# The Expert Compared with the Enthusiastic Listener



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I assume the vast majority of people who post on TC are enthusiastic listeners of classical music. The term expert is not trivial to define, but for the purposes of this thread I will assume something along the lines of the following.

A person is an expert in a field if:
1) she has spent a significant amount of time both studying the field and interacting with others who study the field, and
2) others who have spent a large amount of time studying the field recognize her as having attained a superior level of knowledge and understanding of that field.

I am decidedly not a classical music expert. For a long time I have wondered why the works I love are almost always considered "great" works by experts. I think that is true of many/most listeners. While I can imagine reasons why that might be so, I believe it is far from obvious why it should be so. Some works I love such as Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto or Schubert's Piano Quintet are, apparently not especially well composed; nevertheless, they are considered "great". I have always believed this relationship is much less true in popular music.

_Why should so much classical music loved by enthusiastic listeners also be considered "great" by music experts?_

There are reasons to develop lists of great works and composers (if only for music history classes). While I think such lists ought to be created by experts, _do you think it would matter if they were created by large groups of enthusiastic listeners?_


----------



## Toddlertoddy (Sep 17, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> While I think such lists ought to be created by experts, _do you think it would matter if they were created by large groups of enthusiastic listeners?_


If it was pretty damn close to unanimity, then it wouldn't matter. And besides, isn't all art subjective?


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

Toddlertoddy said:


> If it was pretty damn close to unanimity, then it wouldn't matter. And besides, isn't all art subjective?


Classical music is not just a "subjective" art form. It starts out "objective" because the composer has to use objective standards that would be known by all who know music. That is notes have to be written down to convey what is in the composer's mind. Those notes can be studied objectively and analysed and formalized. Those notes have to be played as written. An F minor chord has to be played as an F minor. It cannot be a C minor or anything else. A quarter note is not played as a half note etc. etc. So music as art is NOT always subjective in fact just the opposite. The subjective cannot come before the objective. Now obviously arguments about tempo etc. can cause a piece to be performed slightly different than another performance but that is a matter of "interpretation". Once the objective notes have been understood, analysed and formalized into a performance then the subjective element comes into play. It cannot come before. We the listeners partake in the subjective side and allow the music to move us but we can also participate in the objective side by reading the score as the music is performed and following along. In any case I hate it when people say music or art is subjective. It is subjective but only in submission to what is objective first. The exception I would make would be improvisation as that is dependent on the subjective state of the artist.

Kevin


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Improvisation doesn't always require subjectivity. When you hear a modern jazz group improvise, there is a lot of give and take and agreement on structure. That isn't particularly subjective.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Who said Tchaik's VC and Schubert's piano quintet are not well composed?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

It was me. These musicologist bozos get all their hot material from me.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

"Expert" is a tricky notion to pin down. I would personally define it as:

-Having extensive knowledge of facts in a given subject
-Having UNDERSTANDING of a given subject (esp. important for music)
-Having experience in a given subject (i.e. listening to works, not merely absorbing facts about them)
-Garnering this knowledge/experience through a systematic/academic approach.

Being accepted by existing experts or having interaction with them may or may not be relevant. Most people are not experts in classical music per se, but in a specific composer to such a degree that they could write a book on the information they know. I would also say that the criteria for expertise should be knowledge and understanding, not acceptance into any informal club of acknowledged experts. These acknowledged experts are only deemed as such because they have written on a given subject and are percieved as being knowledgable by the general public that have relatively little knowledge. One can become an expert in total isolation, but the only way of testing it or being formally recognised as such is to provide proof to the outside world. 

An enthusiast, by comparison, lacks one or more of the above. They might still be very knowledgable and seem like an expert to anyone outside of the field, but are not deemed such by those within the field. I think that, depending on approach, an enthusiast will nonetheless be likely to become an expert over time, especially in more specific areas.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I would say an expert is someone whose profession is music - someone who has at least a BA in music and has a deep understanding of every aspect of musical theory. There is more to it of course but I think that would be the starting point for a definition.

Someone who does not understand, for example - the complex subject of harmony - but at the same time has a massive knowledge of repertoire and the history of music - is not an expert - but rather an enthusiast.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Kevin Pearson said:


> Classical music is not just a "subjective" art form. It starts out "objective" because the composer has to use objective standards that would be known by all who know music. That is notes have to be written down to convey what is in the composer's mind. Those notes can be studied objectively and analysed and formalized. Those notes have to be played as written. An F minor chord has to be played as an F minor. It cannot be a C minor or anything else. A quarter note is not played as a half note etc. etc. So music as art is NOT always subjective in fact just the opposite. The subjective cannot come before the objective. Now obviously arguments about tempo etc. can cause a piece to be performed slightly different than another performance but that is a matter of "interpretation". Once the objective notes have been understood, analysed and formalized into a performance then the subjective element comes into play. It cannot come before. We the listeners partake in the subjective side and allow the music to move us but we can also participate in the objective side by reading the score as the music is performed and following along. In any case I hate it when people say music or art is subjective. It is subjective but only in submission to what is objective first. The exception I would make would be improvisation as that is dependent on the subjective state of the artist.
> 
> Kevin





bigshot said:


> Improvisation doesn't always require subjectivity. When you hear a modern jazz group improvise, there is a lot of give and take and agreement on structure. That isn't particularly subjective.


I don't recognize the ideas of "objective" and "subjective" in these posts. Perhaps it's just a misunderstanding.

I really don't think anyone who says something like "musical taste is subjective" would necessarily insist that it has anything to do with whether an F minor chord is the same as a C minor chord. That, I think anyone would acknowledge, is obviously objective (given the basic principles of western music).

What is subjective is (for example) whether the F minor chord sounds _good_ in some particular context.

This goes for everything. I like ketchup on scrambled eggs. I can't say it's objectively good or bad - there must be sentient beings who would prefer scrambled eggs without ketchup, or ketchup without scrambled eggs. So that part is subjective. But under ordinary conditions we can probably all agree about whether a particular red sauce is ketchup or not. So that is objective.

In more realistic terms of musical analysis, it is an objective fact that Schubert's Trout Quintet opens in A and modulates to F a few bars later. No alien creature who understands the basic principles of western music could possibly deny that the thing modulates from A to F. So that is objective.

But whether that modulation sounds good or not is purely subjective - even if we all agree that it is good. The fact that some alien creature might find it aurally repulsive means that it is subjective.

When people say that art is subjective, they probably don't mean that red=green or that F minor = A minor. I've never heard of anyone arguing that, though some French or Italian post-modern philosopher might have done so. Everyone will agree that the background of the upper part of the label of the Campbell's soup can is red. That is an objective fact based on its pigments' interaction with photons - even a colorblind alien species able to understand our definition of "red" would agree with that.

What is ordinarily meant by "art is subjective" is not about that kind of thing, but about whether we enjoy the work of art. Not everyone will agree that a reproduction of the Campbell's soup can is good art.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

I sense an objective vs. subjective argument on its way


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

stomanek said:


> I would say an expert is someone whose profession is music - someone who has at least a BA in music and has a deep understanding of every aspect of musical theory. There is more to it of course but I think that would be the starting point for a definition.


I don't believe that it takes that much study to understand musical theory - its only a matter of deciphering the coded terms and learning to read music. I studied engineering at university level and find that what I know of harmonic theory is very logical and mathematical. This is not challenging to students of sciences, but what _is_ challenging is being able to read a score and recognise those same patterns in musical notation or, even more difficult, to do so by ear. Music notation is a very messy language in that regard, but this ability is also not pertinent to the understanding of harmony, IMO. Another difficulty I find when reading about more modern works is the increasingly technical terms used to describe it. I have browsed academic papers on music and they are quite similar to papers on engineering that I have also read. Taking the time out to learn the terminology is a relatively minor task, however, when compared to becoming familiar with the thousands of works that constitute 'the repertoire' or the hundreds of composers and their relative significance over the history of music. The former is rather less 'fun', however.

Professional musicians have an instinctive feel for music through performance. A BA in music isn't a vey good indication, IMHO, since there are literally thousands of music graduates in the UK every year and there are not thousands of experts in (classical) music. Many of those graduates also don't have a deep knowledge of repertoire, never mnd listening experience of that repertoire, and prob won't ever attain it. I agree that it is a start, since it is a provides a level of understanding that anyone claiming to be an expert should possess. Ouside of the world of classical music, there are probably lots more 'experts' who are musicians and don't have any qualifications.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> I don't believe that it takes that much study to understand musical theory - its only a matter of deciphering the coded terms and learning to read music. I studied engineering at university level and find that what I know of harmonic theory is very logical and mathematical. This is not challenging to students of sciences, but what _is_ challenging is being able to read a score and recognise those same patterns in musical notation or, even more difficult, to do so by ear. Music notation is a very messy language in that regard, but this ability is also not pertinent to the understanding of harmony, IMO. Another difficulty I find when reading about more modern works is the increasingly technical terms used to describe it. I have browsed academic papers on music and they are quite similar to papers on engineering that I have also read. Taking the time out to learn the terminology is a relatively minor task, however, when compared to becoming familiar with the thousands of works that constitute 'the repertoire' or the hundreds of composers and their relative significance over the history of music. The former is rather less 'fun', however.
> 
> Professional musicians have an instinctive feel for music through performance. A BA in music isn't a vey good indication, IMHO, since there are literally thousands of music graduates in the UK every year and there are not thousands of experts in (classical) music. Many of those graduates also don't have a deep knowledge of repertoire, never mnd listening experience of that repertoire, and prob won't ever attain it. I agree that it is a start, since it is a provides a level of understanding that anyone claiming to be an expert should possess. Ouside of the world of classical music, there are probably lots more 'experts' who are musicians and don't have any qualifications.


It depends - I know a bit of what I am talking about because my son is an aspiring young musician/composer - he has advanced theory lessons and I see what he is given to do - harmonise a Bach Chorale, for example, or complex transposition tasks -which you would only be able to do well if you had gone through the many stages it takes to understand the science of harmony and I don't believe having an instinct through many years of playing professionally makes you an expert in theory if you have not actually studied it academically. Of course if your BA is purely performance you would not be able to do it either and I was thinking of those students who major on composition. There's a world of difference between that and being a keen amateur with no training who has learned to read scores.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

science said:


> In more realistic terms of musical analysis, it is an objective fact that Schubert's Trout Quintet opens in A and modulates to F a few bars later. No alien creature who understands the basic principles of western music could possibly deny that the thing modulates from A to F. So that is objective.


Hmm Im not even so sure about that.

It is almost 100% agreed that the A to F modulation occurs there but doesnt necessarily mean it is an objective thing. The basic principles which have led to that analysis are by no means objective or analyses would reach the same conclusions 100% of the time, but we have many examples where they do not.

To take a very well known example, the Tristan chord:









> Although at the same time enharmonically sounding like the half-diminished chord F-A♭-C♭-E♭, it can also be interpreted as the suspended altered subdominant II: B-D♯-F-G♯ (the G♯ being the suspension in the key of A minor).
> 
> According to J. Chailley (1963, p. 40[SUP][4][/SUP]), "it is rooted in a simple dominant chord of A _minor_ [C major], which includes two appoggiaturas resolved in the normal way" Thus in this view it is not a chord but an anticipation of the dominant chord in measure three.
> 
> ...




Many many different ways of analysing this small musical phrase are possible.

Another example is the first two bars of Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande:












> analyzed differently by Leibowitz, Laloy, van Appledorn, and Christ. Leibowitz analyses this succession harmonically as D minor:I-VII-V, ignoring melodic motion, Laloy analyses the succession as D:I-V, seeing the G in the second measure as an ornament, and both van Appledorn and Christ analyses the succession as D:I-VII.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> There are reasons to develop lists of great works and composers (if only for music history classes). While I think such lists ought to be created by experts, _do you think it would matter if they were created by large groups of enthusiastic listeners?_


It depends on your feelings about the word "great". If "great" means something that has enormous impact or that leaves a lasting impression, any *sizable* group of enthusiastic listeners can come up with a list that can be quite valid.

If "great" has reference, however, to the compositional skills of the composer, say, her mastery of all the tools of her trade, and her ability to add something significant to the already large body of music available to the world, I suppose I would leave that to the "experts".

I would personally be interested in both types of list, because no one's list _dictates_ anything to me - it either simply satisfies my curiosity (at the least) or gives me some ideas of something else to try (at the most).

One advantage of being an enthusiastic listener is that your judgment isn't swayed as easily as someone's who is brand new to the field.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

stomanek said:


> It depends - I know a bit of what I am talking about because my son is an aspiring young musician/composer - he has advanced theory lessons and I see what he is given to do - harmonise a Bach Chorale, for example, or complex transposition tasks -which you would only be able to do well if you had gone through the many stages it takes to understand the science of harmony and I don't believe having an instinct through many years of playing professionally makes you an expert in theory if you have not actually studied it academically. Of course if your BA is purely performance you would not be able to do it either and I was thinking of those students who major on composition. There's a world of difference between that and being a keen amateur with no training who has learned to read scores.


I have a pretty jaded opinion of higher education, so apologies if I am too cynical about qualifications. I completed a masters degree in engineering, but found the education system vastly underwhelming despite going to one of the better universities for my subject. I believe that I have learned more in other fields through private study than through taught learning, but that isn't the same with everybody, obviously. Several of our modules required writing computer programs to do analysis on large sets of data or compute an answer based on various inputs. I would assume that harmonising a Bach chorale would be something fairly similar - applying rules you are familiar with to obtain a 'solution'. Most people in my course did not find those parts easy because programming is another language. I was quite often the 'go to' guy for these modules because they were obligitory for the course and many found them tedious. I wouldn't, however, count myself as being anywhere near an expert, even though I probably have more knowledge about this than the average engineer. Other elements in composition/transposition would also be the same as producing a design according to specifications in which there are many variables over which the designer has free choice to achieve the same result or that improve aesthetic characteristics of the product - it isn't just a robotic task. Yet there isn't anything complicated involved here for anyone with basic knowledge expected of an undergraduate. BA courses do not require things of students that are outside of what a professional might be expected to do, even though many might never need that knowledge again.

What I would say is that most degrees have this element to them - material that seems advanced or difficult to most people taking the course, but is really just the first step in specialisation. It is a relevant question to ask whether being an expert in music or engineering requires this knowledge in an advanced degree or whether it is merely advantageous. IMO, it is much more accurate to talk about being an expert in programming or composition and to qualify that further by other tests. We should think about what, in a court of law, mght qualify as an expert witness.

With regard to being an amateur that can read scores, I would say that being able to read scores is only the first step. I find that my very limited ability to read scores (I'm not a musician) is a significant obstacle in trying to understand more about musical theory by analysis, but not an insurmountable one. In this regard, I am envious of those who play an instrument for having that advantage.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Of course one can understand virtually anything with home study - and if you have the skill and knowledge - it does not matter if you have the degree or not. I agree with that. Neither though can you dismiss graduate level education.
Having years of playing an instrument behind you does not give as much as you would think - in my son's case he went to advanced theory having gone to a high level in piano and violin - as his theory teacher said to him - he can do a lot by instinct - having mastered two instruments - but in terms of the level of musicianship expertise he was looking for - it was nowhere near enough and hence lengthy formal study was necessary. He also found the rules of harmony so complex that when he attempted to learn things himself - he invariably made errors - sometimes small - but still needed the teacher to clarify. Of course there may be those who don't even play instruments and have no formal study that could "pick it up" themselves - though I never met anyone. Maybe somebody has that I don't know of. I am quite certain that Mozart was not born a composer - Haydn said of him "he has the most profound knowledge of the art of composition" - M father was a composer and there is no doubt he schooled Wolfgang in all the necessary fundamentals.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Hmm Im not even so sure about that.
> 
> It is almost 100% agreed that the A to F modulation occurs there but doesnt necessarily mean it is an objective thing. The basic principles which have led to that analysis are by no means objective or analyses would reach the same conclusions 100% of the time, but we have many examples where they do not.


Interpretations like that _might_ be considered "subjective," but whether the sound is "good" or not is certainly subjective.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I would say an expert is someone whose profession is music - someone who has at least a BA in music and has a deep understanding of every aspect of musical theory.

By that theory a great many of the greatest artists in every field are less than "experts" as many were taught outside the confines of academia... and a great many were essentially self-taught.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I would say an expert is someone whose profession is music - someone who has at least a BA in music and has a deep understanding of every aspect of musical theory.
> 
> By that theory a great many of the greatest artists in every field are less than "experts" as many were taught outside the confines of academia... and a great many were essentially self-taught.


I was waiting for someone to pick up on that.
Yes, it's a question of knowledge, passive and active - in that field - it doesn't matter how you get it although I would still maintain that formal training does have some advantages over being self taught. For example - arranging an Elgar march for brass band would take a certain amount of expertise that a self taught composer might find a bit tricky.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

science said:


> Interpretations like that _might_ be considered "subjective,"


I cant make sense of this. In what context, or otherwise, would they be considered objective?


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2012)

I think Science's point is that the key of a fairly simple traditional tonal work can be objectively identified - by looking at the distribution of notes/frequencies. You could write a computer program to determine which key best fits a particular piece of music.

More recently composers have been writing passages and works which don't follow the traditional rules. As a result, some examples can be interpreted in multiple ways.

I would argue that the above counter-examples are cases of ambiguity, not subjectivity. Subjectivity should be reserved for questions of how we experience and/or feel in reaction to works of music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BPS said:


> I would argue that the above counter-examples are cases of ambiguity, not subjectivity. Subjectivity should be reserved for questions of how we experience and/or feel in reaction to works of music.


I was mentally fumbling around trying to find a way to say this. My response to emiellucifuge was so short because I couldn't figure out how to do it!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

stomanek said:


> Who said Tchaik's VC and Schubert's piano quintet are not well composed?


I have heard from numerous people that Tchaikovsky is not considered a good orchestrator. I tried to find the place where I read that the Trout was not "well written", but now I realize that I might have been mistaken. The bottom line, of course, for this thread doesn't depend on those two works.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

emiellucifuge said:


> I cant make sense of this. In what context, or otherwise, would they be considered objective?


Bear with me here, but I would like you to explain this to me. 

You seem to be saying that the subjective part is the interpretation of various combinations of chord progressions or notes. The examples you give above seem to be different ways of describing the exact same sequence of chords and notes or analysing parts of the music while excluding others. If I am given a string of numbers, I can deconstruct them how I wish to provide different methods to reproduce that string of numbers. For the number 100, I can say that it is 10 squared or the sum of two squares (36 and 64) or give it as the sum of its factors or the sum of two primes etc etc. Similar analyses can be done for small groups of numbers to find a link between them. This, to me, is the same as what different people are doing in the above quotations.

What you are saying, if I understand you correctly, is that the overall sound is not the only element to be understood, but also that the specific chords used and how they can be deconstructed have different implications. This, of course, is a very different in music than in mathematics, but I can't help but feel that this kind of meta-analysis goes beyond what is important. The creation of resolution (or lack) of dissonance is important, but not necessarily how it is done. I also think that, unless the composer explicitly states his intentons, then deconstructing their music is pure speculation. As BPS says, ambiguity rather than subjectivity. The notes that make up the music and the effect they have are clearly objective, whereas speculation on the motives behind how a piece of music is constructed is subjective.

Of course, modern music doesn't play by these rules and IS more closely linked to mathematics. The composer usually states their method, however.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

crmoorhead said:


> "Expert" is a tricky notion to pin down. I would personally define it as:
> 
> -Having extensive knowledge of facts in a given subject
> -Having UNDERSTANDING of a given subject (esp. important for music)
> ...


In general I agree with your comments. My definition was an operational one. A non-expert has no way to verify that someone has extensive knowledge or understanding, for example. If I'm interested in finding experts on radioactive dating, Babylonian theology, or Renaissance instruments, I have to use a functional definition similar to mine rather then a theoretical one.

To those discussing to what extent a degree helps one become an expert:

When I received my Ph.D., I did not consider myself an expert because there were many who knew far more than I. Becoming an expert generally requires significantly more research/experience/interaction with others after one's degree. There are also people who get a degree in one field and become experts in a different field. A music expert many not need a music degree, but she must somehow become proficient in music theory and other necessary areas.

But for the purposes of this thread people should use whatever definition of expert they are comfortable with.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> A music expert many not need a music degree, but she must somehow become proficient in music theory and other necessary areas.


That's really what I was saying - but I also think reaching an advanced level of theoretical understanding purely from self study is extremely unlikely as you would have no one to test and check your understanding during the learning process. It's not the sort of thing where you can look up the answers at the back of the book.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Crmoorhead, I dont think the analogy you have used is valid.

The analyses I posted, and in general (at least, as far I have learnt), stem from the manner in which the music is heard by the analyst - this being an entirely subjective excercise. An analyst doesnt just look at the notes on the page as he would the number 100, and arbitrarily decide which mathematical operations he can use to build this number, the analyst is trying to explain an artistic aural effect produced. For example I was taught to play through these things on the piano when analysing.

The varying analyses are evidence that each analyst has experienced the small progression in a different manner. I will once again use the example of Pelleas:










Now, personally, when I heard this phrase It is quite obvious that the first bar feels secure and stable, looking at the notes I would then explain this being due to the lack of dissonance, and that all the notes can belong to a D chord - perhaps I will label it as such though whether it is minor or major is unclear. Once we enter the 2nd bar, the feeling I get personally is that the downward motion in the bass line concretizes the first chord too much for it to be consistent of auxiliary notes or an appogiatura for example, I will label it as a C major given the notes written. On the 2nd beat the G is moved back to an A, on paper It would quite clearly look like an A chord; in the context of D the C# leading note is missing but to my ear it still feels as if it resolves onto the next chord which is again a D. Now I think about it, the entire second bar feels unstable and as if it resolves onto D, harmonically this does make sense to attribute a dominant function to the entire bar because that is how it sounds to me. IN doing all this I have interpreted these notes have a I-V-I progression, which is functional harmony.

I heard the first beat in the 2nd bar as a chord unto itself, whereas for example (see my previous post) Laloy hears the G as a melodic ornament which resolves into the A chord, thereby giving the entire bar the label of A or (DV. Both Appeldorn and Christ ended up labeling the 2nd bar with a VII chord (C) which demonstrates that they heard this bar as sounding in a slightly different way in relation to its context.

These are all functional analyses, but there are scores of analysts who have heard these two bars in a non-functional way, and there are many different ways to do so.

Obviously I do not assume that every listener will hear the sound in one of these ways, but we are talking about 'experts' after all who listen in a certain way. Each one hears the music differently and tries to explain it with the notes on the page, but in the end it has produced slightly different effects for each of them. Even for the experts it is subjective.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

And further, I have used the example of Debussy which is relatively modern, but I believe the same applies to all music including Bach, Mozart, etc...

Even if it may become 'simpler' to look at a Haydn symphony, and the vast majority of analysts will reach the same conclusions - this is not evidence that the music is objective. On the score, the things they are looking at in Haydn is just the same as it is in Wagner or Debussy.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

I'm somewhat mystified by what this thread is supposed to be all about.

The OP first asks why so much classical music which is loved by enthusiastic listeners is also considered “great” by music "experts". Secondly, it then asks whether it matters if lists of great works and composers are created by "enthusiastic listeners" rather than by "experts" who, so it is alleged, ought to be better at this task than groups of enthusiastic listeners.

At one level, I would have thought that if the first proposition is correct then the second question doesn't need asking since the answer to the second is implied by virtue of the fact that the group of enthusiastic listeners would arrive at much the same answer as the "experts".

That aside, I wouldn't accept the notion that "experts" are best placed to assess the greatest classical works or composers. What is expertise? There are so many different aspects of the subject which could be relevant, and hardly anyone possesses all the relevant skills. The amount of expertise anyone has in any single area is relative anyway, and experts often disagree among themselves in most spheres, not just music but across many other areas. I would have thought that it's especially highly unlikely that a large group of music experts would agree among themselves over the greatest classical works or composers. There would be a spread of opinion ranging far and wide, and the only way to make any sense of their deliberations would to take majority verdicts on rankings. 

Even then I would rate the combined opinions of music experts as being of any greater significance than that of a group of enthusiastic listeners. This is because it's completely unnecessary to know anything about the formal construction of music in order to appreciate the way it sounds and impacts on ones' emotions. To give an analogy, one doesn't need to know anything at about the way motor cars are constructed to decide which models you like the best. You can read up on any technicalities that may be of interest if forming an overall judgement. 

An alternative example is how many people would take notice if some expert chemist had analysed all the main brands of ice cream commercially available and reached the conclusion that the "best" brands are X, Y, Z etc in that order. Such an opinion wouldn’t impress me at all, as I don't consider his opinion to be any better than mine on the broad issue of quality. It's much the same issue with classical music. "Experts" can inform you about various technical aspects of the music but they can't tell you which are the "greatest" works or those most worth listening to which you enjoy best of all. That's entirely a matter of personal judgement, guided perhaps partly by the advice of others.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> I'm somewhat mystified by what this thread is supposed to be all about.
> 
> The OP first asks why so much classical music which is loved by enthusiastic listeners is also considered "great" by music "experts". Secondly, it then asks whether it matters if lists of great works and composers are created by "enthusiastic listeners" rather than by "experts" who, so it is alleged, ought to be better at this task than groups of enthusiastic listeners.
> 
> At one level, I would have thought that if the first proposition is correct then the second question doesn't need asking since the answer to the second is implied by virtue of the fact that the group of enthusiastic listeners would arrive at much the same answer as the "experts".


The first proposition could be true, but there could still not be a close correlation between expert and enthusiastic listener choices. Experts could feel there are many "great" works that many enthusiastic listeners do not love. I think that might happen more in modern works.



Very Senior Member said:


> Even then I would rate the combined opinions of music experts as being of any greater significance than that of a group of enthusiastic listeners. This is because it's completely unnecessary to know anything about the formal construction of music in order to appreciate the way it sounds and impacts on ones' emotions. To give an analogy, one doesn't need to know anything at about the way motor cars are constructed to decide which models you like the best. You can read up on any technicalities that may be of interest if forming an overall judgement.
> 
> ..."Experts" can inform you about various technical aspects of the music but they can't tell you which are the "greatest" works or those most worth listening to which you enjoy best of all. That's entirely a matter of personal judgement, guided perhaps partly by the advice of others.


I think experts can't tell me which works I will enjoy the most, but I'm not sure they can't say which works are most worth listening to. That depends, of course, on what is meant be "worth listening to".

I agree that "one doesn't need to know anything at about the way motor cars are constructed to decide which models you like the best." But experts may know things that are clearly relevant to the question of which are the best cars. Suppose a non-expert believes that she likes cars A and B about the same after spending a long time reading about them, driving them, and talking to friends about them. Further, experts know that consumers generally like the cars the same, but these experts know that car A has serious recycling problems and that car B allows engineers to cheaply and easily design other models using the same platform. The experts then say car B is better.

The only way the experts' views do not matter is if _the only_ criteria for determining "greatness" involve general user (enthusiastic listener) enjoyment. There are many TC posts that explicitly call on music theory in determining a work's "greatness". I do not know enough about music theory or history to definitively claim that music theory arguments have little, if anything, to do with the "greatness" of a work. I think that is the crux of my second question.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I assume the vast majority of people who post on TC are enthusiastic listeners of classical music. The term expert is not trivial to define, but for the purposes of this thread I will assume something along the lines of the following.
> 
> A person is an expert in a field if:
> 1) she has spent a significant amount of time both studying the field and interacting with others who study the field, and
> ...


An expert in the context of your thread might be a professional musicologist and or a performer. That I have no problem with. There are numerous musicologist who are experts in their field. Take a look at this new website dedicated to publishing and researching the entire surving works of CPE Bach, and notice the editorial committee. For example, many do consider Christoph Wolff as an expert on JS Bach, and musiciologist and conductor Christopher Hogwood an expert on historically informed performance practice. In the usual understanding of the term "expert", I doubt many would have difficulty in agreeing with that these folks are experts in their fields.

http://www.cpebach.org/description.html


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

But, there is a clear separation between the expert and the regular schmucks including myself here at TC  , who are *not* musicologists by training, just as you have described, the enthusiastic listener/"fans of classical music". The enthusiastic listeners have different levels of experience, a simple fact; hence the subject of my recent poll about how experienced as a _listener_ does one think one is. From the fresh newbie to the Lord of the all, the Ultimate Zen Guru ...

http://www.talkclassical.com/20560-listening-hierarchy-where-you.html


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Christoph Wolff and Hogwood - both products of the musical establishment with full formal training. 

I would challange your statement that there is no clear separation between that pair and well informed enthusiasts.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

stomanek said:


> Christoph Wolff and Hogwood - both products of the musical establishment with full formal training.
> 
> I would challange your statement that there is no clear separation between that pair and well informed enthusiasts.


As I said, I was trying to be clear on separating out the musicologist and the _non-musicologist who are enthusiastic listeners_ (i.e. many of us here at TC); the "fans of classical music". Many of the latter may be well informed; music lessons/students, or like me by general reading/experience, hence leading to my next post above suggesting that the enthusiastic (non-musicologist) listeners, which has different levels of experience.


----------



## Mun (Aug 15, 2012)

I started off studying music in highschool and ended up studying Music in University, But just because I studied it in university doesn't particulary mean I know more than someone who didn't study music (even if it is more likely so) but I did notice a difference between how people who've studied music (people you consider experts) and how they perceive certain classical composers to those who are classical enthusiasts do.

And generally those I've studied with tend to know a lot more about classical music, but I would also like to add that one of my friends who has never studied music formally knows way more information and has a way better understanding of classical music than all the people I have studied with in my university.

So, I really do think it depends on the person and the situation.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

@ emillucifuge

Thanks for the great reply. 

My analogy was not just of single numbers, though I did give that as a way to illustrate how the same thing can be viewed in many different ways. This can also be applied to a series of numbers, though I spared you the mathematical example of how to do this for convenience's sake. This is quite easy to do with numerical analysis especially, as in this case, there is the option to leave some notes/numbers out and count them as 'adornments'. In essence, I think we are on the same page here. I understand that clusters of notes can signify different chord progressions when seen from different perspectives and that this may signify a different intention by the composer (what these intentions are have not yet been touched upon, but I will assume that this makes sense). That it _can_ be interpreted in different ways, I do not dispute, but I am also saying that I think that the composer's intention is the only objective way to see it and, at the end of the day, they are using it to communicate their intentions via the ear rather than via the written score. I think that we'll have to agree to disagree on the merits and relevance of differing musical analysis. Once I learn more, I might change my mind.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Mun said:


> but I would also like to add that one of my friends who has never studied music formally knows way more information and has a way better understanding of classical music than all the people I have studied with in my university.


That's quite a statment to make and does not recommend well the institution where you studied - or the people you studied with. But what do you mean "better understanding"? You mean technical understanding to the point where he would be able to hold analytical discourse with a musicologist? Or do you mean appreciation?


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> The first proposition could be true, but there could still not be a close correlation between expert and enthusiastic listener choices. Experts could feel there are many "great" works that many enthusiastic listeners do not love. I think that might happen more in modern works.


It would be helpful if you could quote a few examples of where you believe there is a divergence of opinion on the greatness of works between that of "experts" and "enthusiastic listeners".



> I think experts can't tell me which works I will enjoy the most, but I'm not sure they can't say which works are most worth listening to. That depends, of course, on what is meant be "worth listening to".
> 
> I agree that "one doesn't need to know anything at about the way motor cars are constructed to decide which models you like the best." But experts may know things that are clearly relevant to the question of which are the best cars. Suppose a non-expert believes that she likes cars A and B about the same after spending a long time reading about them, driving them, and talking to friends about them. Further, experts know that consumers generally like the cars the same, but these experts know that car A has serious recycling problems and that car B allows engineers to cheaply and easily design other models using the same platform. The experts then say car B is better.
> 
> The only way the experts' views do not matter is if _the only_ criteria for determining "greatness" involve general user (enthusiastic listener) enjoyment. There are many TC posts that explicitly call on music theory in determining a work's "greatness". I do not know enough about music theory or history to definitively claim that music theory arguments have little, if anything, to do with the "greatness" of a work. I think that is the crux of my second question.


There was an inadvertent missing "not" in the first line of my penultimate paragraph after "... would", but I think you allowed for that. To clarify, I was saying that I don't believe that so-called experts' opinions are any better than those of experienced listeners in assessing the greatness of music or composers.

In the car example you reckon that the experts' opinion is better than that of the non-expert buyer because the experts may take into account various social benefits (like improved recycling opportunities) that are normally of no concern to non-expert buyers. Any such "externalities" might of course be picked up in the motor vehicle taxation regime, so that the more easily recyclable car would attract a lower tax rate, and if so this would be of relevance to the consumer in influencing their purchasing decision.

But even if externalities like this one are not reflected in the taxatiion regime it's not clear that "experts" (if by this you mean columnists who write about cars in magazines) would necessarily pick up the supposed "benefit" of the more recyclable car, as this is not not usually something they bother with all that much in comparision with other more obvious consumer-oriented benefits, like reliability, comfort, safety, economy, handling, performance etc.

Perhaps it's also rather stretching the point to suggest that "externality" arguments of any description may also be relevant to the matter of classical music selection. I can't think of any at all.

On the whole, I still maintain that experts' opinions on greatness in music should carry no more weight than that of experienced listeners. The latter, if they are truly "experienced", will be likely to have acquired information about the opinions of experts anyway, or all that they deem to be necessary in order to form a rounded view.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> It would be helpful if you could quote a few examples of where you believe there is a divergence of opinion on the greatness of works between that of "experts" and "enthusiastic listeners".


I don't believe that there _is_ a divergence of opinion. I'm not sure, and I'm asking if others believe there might be. My comment simply pointed out that my first proposition could be correct _and_ the second question is still reasonable to ask.



Very Senior Member said:


> But even if externalities like this one are not reflected in the taxatiion regime it's not clear that "experts" (if by this you mean columnists who write about cars in magazines) would necessarily pick up the supposed "benefit" of the more recyclable car, as this is not not usually something they bother with all that much in comparision with other more obvious consumer-oriented benefits, like reliability, comfort, safety, economy, handling, performance etc.
> 
> Perhaps it's also rather stretching the point to suggest that "externality" arguments of any description may also be relevant to the matter of classical music selection. I can't think of any at all.


First, I'm always thrilled to see someone who actually knows what externalities are! I wasn't really thinking of externalities though. I used this example because you used cars in an analogy so I thought I'd build on it. I was more thinking of scientists and engineers who spend decades studying vehicle technology and might view cars as both fun, reliable, and safe as well as well-designed, forward thinking, and environmentally more benign.

I don't disagree with you views. Since I am not able to view music in the way musical experts can, I was wondering to what extent their "technical" view of music affects their assessment of works.

For example, is it reasonable to believe many experts might view a work as great due primarily to music theoretical considerations when most enthusiastic listeners do not view the work as great?


----------



## Mun (Aug 15, 2012)

stomanek said:


> That's quite a statment to make and does not recommend well the institution where you studied - or the people you studied with. But what do you mean "better understanding"? You mean technical understanding to the point where he would be able to hold analytical discourse with a musicologist? Or do you mean appreciation?


"better understanding" Simple, What kind of emotion the composition is trying to express etc.

I've noticed enthusiastic listeners tend to be able to tell what kind of emotions the composition is trying to express where as someone I've studied with in WAAPA would be able to tell me what kind of movement it is whether it'd be "Allegro assai" or "Romanze". They'd probably be able to also tell me what scale the composition is in where as someone who hasn't studied music but is an enthusiastic listener wouldn't be able to because trust me when I say that an intellectual studying music listens to and feels music very differently to someone who is simply an enthusiastic listener.

Does that help at all?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Mun said:


> They'd probably be able to also tell me what scale the composition is in
> Does that help at all?


Don't you mean "What key"? Are you sure you've done a music degree? Recognising whether it is an Allegro or Romanze is quite a basic skill that I think most enthusiasts would be able to do. Quite a sweeping generalisation you make there about how "experts" listen to and feel music differently from enthusiastic listeners.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> I don't believe that there _is_ a divergence of opinion. I'm not sure, and I'm asking if others believe there might be. My comment simply pointed out that my first proposition could be correct _and_ the second question is still reasonable to ask.
> 
> First, I'm always thrilled to see someone who actually knows what externalities are! I wasn't really thinking of externalities though. I used this example because you used cars in an analogy so I thought I'd build on it. I was more thinking of scientists and engineers who spend decades studying vehicle technology and might view cars as both fun, reliable, and safe as well as well-designed, forward thinking, and environmentally more benign.
> 
> ...


I can't think of any such divergences of view and, so it would appear, nor can you. It would be very strange if any existed, except posslbly some very short-term ones, but it's not in the interests of either group to hold divergent views for long and so a way of resolving them would be found.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

crmoorhead;343102That it [I said:


> can[/I] be interpreted in different ways, I do not dispute, but I am also saying that I think that the composer's intention is the only objective way to see it and, at the end of the day, they are using it to communicate their intentions via the ear rather than via the written score.


This is where our opinions differ. I believe the only thing of importance in art is how it is _perceived, _in this case by the listener.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2012)

I'm just an expert in enthusiasm!


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

We can categorize three groups here:

- Those who have academic learning and can use (some) instruments. [Experts]
- Those who know to play an instrument or two, but don't have much knowledge about the Music. [Enthusiastic initiate]
- Those who have listened much to Music but don't know much about its structures. [Enthusiastic Listener]


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

theyre both the same just that one of them have a job and the other doesn't


----------



## Mun (Aug 15, 2012)

stomanek said:


> Don't you mean "What key"? Are you sure you've done a music degree? Recognising whether it is an Allegro or Romanze is quite a basic skill that I think most enthusiasts would be able to do. Quite a sweeping generalisation you make there about how "experts" listen to and feel music differently from enthusiastic listeners.


It's a shame you had to make implications that can be seen as insulting and yet not realize the faults in what you just said. For example, Mozart's 40th symphony is in G Minor (a scale) and the keys are the notes within the scale you play, now I feel like making an insulting implication. Are we learning now?

And yes I am making a generalization, which is why I said this in a previous post "I really do think it depends on the person and the situation." Which you clearly missed or chose to ignore.

I can only talk in a general sense and what I've personaly notice, and I'll point out againt that I did make the point that it does depend on the person and his or her situation. And I don't know about you but I don't think I'd be able to individually name everyone I know and their own personal understanding of music.

And being able to tell the difference between things such as Allegro or Adagio is a basical skill, but I would like to point out that there are still enthusiastic listeners who still are not able to do so (such as my little brother).


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Arsakes said:


> We can categorize three groups here:
> 
> - Those who have academic learning and can use (some) instruments. [Experts]
> - Those who know to play an instrument or two, but don't have much knowledge about the Music. [Enthusiastic initiate]
> - Those who have listened much to Music but don't know much about its structures. [Enthusiastic Listener]


What is the relevance of any of this in answering the questions posed in the OP?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Mun said:


> . For example, Mozart's 40th symphony is in G Minor (a scale) and the keys are the notes within the scale you play


Not in English


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Mun said:


> It's a shame you had to make implications that can be seen as insulting and yet not realize the faults in what you just said. For example, Mozart's 40th symphony is in G Minor (a scale) and the keys are the notes within the scale you play, now I feel like making an insulting implication. Are we learning now?
> 
> And yes I am making a generalization, which is why I said this in a previous post "I really do think it depends on the person and the situation." Which you clearly missed or chose to ignore.
> 
> ...


G Minor is a scale - true - but when we refer to a piece of music - for example, Mozart symphony in C - C is usually referred to as the "key" in which a piece is composed - not the scale. I understood what you mean - and nearly anybody would - it's just the wrong word for what you wanted to say.

I just double checked my own understanding by reading these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_(music)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_(music)


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Mun said:


> It's a shame you had to make implications that can be seen as insulting and yet not realize the faults in what you just said. For example, Mozart's 40th symphony is in G Minor (a scale) and the keys are the notes within the scale you play, now I feel like making an insulting implication. Are we learning now?
> 
> And yes I am making a generalization, which is why I said this in a previous post "I really do think it depends on the person and the situation." Which you clearly missed or chose to ignore.
> 
> ...


I just realised you may not be a native English speaker and that is why you used the word "scale" as you are probably not familiar with the terminology in English - if that is the case I apologise. But then you English does seem good for a non native speaker. When I went to Hungary and was told I was going to hear a Mozart piano concerto in "S" (in fact Esz dur) I had a big argument about there being no such thing - it was only later I realised the Hungarians use different words for naming the keys.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

_"...do you think it would matter if they were created by large groups of enthusiastic listeners?"_

It matters very much, and you see it in action in the many lists made up by Talk Classical members.

While generally 'well-informed,' i.e. most bases will be covered, those lists made up by the enthusiasts have both the most 'usual suspect' composers and their 'most usual suspect' pieces. They are 'popular' classical music lists... which are not a bad thing, especially to recommend composer 'X's' music to a neophyte.

I saw a blog / zine (Amazon 'critic?') list of the world's "Ten Greatest Piano Concerti." On that list of ten, two were by Beethoven, One by Mozart(!) Two were by Rachmaninoff, and the Grieg piano concerto had made the list - which is not at all right in a real 'musical experts' lexicon.

There you have the perfect illustration of enthusiastic listener compiled lists and those compiled by more 'responsible' experts. Musically, the Grieg, popular as it is, should not be on such a top ten list at all - there are too many others which are just musically superior, period. To be responsible, one would not allow more than one concerto by one composer, trying to get the most representative list of varied composers and styles. So ... a list of what is popular from enthusiastic classical listeners is what that was, and, like the adequate lists on talk classical, is most often what you get.

P.s. participation in making these lists seems to include some feeling of empowerment, the ability to 'influence' or an idea of contributing to part of an 'authoritative' work, and I'm told people just love making lists and participating. I've yet to see one which is 'earth shakingly good' or comes but close to competing with say, those Guides to classical listening compiled by music pros. Shows they are more a collective sport than anything else.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I saw a blog / zine (Amazon 'critic?') list of the world's "Ten Greatest Piano Concerti." On that list of ten, two were by Beethoven, One by Mozart(!) Two were by Rachmaninoff, and the Grieg piano concerto had made the list - which is not at all right in a real 'musical experts' lexicon.


Personally, I would list more than one Mozart. But I think Grieg is totally undervalued, especially as a composer for piano. The piano concerto is truly great, but Lyric Pieces and other solo piano works are pure genius. Grieg did not compose virtuoso pieces, but his compositions are often simplicity distilled into genius.

I see a lot of people repeating the bull that elitest critics have repeated so many times it's become "common hive think". A lot of this stuff isn't true. Chopin isn't just lace doilies and Mozart isn't empty filligrees. Grieg was a great composer and Rachmaninoff wasn't a hack. This stuff isn't in the music at all. It's in the words of a bunch of bull shiest artists.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I saw a blog / zine (Amazon 'critic?') list of the world's "Ten Greatest Piano Concerti." On that list of ten, two were by Beethoven, One by Mozart(!) Two were by Rachmaninoff, and the Grieg piano concerto had made the list - which is not at all right in a real 'musical experts' lexicon.
> 
> There you have the perfect illustration of enthusiastic listener compiled lists and those compiled by more 'responsible' experts. Musically, the Grieg, popular as it is, should not be on such a top ten list at all - there are too many others which are just musically superior, period.


Let us suppose that experts would replace Grieg with Schumann (you can use whatever concerto you feel is appropriate). The experts would then feel that Schumann's concerto has musical elements that are superior to Grieg's. Let's say one of those elements is the general structure (for purposes of argument). The enthusiasts that picked that list presumably preferred Grieg based on the work's beauty or overall enjoyment they get.

How could the experts convince the enthusiasts that the original list is flawed? Scientists can show that a particular theory better matches objective data, but music experts have no objective criteria. They may say that they base their conclusions on more criteria than enthusiasts do. Enthusiasts can always say that the Grieg is more beautiful than the Schumann. Experts could ask the enthusiasts to study the music and see if they change their minds once they know more about the works in question.

I guess my question boils down to asking if further study does change the beauty one feels or enjoyment one gets from musical works. _And do experts feel that that further study moves almost all of them in the same direction in terms of musical appreciation?_ I don't know but would like to get feedback.



PetrB said:


> P.s. participation in making these lists seems to include some feeling of empowerment, the ability to 'influence' or an idea of contributing to part of an 'authoritative' work, and I'm told people just love making lists and participating. I've yet to see one which is 'earth shakingly good' or comes but close to competing with say, those Guides to classical listening compiled by music pros. Shows they are more a collective sport than anything else.


I have participated in almost all the lists for over a year, and although I can't speak for other participants, I believe my views are similar to many of them. I do not get a feeling of empowerment, and I certainly do not consider the lists authoritative. I do like making the lists. Several of us have referred to the list process as games so "collective sport" seems appropriate.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

PetrB said:


> I saw a blog / zine (Amazon 'critic?') list of the world's "Ten Greatest Piano Concerti." On that list of ten, two were by Beethoven, One by Mozart(!) Two were by Rachmaninoff, and the Grieg piano concerto had made the list - which is not at all right in a real 'musical experts' lexicon.
> 
> There you have the perfect illustration of enthusiastic listener compiled lists and those *compiled by more 'responsible' experts.* Musically, the Grieg, popular as it is, should not be on such a top ten list at all - there are too many others which are just musically superior, period.


Which list _"compiled by more 'responsible' experts"_ are you referring to?

If, as I suspect, you aren't referring to any specific list but simply noting that in your opinion the Grieg PC would not appear in a hypothetical top 10 list compiled by "experts", what other PCs would you expect to see on that list and in what order?

Related follow-up questions are:

1. How many experts would need to be assembled to form a suitable minimum size for sampling purposes?

2. What would be each member's minimum credentials to qualify as an "expert" for this purpose?

3. What criteria do you think the panel of "experts" would be using to form their assessment of the top 10 PCs? Specifically, what musical features would they be looking for. Can you provide a list together with some idea of the relative importance of each?

4. Are technical aspects of the music the only factors that are of relevance? What about the quality of melody: is that a technical feature, and if so how is it measured and ranked in quality?

5. Which factors of the music that "enthusiastic listeners" might be attracted to would be discounted by the musical experts? Specifically, what are likely to be the most significant areas of disagreement between the experts and ordinary listeners?

6. From the given panel's overall selections, do you think that the results would show a high degree of conformity among each member of the panel in their selections, or might there be wide variation from member to member?

7. Is it possible that by taking another panel of equally competent "experts" a materially different set of selections and their ranks of the top 10 PCs might materialise?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> those Guides to classical listening compiled by music pros


I've asked you so many times before, what "Guides" do you have in mind?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Personally, I would list more than one Mozart. But I think Grieg is totally undervalued, especially as a composer for piano. The piano concerto is truly great, but Lyric Pieces and other solo piano works are pure genius. Grieg did not compose virtuoso pieces, but his compositions are often simplicity distilled into genius.
> 
> I see a lot of people repeating the bull that elitest critics have repeated so many times it's become "common hive think". A lot of this stuff isn't true. Chopin isn't just lace doilies and Mozart isn't empty filligrees. Grieg was a great composer and Rachmaninoff wasn't a hack. This stuff isn't in the music at all. It's in the words of a bunch of bull shiest artists.


Wasn't Grieg's PC the first of it's type? A model for Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov. I would think it should be in a top 10.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

PetrB said:


> _
> 
> I saw a blog / zine (Amazon 'critic?') list of the world's "Ten Greatest Piano Concerti." On that list of ten, two were by Beethoven, One by Mozart(!) Two were by Rachmaninoff, and the Grieg piano concerto had made the list - which is not at all right in a real 'musical experts' lexicon.
> _


_

Why is this so unfathomable? No serious musicologist would ever say that the Grieg Piano Concerto stands up to Mozart's great piano concerti, and even some of his lesser ones, and there's more than 10 in his output. Of course, saying "favorite" is something, but when you label your list "Ten Greatest Piano Concerti" you're making an objective statement._


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

stomanek said:


> Wasn't Grieg's PC the first of it's type? A model for Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov. I would think it should be in a top 10.


Influence and compositional ability seem to be two different things. In terms of structure, the Grieg Piano Concerto just doesn't seem to stand up to Beethoven's last three, Mozart's last 10, or Schumann and Brahm's Piano Concertos.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> And further, I have used the example of Debussy which is relatively modern, but I believe the same applies to all music including Bach, Mozart, etc...
> 
> Even if it may become 'simpler' to look at a Haydn symphony, and the vast majority of analysts will reach the same conclusions - this is not evidence that the music is objective. On the score, the things they are looking at in Haydn is just the same as it is in Wagner or Debussy.


Probably best for me just to surrender the the point with respect to chords. There is no point in the discussion; it doesn't matter whether to my original point whether the interpretation of chords happens to be subjective. There are facts of some kind involved, and we can objectively investigate them.

But whether it sounds good or not certainly remains subjective, which is the point I actually intended to make.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

The most absolute criterion known is popularity: and history shows us juts how absolute _that_ is...


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Ramako said:


> The most absolute criterion known is popularity: and history shows us juts how absolute _that_ is...


Then The Sun is the best newspaper.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

"Greatest" Lists are only ending places for the dilettante....

For the truly enthusiastic listener, they are only starting places.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Personally, I would list more than one Mozart. But I think Grieg is totally undervalued, especially as a composer for piano. The piano concerto is truly great, but Lyric Pieces and other solo piano works are pure genius. Grieg did not compose virtuoso pieces, but his compositions are often simplicity distilled into genius.
> 
> I see a lot of people repeating the bull that elitest critics have repeated so many times it's become "common hive think". A lot of this stuff isn't true. Chopin isn't just lace doilies and Mozart isn't empty filligrees. Grieg was a great composer and Rachmaninoff wasn't a hack. This stuff isn't in the music at all. It's in the words of a bunch of bull shiest artists.


Grieg's piano concerto is a very popular and terribly flawed 'lesser' piece of music. He was a master miniaturist, as you've already pointed out, and that is where one should point for Grieg as a 'great' composer - to the area where his gifts were great 

The Mozart / Chopin critiques you cite are not from the experts: those are opinions from the dilettantes and amateurs, which only reenforces my point. Some things, truly, are better left to the experts, the cognoscenti, 'the elitists.'


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

People tend to speak more freely when they have no reputation at stake - such as members of this forum. Nobody will lose anything admitting they find Mozart boring on this forum.

But musicologists might be reluctant to "step out of line" with recieved critical opinion and maybe that is why you would be hard pushed to find the "experts" downgrading Mozart. Perhaps? If Mozart's greatness is unacknowledged among a significant percentage on this forum it must follow that a percentage of "experts" (performers, conductors, academics) feel the same - they just don't express it openly - fearing a backlash from their peers.

In the world of literature there are some (not many) eminent men of letters that think Shakespeare is no longer high art. Tolstoy, in his later years - attacked Hamlet - thought it a bad play.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

"Expert" is derived from the root word "Experience."

If you would be a passenger in a commercial aircraft piloted by the sort of 'expert' who was auto-didact, for whom piloting was not their profession, then maybe half the supposed definitions of expert littering this thread will do for you in matters musical. Add to that commercial flight in which you are a passenger the mechanics "experts" of the same ilk who service the aircraft... then 

I have yet to meet a true expert in any field for whom that field was anything but their profession, including a lifetime of concentration and practiced experience in that field - in music it is almost always that lifetime includes concentrated work and 'living in' the craft from an extremely young age. The training, it is true, could have happened in any form: autodidact, trained directly as apprentice / student under masters, schooling, etc.

After all the theoretical foundation is laid, the expert gains real experience, after massive amounts of which all their knowledge of the subject operates on a very quick, canny, and near intuitive level. I can guarantee you that last two bars of Debussy's Pelleas was written by an expert composer who did not once think of the 'theory' or 'analysis' of those two bars, like, ever. That expert artist wrote those notes because they would do what he wanted the music to do, and they did not come about by any cerebral academic theoretic analysis - Debussy had absorbed theory, music, and was 'just writing,' as an expert.

All the other waffled suppositions as to the definition of expert seem to be part of a present vogue of sweetly comfortable and accommodating re-writes of definitions to match personal self-conceits. [when did it become an acceptable idea to 'just make up' one's own definitions? Was I out to lunch when that sea-change happened?]


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

PetrB said:


> Grieg's piano concerto is a very popular and terribly flawed 'lesser' piece of music. He was a master miniaturist, as you've already pointed out, and that is where one should point for Grieg as a 'great' composer - to the area where his gifts were great
> 
> The Mozart / Chopin critiques you cite are not from the experts: those are opinions from the dilettantes and amateurs, which only reenforces my point. Some things, truly, are better left to the experts, the cognoscenti, 'the elitists.'


You have ignored all the questions I and one or two others put to you following your previous negative comment about Grieg's PC. But never mind, let's have another try. Could you please elaborate on why exactly you personally consider Grieg's PC to be a "terribly flawed 'lesser' piece of music", and also could you identify which experts you are referring to who have made such negative pronouncements.

Agreed that Grieg was mainly a piano miniaturist composer, and that he may have struggled with large scale forms, which is why he didn't produce anything major beyond the PC, but it doesn't mean that the PC itself is seriously flawed in the manner you imply.

The main assessment of the work I have come across was by a resident BBC musicologist, Stephen Johnson, in a Radio 3 "Discovering Music" broadcast in December 2007. Like most of the assessments on "Dicovering Music", the one on Grieg's PC involved quite a thorough examination of the work, in discussion with a pianist and the conductor of the Ulster Orchestra. All of those involved in the discussion were enthusuastic about the work, saying that its popularity is fully justified by its quality, with no hint that it is "flawed". Nor was there any reference to any widespread negative opinion of this work held by others in the manner you suggest exists.

Therefore more information would be appreciated to back up your assertions.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Liszt and especially Rachmaninoff liked the Grieg concerto. I don't think these experts would have liked this concerto if it was a "terribly flawed lesser piece of music". But I could be mistaken. Perhaps we have an even bigger expert among us.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

DeepR said:


> Liszt and especially Rachmaninoff liked the Grieg concerto. I don't think these experts would have liked this concerto if it was a "terribly flawed lesser piece of music". But I could be mistaken. Perhaps we have an even bigger expert among us.


I read somewhere that Liszt definitely liked the work, which must of itself be worth something coming from such a very good composer and a superb pianist.

Also worth remembering is the fact that Grieg was a very good pianist, so he was able to write music which stretched the ability of performers. Grieg was only 25 when the work was first produced but he went on later to refine various parts of it. The piano playing involves extensive use of both ends of the keyboard, so that it blends well with the colours of the orchestra.

I must say that this work has always been among my favourite PCs. Its main inspiration was Schumann's PC, which is why the two works are often combined on one CD. I have just played through the Grieg PC again - Steven Hough with the Bergen Philharmonic is a very good version- and it's a real delight.

I'm astonished to hear stories that it is considered by "experts" to be seriously flawed. But we await further elucidation on this matter.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Gried is not in the "official" line of descendents, taking the sacred musical blood of Bach through Schoenburg into modern times. Therefore, even if it is not flawed, it will considered lesser than something with the correct heritage.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> I read somewhere that Liszt definitely liked the work, which must of itself be worth something coming from such a very good composer and a superb pianist.
> 
> Also worth remembering is the fact that Grieg was a very good pianist, so he was able to write music which stretched the ability of performers. Grieg was only 25 when the work was first produced but he went on later to refine various parts of it. The piano playing involves extensive use of both ends of the keyboard, so that it blends well with the colours of the orchestra.
> 
> ...


Grieg worked with Percy Grainger on this and he was a master pianist and composer.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Ramako said:


> Gried is not in the "official" line of descendents, taking the sacred musical blood of Bach through Schoenburg into modern times. Therefore, even if it is not flawed, it will considered lesser than something with the correct heritage.


Well bless my soul!!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

moody said:


> Grieg worked with Percy Grainger on this and he was a master pianist and composer.


Who was a master composer? Grieg or the composer of English Country Garden?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I assume the vast majority of people who post on TC are enthusiastic listeners of classical music. The term expert is not trivial to define, but for the purposes of this thread I will assume something along the lines of the following.
> 
> A person is an expert in a field if:
> 1) she has spent a significant amount of time both studying the field and interacting with others who study the field, and
> ...


I think I may have finally formed an opinion on the second of these questions, from the OP.

I'd like to see lists from both, and have the ability to compare and contrast them. If Grieg's piano concerto - or, to take a more likely example, Liszt's 2nd Hungarian Rhapsody - were on the "enthusiastic listeners" list but not on the experts list, that is a thing I'd like to know. If something - let's say (from recent discussions) Stockhausen's Helicopter Quartet - were on the experts list but not on the enthusiastic listeners list, that is also a thing I'd like to know.

This relates to a theme of (the poster known as) Sid James': the diversity of canons. (Let's pause to recognize that canons are at best informal, constantly changing, etc.... But they nevertheless exist, at least in an informal or implicit way.) I'd very much like to learn about the academic list of influences, innovations, and so on, which implies a particular canon. But I'd also very much like to learn about the ordinary listeners' enthusiasms, even if the works are not admired academically.

My listening and experience of classical music has been impoverished by the difficulty of finding out about works like Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody #2, Strauss's Radetzky March, and so on. *The implicit and constant assumption is that those works are unworthy of discussion; and people who do not already know about them are unworthy of consideration.*

That is a _sin_.

So let the experts make their lists - I beg them too and at the risk of making an annoyance of myself I once again _BEG_ to be referred to a particular example or two of these expert lists that are supposedly so abundant - but let the fans make their lists as well, and let me see them all!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The British Light Classical genre is severely undervalued with critics and pompous sorts too. There's a concept that music can't be good unless it's serious with a capital S. Personally, I think the classic film composers are mor sophisticated than many modern classical composers.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Very Senior Member said:


> You have ignored all the questions I and one or two others put to you following your previous negative comment about Grieg's PC. But never mind, let's have another try. Could you please elaborate on why exactly you personally consider Grieg's PC to be a "terribly flawed 'lesser' piece of music", and also could you identify which experts you are referring to who have made such negative pronouncements.
> 
> Agreed that Grieg was mainly a piano miniaturist composer, and that he may have struggled with large scale forms, which is why he didn't produce anything major beyond the PC, but it doesn't mean that the PC itself is seriously flawed in the manner you imply.
> 
> ...


"Discovering Music" -- I hope it is rightly presumed the motive of the show and its raison d'être is to educate and promote -- would not bother to find and air negative or less than enthusiastic performances of repertoire in a venue whose very existence and success relies on the premise of promoting 'good music' to the general public. There was no 'dig' to find the last band and soloist on earth who cared for the piece... but it did not find and interview all those who thought / think much less of it, which would have taken a mere scratch of the surface to achieve... because that would be really bad business.

So, Yes! "They liked it." We are, I hope, not just talking about 'likes.' I know a number of circuit concert pianists - who shall remain anonymous due to politics, ever present even within the professional classical music industry, who after years of noted and more than credible performing simply refuse to play it - it palls for many a player who has performed it a number of times. The development of the first movement and much of the rest have been taken to pieces by 'analysts' - for lack of strength of 'form' - like that Tchaikovsky piano concerto Rondo has been taken to pieces for its 'lacks' by certain critics.

None of the negative criticism keeps the Grieg from being a truly popular piece. Whether known to the public or not, many a professional soloist and orchestral player - and conductors - do not look much forward to playing it. That is not because the piece is at all 'problematic' or difficult, but just rather boring. It has little or nothing to say, Ergo, as performing musicians they feel there is little, if anything to gain from it or to bring to it; nothing much to engage with there. [I thought it was pretty spectacular when I was a child  Now, I find 'nothing' there. :-(

Being popular, it is programmed to ensure a happy and complete audiences - i.e. Full House: popular taste IS accommodated by performing institutions and performers (in all genres) because They Too, Are A Business.

I think Grieg's piano concerto is not at all a great piece, a great concerto, or much else. I repeat Grieg's genius is most strongly displayed in his miniatures. There is nothing 'less' about a great miniaturist, unless you tilt weight towards those composers capable of building and sustaining massive and lengthy structures, ala Brahms. That is an aesthetic call which I have never considered as an 'absolute' of greatness, though it seems to be a strong requirement for some in what 'counts' as to who is rated great. The Grieg is tuneful, popular, and fits a certain 'taste spot' of the concertgoing public's appetite, so gets programmed, and recorded, and recorded, etc. Like other well-enough made readily and accessibly tuneful works, it will continue to live on and be performed and recorded - that is entertainment of one sort, that is all.

Remember it was the OP which brought all the debacle about 'expert' and then 'subjective' and 'objective' into play here. I prefer to leave those alone, the compiled lists, etc. exactly because of what so often comes up in the way of truly irresolvable debate.

If you are relying on the experts and are swayed by those opinions -- or for that matter are relying upon or swayed by popular opinion and / or marketing -- you have not learned to make up your own mind in such matters. And evidently those asking and relying upon either source are eager to have their opinion 'validated.'

I suppose that is why the question is there in the first place, but it often seems such Q's are really set up hoping to defend some individual's tastes - most usually taste for the likes of the more accessible fare available - and then they become personally offended to find the 'experts' calling the music they respond to so readily and deeply as 'lesser fare.'

The notion of 'what is popular must be the best' is simply fallacious. I'm sure the same could be said of what is 'popular' amongst the 'experts' as well. No one is apart from their time, nor wholly detached in deciding matters aesthetic, which makes all such decisions, analysis, etc. to some degree or another 'subjective.'

It really can not be otherwise. 'Objective' viewpoints are those with just a lot less subjectivity about them: they remain forever not free of some degree of subjectivity... it is just unavoidable if one is to 'make a call' at all.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

science said:


> I'd like to see lists from both, and have the ability to compare and contrast them. If Grieg's piano concerto - or, to take a more likely example, Liszt's 2nd Hungarian Rhapsody - were on the "enthusiastic listeners" list but not on the experts list, that is a thing I'd like to know. If something - let's say (from recent discussions) Stockhausen's Helicopter Quartet - were on the experts list but not on the enthusiastic listeners list, that is also a thing I'd like to know.


I agree that comparing the two lists would be fascinating. If I were asked to guess what percentage of works would vary between two such lists say numbering 500 works, I really don't know whether it would be closer to 1% or 20% (or more?). Of course there is some bias on the part of enthusiastic listeners, who are likely aware of some expert opinion.

I'd also love to see a description of why the experts felt that works relatively high on the enthusiastic listener list but not their own list were excluded. The real issue is - why would people who listen to a lot of music consider a work wonderful while experts find some fault. I think a detailed answer to that question requires as yet unknown neurophysiology and will not be known for hundreds of years.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

There were a lot of words there about Grieg's piano concerto but the only specific criticisms I saw were that performers don't like to play it and the poster doesn't find anything in it. Not very serious criticism. I was expecting something about the structure or development


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

stomanek said:


> Who was a master composer? Grieg or the composer of English Country Garden?


Just read it more carefully--do!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> None of the negative criticism keeps the Grieg from being a truly popular piece. Whether known to the public or not, many a professional soloist and orchestral player - and conductors - do not look much forward to playing it. That is not because the piece is at all 'problematic' or difficult, but just rather boring.


I find the Grieg beautiful and not boring. Do you still find the Grieg beautiful or has it lost that quality for you? I realize that pure beauty is not the only quality that people use in evaluating great music. I wonder if experts could find a work beautifully constructed and interesting but not as aesthetically beautiful as another work that is not well constructed or even boring. If so, what takes precedence?



PetrB said:


> If you are relying on the experts and are swayed by those opinions -- or for that matter are relying upon or swayed by popular opinion and / or marketing -- you have not learned to make up your own mind in such matters. And evidently those asking and relying upon either source are eager to have their opinion 'validated.'
> 
> I suppose that is why the question is there in the first place, but it often seems such Q's are really set up hoping to defend some individual's tastes - most usually taste for the likes of the more accessible fare available - and then they become personally offended to find the 'experts' calling the music they respond to so readily and deeply as 'lesser fare.'


I do partially rely on experts and others (TC people and lists for example) but not to validate my opinion. I'm only interested in finding wonderful music. I've found that selecting works from music canons or from others whose tastes I know is a _much_ more reliable and efficient way for me to find music I love. I also try many other works from a wide variety of sources but with less success.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

PetrB said:


> "Discovering Music" -- I hope it is rightly presumed the motive of the show and its raison d'être is to educate and promote -- would not bother to find and air negative or less than enthusiastic performances of repertoire in a venue whose very existence and success relies on the premise of promoting 'good music' to the general public. There was no 'dig' to find the last band and soloist on earth who cared for the piece... but it did not find and interview all those who thought / think much less of it, which would have taken a mere scratch of the surface to achieve... because that would be really bad business.
> 
> So, Yes! "They liked it." We are, I hope, not just talking about 'likes.' I know a number of circuit concert pianists - who shall remain anonymous due to politics, ever present even within the professional classical music industry, who after years of noted and more than credible performing simply refuse to play it - it palls for many a player who has performed it a number of times. The development of the first movement and much of the rest have been taken to pieces by 'analysts' - for lack of strength of 'form' - like that Tchaikovsky piano concerto Rondo has been taken to pieces for its 'lacks' by certain critics.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the above clarification of why you consider that Grieg's Piano Concerto is a "terribly flawed 'lesser' piece of music".

Its appear to boil to the three things: (i) you find it boring; (ii) you know various concert pianists, whom you don't wish to name, who also find it boring and refuse to play it; (iii) a suggestion that the work lacks strength of 'form' and has been taken to pieces by analysts.

It is understandable that concert pianists may tire of performing the same old repertory, including Grieg's PC, when there is so much else out there to perform. However, there must be dozens of other popular works which pianists are called upon to perform regularly in concerts which they may secretly tire of, but don't wish to say so in case they lose bookings.

However, boredom with either listening to or performing a popular piece clearly doesn't equate to it being "flawed". I strongly suspect that for each of the concert pianists you say you know who are tired of performing this work there are many others who would jump at the opportunity to perform it. Therefore on that reckoning it doesn't signify anything of importance that there may be some pianists who say they are bored with it, if there are many others who would happily substitute for them if given the opportunity to do so.

Regarding your suggestion that Grieg's PC lacks strength of form and has been taken to pieces by analysts, could you possibly suggest where I might seek a few specific examples of this criticism? I have not come across any suggestions that there are major flaws with the work's construction. Unless you can be more specific about the work's alleged weaknesses, or where I can read about them, there's not much more that can be discussed on this allegation.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Wikipedia says the Grieg PC was Rachmaninoff's favorite concerto and he modelled his own first concerto after it. 
If two great composers (Liszt & Rachmaninoff), who also happened to be two of the very greatest pianists of all time, were enthusiastic about this concerto, then I think I - as enthusiastic listener - can safely assume it is a very fine piece of music by any standards, even though I can't study the music academically myself.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

DeepR said:


> Wikipedia says the Grieg PC was Rachmaninoff's favorite concerto and he modelled his own first concerto after it.
> If two great composers (Liszt & Rachmaninoff), who also happened to be two of the very greatest pianists of all time, were enthusiastic about this concerto, then I think I - as enthusiastic listener - can safely assume it is a very fine piece of music by any standards, even though I can't study the music academically myself.


Good ol' Wikipedia; it's Gospel. Have you listened to Rachmaninoff's 1st PC with the Grieg in 'the back of your mind'? If so, how close is the 'modeling', do you figure? Have you read about Liszt knocking any piano work, by anybody, in public? (There is an instance...).

When I was a child, I enjoyed the Grieg concerto. I have since put aside childish things... well, that one anyway.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> When I was a child, I enjoyed the Grieg concerto. I have since put aside childish things... well, that one anyway.


Too bad for you.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

bigshot said:


> Too bad for you.


I agree; I wish I still enjoyed it.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I recently picked up the Rubinstein box (and tweaked my back doing it!). He recorded the Grieg, Rachmaninov, Tchaikovsky, Gerswin, etc. a few times over the years. Listening to these warhorses, I'm amazed at how good they are at conveying excitement and emotion, and how rich the melodic invention is. Older forms of music may be judged by formalistic structures and architecture, but Romantic and post Romantic music is all about emotion. If you judge Grieg the same way you judge Haydn, it isn't going to fare well. But if you take it on its own Technicolor terms, it's fantastic.

I honestly think that it's better to read about the composer and his works than it is to read opinions of critics on the subject. If you understand the background and intent behind a work, you can judge it for yourself. If you listen to other people's opinions, you can only parrot them.

Grieg wrote great piano miniatures, but he did a lot more than that. Peer Gynt is one of my favorite works. Sigurd Jorsalfar too. These have more variety and color than many "better respected" works. I put Grieg in the same league as Tchaikovsky and Schubert, and that's high praise from me, because those are two of my favorites.

I used to turn my nose up at core repetoire. But then I sat down and really listened to it and changed my mind.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> There were a lot of words there about Grieg's piano concerto but the only specific criticisms I saw were that performers don't like to play it and the poster doesn't find anything in it. Not very serious criticism. I was expecting something about the structure or development


Analyzing the mediocre yields not much of anything worthwhile and it actually tends to lend an air of legitimacy to the mediocre.

Besides, uhhh... school is out. You, me, all of us, are on our own regarding 'taste' and individual preferences. If you need a badge to show your liking / estimation of the worth of the Grieg Piano Concerto is 'o.k.' I really wouldn't know where to send you for That Joy.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

"I used to turn my nose up at core repetoire. But then I sat down and really listened to it and changed my mind." (@bigshot)

Well ain't you the lucky one? I "sat down and really listened to it" a half-century ago; some of it hasn't retained its charm.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Good ol' Wikipedia; it's Gospel. Have you listened to Rachmaninoff's 1st PC with the Grieg in 'the back of your mind'? If so, how close is the 'modeling', do you figure? Have you read about Liszt knocking any piano work, by anybody, in public? (There is an instance...).
> 
> When I was a child, I enjoyed the Grieg concerto. I have since put aside childish things... well, that one anyway.


And, adding to this tack: But of course if you find Rachmaninov a tremendous composer and think Liszt never had serious lapses of taste, well then, they are the boys to bring out in support of an argument for....

@ Hillroll: Don't you love the cloth of objectivity draped all over this 'debate' trying to protect a mere opinion - or that a clearly stated 'as opinion' is responded to with a call for authoritative documented agreements? LOL.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> I honestly think that it's better to read about the composer and his works than it is to read opinions of critics on the subject. *If you understand the background and intent behind a work, you can judge it for yourself.*


I honestly think that has little to do with any piece of music: the score itself and any performance has none of those trappings. We are left with the music and how it is rendered, sans all the historic or biographic 'emo' trappings: if you need the trappings to add to the music, you are 'not getting' the music. That combination is the music + an falsely influential perfume.... waft waft.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> The British Light Classical genre is severely undervalued with critics and pompous sorts too. There's a concept that music can't be good unless it's serious with a capital S. Personally, I think the classic film composers are mor sophisticated than many modern classical composers.


So, all this to gain credibility for YOUR 'Light' taste preference vs. the opinions of 'experts' who only consider 'light' a fun snack? Whoa, wanting a little support are we?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science;344046.... My listening and experience of classical music has been impoverished by the difficulty of finding out about works like Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody #2 said:


> If you can listen to them, you are in no way 'impoverished.' Why do you crave 'authoritative' back-up or commentary about music you like, unless you are oddly 'intimidated' about consuming and enjoying this particular art? You sound actually 'worried' you might care for something 'the experts' find a lesser work. I cannot imagine why that would be any music lover's concern.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

PetrB said:


> If you can listen to them, you are in no way 'impoverished.' Why do you crave 'authoritative' back-up or commentary about music you like, unless you are oddly 'intimidated' about consuming and enjoying this particular art? You sound actually 'worried' you might care for something 'the experts' find a lesser work. I cannot imagine why that would be any music lover's concern.


_@science_'s post doesn't suggest to me that he's looking for expert opinion, but that he expects 'background' to, ah, 'enrich the listening experience'. I have found that, at least in the case of Liszt's Rhapsodies, it does.

Of course where a text has any ambiguities, there will be multiple interpretations. Unfortunately, a text without ambiguities is either very short or painfully explicit.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

PetrB said:


> So, all this to gain credibility for YOUR 'Light' taste preference vs. the opinions of 'experts' who only consider 'light' a fun snack? Whoa, wanting a little support are we?


It depends what you think music ought to be.

If you think it should give a few musicologists a great time analyzing it, then experts are your first port of call.

If you think that music ought to be listened to and liked, then enthusiasts are the ones you want to pay attention to.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

PetrB said:


> And, adding to this tack: But of course if you find Rachmaninov a tremendous composer and think Liszt never had serious lapses of taste, well then, they are the boys to bring out in support of an argument for....


Well, when talking about _experts_... and the quality of the Grieg PC... I'd trust their judgement far more than yours, or any of the anonymous critics you mentioned, that's all.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

DeepR said:


> Well, when talking about _experts_... and the quality of the Grieg PC... I'd trust their judgement far more than yours, or any of the anonymous critics you mentioned, that's all.


Have you considered the alternative - trusting your own judgement as to whether or not you enjoy the music - and the possibility that, at some time in the future, your response to the music will change? The experts won't help with this speculation, y'know.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I wouldn't have posted here if I didn't like the Grieg concerto. Of course I enjoy the music and I trust my own judgement for that. The opinions of others can't change that. This discussion was about expert opinions and I'm no expert.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Too bad for you.


Yes, but no. Less lakes to dive into, but the ones remaining are deep and clear - so it is rather like missing 75 shiny pennies [which as a child held your attention rapt and seemed like 'a lot of'] - while you have a silver dollar in the hand.

It is the proverbial "Less is More."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ramako said:


> It depends what you think music ought to be.
> 
> If you think it should give a few musicologists a great time analyzing it, then experts are your first port of call.
> 
> If you think that music ought to be listened to and liked, then enthusiasts are the ones you want to pay attention to.


Flamingly simple-minded and set up to polarize. Tut, tut.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> _@science_'s post doesn't suggest to me that he's looking for expert opinion, but that he expects 'background' to, ah, 'enrich the listening experience'. I have found that, at least in the case of Liszt's Rhapsodies, it does.
> 
> Of course where a text has any ambiguities, there will be multiple interpretations. Unfortunately, a text without ambiguities is either very short or painfully explicit.


I'm quite lost in the realm of bunches of words 'enriching the musical experience.' Words enhancing a bunch of notes which are 'just a bunch of notes' does not really compute in my native OS.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I honestly think that has little to do with any piece of music: the score itself and any performance has none of those trappings. We are left with the music and how it is rendered, sans all the historic or biographic 'emo' trappings: if you need the trappings to add to the music, you are 'not getting' the music. That combination is the music + an falsely influential perfume.... waft waft.


Another teenager


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

PetrB said:


> I'm quite lost in the realm of bunches of words 'enriching the musical experience.' Words enhancing a bunch of notes which are 'just a bunch of notes' does not really compute in native OS.


_Background_ does not involve "words enhancing a bunch of notes". In the case of the Rhapsodies, background is about where Liszt got the inspiration for the themes, maybe comments he had about the music. Stuff to be digested by the listener, with non-pertinent parts excreted. Sometimes that stuff 'enriches the experience' for me. Maybe it does for _@science_. If it does nothing for you... .


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> If you can listen to them, you are in no way 'impoverished.' Why do you crave 'authoritative' back-up or commentary about music you like, unless you are oddly 'intimidated' about consuming and enjoying this particular art? You sound actually 'worried' you might care for something 'the experts' find a lesser work. I cannot imagine why that would be any music lover's concern.


You misunderstood me. I didn't mean that I want (let alone "crave") expert analysis of that music. I just want to know of its existence.

You still haven't referenced any particular expert lists of recommended music.


----------



## Toddlertoddy (Sep 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I honestly think that has little to do with any piece of music: the score itself and any performance has none of those trappings. We are left with the music and how it is rendered, sans all the historic or biographic 'emo' trappings: if you need the trappings to add to the music, you are 'not getting' the music. That combination is the music + an falsely influential perfume.... waft waft.


But music is art, which gives us a huge sense of what was going on. If Shostakovich never got polio, he may have never written his eighth string quartet the way that he wrote. From an aesthetic view, yes, the music does not need any of its historic "trappings". But if you know the background behind the music, you can hear the music from a different perspective and recognize the reasons the composer felt like putting a specific element in, and finally fully understand the piece to make a good judgment.

If you're only listening to classical music from an aesthetic perspective, you are completely missing out on history and missing the point of the piece possibly. It's like looking at a piece of art and only liking it for the use of colour and detail.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Toddlertoddy said:


> But music is art, which gives us a huge sense of what was going on. If Shostakovich never got polio, he may have never written his eighth string quartet the way that he wrote. From an aesthetic view, yes, the music does not need any of its historic "trappings". But if you know the background behind the music, you can hear the music from a different perspective and recognize the reasons the composer felt like putting a specific element in, and finally fully understand the piece to make a good judgment.
> 
> If you're only listening to classical music from an aesthetic perspective, you are completely missing out on history and missing the point of the piece possibly. It's like looking at a piece of art and only liking it for the use of colour and detail.


I don't care if he had a toothache when he wrote it. It has no bearing on what I hear, the story does not color what I hear, and I am not immune to 'emotion' as evoked by music, nor its visceral (always necessary if it is at all worthwhile) import. 
Music history might mention a bout with disease in a composer's biography, but unless there is a document in the composer's own hand attributing a trait in his music which is there due to the event of the illness, it is a supposition best left not supposed.

Others love stories: it should not be a 'dictate' that one needs the story, nor that one should never know the story.

I do get rather tired of that 'music tells a story' because it comes from the analogy that music is a language, which is an analogy because music is not a language, does not tell stories, yet has a 'syntax' and seems to all of us 'to have meaning.' That meaning has, most often, nothing to do with anything which can be expressed in language.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Good ol' Wikipedia; it's Gospel. Have you listened to Rachmaninoff's 1st PC with the Grieg in 'the back of your mind'? If so, how close is the 'modeling', do you figure? Have you read about Liszt knocking any piano work, by anybody, in public? (There is an instance...).
> 
> When I was a child, I enjoyed the Grieg concerto. I have since put aside childish things... well, that one anyway.





PetrB said:


> And, adding to this tack: But of course if you find Rachmaninov a tremendous composer and think Liszt never had serious lapses of taste, well then, they are the boys to bring out in support of an argument for....
> 
> @ Hillroll: Don't you love the cloth of objectivity draped all over this 'debate' trying to protect a mere opinion - or that a clearly stated 'as opinion' is responded to with a call for authoritative documented agreements? LOL.


The air here is thick with the smug and patronising: I wonder that folk continue to show up for discussion.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

PetrB said:


> music is not a language, does not tell stories, yet has a 'syntax' and seems to all of us 'to have meaning.' That meaning has, most often, nothing to do with anything which can be expressed in language.


Music is a language which expresses itself with its own syntax. Like all art, it is a product of its time, place and culture. If you don't understand its historical and cultural aspects you really don't understand it at all.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Well ain't you the lucky one? I "sat down and really listened to it" a half-century ago; some of it hasn't retained its charm.




How charming have you been lately? Perhaps it isn't the music.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Not that I think Grieg's PC is bad, but I find his String Quartet more impressive.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> The air here is thick with the smug and patronising: I wonder that folk continue to show up for discussion.


Many posters come on here initially smug etc - sweeping generalisations - insulting langauge (inc me) - and then, if they have intelligence - see how idiotic and chldish they look and begin to think before they post.

It's the only way forward.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

science said:


> You misunderstood me. I didn't mean that I want (let alone "crave") expert analysis of that music. I just want to know of its existence.
> 
> You still haven't referenced any particular expert lists of recommended music.


That would be very interesting to see. I hope we get one. LOL.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

bigshot said:


> How charming have you been lately? Perhaps it isn't the music.


Must be the music. I am one charming dude.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> The air here is thick with the smug and patronising: I wonder that folk continue to show up for discussion.


_@petrB_ is probably not smug. If he's 'patronizing' anyone, it would be me, and I don't care. _I, on the other hand_, am highly opinionated, and willing to suggest the way to practice _Useful Analytical Procedures_.

And, as I pointed out elsewhere, I am one charming dude. Maybe I should change my sig.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

There is an essay written by Glenn Gould, which well constitutes an expert opinion, on Grieg's Piano Concerto called 'N'Aimez-Vous Pas Brahms?' To quote:



> "It is by no accident that the very successful concertos - in a public and in some instances an acoustical sense - were written by second-rate composers, Grieg and Liszt, composers lacking in a grasp of symphonic architecture. On the other hand, the monumental composers such as Brahms and Beethoven always come off as "second best" concerto writers, perhaps because their native sensibilities balk at pampering the absurd conventions of the concerto structure; the tirelessly repetitive thematic structure, arranged to let the soloist show that he can really turn that phrase to a more rakish tilt than the first clarinet that just announced it, and above all the outdated aristocracy of cadenza writing - the posturing trills and arpeggios, all titteringly superflous to the fundamental thematic proposition. All these have helped build a concerto tradition which has created some of the most embarrassing examples of the primeval human need of showing off."


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

^^^^^

The above opinion (Glenn Gould's) melts down completely when Mozart is considered. Or even Bach for that matter.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Ramako said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> The above opinion (Glenn Gould's) melts down completely when Mozart is considered. Or even Bach for that matter.


The best Mozart piano concertos were where he broke out of this mold, something that Grieg's PC fails to do, and which makes Mozart's great PCs at least technically far better than Grieg's structural thought. Since there are more than 10 Mozart PC's that are considered "great" by common standards, I would suppose that they would take the place from Grieg's.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> The air here is thick with the smug and patronising: I wonder that folk continue to show up for discussion.


I haven't noticed much of this. It all seems very civil to me, with maybe the odd tongue-in-cheek comment. Of course, some people aren't answering questions put to them but I can't say that I'm surprised since the questions were designed in such a way that there is no answer, and the addressees know it. It's fascinating to watch the bigger "guns" at work to see how they dodge the awkward questions, and try to score a few points in the process. Makes for a pleasant change compared with the teenager nonsense we've seen in other contexts.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> I haven't noticed much of this. It all seems very civil to me, with maybe the odd tongue-in-cheek comment. Of course, some people aren't answering questions put to them but I can't say that I'm surprised since the questions were designed in such a way that there is no answer, and the addressees know it. It's fascinating to watch the bigger "guns" at work to see how they dodge the awkward questions, and try to score a few points in the process. Makes for a pleasant change compared with the teenager nonsense we've seen in other contexts.


You asked for an expert opinion, and a few good reason why some people tend to think that it's not as satisfactory a piece as the numerous great Piano Concertos out there. There's one a few posts above you.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Must be the music. I am one charming dude.


I like both of you.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

SottoVoce said:


> You asked for an expert opinion, and a few good reason why some people tend to think that it's not as satisfactory a piece as the numerous great Piano Concertos out there. There's one a few posts above you.


I had spotted the quotation by Gould but didn't find it all that interesting, more like pretty stupid to be honest.

If Grieg's Piano Concerto is so poor in the opinion of "experts", then I'm puzzled to observe that:

- it's listed in the No 4 spot in "The TC Top 100 Most Recommended Keyboard Concerti",

- it's in the No 7 spot in DDD's "Greatest Keyboard Concertos",

- and according to the ArkivMusik site there are some 143 different recordings of the work currently available, which places it in a high position.

Does this mean that the people who make these recommendations, the people who buy the CDs, and the performers who record the work, have got it all wrong, that in fact it's a crap piece of work?

If this is what you believe are you speaking as an "expert" or as an "experienced listener"? If as an "expert", perhaps you would be able to provide a top 25 list of the "best" keyboard concerti, in a ranked order.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

bigshot said:


> I like both of you.


I can't really say that I like anyone here but I put up with you.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> I had spotted the quotation by Gould but didn't find it all that interesting, more like pretty stupid to be honest.
> 
> If Grieg's Piano Concerto is so poor in the opinion of "experts", then I'm puzzled to observe that:
> 
> ...


I'm not speaking as an expert. Glenn Gould is. I merely quoted him, and frankly I do agree with him; it just doesn't seem to be that strong of a work. Would you say that everyone who voted in TC's and DDD's list are as well-informed as Glenn Gould is in the respective piano literature, something he lived with his whole life? Popular pieces are recorded many times, obviously; and there's no doubt that it's a popular piece. It's also an enjoyable one. Given all the great piano/keyboard concertos, from Bach's to Mozart to Beethoven's to Brahm's, there's just not enough room for Grieg's. I never said it's crap, it's just not top 10 in my opinion, and in many other respected person's opinions.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Re: Gould's comment... I think of Grieg along with Debussy and Ravel than I do Beethoven. Grieg's music to me is less about structure than it is about atmosphere.

It makes total sense that Gould would feel this way though, since he had a particular connection with Bach, the ultimate in structural perfection.

This makes me think of a point that I don't think has been mentioned yet. When Stravinsky comments on Mozart, for instance, he is commenting *as Stravinsky*, with all of the preferences and stylistic elements that being Stravinsky entails. Oscar Wilde said (excuse me if I paraphrase)...

"Average artists like a lot of different things. They call this being "broadminded". But true genius cannot conceive of beauty being fashioned in any other way than his own."

A great musician certainly has insights beyond the average duffer, but those insights say as much about the musician commenting as they do about the music being commented upon.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Re: Gould's comment... I think of Grieg along with Debussy and Ravel than I do Beethoven. Grieg's music to me is less about structure than it is about atmosphere.
> 
> It makes total sense that Gould would feel this way though, since he had a particular connection with Bach, the ultimate in structural perfection.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. I do agree that Glenn has a kind of architecture-minded mentality towards music, but remember that he loved Scriabin's music, which is some of the most radical music based on color and atmosphere. I think Glenn was just a skeptic in the over-dramatization. And I do think that Ravel's piano concerto is much better than Grieg's.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

SottoVoce said:


> And I do think that Ravel's piano concerto is much better than Grieg's.


Two hands or one?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> If Grieg's Piano Concerto is so poor in the opinion of "experts", then I'm puzzled to observe that:
> 
> - it's listed in the No 4 spot in "The TC Top 100 Most Recommended Keyboard Concerti",
> 
> ...


Certainly "the people who make these recommendations, the people who buy the CDs, and the performers who record the work" _do not_ have it wrong. The listeners , such as I, clearly adore the work. They get great pleasure from listening to it. They cannot be wrong in placing it among their favorite works.

The terms "best" and "greatest" are ambiguous because they can refer to separate things. For many listeners the only criteria they have for ranking works is the sensuous (of the senses) pleasure they receive from listening. Some may go further in hearing more about structure, harmony, or other aspects of the music. Experts presumably go the furthest into hearing essentially all these other aspects of the work.

I have no doubt that were I to hear what experts hear (and understand) from "great" works, I would appreciate (like/enjoy/etc.) them more. _I do not know if I would enjoy them more on the sensual plane._ For example, I find rainbows pretty. I also understand why rainbows form and appreciate the physics involved. The physics understanding increases my overall pleasure in seeing rainbows, but it does not increase (or in any way decrease) my sensual pleasure.

One interesting question for me is whether the expert's sensual pleasure is decreased when they find other aspects of a work flawed. For those who said they liked the Grieg when they were younger but no longer listen, do you like it less on the sensual plane or like it less due to other aspects (or both)?


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

SottoVoce said:


> I'm not speaking as an expert. Glenn Gould is. I merely quoted him, and frankly I do agree with him; it just doesn't seem to be that strong of a work. Would you say that everyone who voted in TC's and DDD's list are as well-informed as Glenn Gould is in the respective piano literature, something he lived with his whole life? Popular pieces are recorded many times, obviously; and there's no doubt that it's a popular piece. It's also an enjoyable one. Given all the great piano/keyboard concertos, from Bach's to Mozart to Beethoven's to Brahm's, there's just not enough room for Grieg's. I never said it's crap, it's just not top 10 in my opinion, and in many other respected person's opinions.


If you are not speaking as an "expert" why do you presume to know more about the quality of Grieg's PC than the majority of listeners who, by their revealed actions, deem it to be a great work, and worthy of a top 10 spot?

Is it perchance because you personally, as an "experienced listener", don't care for this work all that much, and feel that the best way to advance this viewpioint is to latch onto the notion that some largely undefined body of "experts" considers it to be a weak work?

The only reason I'm referring to Grieg's PC is because this work is alleged, by a previous poster, to be an inferior quality work in the opinion of "experts". Despite repeated requests, we haven't been notified about the membership of this group of experts. They could be a bunch of second-rate academics, past-their-prime pianists, or even a bunch clapped out buskers for all I or anyone else knows.

But being generous, let's assume that some "experts" exist who at least know one end of a keyboard from the other. As far as I'm concerned, it could be any classical work that was described as being over-rated. Whatever it may be, I have not the slightest sympathy for what they may feel if their opinions differ significantly from those of experienced listeners over any reasonable length ot time.

In any single case all it indicates is that the "experts" are evaluating the work based on a different set of criteria from the ones which actually matter to the listening public. For example, the experts could be discounting certain melodic qualities that appeal to the listener, whilst exaggerating the importance of certain technical features that most listeners in fact aren't bothered about to the same extent. The best judge of the correct weightings to be applied to each facet of the music is the body of listeners, not a bunch of experts, even assumiing that any kind of uniformity of views exists among the latter, which is a very unlikely scenario indeed.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

In my non-expert opinion - I'd have a hard time placing the Grieg PC over _either_ of Ravel's, or the best Concertos of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Schumann, or Bartok. It'd fall somewhere right after those alongside such works as the Rachmaninoff and Mendelssohn PC's, and just ahead of the 3rd tier greats such as the Liszt and Chopin Concertos etc.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

(_@mmsbls)_
"One interesting question for me is whether the expert's sensual pleasure is decreased when they find other aspects of a work flawed. For those who said they liked the Grieg when they were younger but no longer listen, do you like it less on the sensual plane or like it less due to other aspects (or both)?

Applied to your use of 'sensual', I no longer listen because I know where Grieg is going, and all of the juice has been squeezed from those progressions many winters back; only the pulp remains.

There are warhorses, and then there are warhorses. There may be no horsier warhorse than Beethoven's 5th Symphony, but if I ration my hearings sufficiently the _sentiments_ it stirs still work for me.

Aha! Maybe that's the thing. The perceived sentiments in Grieg's concerto no longer ring my chimes.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> Certainly "the people who make these recommendations, the people who buy the CDs, and the performers who record the work" _do not_ have it wrong. The listeners , such as I, clearly adore the work. They get great pleasure from listening to it. They cannot be wrong in placing it among their favorite works.
> 
> The terms "best" and "greatest" are ambiguous because they can refer to separate things. For many listeners the only criteria they have for ranking works is the sensuous (of the senses) pleasure they receive from listening. Some may go further in hearing more about structure, harmony, or other aspects of the music. Experts presumably go the furthest into hearing essentially all these other aspects of the work.
> 
> ...


Please see the last paragraph of my previous post.

I think it all boils down to a different set of priorities about the different facets of the music. Each expert and each listener will probably have their own unique set of weightings among the various facets of music: melody, harmony, consistency with established form, complexity of writing, length, quality of orchestration, etc. For example, one expert may attach great significance to a technical feature of the music that another expert may think rather less important, but which a typical listener may not be aware of at all.

Who's right at the end of the day? In my book it's the combined opinion of intelligent listeners, as manifested through their overall listening preferences, since they are the consumers of the music, and it's their ears and emotional sensitiivies that have to be satisfied. The opinion of "experts", either singly or severally, may be different in some situations about the overall quality of various works. But the opinions of experts are informative only, and should not be considered as transcending the validity of those of consumers.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I am not referring to anyone here in particular, so please no one take offense... But one thing I've noticed about internet forums and newsgroups is that many people offer opinions that are not really their own, but have been cobbled together from reading various reviews, books and commentaries. I remember the first time I visited rec.arts.classical many many years ago, from a cursory view I was intially surprised by the amount of knowledge being shared back and forth. Then I chose a thread about Wagner, which I knew something about at the time, and started sharing my own opinions. I noticed telltale signs that comments were being paraphrased from other sources and was confused by people who made contradictory comments (like Karajan's Ring was a "chamber" Ring with the "lush full" sound of the Berlin Philharmonic.) I started asking for clarification and examples from these posters and realized, not only was this NOT their own observation, they were speaking about recordings they didn't even own.

It's human nature to pick up opinions from others, like a honeybee picks up pollen from the flowers it visits, but for myself, I always try to talk about things that I actually know from first hand experience.

Now, this doesn't directly relate to Grieg's Piano Concerto, because everyone has probably heard it. But I do think that a lot of the criticisms on poor structure may be based on taking the word of someone like Gould to whom structure is everything, rather than by any kind of personal objection. There are many great works which don't have clear architecture and no one complains about those. Grieg and Rachmaninov were singled out during their lifetime for criticism that probably doesn't apply any more. And they aren't overplayed any more like they were in the 40s. So there is no reason to continue to propogate these obsolete opinions.

Edit: Please forgive the overly long sentences in this post. I normally try to post more concisely than this.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> I can't really say that I like anyone here but I put up with you.


I love crusty seniors! I aspire to be one myself.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> The perceived sentiments in Grieg's concerto no longer ring my chimes.


Well, now you've crossed over from flaws in the work itself to just your own personal tastes regarding it. I have ever been able to get anything out of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra myself. I own at least six different well regarded recordings, and they all leave me flat. The piece just doesn't do anything for me. But I wouldn't say it's a flawed work. It's probably me that is flawed, because obviously many people can appreciate it.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

Personally I think all this bickering about Grieg's piano concerto is very petty. In the long run you either like it or you don't and those who don't are not going to change the minds of those who do, and those who do love it are never going to change the minds of those who don't. The argument about what experts say about Grieg's piano concerto is pointless as well because you can find so-called experts on both sides. In the end all that matters is your own personal taste and what appeals to you. I find it nauseating to read anyone's posts that tries to destroy another persons love for a piece of music. Why in the world does it matter to you anyway? Do you suppose yourself as some kind of listener's savior? You obviously know better than anyone else what they should like or not like! This thread was much more interesting before the Grieg debate derailed it.

Kevin


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Isn't it inevitable when discussing experts vs fans for the discussion to turn to people claiming experts' opinions are superior to the tastes of the rabble? It never takes long for eletism to raise its ugly head in discussions of classical music. I think there are some people who are interested in it more to be able to claim intellectual superiority than for any particular love of music. Sad but true.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

bigshot said:


> I love crusty seniors! I aspire to be one myself.


Have a word with the Moderators and ask to be re-christened: VeryBigShot.

Maybe you'll trigger a trend.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> One interesting question for me is whether the expert's sensual pleasure is decreased when they find other aspects of a work flawed. For those who said they liked the Grieg when they were younger but no longer listen, do you like it less on the sensual plane or like it less due to other aspects (or both)?


I find it now less appealing both on the sensual and intellectual plane. Many of the things that seemed colorful and atmospheric to me now seem banal and overindulgent, such as the constant use of arpeggios and lack of any coherency in the work for the sake of dramatism. Sense-wise, since I've learned about Brahms and Beethoven's Piano Concertos, I've picked up on things that I was never able to pick on before, similar to finding a new color on a rainbow, and it has opened how I even view the work sensually since I can in my direct senses hear things that I wasn't able to before.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> In any single case all it indicates is that the "experts" are evaluating the work based on a different set of criteria from the ones which actually matter to the listening public.


Or maybe they just listen better or more clearly than the average listener? Just because it a certain things appeals to the average listener, doesn't mean that it is equally as legitimate as something appeals to the expert. Why is that in every human endeavor, except music, we are able to agree that experts know more of a work and are able to determine it's quality than someone who knows much less than the experts do? It's some kind of silly naive egalitarianism.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

bigshot said:


> I love crusty seniors! I aspire to be one myself.


I think _@VSM_ has posted that he is not a senior; maybe in high school. BTW, most _crusty_ seniors are among the homeless.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I get to picture all of you any way I want! ...and even in your underpants!


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2012)

I bet if you asked, Couchie would post a picture of his big green blobby body in underpants so you wouldn't have to rely on your imagination.


----------



## Toddlertoddy (Sep 17, 2011)

science said:


> You still haven't referenced any particular expert lists of recommended music.


^^^^^
Will PetrB deliver?


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2012)

Under the circumstances (and I hope I'm not repeating someone else's post on the subject) it seems only proper to post the opinions of these two experts and an enthusiast on Grieg's Piano Concerto...


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

bigshot said:


> Well, now you've crossed over from flaws in the work itself to just your own personal tastes regarding it. I have ever been able to get anything out of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra myself. I own at least six different well regarded recordings, and they all leave me flat. The piece just doesn't do anything for me. But I wouldn't say it's a flawed work. It's probably me that is flawed, because obviously many people can appreciate it.


Had exactly the same thing about the *Bartok Concerto for Orchestra*. The opening of _Karajan´s DG version_ somehow made me appreciate the work a lot more, I´d vaguely describe it having an impressionistic effect (also own Stokowski/Houston, Dorati/LSO (good, acquired afterwards), Solti/LSO, Solti/Chicago, Reiner/Chicago, Joo/Budapest).

Alternative recordings can sometimes make one appreciate works otherwise found uinteresting or "emptied".

Concerning the *Grieg Piano Concerto*, there´s a huge difference between the dignifed majesty of _Zimerman/Karajan_ versus the red-hot, very fast _Richter/Kondrashin_.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

SottoVoce said:


> Or maybe they just listen better or more clearly than the average listener? Just because it a certain things appeals to the average listener, doesn't mean that it is equally as legitimate as something appeals to the expert. Why is that in every human endeavor, except music, we are able to agree that experts know more of a work and are able to determine it's quality than someone who knows much less than the experts do? It's some kind of silly naive egalitarianism.


Electricians know more than I, my garage mechanic knows more than I do as well. But music is a thing of the senses and I have not the faintest interest in experts and their opinions. If I like the Grieg concerto I will continue to listen to it regardless,are you a member of the music police perchance ?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> If you are not speaking as an "expert" why do you presume to know more about the quality of Grieg's PC than the majority of listeners who, by their revealed actions, deem it to be a great work, and worthy of a top 10 spot?
> 
> Is it perchance because you personally, as an "experienced listener", don't care for this work all that much, and feel that the best way to advance this viewpioint is to latch onto the notion that some largely undefined body of "experts" considers it to be a weak work?
> 
> ...


The best post on the subject so far..but "Glenn" may have been a friend of his you know.
Mind you, the way that "Glenn" massacred the Emperor concerto,altho' fascinating, makes me take his judgements with a pinch of salt.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

SottoVoce said:


> Or maybe they just listen better or more clearly than the average listener? Just because it a certain things appeals to the average listener, doesn't mean that it is equally as legitimate as something appeals to the expert. Why is that in every human endeavor, except music, we are able to agree that experts know more of a work and are able to determine it's quality than someone who knows much less than the experts do? It's some kind of silly naive egalitarianism.


As far as I'm aware there is no evidence that a significant difference exists between the collective opinions of "experts" as a group and "experienced listeners" as another group on the merits of the better known works within any genre of classical music. I say this because I can't see that it's in the interests of either group to permit any long-lasting divergences to exist.

That's the point I made much earlier, but then someone mentioned Grieg's PC as an example of where, it was alleged, opinions do differ between the two groups. However, the evidence advanced to suggest that Grieg's PC is generally regarded amongst "experts" as a much poorer work than its popularity would suggest is thin and unconvincing. And of course it was only one example that was provided.

Leaving aside Grieg's PC, here's a challenge to anyone who believes that expert opinion differs significantly from that of experienced listeners. Please choose any classical music genre you wish and provide a list of the "best" works that you reckon would be selected by (i) "experts" and (ii) by "experienced listeners". In each case, it's your guess about the collective opinion of each group that's required, not that of any individual "expert" or experienced listener.

In order to make the task easier for you, you are not required to base either list on any existing published document of any description. In each case all you have to do is base the selections on your opinion of what you think that each of the groups would select. I would guess that about 15-25 "best" works should suffice, but for each list it's imperative that you provide an indication of relative rankings.

This should be an interesting experiment because, from the way I have posed the question, only a self-appointed "expert" would be able to answer it properly. I think we have a few who fancy themselves as qualifying, and I'm hopeful that they won't feel shy about coming forward with details of the two lists requested. However, if any "experienced listener" reckons they could have a shot at the two lists, don't feel constrained.

Purely as a matter of convenience, it might be interesting to see proposals in respect of keyboard concerti, but any genre will do.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Very Senior Member said:


> As far as I'm aware there is no evidence that a significant difference exists between the collective opinions of "experts" as a group and "experienced listeners" as another group on the merits of the better known works within any genre of classical music. I say this because I can't see that it's in the interests of either group to permit any long-lasting divergences to exist.
> 
> That's the point I made much earlier, but then someone mentioned Grieg's PC as an example of where, it was alleged, opinions do differ between the two groups. However, the evidence advanced to suggest that Grieg's PC is generally regarded amongst "experts" as a much poorer work than its popularity would suggest is thin and unconvincing. And of course it was only one example that was provided.
> 
> ...


Experts don't generally indulge in the pointlessness of making "best of" lists. They don't waste their time with such pointless oversimplification. That tends to be an indulgence of "experienced" listeners.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

BurningDesire said:


> Experts don't generally indulge in the pointlessness of making "best of" lists. They don't waste their time with such pointless oversimplification. That tends to be an indulgence of "experienced" listeners.


Maybe that's why we've learned nothing useful in this thread about the views of "experts". They have nothing to offer that's of relevance in helping listeners rank their listening priorities. That's fully consistent with what I have been arguing, so thanks for helping me out with your supportive comment, even though I'm not sure how you feel qualified to speak on behalf of "experts".


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I have a pretty extensive library of books on music, and though some of them offer listening suggestions, especially to demonstrate certain styles of composition, none of them other than Goulding's book rate the composers or their works. I suppose that individual professors might do that from time to time in their classes, but I have yet to see a poll of experts on the subject in print. 

So, if you hear one "expert" say that Grieg's PC is second rate, I guess you can create your own poll of one.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Vesteralen said:


> I have a pretty extensive library of books on music, and though some of them offer listening suggestions, especially to demonstrate certain styles of composition, none of them other than Goulding's book rate the composers or their works. I suppose that individual professors might do that from time to time in their classes, but I have yet to see a poll of experts on the subject in print.
> 
> So, if you hear one "expert" say that Grieg's PC is second rate, I guess you can create your own poll of one.


I can agree with this. I haven't seen any recommended list of music or composers made by "experts". I don't think that Goulding regarded himself as an "expert" in any kind of technical sense, more an experienced listener.

BD has duly and correctly noted that "experts" don't produce "best buy" lists. I fully accept that, but I knew it already. That is why I asked if anyone here could contrive a list of recommended works in any genre of their choosing based on their perception of what a panel of "experts" might have chosen or could be persuaded to produce.

I'm not surprised that, so far at least, no-one has been able to do so. As far as I'm concerned, this supports my view that experts are of no use in informing ordinary listeners what's the best in music. It's not their business to do so. The best they can hope to do is comment on various technical aspects of works and leave up to the judgement of listeners how much attention to give it. Other factors may be of equal or greater importance than certain technical features alone.

At the end of the day, the lists produced by "experienced listeners" can't be improved upon, since the views of experts ought to have been taken into account already insofar that those views are of value and relevant.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I am, overall, an enthusiastic listener. With a number of pieces, however, I do most certainly consider myself to be an expert.


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

SottoVoce said:


> Why is that in every human endeavor, except music, we are able to agree that experts know more of a work and are able to determine it's quality than someone who knows much less than the experts do? It's some kind of silly naive egalitarianism.


Or maybe its because your statement is entirely untrue. In practical,knowledge based fields it is indeed fair to say that 'experts' are pretty much essential. Engineers can judge the structural soundness of something far better than non-experts. They can still be wrong though -take Christopher Wren's famous arch at the Greenwich Hospital.

However where anything aesthetic and so fundamentally subjective is concerned it is perfectly normal to think that anyone with the relevant senses is fit to judge -after all, they are actually forms of communication. It seems astoundingly myopic to suppose that it is 'every human endeavor, except music'. Even in something like the Olympic ice dancing, for instance, the 'experts' who judge are surely much better than the average Joe at judging a performance. They understand the requirements and technical difficulties, but they are ultimately making an aesthetic judgement. With experienced viewers who are likely to have a practiced eye and be able to make valid comparisons it is highly questionable that their aesthetic judgements are any less valid than supposed experts.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

hocket said:


> Or maybe its because your statement is entirely untrue. In practical,knowledge based fields it is indeed fair to say that 'experts' are pretty much essential. Engineers can judge the structural soundness of something far better than non-experts. They can still be wrong though -take Christopher Wren's famous arch at the Greenwich Hospital.
> 
> However where anything aesthetic and so fundamentally subjective is concerned it is perfectly normal to think that anyone with the relevant senses is fit to judge -after all, they are actually forms of communication. It seems astoundingly myopic to suppose that it is 'every human endeavor, except music'. Even in something like the Olympic ice dancing, for instance, the 'experts' who judge are surely much better than the average Joe at judging a performance. They understand the requirements and technical difficulties, but they are ultimately making an aesthetic judgement. With experienced viewers who are likely to have a practiced eye and be able to make valid comparisons it is highly questionable that their aesthetic judgements are any less valid than supposed experts.


I agree that you can't hold the same degree of certainty and objectivity that certain disciplines of human knowledge have to music. But I also disagree, as I'm sure most people do, that every idea or opinion is equal to one another. I also think what I'm saying is not that far-fetched; most people would think it's sort-of ridiculous to think that anyone who reads Ulysses once and sorted it off as trash is more deserving of their opinion than someone who spent their whole doctoral dissertation on it. I think the literature world, and most other art communities, has actually been a lot better with these sort of things than music has; I think a lot of people still have this mentality that "music is just music" due to it's nature to move those who know nothing of what's going on in the music, and thus many people see it as impervious to analytical considerations.

I think you're mistaking objective truth, which is certain and absolute, to subjective truth, where one opinion can be better than the others. I'm not saying that the only people that know what they're talking about are academics or highly-learned people in the field, but by having a degree society has given them the trust that they are knowledgable and competent in their field to a certain degree. Similar to the judges you are talking about in the Olympics; although the crowd of course has the right to an opinion, we don't see the olympics succumbing to a gladiator-type spectacle where highly talented athletes could lose to the whim of the mass. What I was trying to say is that some opinions are simply better than others, and we should take these opinions to be in high consideration when evaluating our own opinions, while still retaining some independence from them. I think that's at least a little bit reasonable, no? Hope that explains it much better than I did in the previous post.

P.S A lot of philosophers, most of them in fact, tend to think that aesthetic value can be seen more objective than subjective. Here is the source, with other many other interesting results for those interested in philosophy: PhilPapers Results


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

hocket said:


> where anything aesthetic and so fundamentally subjective is concerned it is perfectly normal to think that anyone with the relevant senses is fit to judge


Everyone has an equal right to judge, but that doesn't mean that all opinions are created equal. Some opinions are based on experience and careful analysis, and some are based on ignorance and purely subjective tastes. Roger Ebert or Pauline Kael are more fit to comment on movies than my mom, and Robert Hughes had more to say about Goya than my mailman.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Experts in music must (by definition) know more about music than non-experts, and must therefore be consciously aware of some elements of the music that most non-experts would not be consciously aware of. That could include anything - subtleties of the musical structure, nuances of performance, historical influences or innovations, whatever.

Awareness of such things must affect one's subjective response to the music. Such consciousness might enhance one's experience of some music, revealing delightful nuances in it; it might detract from the experience of other music, for instance by making one aware of cliches. However, the subjective response may not be predictable: awareness of some element of a work of music might make it more appealing to me and less appealing to you. One person's awe at a composer's extraordinary creativity is another person's dismay with the composer's incomprehensibility, and so on. One might even recognize that something is in some way brilliant, but still not like it. So we wouldn't expect experts to reach unanimous consent about the music. 

Anyone's subjective response to the music, no matter how much or little objective consciousness is involved, is valid. If you like it, for whatever reasons, you like it, and if you don't, you don't, and that's your privilege while you live, and only a tyrant would try to take it from you - and often they do try! Just to be clear, I'm talking primarily about political censorship rather than social snobbery or bullying. But even so, the point does have at least a tenuous relation to my constant advocacy that anyone's opinions would be welcome here at talkclassical. Of course I don't mean that we ought to have the right to post anything we want, but only that we ought to mutually respect each other's subjective reactions to the music, no matter how disparate or diverse, however ignorant or knowledgeable we happen to be relative to each other. 

At least for me, as a non-expert, I'd like people with real expertise to use it charitably to help me appreciate music better. Of course you're under to obligation to me! But simple human decency means that you won't content yourself with informing us that the music we like is actually horrible, implying that we are fools for liking it, and expecting us to respond simply by recognizing your great expertise! You don't have to say such things, but if you're going to, at least you ought to go into some detail explaining the reasons for your opinions. Perhaps you'll change our minds; at least you'll probably make us aware of things to listen for in the music that we might not have thought of before. 

All these points could be applied to any art - music, literature, flower arranging, cooking, motorcycle engine design, fashion, really, whatever. In fact, if the subject were literature I would find myself more often among the relative experts. (Of course expertise is relative - if I found myself in a room with Jacques Barzun, Stephen Greenblatt, and Harold Bloom, I will listen attentively and probably without comment! Also, I will post about it in the community forum immediately afterward.)

Sorry for the long post. I was just thinking all of this in response to the discussion in general, and not so much to any one person's post. As far as I know, what I've posted here is fairly straightforward, perhaps even obvious. Sorry if it's too banal. Perhaps it helps, though.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

SottoVoce said:


> I agree that you can't hold the same degree of certainty and objectivity that certain disciplines of human knowledge have to music. But I also disagree, as I'm sure most people do, that every idea or opinion is equal to one another. I also think what I'm saying is not that far-fetched; most people would think it's sort-of ridiculous to think that anyone who reads Ulysses once and sorted it off as trash is more deserving of their opinion than someone who spent their whole doctoral dissertation on it. I think the literature world, and most other art communities, has actually been a lot better with these sort of things than music has; I think a lot of people still have this mentality that "music is just music" due to it's nature to move those who know nothing of what's going on in the music, and thus many people see it as impervious to analytical considerations.
> 
> I think you're mistaking objective truth, which is certain and absolute, to subjective truth, where one opinion can be better than the others. I'm not saying that the only people that know what they're talking about are academics or highly-learned people in the field, but by having a degree society has given them the trust that they are knowledgable and competent in their field to a certain degree. Similar to the judges you are talking about in the Olympics; although the crowd of course has the right to an opinion, we don't see the olympics succumbing to a gladiator-type spectacle where highly talented athletes could lose to the whim of the mass. What I was trying to say is that some opinions are simply better than others, and we should take these opinions to be in high consideration when evaluating our own opinions, while still retaining some independence from them. I think that's at least a little bit reasonable, no? Hope that explains it much better than I did in the previous post.
> 
> P.S A lot of philosophers, most of them in fact, tend to think that aesthetic value can be seen more objective than subjective. Here is the source, with other many other interesting results for those interested in philosophy: PhilPapers Results


This ignores the issue that surfaced earlier in this thread that "experts" don't provide lists of "greatest" classical music or composers, so therefore it's utterly pointless suggesting that they are better placed to advise on such matters than experienced listeners. Put simply, experts can't deliver.

Musical experts can offer opinions on various facets of the music, and no doubt some of these opinions may be better worked out than the opinions of some mere listeneners. Experts stop well short of tranlating their assessments of particular facets of music into lists of recommended works. The production of lists of recommended music is not the business they're involved in, and nor can this activity be considered to be the end-product of their deliberations on technical attributes of the music.

It's the listener who constructs such lists of preferences, either implicitly or explicitlly, by taking into a whole range of issues, including posibly the opinions of experts insofar that are intelliible and deemed to be relevant. When groups of experienced listeners get together and pool their preferences to form an overall set of preferences this can be a useful way of producing an augmented list and ironing out any individuall idiiosyncracies.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

science said:


> But even so, the point does have at least a tenuous relation to my constant advocacy that anyone's opinions would be welcome here at talkclassical. Of course I don't mean that we ought to have the right to post anything we want, but only that we ought to mutually respect each other's subjective reactions to the music, no matter how disparate or diverse, however ignorant or knowledgeable we happen to be relative to each other.


Amen to that.

In addition, I think it's a good thing to remember that not every post made represents the best of the particular poster. It's a forum for conversation, and sometimes we may sit and ponder before we send something out to the public, other times we may just dash something off. It's probably a mistake to form any hard and fast opinions as to each others' tastes based on a single, or even a handful of posts.

I wish I could honestly say, "If you respect other people, they'll respect you". Unfortunately, that's not always true. But, you still probably have a better *chance* for respect that way.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

science said:


> Experts in music must (by definition) know more about music than non-experts, and must therefore be consciously aware of some elements of the music that most non-experts would not be consciously aware of. That could include anything - subtleties of the musical structure, nuances of performance, historical influences or innovations, whatever.
> 
> etc


Good post but can I reiterate that experts don't produce lists of recommended music. That's the whole point.

Like you, I've been asking for an "expert's" list of music, but in my case it was entirely tongue-in-cheek as I knew only too well that no-one can deliver on that request. If anyone had tried, I and possibly Uncle Tom Cobley and all would have jumped up and down all over it.

It was BD who finally made the point, in response to my last attempt to get someone to offer an "expert" list, that it's not the job of experts to produce lists of recommended works. This task falls to the listener or listeners. You might glance at my previous two posts where the same point has been made.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

Here is an article from the New York times relevant to this discussion. I think this is an interesting quote:



> Imagine if we could do the same in classical music, if there were ways to rank pianists, sopranos and, especially, composers. The Top 10 composers of all time. Now that's the list I have secretly wanted to compile. It would be absurd, of course, but fascinating.
> 
> Hold on here. I don't do ranking. *As I see it, the critic's job description does not include compiling lists of greats in order of greatness*. What I do is champion, demystify and describe the composers, works and artists I admire, and, as appropriate, puncture inflated reputations.


The whole article can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/arts/music/09composers.html?pagewanted=all

Kevin


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the list in the back of Alex Ross' _The Rest is Noise_ http://www.arkivmusic.com/listpage/1090&page_size=100-E602 perhaps he isn't considered expert enough or 20thC doesn't count. Of course it is more an introduction to become familiar with the 20thC rater than "the best!".

Harold Bloom, mentioned earlier, compiled a list of great literature in the back of his book _The Western Canon_. He tried to write a book of literary criticism for the mass market and the editor suggested the list to give it more popular appeal. It worked, so now a serious work of literary study is reduced to a ticking off list that Bloom just created on the fly. Lists are great but they are not expertise.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Very Senior Member said:


> Good post but can I reiterate that experts don't produce lists of recommended music. That's the whole point.
> 
> Like you, I've been asking for an "expert's" list of music, but in my case it was entirely tongue-in-cheek as I knew only too well that no-one can deliver on that request. If anyone had tried, I and possibly Uncle Tom Cobley and all would have jumped up and down all over it.
> 
> It was BD who finally made the point, in response to my last attempt to get someone to offer an "expert" list, that it's not the job of experts to produce lists of recommended works. This task falls to the listener or listeners. You might glance at my previous two posts where the same point has been made.


Obviously I didn't address that so I'm not sure why you quoted me, but I'll chime in. "The canon" is the list. We can see a rough approximation on the Western Kentucky site, or the David Dubal book, the Phil Goulding book, and others like it. Of course we can't take it too literally, as there are multiple canons, they are always changing, and so on. But implicitly it is always there.

The ranking #1, #2, #3 is asking a bit much, but I ask it unhesitatingly, and will go on doing so! Scholars won't benefit from that and absolutely would not enhance their reputation by trying to do it, but nevertheless it would be useful to beginners. There is an implicit one in _Classical Music 101_: the only thing I remember is that Beethoven's seventh symphony was the first recommended work, and I suspect I can guess a little of what the author was thinking when he picked it (Beethoven's fame, various emotions, but not full of melodies that beginners will recognize from TV commercials).


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I agree with @science's post above.

I might agree that experts don't create lists like the ones here on TC, but I still think some create lists. I mentioned Dubal's book on the musical canon. His book does not explicitly rank composers but does use a type of ranking. For each era he has major composers along with notable ones. For each major composer he lists works as part of the canon and separates them into 3 classes. I don't remember what words he used but essentially - "great", especially notable, and notable. The works in the last two categories are simply listed and have no wording associated with them. 

Music history courses select a small subset of works to discuss, and some works are discussed at greater length than others. These courses then use a list of sorts. 

I mentioned that I would like to see an expert list alongside an enthusiastic listener list to see what the differences might be. I guess I'd also love to see an expert's list of "greatest" works along with that expert's list of most enjoyed works. How much different would they be (if at all)? 

The bottom line for me is that I have been interested in various lists compiled by experts or by significant number of enthusiastic listeners because if either an expert or a group of enthusiastic listeners thinks a particular work is great or good, I want to make sure I give that work enough attention to see if I will appreciate/enjoy it.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

In analytical books that I buy, most of the analysis is concentrated on a few consistent composers, whom I will not name due to offense. Sure, they don't make lists (explicitly, I'm sure even experts, like humans, have their likes and dislikes), It's obvious that "experts" find some composers worth analyzing more than others.


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

bigshot said:


> Everyone has an equal right to judge, but that doesn't mean that all opinions are created equal. Some opinions are based on experience and careful analysis, and some are based on ignorance and purely subjective tastes.


A distinction that I actually made in the post you quoted.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I think the most frutiful way of discovering the repertoire overall is by your own journey, exploring from what you first enjoy listening to, and expanding from there. If Mozart tickles your fancy, start there. If Brahms does not tickle your fancy, start from another composer. In fact, a newbie who follows a list of some sort could end up initially not enjoying a significant number of pieces from a particular list. Most newbies whom I have met in real life tend to have some affinity with a particular repertiore, and not enjoy everything they listen to for the first time, being new to the vastness of classical music.

I for one, have never followed any list. Although I am happy to contribute to constructing a list, mainly for the fun of it.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

science said:


> ... But simple human decency means that you won't content yourself with informing us that the music we like is actually horrible, implying that we are fools for liking it, and expecting us to respond simply by recognizing your great expertise! You don't have to say such things, but if you're going to, at least you ought to go into some detail explaining the reasons for your opinions....


Don't worry, member science. Everyone here at TalkClassical never do such things. We are always helpful and courteous to each other. I'm sure you agree, with me.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I think the most frutiful way of discovering the repertoire overall is by your own journey, exploring from what you first enjoy listening to, and expanding from there. If Mozart tickles your fancy, start there. If Brahms does not tickle your fancy, start from another composer. In fact, a newbie who follows a list of some sort could end up initially not enjoying a significant number of pieces from a particular list. Most newbies whom I have met in real life tend to have some affinity with a particular repertiore, and not enjoy everything they listen to for the first time, being new to the vastness of classical music.

I for one, have never followed any list. Although I am happy to contribute to constructing a list, mainly for the fun of it.

Quite right. I read up on composers and collected various lists and other recommendations... but I never really followed any linear order in exploring music. I'll even admit that sometimes accessibility... or even cost was the deciding factor. I might pick up this or that disc simply because it looked intriguing and was on sale. I can't count the great discoveries I made as a result. If I hit a composer whose work didn't resonate with me, I'd move on to something else. Of course I would return to such works again after a period of time. Sometimes I'd find that suddenly I could appreciate a body of music that initially left me cold. Such was true of the French Baroque that initially left me cold... and now I'm listening to Jean-Marie Leclair as I write this. In other instances (Schoenberg! Xenakis!) my opinion was unchanged.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Don't worry, member science. Everyone here at TalkClassical never do such things. We are always helpful and courteous to each other. I'm sure you agree, with me.

But of course.:lol:


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

I am probably an aberration, but as a newbie (maybe still a newbie?) I couldn't get enough of anything I could lay my hands on. Anything goes, from Stockhausen to Bach. I have preferences of who I like the best, but nothing solid beyond the first three. I do have obsessive tendencies, however, and enjoy an experience of total immersion in whatever I happen to be obsessed with at the time. That involves extensive list making, reading and a systematic approach to uploading all kinds of related information to my brain. But I am extremely happy operating in this way and it is in no way unhealthy, even if it does distract me from more important tasks. Life without an all consuming passion is boring.  Unfortunately, the only people I have ever discovered with similar tendencies are wierdos from the internet.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

That's the best way to proceed as a newbie... Absorb as much as you can. Don't decide anything. Once your listening reaches a critical mass, the pieces will fall into place, and you'll want to go back and listen again.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Don't worry, member science. Everyone here at TalkClassical never do such things. We are always helpful and courteous to each other. I'm sure you agree, with me.


You most of all, right?


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2012)

I guess that makes me an expert...I've never made a list, nor would I try!


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> ....
> 
> I mentioned that I would like to see an expert list alongside an enthusiastic listener list to see what the differences might be. I guess I'd also love to see an expert's list of "greatest" works along with that expert's list of most enjoyed works. How much different would they be (if at all)?
> 
> The bottom line for me is that I have been interested in various lists compiled by experts or by significant number of enthusiastic listeners because if either an expert or a group of enthusiastic listeners thinks a particular work is great or good, I want to make sure I give that work enough attention to see if I will appreciate/enjoy it.


I agree with you that lists can are very useful. But I think that the rest of what you say is wishful thinking. What you would like and what you will get are two different things.

All the lists I've ever seen are based on listener's viewpoints, tempered in the case of the DDD list by an appeal to wider issues like influence, number of alternative recordings, general standing in reviews etc. But the sources and weightings for these various factors were never fully disclosed, so the results are largely arbitrary and uncheckable.

Goulding was not an "expert" but a journalist. The "Kentucky" list is about the the most influential composers, not greatest works, and is based on a hodge-podge of factors that are very difficult to work out. I knew about the Kentcky list way back in 2006/7 when the DDD list of "greatest composrrs" was being constructed. I looked at it then, and didn't think much of it.

I reckon that the only "expert" opinion that is likely to be found will be too narrowly focused on a single issue or work that it will be of no use for the kind of thing you and "science"are referring to. The reason for this lack of information is that no self-respecting "expert" of any notoriety is likely to put his head over the parapet and declare some list that he favours to represent the "greatest" works. It would risk being shot down in flames, and with it the "expert's" reputation.

It's even more unlikely that any body of experts would ever get round to reaching sufficient unanimity of opinion to produce a list of the greatest works, as they would find great difficulty in forming any kind of consensus on the correct weightings of the various technical factors.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2012)

Interestingly, there is once every ten years, the production of a 'Greatest List' for movies, based of course on the opinions of 'experts' (Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Francis Ford Coppola, Woody Allen and Mike Leigh were among the participants in the poll.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19078948

So, _Vertigo _is the greatest film ever made.

Despite all the to-ing and fro-ing on this one, I'm not sure that anyone has realistically defined an 'expert'.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

In November 2010 BBC Music Magazine asked 100 leading conductors to name the maestros they admire above all others. When the votes were added up, the following top 20 emerged:

BBC Music Magazine's 20 greatest conductors of all time are:

1. Carlos Kleiber (1930-2004) Austrian
2. Leonard Bernstein (1918-1990) American
3. Claudio Abbado (b1933) Italian
4. Herbert von Karajan (1908-1989) Austrian
5. Nikolaus Harnoncourt (b1929) Austrian
6. Sir Simon Rattle (b 1955) British
7. Wilhelm Furtwängler (1896-1954)
8. Arturo Toscanini (1867-1957) Italian
9. Pierre Boulez (b1925) French
10. Carlo Maria Giulini (1914-2005) Italian
11. Sir John Eliot Gardiner (b1943) British
12. Sir John Barbirolli (1899-1970) British
13. Terenc Fricsay (1914-1963) Hungarian
14. George Szell (1897-1970) Hungarian
15. Bernard Haitink (b1929) Dutch
16. Pierre Monteux (1875-1964) French
17. Yevgeny Mravinsky (1903-1988) Russian
18. Sir Colin Davis (b1927) British
19. Sir Thomas Beecham (1879-1961) British
20. Sir Charles Mackerras (1925-2010) Australian

........

Hands up all those who agree that this list is so impressive in coming up with the right names in roughly the correct order that it will replace their own list of greatest conductors, assuming they have any such list.

Don't all rush.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

In December 2008 "Gramophone" magazine published a list of the worlds' top 20 orchestras according to a "panel of leading music critics". The relevant field was modern romantic orchestras rather than period bands. The criteria were: quality of concert performances, volume and variety of recording output, contributions to local and national communities, and the ability to maintain iconic status in an increasingly competitive contemporary climate. 

They came up with (first is best):

1	.	Royal Concertgebouw
2	.	Berlin Philharmonic
3	.	Vienna Philharmonic
4	.	London Symphony Orchestra
5	.	Chicago Symphony Orchestra
6	.	Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra
7	.	Cleveland Orchestra
8	.	Los Angeles Philharmonic
9	.	Budapest Festival Orchestra
10	.	Dresden Staatskapelle
11	.	Boston Symphony Orchestra
12	.	New York Philharmonic
13	.	San Francisco Symphony Orchestra
14	.	Mariinsky Theatre Orchestra
15	.	Russian National Orchestra
16	.	St Petersburg Philharmonic
17	.	Leipzig Gewandhaus
18	.	Metropolitan Opera Orchestra
19	.	Saito Kinen Orchestra
20	.	Czech Philharmonic

........

Any general comments? 

Is the list close to the ranks of orchestras of any "experienced listeners" here? 

If not, might you reconsider your priorities in the light of this list?


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2012)

Very Senior Member said:


> BBC Music Magazine's 20 greatest conductors of all time are:
> 
> 1. Carlos Kleiber (1930-2004) Austrian
> 2. Leonard Bernstein (1918-1990) American
> ...


I doubt whether this list should be taken to represent anything that might be called 'definitive'. However, for the amateur enthusiast (rather than the expert enthusiast) the article offered some useful ideas as starting points for those seeking to widen their knowledge. Happy to show my ignorance, I can say that I'd not even heard of Kleiber, never mind been able to express any opinion on him. However, not only have I heard of almost all the others, I have also acquired sufficient experience to be able to understand that they might be in the list, though not necessarily why they are there (what exact criteria) nor based on my own extensive experience of listening to their work. Partly as a result of this list, I've bought Kleiber's Beethoven 5 and 7 and Von Karajan's and Mackerras' Beethoven 9 in preference to other versions available (though price and recording quality also come into the equation).


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DeepR said:


> Liszt and especially Rachmaninoff liked the Grieg concerto. I don't think these experts would have liked this concerto if it was a "terribly flawed lesser piece of music". But I could be mistaken. Perhaps we have an even bigger expert among us.


Which is why they went so out of their way to perform it whenever the chance came up....


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Very Senior Member said:


> On the whole, I still maintain that experts' opinions on greatness in music should carry no more weight than that of experienced listeners.


Of course, What does anyone need experts for - in any field?

By your reasoning, it could be said the Venus de Milo, Catherine Deneuve and Mattel's Barbie are all equally beautiful representations of women. Barbie is wildly popular, you know, Ergo, she is a paragon of beauty - so are commercial dolls of blue-haired pink ponies.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> The air here is thick with the smug and patronising: I wonder that folk continue to show up for discussion.


I agree, mine just in response to all the others from various 'sides' of the camps. Perhaps the question ought to be banned, and then neither so-called 'experts' or amateurs would get to air their thoughts....


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

@DeepR
Gireg Piano Concerto is one of the best in second half of 19th century. The other two are also very talented and have very good piano Concertos.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Two hands or one?


Lol, either, or both. It is all really, a matter of 'taste,' and the Grieg, like it or not (I don't, others don't) is resolutely popular. I think the Ravel concerto in D (Left Hand) is a towering masterpiece, the Concerto in G another masterpiece, but lesser: the 'lesser' piece (hardly an appropriate word considering the G major's quality) gets the most airings - _It Is More Popular._


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Everyone has an equal right to judge, but that doesn't mean that all opinions are created equal. Some opinions are based on experience and careful analysis, and some are based on ignorance and purely subjective tastes. Roger Ebert or Pauline Kael are more fit to comment on movies than my mom, and Robert Hughes had more to say about Goya than my mailman.


I thought she was dead , not your mom. Pauline Kael and she was a so-and-so !


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Oh


Very Senior Member said:


> In November 2010 BBC Music Magazine asked 100 leading conductors to name the maestros they admire above all others. When the votes were added up, the following top 20 emerged:
> 
> BBC Music Magazine's 20 greatest conductors of all time are:
> 
> ...


Oh no!! We thrashed this nonsense list out less than a year ago!!
Simon Wattle at 6, Abbado at 3, Szell at14, Beecham at 19 ?? Humbug all humbug !!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> I doubt whether this list should be taken to represent anything that might be called 'definitive'. However, for the amateur enthusiast (rather than the expert enthusiast) the article offered some useful ideas as starting points for those seeking to widen their knowledge. Happy to show my ignorance, I can say that I'd not even heard of Kleiber, never mind been able to express any opinion on him. However, not only have I heard of almost all the others, I have also acquired sufficient experience to be able to understand that they might be in the list, though not necessarily why they are there (what exact criteria) nor based on my own extensive experience of listening to their work. Partly as a result of this list, I've bought Kleiber's Beethoven 5 and 7 and Von Karajan's and Mackerras' Beethoven 9 in preference to other versions available (though price and recording quality also come into the equation).


Kleiber hardly gave concerts and among his recordings we have a poor "Freischutz"
He was the "in" conductor with the chattering classes...........Now his father, that's a different matter!
For your info. "Carlos Kleiber voted greatest conductor. March, 2011.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Last night I watched the movie High Fidelity for the first time. As a longtime "rekkid collector" I knew what they were depicting, but this is a type of collector that I've never really interacted with. Constant banter about top ten lists and ranking performers gets pretty tiresome to me. With my friends, I usually talk about the performers and the music. I guess there are those sorts of hifi nuts, but I'm not one of them.


----------

