# Greatest vs. Most Beautiful



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Are these two things the same?

We have seen many discussions about the greatest this and greatest that. Recently, we have also seen the topic - "most beautiful piece of music".

So, I am interested in your opinion about these things.

Is every beautiful piece of music great?
Does great music have to be beautiful?
How much does beauty of music contributes to its greatness, and vice versa, how much does greatness contribute to beauty?
If a piece of music is truly beautiful, can we say that it is not great?

What is the main difference between beauty and greatness when it comes to music?

And finally, what do you think are most beautiful and greatest pieces of music and why?

How often do these categories overlap?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

In most cases "greatness" is just a shorthand. 

You know, all those people who have nothing more interesting to ask and wonder about than "what is the greatest X" obviously couldn't have enough imagination to use any other, less worn word. 

I think I even used this word recently myself. SHAME ON ME. 

As for your questions - I think the answer for all of them is rather obvious. Since the creation of beauty is first, major purpose of art it is needless to say that it is also basic measure of it's greatness.


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

The concept of beauty is relative, so it can't be answered. For instance one listener could find Xenakis' Metastatis to be beautiful for the elegant way in which the piece fragments into individual strands, while another might here it as ugly sound.

Greatness on the other hand is not as relative, since a piece of music is considered to be great by critical consensus.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

No to all.

I like lots of music I wouldn't describe as beautiful. The word 'beautiful' to me is just a descriptive word, like any other word that can be used to describe music 'poignant', 'fun', 'busy', 'chaotic' etc.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

I don't think that great music necessarily has to be beautiful--for example, not many people would say that Bartok's string quartets, or for that matter, Beethoven's late string quartets are particularly beautiful.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Beauty is only one aspect of art. Ugliness is also valid.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Beauty does not necessarily imply greatness either. Many film scores have beautiful music mostly built around tried and true cliches, which while undeniably beautiful, are hardly contenders for great works of art.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

Beethoven's Grosse Fuge and Stravinsky's Rite of Spring are famous counterexamples. Beauty is just one of many criteria for greatness.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

"Beautiful" is often connoted with slow, sweeping stuff. Not noisy, fast-paced stuff. But that doesn't mean that the wild, energetic stuff isn't. Usually, that stuff is rather labeled "Great," above "Beautiful."

I certainly believe there are a lot of "Great" but ugly works in existence today.

And plenty of beautiful but obscure works as well.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Maybe the best is what is both great and beautiful. 

Any examples?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Is "beautiful" synonymous with "pleasant"? If so, then the answer to your questions is definitely no. If something that isn't pleasant to listen too (i.e. something depressing or harsh) can still be considered beautiful, then the answer is potentially yes.

In other words, does beauty depend on those slow, sweeping melodies, or is beauty beyond the aesthetics of a piece of music?


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> Is "beautiful" synonymous with "pleasant"? If so, then the answer to your questions is definitely no. If something that isn't pleasant to listen too (i.e. something depressing or harsh) can still be considered beautiful, then the answer is potentially yes.


IMO, beautiful does not have to be pleasant or slow.

For example, in rock music, I find "Enter Sandman", "Welcome to the jungle", "Smells like teen spirit", "Child in time", "Master of puppers", "Back in black" etc. to be very beautiful, but they are not so pleasant.

Beautiful is not the same thing as chill out music.

When it comes to classical, I find even "Grosse Fuge" beautiful in its own way.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

However, harsh and depressing music is sometimes just harsh and depressing and is not beautiful at all, unlike the songs I mentioned.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Also, beautiful is not always great, but THE MOST BEAUTIFUL is great, because it takes a lot of greatness to achieve the victory in beauty competition.


----------



## Monte Verdi (Apr 1, 2011)

I think we can drop the semantics and have a little fun.
My vote is for Bach's Art of The Fugue!


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Ugliness is also valid.


Using music to create new beauty is great, sacred deed. Using it to bring to this world more uglyness than there is already is not.

That is why worst of all beautiful works will always be greater than greatest of ugly works.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

In my view beauty is a perception of things and what appeals to the listener in a variety of ways.

I don't find many kitsch movie soundtracks beautiful, though they use slow, sweeping melodies and somber, melancholy tones. On the other hand, I find the "ugliness" of Beethoven's Grosse Fugue or the moments of silence in a late Schubert sonata very, very beautiful. 

It's also possible to find an idea beautiful, for example the ending of Le Nozze di Figaro. Of course, the singing and orchestral music are also really, really good (and contain slow and sweeping gestures) so I guess Le Nozze may just be one of the most "beautiful" works out there, in every sense.


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

Aramis said:


> Using music to create new beauty is great, sacred deed. Using it to bring to this world more uglyness than there is already is not.
> 
> That is why worst of all beautiful works will always be greater than greatest of ugly works.


A true romantican, the ressurected one. 
Well I remember one member (Trespicos) said in the exploring contemporary\modern music thread that he likes Bartok's 4th SQ (and a link to the last movement), and said he likes the rough ugliness (if I recall correctly).
I myself really like that piece but am not sure if I'd call it beautiful.
What if I find it as pleasuring as a Chopin nocturne? Can I compare two pieces like these?


----------



## 1648 (Mar 4, 2011)

Aramis said:


> Using music to create new beauty is great, sacred deed. Using it to bring to this world more uglyness than there is already is not.
> 
> That is why worst of all beautiful works will always be greater than greatest of ugly works.


 Forgive me, but I find this kind of grandiose, self-centered pessimism, this profoundly disturbed relationship with nature rather sickening. Tell me, what is beauty (to you)?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Air said:


> In my view beauty is a perception of things and what appeals to the listener in a variety of ways.
> 
> I don't find many kitsch movie soundtracks beautiful, though they use slow, sweeping melodies and somber, melancholy tones. On the other hand, I find the "ugliness" of Beethoven's Grosse Fugue or the moments of silence in a late Schubert sonata very, very beautiful.
> 
> It's also possible to find an idea beautiful, for example the ending of Le Nozze di Figaro. Of course, the singing and orchestral music are also really, really good (and contain slow and sweeping gestures) so I guess Le Nozze may just be one of the most "beautiful" works out there, in every sense.


I want to ask a question that is related to Air's (and other's) comments here. I have struggled with this thought for awhile, and I'm not sure how to ask my question in a precise way. Hopefully most of you will know what I am trying to ask.

Perception of beauty in music certainly varies from person to person. In this thread people have talked about music that is not beautiful in the same sense that Bach's second movement of his double violin concerto is. I believe Copland calls that the "sensuous plane" - a sense of wondrous joy. People here (and elsewhere) have stated that this "non sensuously beautiful" music can still be "beautiful" in another sense.

One possible other sense might be called intellectual (Copland talks of a sheerly musical plane although I'm not sure this is the same thing). I'm a physicist and find quantum mechanics almost unimaginably beautiful. I doubt many (if any) here find math and physics beautiful. It is not beautiful in the same way as the Bach double concerto, but it is fascinating, awe inspiring, powerful, etc. There is certainly an intellectual aspect of music (maybe Copland's "sheerly musical plane") that might be similar to this intellectual joy of physics.

My question relates to the kinds of music many would not call beautiful, but others clearly love. I find music of Xenakis, Stockhausen, much of Schoenberg, and other "avant-garde" composers difficult to enjoy, but others enjoy them very much. For those who enjoy both these composers and romantic composers, would you say you find their music beautiful in the same way? Or would you say you find both music beautiful but in different ways? For example, is Xenakis' music beautiful in a more intellectual way than Schubert? Or in some other way that I have not defined?

I hope I've explained myself well enough so people can respond.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

One is an academic construct and the other is something you feel. I'll take the latter.

Nothing wrong with a bit of ugliness either, though.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Tell me, what is beauty (to you)?


I think it's as unexplainable as, for example, love - deifnition would be difficult or impossible to create and yet all humans known (to some extent) what it is, because it's natural.

Because of it's subjectivity there is much music that can be argued about but what I (as well as quote I replied to) was referring to were those composers that openly rejected beauty. Was it Carl Nielsen who asked about his piece "was it meant to be beautiful?" replied "no, it was meant to be original"?


----------



## 1648 (Mar 4, 2011)

Aramis said:


> I think it's as unexplainable as, for example, love - deifnition would be difficult or impossible to create and yet all humans known (to some extent) what it is, because it's natural.
> 
> Because of it's subjectivity there is much music that can be argued about but what I (as well as quote I replied to) was referring to were those composers that openly rejected beauty. Was it Carl Nielsen who asked about his piece "was it meant to be beautiful?" replied "no, it was meant to be original"?


 So what if a composer rejects the prevailing notion of "beauty" (which, in most contexts is replaceable with: pleasant, healthy, profitable)? How does that rule out the possibility of his music being beautiful to himself and others?


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I feel these two can truly go hand in hand, especially in the world of classical...a simply example is the Adagio for Mozart's Gran Partita for winds or perhaps the simple beauty of Debussy's Claire de Lune...what truly makes something great is for each to decide within


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Did we get to this point in the thread without a mention of Tchaikovsky?

Although (engaging in an intentional ambiguity), you could make the case that Tchaikovsky's music isn't as 'beautiful' as many conductors believe it to be, nor is it as 'un-great' as many listeners believe it to be.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Did we get to this point in the thread without a mention of Tchaikovsky?
> 
> Although (engaging in an intentional ambiguity), you could make the case that Tchaikovsky's music isn't as 'beautiful' as many conductors believe it to be, nor is it as 'un-great' as many listeners believe it to be.


I like Tchaikovsky. Most of his music is very beautiful to my ear.


----------



## hemidemisemiquaver (Apr 22, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> I'm a physicist and find quantum mechanics almost unimaginably beautiful. I doubt many (if any) here find math and physics beautiful.


No, why? I think it's nothing extraordinary. What about Richard Feynman? Except that he was fond of physics - the fondness which transmits to anyone reading his books, - he also played bongos and painted nude chicks (undoubtedly finding them beatiful). It all depends on a person - average ratepayer doesn't care about beauty of even nature, not talking about more subtle matters, such as classical music and science.



mmsbls said:


> My question relates to the kinds of music many would not call beautiful, but others clearly love. I find music of Xenakis, Stockhausen, much of Schoenberg, and other "avant-garde" composers difficult to enjoy, but others enjoy them very much. For those who enjoy both these composers and romantic composers, would you say you find their music beautiful in the same way? Or would you say you find both music beautiful but in different ways? For example, is Xenakis' music beautiful in a more intellectual way than Schubert? Or in some other way that I have not defined?


Well, concerning Schoenberg, my story is following: I first learned about him from a music theory book written by a brainwashed Soviet woodenhead with all that propagandist achinea about how defiant folks like Schoenberg are destructive and teach nothing good. And you know what? There was Schoenberg's score, and I was captured by it - bringing works of abstract expressionists to my mind, it was lively and unpredictable in the best possible way: notes were literally dancing as opposed to static zigzags of sixteenth notes I was used to. And yes, avant-garde and classical are beatiful in different ways - that's the whole point. Yet you touched upon the subject of intellectuality: it's the plague of post-war music. Mind multiplied by feelings may create a masterpiece, but as contemporary composers care more about cramming their pieces with Pythagorean scales than about expressing themselves, their pieces don't find a way to the listener. I think, that's the real reason, and not offbeat harmonies or anything else.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I imagine "Great" stands for something like, "Influential + Radically Creative + Pleasing to the Well-Informed Listener." Perhaps we can in some cases replace "Radically Creative" with "Conforms Perfectly to Certain Ideals."

That's my charitable answer, and I think it's valid sometimes. The rest of the time, "great" amounts to a pretentious insult to people who don't share one's taste.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Maurice Ravel wrote the greatest music of all time.... Catherine Deneuve is the greatest women of all time....



There, in a nutshell, is the answer to your somewhat green semantic question.


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

There is art in creating beauty. Though there are formulas to create pretty things, only art can create true beauty.

Something ugly and be great art too. Only a true artist can make something not beautiful great enough to make us come back to it.


----------

