding and experiencing first hand the greatness of a work.


In those cases where simply listening to the piece of music a few times isn't enough, I'd argue that you get some happy results similar to your scenario by simply saying, "Well, you should try to focus on the counterpoint and harmony too, not just the melody, and also pay attention to motivic development and the structure of the music and tonal tension - here are some helpful guides about musical structure and how to listen to music properly."

The part about originiality and daring is something the listener would, in your scenario, have to take on authority, and thus does not count as "understanding greatness". The listener would either recognise originality on his own or would have to just take your word for it.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Now here's something interesting: WE ALL AGREE THAT BEETHOVEN'S 3rd Symphony is one of the greatest symphonies of all time. All that is left is a backward deduction. Presto, we have the definition of greatness!


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

In trying to respond to the OP I did a search of the posts I have submitted over the years that have addressed this issue.

What I discovered is that most them are garbage. Boy do I sound like a broken record. I wish I could go back and delete most of them. If I mention one more time I am an amateur bassoonist, several will want to have me shot.

So I will bow out of this discussion in spare the dear readers any of my BS.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

arpeggio said:


> In trying to respond to the OP I did a search of the posts I have submitted over the years that have addressed this issue.
> 
> What I discovered is that most them are garbage. Boy do I sound like a broken record. I wish I could go back a delete most of them. If I mention one more time I am an amateur bassoonist, several will want to have me shot.
> 
> So I will bow out of this discussion in spare the dear readers any of my BS.


Not to worry friend, no one keeps track on here. I have heckled my way through many a thread by this time. I repeat myself, no one knows because no one pays attention. You are in fact the only one reviewing your past replies. No worries, I enjoy your input, and because I don't keep track it always seems fresh to me.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

About the tautology thing:

This part verges on tautology: "_What are the ingredients of great music?_ 'A great composition, naturally.'"

Depends on what definition of "tautology" you use, of course, and how you analyze the statements.

The earlier part, like Chordalrock said, isn't actually tautological (though it's not very insightful, either).

"Great music is music that sounds great."

No need to get worked up about it. I wasn't being particularly rigorous, nor was I using "big words" just to use big words.

My bad for saying "archetypal," though. Too strong.


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2016)

Klassic said:


> This is what Sir Georg Solti had to say,
> 
> "I think it is very easy to define that. A good composition makes music that sounds great naturally. A very good performance helps. When you play even the most wonderful piece of music badly, you can take away some of its greatness but you cannot kill it. Even the lousiest performance cannot kill Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. You cannot! A good performance of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony lifts you up into heaven." _What are the ingredients of great music?_ "A great composition, naturally. Great human geniuses create great music and only a few of them come into this world."
> 
> source: http://www.bruceduffie.com/solti.html


Having now read the whole article, I can safely say that, IMO, Sir George has nothing enlightening to say about what makes 'great' music - at least, not in this interview. We can all rest easy in our beds knowing that the definition of 'great' remains safe from conclusive definition for a little while longer.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Klassic said:


> Not to worry friend, no one keeps track on here. I have heckled my way through many a thread by this time. I repeat myself, no one knows because no one pays attention. You are in fact the only one reviewing your past replies. No worries, I enjoy your input, and because I don't keep track it always seems fresh to me.


Not that arpeggio has anything to worry about (never once have I had the urge to shoot you yet) but _some_ of us do keep track Klassic... _some_ of us even keep lists... :devil:


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

First, one has to define what music we're talking about. For instance, film music may require an iconic motif such as the opening of Star Wars. IMO, most, if not all classical music has to have accessible melody. The Moonlight sonata and Pathetique 2nd movementi are loved by almost everybody and all it takes is a first listening.


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> No, it is not as enlightening to say "this music is great because it sounds great" as it is to demonstrate its unity, expressive coherence, daring and originality in a detailed explanation. On the theory that people are educable  , such an explanation can be a guide to understanding and experiencing first hand the greatness of a work. Saying "this music is great because it sounds great," on the other hand, is not at all enlightening, except to identify a commonality of feeling about a particular work.


Although I agree, I am also content to toss around buzz words with the uneducated masses. At least until I become so filthy rich that I can take a break from life to go get another college degree, this time in music.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Listening to great music modifies one's mind for the better; that's my qualification.


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2016)

Ukko said:


> Listening to great music modifies one's mind for the better; that's my qualification.


I know I Liked that, but I would wish to say I really like this.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Chordalrock said:


> In those cases where simply listening to the piece of music a few times isn't enough, I'd argue that you get some happy results similar to your scenario by simply saying, "Well, you should try to focus on the counterpoint and harmony too, not just the melody, and also pay attention to motivic development and the structure of the music and tonal tension - here are some helpful guides about musical structure and how to listen to music properly."
> 
> The part about originiality and daring is something the listener would, in your scenario, have to take on authority, and thus does not count as "understanding greatness". The listener would either recognise originality on his own or would have to just take your word for it.


Well, yes, that would likely do it in many cases  - until someone asks: Well, why is that counterpoint particularly interesting or good and the counterpoint in this other one not so good? Anyway, what you are describing is not that dissimilar to what I was suggesting. Just a matter of detail really.


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

Beethoven would tirelessly rewrite his symphonies to get it to flow _just _ right - same as authors do with their books. Everyone knows instinctively when they write something interesting and appealing to one degree or another. With "great compositions" it seems more people agree than not.

As for what makes it great - try dissecting songs or compositions you enjoy and see which elements elevate the piece to brilliance. Maybe it's the complex rhythm or unusual harmonies but more often then not it's a whole slew of factors coming together to achieve this effect. It's not any particular ingredient but the recipe as a whole.

Sure it could be picked apart and analyzed from every single aspect to have a more or less working method. Pop songwrites are constantly searching for set forumals and techniques that appeal to the masses enough to engage their attention or part with their money. But doing this process justice would require a lot of work and contemplation not to mention that at the end of the day, it's anyone's guess really.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Shared opinion.


----------



## Robert Eckert (Mar 3, 2016)

dogen said:


> With this passing for thinking, this man should have been creating polls.


Let's not "think". 
The magic, that is a result of great music, is a realization by the listener that somehow the present moment is enhanced and enriched beyond the norm.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

DaveM said:


> First, one has to define what music we're talking about. For instance, film music may require an iconic motif such as the opening of Star Wars. IMO, most, if not all classical music has to have accessible melody. The Moonlight sonata and Pathetique 2nd movementi are loved by almost everybody and all it takes is a first listening.


Oh ya. As we all know, the best of the best of anything is the stuff that doesn't take any time or commitment.

Sad, no one cares about long term fulfillment anymore, just immediate gratification.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

violadude said:


> Oh ya. As we all know, the best of the best of anything is the stuff that doesn't take any time or commitment. Sad, no one cares about long term fulfillment anymore, just immediate gratification.


Well sure, the Moonlight sonata (1st movt) & the Pathetique 2nd are superficial puff pieces that only appeal to those seeking immediate gratification. Not to mention that these two works and those like them don't provide any long term fulfillment. And they've been doing this dirty work for over 200 years!

Sad that we're at the point that some think that a great work must fit into a category that only an elitist few can appreciate.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DaveM said:


> Well sure, the Moonlight sonata (1st movt) & the Pathetique 2nd are superficial puff pieces that only appeal to those seeking immediate gratification. Sad that we're at the point that some think that a great work must fit into a category that only an elitist few can appreciate.


My irony meter is twitching...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

DaveM said:


> Well sure, the Moonlight sonata (1st movt) & the Pathetique 2nd are superficial puff pieces that only appeal to those seeking immediate gratification. Not to mention that these two works and those like them don't provide any long term fulfillment. And they've been doing this dirty work for over 200 years!
> 
> Sad that we're at the point that some think that a great work must fit into a category that only an elitist few can appreciate.


Nice straw man there buddy.

I don't believe I commented specifically about the c# minor sonata of Beethoven or the c minor opus 8 sonata. Of course, I prefer to think of them as a whole piece, like Beethoven wrote them, rather than some ala carte pick and choose kind of thing.

No, I wasn't criticizing those sonatas at all, as they are, indeed, great pieces. I was challenging your assertion that "being loved by everybody at first listen" is some sort of merit, or barometer for greatness. If you want something lots of people love right away, there are plenty of cat videos on youtube for you. But greatness is something that involves quite a bit more than that.

Do I think great music must only be appreciated by an elite few? Of course not. I wish everyone would love great music, but it's not up to me, is it? People must come to love great music on its own terms. Lowering the standard of greatness by saying things like "hey, everything with a cool catchy melody is great" is just a fake solution.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

violadude said:


> Nice straw man there buddy.
> 
> I don't believe I commented specifically about the c# minor sonata of Beethoven or the c minor opus 8 sonata. Of course, I prefer to think of them as a whole piece, like Beethoven wrote them, rather than some ala carte pick and choose kind of thing.
> 
> ...


Maybe next time, one can figure out just what you were criticizing or not and just what your real point is or not if you post something other than the pithy & snarky attempt at cleverness of your original post. And I'm not your buddy.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

DaveM said:


> Maybe next time, one can figure out just what you were criticizing or not and just what your real point is or not if you post something other than the pithy & snarky attempt at cleverness of your original post. And I'm not your buddy.


I think I made myself clear. Being loved by everyone on first hearing says absolutely nothing about a piece's greatness, contrary to what you implied.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

violadude said:


> I think I made myself clear. Being loved by everyone on first hearing says absolutely nothing about a piece's greatness, contrary to what you implied.


One of the things that a majority of the greatest and most popular classical works have in common is accessible themes/melodies and/or motifs. This is true of the majority of the works of Beethoven, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Schumann etc. If you re-read my original post, accessible melody was my point, not love at first hearing which was applied to the 2 aforementioned sonatas used as remarkable examples of accessibility.

So far, all you've done is criticize or find fault. Tell us what you think makes a great piece.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

DaveM said:


> One of the things that a majority of the greatest and most popular classical works have in common is *accessible themes/melodies and/or motifs. This is true of the majority of the works of Beethoven, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Schumann* etc. If you re-read my original post, accessible melody was my point, not love at first hearing which was applied to the 2 aforementioned sonatas used as remarkable examples of accessibility.
> 
> So far, all you've done is criticize or find fault. Tell us what you think makes a great piece.


Is that true though? Do you think the best works of these composers have super accessible melodies and motifs? Or have you just been around classical music long enough to take "accessible" for granted? You think the majority of people are immediately touched by Beethoven's Cavatina from the Bb quartet? or bored with it? Do you think Chopin's 3rd sonata is "accessible" to most people? Maybe the beginning is a little bit...but after that I think they would lose interest.

But I'll grant you that the works by these composers are all accessible to the average person. So what? That's not what makes them great. Impressing the masses isn't difficult. The fact that SOME of the works in the classical music arena that are most popular the the general public also happen to be great pieces of music is circumstantial at best. I could just as easily flip the coin on you and point out that far more people would recognize "Entrance of the Gladiators" than the overture to Tristan Und Isolde. You want to say the former is greater than the latter based on those standards? I dare you.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

DaveM said:


> So far, all you've done is criticize or find fault. Tell us what you think makes a great piece.


As to what makes a piece great? It's a complex question. I'm tending to agree with Edward in this particular thread, that each piece of music that is great has its own reasons for greatness. For example, one could say Haydn's greatness lies in his seeming fountain of inventiveness, whether he was finding yet another new way of tackling the (then quite new) sonata form, or his creative-picturesque orchestrations that were unlike what had come before. Not to mention his endless wealth of wit.

Bach's greatness, on the other hand, could be said to come from the uncanny ability to balance several voices at once, managing their high and low points all perfectly so that they are satisfying individually and played together. Or the depth and intensity of his harmonic exploration. Or his near perfect sense for dramatic pacing, especially in the concertos.

Every great composer has their great strengths, and the great pieces are those that display those strengths the best.

All the rest probably wrote fine music, but didn't have any spectacular qualities that stood them out from the crowd.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

violadude said:


> But I'll grant you that the works by these composers are all accessible to the average person. So what? That's not what makes them great. Impressing the masses isn't difficult. The fact that SOME of the works in the classical music arena that are most popular the the general public also happen to be great pieces of music is circumstantial at best. I could just as easily flip the coin on you and point out that far more people would recognize "Entrance of the Gladiators" than the overture to Tristan Und Isolde. You want to say the former is greater than the latter based on those standards? I dare you.


So you're going to actually stand on the position that thematic/melodic accessibility has nothing to do with greatness of the works of the great composers? Seriously? Not to mention implying that impressing the masses is a sign of superficiality or at the very least easy for any composer to do. News flash- The common man/woman is still important in keeping classical music alive, not just those who are 'in the know'.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

violadude said:


> As to what makes a piece great? It's a complex question. I'm tending to agree with Edward in this particular thread, that each piece of music that is great has its own reasons for greatness. For example, one could say Haydn's greatness lies in his seeming fountain of inventiveness, whether he was finding yet another new way of tackling the (then quite new) sonata form, or his creative-picturesque orchestrations that were unlike what had come before. Not to mention his endless wealth of wit.
> 
> Bach's greatness, on the other hand, could be said to come from the uncanny ability to balance several voices at once, managing their high and low points all perfectly so that they are satisfying individually and played together. Or the depth and intensity of his harmonic exploration. Or his near perfect sense for dramatic pacing, especially in the concertos.
> 
> ...


Well, that's an answer I can get my arms around and I don't have any major disagreement with most of it. And I don't see why your and my points of view have to be overall mutually exclusive.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

DaveM said:


> So you're going to actually stand on the position that thematic/melodic accessibility has nothing to do with greatness of the works of the great composers? Seriously?


Uh..yes. Yes, of course I'm going to stand by that position. It's the only position that makes sense. Again, if you think accessible melodies are the barometer for determining the greatness of a piece, I ask you again to please explain to us all how Entrance of the Gladiators is a greater piece that Tristan Und Isolde.



DaveM said:


> Not to mention implying that impressing the masses is a sign of superficiality or at the very least easy for any composer to do. News flash- The common man/woman is still important in keeping classical music alive, not just those who are 'in the know'.


Oh I agree, it's important that a good number of people stay interested in classical music for purely financial reasons, which in many cases means staying within a quite narrow range of great pieces that also happen to catch their fancy. That's all fine and manageable if not a little unfortunate in some respects. But are you really going to sit there and tell me it's hard to impress the masses? That it takes an admirable amount of effort, vision and greatness to get people to love what you produce. PLEASE. Take a look around you dude, take a look at the s*** people gobble up and tell me again, with a straight face that it takes a true visionary to impress a mass amount of people. HA!



DaveM said:


> You still haven't said anything about what makes a piece great. What are these characteristics that presumably only an anointed few can appreciate?


I've elaborated on this above. But I reject this "anointed few" bull crap you're trying to associate with me. Like I said, it would be delightful if many more people could appreciate the greatness of music. I'm not about exclusivity, but I'm not about lowering the bar to pathetic standards to appease people's sensibilities either.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"Greatness" is not an inherent attribute of music but something listeners assign to it. To ask "What is greatness?" is to ask not about music but about the values of listeners, which is always subject to change. Little of Mozart's music, or Bach's, was "great" during most of the 19th century and most of the 20th. Much more is "great" now, and tomorrow, either more or maybe less. Who knows?

Music is a fashion, as mutable as hem lengths.


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2016)

violadude said:


> Oh no, music being great because the actual music itself is great. What a ridiculous idea.


Not at all ridiculous. And I think nereffid said that reference to the music was not a sufficient answer, not that it wasn't part of the answer.



DaveM said:


> IMO, most, if not all classical music has to have accessible melody.


Presuming you meant 'great' classical music, I disagree. IMO, there is plenty of classical deemed great that doesn't have an accessible melody.



violadude said:


> As to what makes a piece great? It's a complex question. I'm tending to agree with Edward in this particular thread, that each piece of music that is great has its own reasons for greatness. For example, one could say Haydn's greatness lies in his seeming fountain of inventiveness, whether he was finding yet another new way of tackling the (then quite new) sonata form, or his creative-picturesque orchestrations that were unlike what had come before. Not to mention his endless wealth of wit.
> 
> Bach's greatness, on the other hand, could be said to come from the uncanny ability to balance several voices at once, managing their high and low points all perfectly so that they are satisfying individually and played together. Or the depth and intensity of his harmonic exploration. Or his near perfect sense for dramatic pacing, especially in the concertos.
> 
> ...


Decent effort! :clap:Thanks.



KenOC said:


> "Greatness" is not an inherent attribute of music but something listeners assign to it. To ask "What is greatness?" is to ask not about music but about the values of listeners, which is always subject to change. Little of Mozart's music, or Bach's, was "great" during most of the 19th century and most of the 20th. Much more is "great" now, and tomorrow, either more or maybe less. Who knows?
> 
> Music is a fashion, as mutable as hem lengths.


And back to nereffid's point.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> IMO, there is plenty of classical deemed great that doesn't have an accessible melody.


Please name plenty of the widely accepted great works with no accessible thematic/melody or motifs.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Please name plenty of the widely accepted great works with no accessible thematic/melody or motifs.


The problem with this request is that you've given yourself plenty of wriggle room with the word "accessible". Things will very quickly degenerate into an argument over Schoenberg's melodies or what's a "motif".

Of course, those who claim that each piece of great music is great in its own way have given themselves basically _infinite_ wriggle room.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

KenOC said:


> "Greatness" is not an inherent attribute of music but something listeners assign to it. To ask "What is greatness?" is to ask not about music but about the values of listeners, which is always subject to change.


But this breaks down precisely at the point of Beethoven. With Beethoven the listener has no choice; he does not care whether or not the listener is willing to assign greatness to his music: he forces this conclusion!


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> The problem with this request is that you've given yourself plenty of wriggle room with the word "accessible". Things will very quickly degenerate into an argument over Schoenberg's melodies or what's a "motif".
> 
> Of course, those who claim that each piece of great music is great in its own way have given themselves basically _infinite_ wriggle room.


Quite. I can offer what I think is 'great' and without 'accessible melody' and it's easily rebutted with a subjective,

"IMO, that's not a great piece" or "That melody is accessible."

Perhaps DaveM might like to do some of his own research into compositions that are generally regarded as 'great' and then decide for himself whether it has an accessible melody.

Try this for starters...

http://www.theguardian.com/music/series/50-greatest-symphonies


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

violadude said:


> Uh..Again, if you think accessible melodies are the barometer for determining the greatness of a piece, I ask you again to please explain to us all how Entrance of the Gladiators is a greater piece that Tristan Und Isolde.


Non sequitur



> Oh I agree, it's important that a good number of people stay interested in classical music for purely financial reasons, which in many cases means staying within a quite narrow range of great pieces that also happen to catch their fancy. That's all fine and manageable if not a little unfortunate in some respects. But are you really going to sit there and tell me it's hard to impress the masses? That it takes an admirable amount of effort, vision and greatness to get people to love what you produce. PLEASE. Take a look around you dude, take a look at the s*** people gobble up and tell me again, with a straight face that it takes a true visionary to impress a mass amount of people. HA!
> 
> I'm not about exclusivity, but I'm not about lowering the bar to pathetic standards to appease people's sensibilities either.


Grasshopper, face it, you just don't think the common man/woman has the potential/capacity for the (alleged) sophisticated taste you have.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

DaveM said:


> Grasshopper, face it, you just don't think the common man/woman has the potential/capacity for the (alleged) sophisticated taste you have.


I think many people probably have that potential. I'm just not willing to regulate greatness to "accessible melodies that are easy to enjoy" so that I can pretend to not be a snob.


----------



## Guest (Mar 17, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Grasshopper, face it, you just don't think the common man/woman has the potential/capacity for the (alleged) sophisticated taste you have.


Yet it is you, "Sensei", who are insisting on accessibility. Why?


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Bruckner Anton said:


> IMHO, at least two facets of music are valued:
> 1.Compositional techniques. Ideas of the composer are mostly expressed through the approaches they used to create music, at least for serious music. So if a piece is well written, it convinces people who can read through it.
> 2.Natural features to attract common audience that have little knowledge about composing.
> 
> ...


I believe that you have hit upon the truth of the matter. When both the experts find something to admire, and the non-experts also find a work attractive, that is a very good indicator of greatness.

A composer might write a fugue that is technically perfect, even brilliant, but if it is not also appealing to music lovers without any expertise, it is not truly great. Similarly, listeners without expertise might find a movie score to be "great music" to them, without realizing that the chord progressions are mundane, the melody formulaic, and the orchestration only works because of corrections in balance in the mixing room.

Yes, the agreement of both the experts and the amateurs, I like that. It that has a ring of truth to it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Please name plenty of the widely accepted great works with no accessible thematic/melody or motifs.


No one said there are great works with "no" accessible melody, although there very well might be. What has been said is that accessibility of melody doesn't have a particularly strong correlation with greatness. But before proceeding we had better come up with at least a provisional definition of accessibility. If one adopts, for example, the standard: _themes that can readily be played back in the heads of listeners in the normal range of pitch acuity and intelligence_, then the principal ideas in a number of Beethoven's greatest works are not easily accessible. The first theme of Beethoven's Sonata "Appassionata" is a good example, or the first theme of the sonata Op. 31 #3, which is a dialogue among three disparate motives. Can you accurately replay the first 40 odd measures of Beethoven's Eroica in your head? And, as I cited in another thread, there are numerous themes of Prokofiev that are admired as gorgeous and lyrical but which are quite difficult to grasp and hold in memory. How about the principal theme in the first movement of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, a great work with many not so accessible themes? Or the second theme in the first movement of Shostakovich's 5th quartet, which is a long arch of melody spanning about a minute with several strange phrase elisions? It is gorgeous and lyrical, but requires a long attention span and is not easily grasped and held. There are thousands of similar examples.

Of course one could adopt a laxer standard of accessibility, like: _Themes one can judge to be coherent on first hearing, even if one cannot remember and replay them_, but doing so would, I think, vitiate the point you seem to be trying to make. But why speculate? What do you mean by accessible?


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

DaveM said:


> So you're going to actually stand on the position that thematic/melodic accessibility has nothing to do with greatness of the works of the great composers? Seriously? Not to mention implying that impressing the masses is a sign of superficiality or at the very least easy for any composer to do. News flash- The common man/woman is still important in keeping classical music alive, not just those who are 'in the know'.


I don't know what common people you are speaking of but they are not keeping classical music alive, it is a relatively small group of people who keep the tradition alive or come to it because they are unique enough to have the capacity for appreciation of absolute music. I'd venture to say some 50% of people who carry the flame of orchestral music are players themselves if not more and those that are merely enthusiasts of all music of this nature had some influence in there life that allowed them to grow an appreciation for music the "common man" just can't come to on his/her own.

The common man may hear the occasional piece of classical and enjoy it presently (and most likely because someone used that piece in a film) but it hardly ever goes further than this (I'm friends with lots of these common people and they never mind hearing orchestral music but don't ever go out of their way to put it on if they have their own playlist of contemporary music handy).

I'm no spring chicken and I've hardly ever met "common" people that are serious about listening to non pop/rap/rock/r&b because there aren't any music videos for orchestral music (unless you call a video of the orchestra playing a music video, which I can assure you the "common" man/women do not), and there is too much time to invest in listening to any music that isn't less than 5 minutes long (because as we all know the "common" man doesn't have time to engage in anything longer anymore because of the a.d.d/a.d.h.d propagating society we live in won't let them get away from facebook and twitter for the time it takes to do so).

So yeah I guess you'll say I'm an elitist but I say the music chooses us. Let the common man fester in his wasteland of internet games and American idol. Those of us who come to find the wonderfulness of absolute music, savor and revel in the knowledge we have excellent taste that "common man/woman" just don't have. I don't think that's a bad thing, everyone has their strengths, for the common man it just isn't taste in music...


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> No one said there are great works with "no" accessible melody, although there very well might be.


What does that have to do with anything? The statement was made that _'IMO, there is plenty of classical deemed great that doesn't have an accessible melody.'_ So I responded with '_Please name plenty of the widely accepted great works with no accessible thematic/melody or motifs._



> What has been said is that accessibility of melody doesn't have a particularly strong correlation with greatness.


No, what has been said is that there is no correlation: I said specifically: _'So you're going to actually stand on the position that thematic/melodic accessibility has nothing to do with greatness of the works of the great composers?'_ And the response was _'Yes, of course I'm going to stand by that position. It's the only position that makes sense.'_

It is unfortunate when posters mistate and/or exaggerate points that others are making to suit there own agenda. Just for the record (referring to previous comments) I never said or inferred that accessible melody is the only measure of a great classical music work. My main point was, as previously stated, verbatim: _One of the things that a majority of the greatest and most popular classical works have in common is accessible themes/melodies and/or motifs. This is true of the majority of the works of Beethoven, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Schumann etc._ Nothing more, nothing less.

I stand by that position. The term, 'majority' leaves room for exceptions. Still, IMO, when it comes to Beethoven, most of the piano sonatas, all the piano concertos, the violin concerto, most of the piano trios, all of the symphonies, all the overtures and the opera, Fidelio, have accessible themes/melodies and/or motifs. So, I don't agree with you about the Appassionata or the Eroica (maybe you have a point about the opening of the Op 31 #3, but the 2nd movt is very accessible). I would say that some of his string quartets are not quite as 'accessible' and require more exposure (for want of a better word).

I also think that the more modern the works get (generally speaking), the less accessible they become (and I would include your Bartok and Shostakovitch examples), though I would admit that there are exceptions.



> Of course one could adopt a laxer standard of accessibility, like: _Themes one can judge to be coherent on first hearing, even if one cannot remember and replay them_, but doing so would, I think, vitiate the point you seem to be trying to make. But why speculate? What do you mean by accessible?


I'm not going to spend much more time on that subject because I think most people who listen to a lot of classical music know what I mean by accessible themes/melodies and/or motifs, especially when I used the example of the Moonlight sonata movt 1 and the Pathetique 2nd movt (which was distorted as my inferring that most great classical music must be 'love at first hearing'). Those who claim to not know what I mean are IMO just being obtuse. Besides, any attempt to explain any further in words may bring on yet another tedious discussion about how melodic and accessible Schoenberg is.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Fugue Meister said:


> So yeah I guess you'll say I'm an elitist but I say the music chooses us. Let the common man fester in his wasteland of internet games and American idol. Those of us who come to find the wonderfulness of absolute music, savor and revel in the knowledge we have excellent taste that "common man/woman" just don't have. I don't think that's a bad thing, everyone has their strengths, for the common man it just isn't taste in music...


Yes, it sounds elitist to me.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


DaveM said:



Yes, it sounds elitist to me.

Click to expand...

*<with cup raised and elbow bent>: "And the more elitist the better."

Excellence. Excellence. Excellence.

That's 'my' only criterion.

Egalitarianism is a revolt against nature.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2016)

DaveM said:


> My main point was, as previously stated, verbatim: _One of the things that a majority of the greatest and most popular classical works have in common is accessible themes/melodies and/or motifs. This is true of the majority of the works of Beethoven, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Schumann etc._ Nothing more, nothing less.


What you said prior to that was (#31)



> IMO, most, if not all classical music has to have accessible melody.


Your subsequent addition of motifs rather muddies the waters. Now a mere three or four notes alone can be deemed an essential component of 'great' music.

I don't think anyone here would dispute that there is much music that is very popular which is defined by its melody. However, 'greatness' (if it exists) is something besides mere popularity and there is much music where melody (accessible or otherwise) is only part of what makes the music appealing.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

DaveM said:


> Yes, it sounds elitist to me.


Oh well, I'm sorry you don't see the merit of what I say...


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Bad post deleted by author.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> a revolt against nature.


Sounds good....


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Speaking personally, I'd say what makes a piece of music great is listenability.. If I can listen to it over and over but still find new things in it and it remains fresh that's a great piece of music. It seems to me it's also another vote in favor of the best music being less accessible than not.. When something is simple and easy to follow it becomes mundane and wares expeditiously, whereas more complex music remains challenging (provoking more thoughts) and more satisfying to play on a semi-regular basis. 

This is not to say that all accessible music is mediocre by any means.. just not as interesting as acquired taste type pieces of music.


----------



## Lucashio (Mar 11, 2016)

If the composer is in a state of being egoless, impersonal and simply allows the impressions to flow through the composers preciously cultivated fine knowledge about music, the works bear often the nectar of such an inner state. A mediocre work is a work where the faculties of mind has intervened with the graceful flow of inspiration from either nature, cultural or cosmic inspiration while as when the grace is allowed to simply pour freely through the composers soul, the magic has often been created. Music, to be a muse of Gods grace I believe is what separates a mediocre piece from a great work. Also I believe that if a person is in a fine inner state recognizeable by a greater group of people the work will gain a wave of popularity based on recognition of something deeper in man, if the work bears the sour fruits of egoism, less people will recognize the state of experience, why? because human beings are collective beings and our feelings are shareable in our union. The ego complicates everything and try to be unique instead of dwelling in the joy of communion with our kin, that is what I believe and if you dont like the word God, please remove and apply life, nature, or universe if you so wish, I am sure everyone will agree in that case.

"Works of art make rules; rules do not make works of art."
-Claude Debussy

"To send light into the darkness of men's hearts - such is the duty of the artist."
-Robert Schumann

Thank you


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Chordalrock said:



Sounds good....

Click to expand...

*. . . 'revolting' maybe.


----------



## Lucashio (Mar 11, 2016)

Well spoken... The senses needs rest and time for the essence of classical masterpieces to sink deep inside, since I have this time I must be in a state of privilege of which I am very grateful. Life has simply granted me with a heart that simply can not comply with the speed of "today". My heart still dwells with nature and of the spirit of music, which lives in a field far beyond the modern and this might sound like poetry and prose to the "common man" but for me it my daily life. Contemporary life has spun itself into a loop that goes too fast, nature is still steady going, always new, yet ancient and beloved


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> What you said prior to that was (#31): 'IMO, most, if not all classical music has to have accessible melody.'


Yes, I further clarified my original point which was too general.


> Your subsequent addition of motifs rather muddies the waters. Now a mere three or four notes alone can be deemed an essential component of 'great' music.


As stated, that is an oversimplification of my point. An accessible motif (leaving aside thematic or melodic elements for the moment) can be an important component of some great works. Example: Beethoven's 5th: The opening motif became iconic during WW2 and that symphony has been even more popular than it ever was ever since. Another example: Also Sprach Zarathustra opening.



> I don't think anyone here would dispute that there is much music that is very popular which is defined by its melody. However, 'greatness' (if it exists) is something besides mere popularity and there is much music where melody (accessible or otherwise) is only part of what makes the music appealing.


If that had been the type of reasonable response to my original and mildly revised point, though I might have qualified it a bit, overall I would not have a major problem with it. But, the fact is that accessible melody was discounted as having little or no importance whatsoever in the great works.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Example: Beethoven's 5th:


Yes, I had the same motif in mind. But the motif itself is barely worth remembering and certainly not 'great'. It's the setting of the motif and the variations on it (which do not, IMO, constitute an accessible melody) which create the work which some might describe as great.



DaveM said:


> But, the fact is that accessible melody was discounted as having little or no importance whatsoever in the great works.


I didn't read any post that discounted melody in that way. I did read where it was discounted as a simple explanation or description of what constitutes 'greatness' and I wholly agree that no simple or single feature is sufficient.

Did you check out the list I offered a link to, of the top 50 symphonies? Were there any that you heard which either confirmed or challenged your personal version of greatness? One not on the list but which I find challenges - as Edward Bast said elsewhere - the notion of accessibility - is Turangalila.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/20...lharmonic-salonen-review-explosive-unmissable


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

I have insufficient knowledge of music to state why something is great, other than the reaction it seems to trigger in me.
All pretty subjective and fairly useless in a discussion like this.
However, this thread seems to be following a familiar pattern where an argument starts largely about subjective matters with challenges and counter challenges. Fun to read tho


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Haydn man said:


> I have insufficient knowledge of music to state why something is great, other than the reaction it seems to trigger in me.
> All pretty subjective and fairly useless in a discussion like this.
> However, this thread seems to be following a familiar pattern where an argument starts largely about subjective matters with challenges and counter challenges. Fun to read tho


Killing two birds with one stone:

1. What is profundity? "Hey, man, that's terrific!" uttered by thousands to millions of humans.

2. What makes music great? "Hey man, that's terrific!" uttered by thousands to millions of humans.


----------



## HeadingSouth (Mar 18, 2016)

If I like it.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

A piece like Handel's Messiah has always been performed during the composer's life time and continuously till this day. Obviously this makes a case for this oratorio to be considered as great and definitely not mediocre.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Killing two birds with one stone:
> 
> 1. What is profundity? "Hey, man, that's terrific!" uttered by thousands to millions of humans.
> 
> 2. What makes music great? "Hey man, that's terrific!" uttered by thousands to millions of humans.


The fact that this is a position seriously advanced by intelligent people means that your attempt at humor is not funny.



OK, it is.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

Great music, like great film, recreates itself every time you come to it again. To be great, a piece of music has to possess an added dimension which cannot be fathomed nor explained, and falls outside pure academic reasoning or analysis.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> The fact that this is a position seriously advanced by intelligent people means that your attempt at humor is not funny.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, it is.


Yeah. That's like closet admirers who swear they have me on "ignore" but when everyone is asleep, read every word I write.

Back to the topic, please.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

hpowders said:


> Still I wonder.....perhaps there is someone writing some great music right now...who will die with the composition paper in his bedroom, never to be heard.
> 
> So for music to be great, must it be heard, or can it be great for having been composed as great music, though nobody may ever get to hear it?
> 
> And what about Brahms who probably burned more great music than most folks would ever compose. Was what he burned great, even though unheard?


Perhaps the right way to say it is: It's great if it _would_ have the necessary effect on people, if they heard it. (So the burned Brahms masterpieces are great, even though they never had a chance to prove it, and Emily Dickinson's poems were great, even before they had the chance to prove it and did.)


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I've said this before, but this question is really closely tied to the idea of human nature.

If you don't think there's any such thing as human nature - only individual personalities - then there can't be any such thing as profundity or greatness, only works some people or other like or don't like.

If you do think there's such a thing as human nature, however difficult to define, then you can have art that speaks to it with greater or lesser success, and it becomes possible to talk about profound or great works separately from whether particular individuals or large groups of individuals like them.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> A piece like Handel's Messiah has always been performed during the composer's life time and continuously till this day. Obviously this makes a case for this oratorio to be considered as great and definitely not mediocre.


Excellent point. To paraphrase, a work that continues to be relevant to more than a single generation of listeners.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> I've said this before, but this question is really closely tied to the idea of human nature.
> 
> If you don't think there's any such thing as human nature - only individual personalities - then there can't be any such thing as profundity or greatness, only works some people or other like or don't like.
> 
> If you do think there's such a thing as human nature, however difficult to define, then you can have art that speaks to it with greater or lesser success, and it becomes possible to talk about profound or great works separately from whether particular individuals or large groups of individuals like them.


Concise.

Admirable.

:tiphat:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> I've said this before, but this question is really closely tied to the idea of human nature.
> 
> If you don't think there's any such thing as human nature - only individual personalities - then there can't be any such thing as profundity or greatness, only works some people or other like or don't like.
> 
> If you do think there's such a thing as human nature, however difficult to define, then you can have art that speaks to it with greater or lesser success, and it becomes possible to talk about profound or great works separately from whether particular individuals or large groups of individuals like them.


Let's put aside superstitious and unhelpful ideas like "soul"

The view that there is human nature is, I guess, that something really important about our psychologies is determined by our shared genetics -- or whatever it is that scientist say makes us human animals.

The view that there is no human nature must be the belief the variety of our genes is the important thing for determining how we are. No predictions or explanations are possible because everyone's so different essentially.

There's a third possibility, which is that the nature of people is fundamentally determined by the society they live in, the interaction of a sort of economic order with some shared property of our genes.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Let's put aside superstitious and unhelpful ideas like "soul"
> 
> The view that there is human nature is, I guess, that something really important about our psychologies is determined by our shared genetics -- or whatever it is that scientist say makes us human animals.
> 
> ...


Yes, people seem keen to frame this as an either/or situation, usually implying that the subjectivists believe in total chaos, but it's far more complicated than that, thanks to the interaction of individual brains (which are alike in many respects but differ in others) with a collective culture (whose individual components also are shared in greater or lesser degrees).
Similarities mean many people can agree to call something "great art"; differences mean many people can disagree, too; and then social structures affect which group's great art is the "real" great art.


----------

