# Favorite of the Big Three (poll)



## Captainnumber36

As it is generally accepted, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, are the big three. Of the three, who do you love most?

If you can't pick, just add to the discussion, but don't vote, please.


----------



## BachIsBest

This post is now irrelevant. Sorry.

To add an actual comment: I doubt anyone can guess whom I voted for.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I voted Mozart. He is probably the most concise composer, with the most refined melodies.


----------



## Bulldog

It's Bach for me with Mozart a distant second.


----------



## Fabulin

Beethoven, and then Mozart. Bach I can (and do) do without.


----------



## Captainnumber36

For me Beethoven can be grand, but verbose.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Bach is too repetitive, yet very spiritual.


----------



## DBLee

Normally, I would vote for Beethoven without hesitation. But at this precise moment, I'm leaning Mozart. I am finding that more and more of his works, including works I had dismissed in the past, connect with me. If there is such a thing as perfection in music, it's Mozart.


----------



## Captainnumber36

DBLee said:


> Normally, I would vote for Beethoven without hesitation. But at this precise moment, I'm leaning Mozart. I am finding that more and more of his works, including works I had dismissed in the past, connect with me. If there is such a thing as perfection in music, it's Mozart.


So well put. As my ear matures in classical listening, the more and more it buys into all the Mozart hype.


----------



## larold

I think the three are interchangeable but that Mozart has the greatest range from child-like innocence to overpowering force -- Eine Kleine Nachmusik to the scene in Don Giovanni where the Don is cast into Hell by the statue come to life.

I also think Mozart regularly demonstrates greater range of light and shade than the other two composers.

But to say Mozart is "better" than J.S. Bach or Beethoven wouldn't represent my views. Both of the other composers did magnificent things Mozart did not.

When I ranked composers Mozart scored 145, Beethoven 116 and J.S. Bach 98. No other composer scored higher than 67 and Nos. 4-8 all scored in a range from 62-67.


----------



## DavidA

Which ever one I am listening to at the time!


----------



## Captainnumber36

DavidA said:


> Which ever one I am listening to at the time!


:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Captainnumber36

I'm listening to Uchida's Mozart Sonatas, so quaint. I adore it.


----------



## flamencosketches

I have to give it to Beethoven, mostly for his piano sonatas and string quartets.


----------



## Art Rock

Bach, clearly. My #1 composer. Mozart comes in around the #10 spot. Beethoven around #30.


----------



## Common Listener

On the negative side, there is a lot of Bach and Beethoven I don't really like. I like almost everything of Mozart to some degree or another. On the positive side, Beethoven does wonderful things but I feel like Bach, and maybe Mozart more so, hit even higher heights (for me). And Mozart, despite his genius and his sublimity, is more "a guy," in a way. Accessible in a good way, whereas Bach and Beethoven can be somewhat remote. (I'm not expressing that bit well, especially as there are Bach and Beethoven pieces that aren't at all remote, but I'm just saying Mozart's music is generally more compatible with me.) But I basically agree with DavidA - I wouldn't want to do without any of them.


----------



## DaveM

Captainnumber36 said:


> For me Beethoven can be grand, but verbose.


That's an unusual statement. Please give examples of Beethoven's verbosity.


----------



## Captainnumber36

DaveM said:


> That's an unusual statement. Please give examples of Beethoven's verbosity.


You really think so? Just look at the 9th symphony, it's about an hour long. Had he more discipline, I think his works would have benefited greatly.

His Moonlight Sonata (1st mvt) is a great example of concise writing from him.


----------



## TMHeimer

Voted Beethoven. Has the best clarinet parts. Mozart pretty good, nothing with Bach since the clarinet was invented circa 1690.


----------



## larold

_Voted Beethoven. Has the best clarinet parts. Mozart pretty good, nothing with Bach since the clarinet was invented circa 1690._

Better than Mozart's Clarinet Concerto with its memorable slow movement?


----------



## larold

Seems to me Bach always comes in third in these polls; he did in mine too. If you don't love Baroque choral and/or vocal music it's hard to see Bach holistically, in my opinion. He wrote all those cantatas the same way Mozart wrote divertimenti and serenades: for work, to make a living. This is something that separates them from Beethoven.

I know being a writer when you are required to write something regularly -- like Bach was required to do with cantatas for church and other occasions -- it is almost always going to be more perspiration than inspiration and the artistic challenge is to ensure the quality is high throughout the endeavor.

I don't know everything about Beethoven's life but I know his mature life was supported financially by backers and that he never had to rely on a church appointment or an appointment by royalty to make a living. It shows in his music and I believe it endears him advantage in this type of question.


----------



## Woodduck

Captainnumber36 said:


> Just look at the 9th symphony, it's about an hour long. Had he more discipline, I think his works would have benefited greatly.


Is there another composer named Beethoven?


----------



## Captainnumber36

Woodduck said:


> Is there another composer named Beethoven?


What do you mean?


----------



## mmsbls

Captainnumber36 said:


> You really think so? Just look at the 9th symphony, it's about an hour long. Had he more discipline, I think his works would have benefited greatly. ...


One of the reasons I view Beethoven's 9th as possibly my favorite work (if I can actually pick a favorite) is that I find every minute of the full hour's length to be engaging. I could "drop the needle" and sit awash in its full glory. When the symphony ends, I wish it hadn't.

Anyway, I have always viewed Mozart as my favorite composer, but both Bach and Beethoven are not far behind. All three wrote a stunning number of simply glorious, supreme works. I love the variety of classical music available to us now, but I do think I could be very happy listening to nothing but Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.


----------



## adriesba

DavidA said:


> Which ever one I am listening to at the time!


That's often the best answer to give when it comes to music! :lol:


----------



## DaveM

Captainnumber36 said:


> You really think so? Just look at the 9th symphony, it's about an hour long. Had he more discipline, I think his works would have benefited greatly.
> 
> His Moonlight Sonata (1st mvt) is a great example of concise writing from him.


I'm not presumptuous enough to think I am at a level of musical know-how to judge Beethoven as being an under-disciplined composer. Do you know how many works of Beethoven are an hour or more compared to the number of all the compositions he composed? He wrote 9 symphonies. Do you know how many of them are an hour or more?

There are 4 movements in the 9th symphony. Which ones are unnecessarily long? Should the final movement be trimmed a little bit? Where?

You mentioned the Moonlight Sonata as being ideal. It is about 15-18 minutes. Did Beethoven screw up in the longer sonatas such as the Hammerklavier or #32? Do their Adagio movements, which are longer than most of his other sonatas -in fact, longer than the entire #14 sonata- need to be trimmed also?


----------



## annaw

Beethoven for me! Feels the most engaging and emotional  .


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> One of the reasons I view Beethoven's 9th as possibly my favorite work (if I can actually pick a favorite) is that I find every minute of the full hour's length to be engaging. I could "drop the needle" and sit awash in its full glory. When the symphony ends, I wish it hadn't.


So true. It's as far from "verbose" (to me at least) as could be imagined.

That term might better apply to music that fits the old critic's dictum: "The end arrived some minutes after it would have been welcome." :lol:


----------



## Judith

Love all three but voted Beethoven because he composed such a variety of works


----------



## annaw

DaveM said:


> There are 4 movements in the 9th symphony. Which ones are unnecessarily long? Should the final movement be trimmed a little bit? Where?


Perish the thought, anything but the last movement!


----------



## SixFootScowl

Beethoven for sure for me. I rarely listen to either Mozart or Bach. Have a copy of Bach's big mass that I should someday listen to. But I always gravitate towards Beethoven's Missa Solemnis instead.


----------



## Itullian

Impossible to choose for me.

Beethoven for his mind boggling string quartets and piano sonatas.
Mozart for his heavenly piano concertos and chamber works and operas.
Bach for everything.

I also must include Haydn in my pantheon for his 104 symphonies, piano trios, string quartets and masses.
How can we do without them.


----------



## adriesba

Beethoven is definitely my favorite of the three. I don't listen to Bach or Mozart much since I just don't find there music to be emotionally expansive enough for my taste, but I do think Mozart and Bach were master composers. I enjoy Beethoven's music because he put more emphasis on emotion than previous composers typically would.

Beethoven's choral works are interesting, and I like _Fidelio _also. His symphonies are all masterpieces!


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> So true. It's as far from "verbose" (to me at least) as could be imagined.
> 
> That term might better apply to music that fits the old critic's dictum: "The end arrived some minutes after it would have been welcome." :lol:


Bolero perhaps?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Bach

.....


All the rest

All 3 make my top 10, but Beethoven would just barely be in my top 5 and Mozart just barely in the 10.


----------



## Captainnumber36

DaveM said:


> I'm not presumptuous enough to think I am at a level of musical know-how to judge Beethoven as being an under-disciplined composer. Do you know how many works of Beethoven are an hour or more compared to the number of all the compositions he composed? He wrote 9 symphonies. Do you know how many of them are an hour or more?
> 
> There are 4 movements in the 9th symphony. Which ones are unnecessarily long? Should the final movement be trimmed a little bit? Where?
> 
> You mentioned the Moonlight Sonata as being ideal. It is about 15-18 minutes. Did Beethoven screw up in the longer sonatas such as the Hammerklavier or #32? Do their Adagio movements, which are longer than most of his other sonatas -in fact, longer than the entire #14 sonata- need to be trimmed also?


I am not attempting to write a paper on the topic. All I know is, when I listen to Beethoven, it often feels over the top in terms of my perception of it's length. It may be 10 minutes long, but a very long ten minutes. His music is more rigid compared to Mozart's, whose music is very fluid, fanciful and delicate.


----------



## chu42

I voted Bach, but I can't disagree with the reasoning of anybody who argues otherwise. The truth is, all three were geniuses of the highest order.


----------



## DaveM

Captainnumber36 said:


> I am not attempting to write a paper on the topic. All I know is, when I listen to Beethoven, it often feels over the top in terms of my perception of it's length. It may be 10 minutes long, but a very long ten minutes. His music is more rigid compared to Mozart's whose music is very fluid, fanciful and delicate.


You don't have to write a paper. You just have to be able to defend broad judgements that come as a surprise to a lot of people. You base your claim that LvB is verbose partly on the fact that he wrote a symphony that is an hour long when it is the only one of his 9 symphonies that is. If a long symphony is a sign of musical verbosity then you need to have a word with Mahler and Bruckner.


----------



## BachIsBest

DaveM said:


> You don't have to write a paper. You just have to be able to defend broad judgements that come as a surprise to a lot of people. You base your claim that LvB is verbose partly on the fact that he wrote a symphony that is an hour long when it is the only one of his 9 symphonies that is. If a long symphony is a sign of musical verbosity then you need to have a word with Mahler and Bruckner.


I understand where he is coming from. I may be crucified for saying this, but if I was conducting Beethoven's ninth I would be very tempted to cut some of the repeats, especially in the second movement, and possibly in the first. Possibly this is one of many, many reasons I am not a conductor.

Regardless, I really think no composer has come close to surpassing Die Kunst die Fuga or even Bach's Mass in b minor for that matter. Beethoven's work is perhaps more popular than that of Mozart and Bach because he so frequently wears his heart on his sleeve, but I find Bach and Mozart to, possibly partly because of their restraint, have more emotional and spiritual impact in the end especially upon repeatedly listening to their works.


----------



## Captainnumber36

DaveM said:


> You don't have to write a paper. You just have to be able to defend broad judgements that come as a surprise to a lot of people. You base your claim that LvB is verbose partly on the fact that he wrote a symphony that is an hour long when it is the only one of his 9 symphonies that is. If a long symphony is a sign of musical verbosity then you need to have a word with Mahler and Bruckner.


1. I know I don't have to write a paper, and realize you don't either. But let's start of light-hearted.
2. I did defend my position, but you did not indicate if you comprehended that or not.
3. Again, in my second retort to you, post #36 (how ironic, look at my username), I made it clear (clarified) that what I meant was the difference between perceived length vs. actual length (hours, minutes and seconds). A work can be four hours in length as long as it remains compelling to the ears of it's listeners. 
4. You obviously failed to understand point three above if you believe actual length is the issue at hand. You could have also conveniently left it out, I suppose.


----------



## Room2201974

Since I reject the concept of the big three, my only logical response is:

Wagner!


----------



## Woodduck

BachIsBest said:


> I understand where he is coming from. I may be crucified for saying this, but if I was conducting Beethoven's ninth I would be very tempted to cut some of the repeats, especially in the second movement, and possibly in the first. Possibly this is one of many, many reasons I am not a conductor.
> 
> Regardless, I really think no composer has come close to surpassing Die Kunst die Fuga or even Bach's Mass in b minor for that matter. Beethoven's work is perhaps more popular than that of Mozart and Bach because he so frequently wears his heart on his sleeve, but I find Bach and Mozart to, possibly partly because of their restraint, have more emotional and spiritual impact in the end especially upon repeatedly listening to their works.


Repeats were conventions of the period, and modern performances often omit them. Sometimes they do seem unnecessary, but then modern people are impatient. In Beethoven's 9th I would tolerate cuts only in the scherzo, but don't really feel they're needed. In my view, none of the exposition repeats in Beethoven's first movements are expendable.


----------



## Orfeo

None, sorry.
But I'll take Herr Bruckner.


----------



## adriesba

Woodduck said:


> Repeats were conventions of the period, and modern performances often omit them. Sometimes they do seem unnecessary, but then modern people are impatient. In Beethoven's 9th I would tolerate cuts only in the scherzo, but don't really feel they're needed. In my view, none of the exposition repeats in Beethoven's first movements are expendable.


I would rather hear all of the repeats. Now I have to analyze my symphonies perhaps as I was not much aware of this.


----------



## adriesba

Room2201974 said:


> Since I reject the concept of the big three, my only logical response is:
> 
> Wagner!


LOL! :lol: I understand.


----------



## Captainnumber36

adriesba said:


> LOL! :lol: I understand.


I'm fine with that response! It's honest, and adds a very important reminder that taste is subjective.


----------



## Woodduck

Room2201974 said:


> Since I reject the concept of the big three, my only logical response is:
> 
> Wagner!


Watch out! There's someone on this forum lying in wait for anyone who would mention Wagner in such a context. Of course there was Mahler's careless remark: "There are only Beethoven and Richard - and after them, no one."


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Woodduck said:


> Repeats were conventions of the period, and modern performances often omit them. Sometimes they do seem unnecessary, but then modern people are impatient. In Beethoven's 9th I would tolerate cuts only in the scherzo, but don't really feel they're needed. In my view, none of the exposition repeats in Beethoven's first movements are expendable.


I agree, except in the 6th, which I think is already too repetitive and doesn't need more. The 9th actually lacks a first movement expo repeat, which was virtually unheard of at the time. I thought most conductors omit the repeat of the scherzo reprise, which I think is a sensible move. I used to think the Adagio was too long and meandering until I heard Furtwangler, who charges every note with sublime meaning. And if there's any problem with the finale, it's not the length but the wild patching-together of various ideas, which I happen to like but I understand if some people think it's incoherent.


----------



## adriesba

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm fine with that response! It's honest, and adds a very important reminder that taste is subjective.


Yeah, my "Big Three" would be Beethoven, Wagner, and . . . . . . . . . . I don't know. There are lots to choose from!


----------



## Woodduck

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I agree, except in the 6th, which I think is already too repetitive and doesn't need more. The 9th actually lacks a first movement expo repeat, which was virtually unheard of at the time. I thought most conductors omit the repeat of the scherzo reprise, which I think is a sensible move. I used to think the Adagio was too long and meandering until I heard Furtwangler, who charges every note with sublime meaning. And if there's any problem with the finale, it's not the length but the wild patching-together of various ideas, which I happen to like but I understand if some people think it's incoherent.


Of course the finale is basically just a theme and variations, and it shows the same incredible imagination as the Diabelli Variations in making the most of a simple melody, and as with that work the same unifying vision despite the fantastic diversity. Some people do seem unable to feel it, however.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

I voted for Bach, but all 3 are in my top 5. A month ago I probably would've said Beethoven.


----------



## KenOC




----------



## tdc

I like Bach and Mozart not far behind. Actually the cartoon in Ken's post illustrates something about Beethoven, it always seems as though he is in a musical sense throwing tantrums, shouting, and over stating things. Its like art for people who need to be beaten over the head with the message. 

I also agree with the verbose comment earlier in the thread. Beethoven's musical phrases seem very "wordy", like someone who rants and rants, and just when you think they are getting to the point they explode about another topic. It grates me. 

When Beethoven is being solemn and slow it is a grandiose and over the top way. Everything is always too much with him. Mahler and Bruckner may be longer time wise, but they aren't so 'chatty' like that. I agree with Chopin's comments on him, I think Beethoven turned his back on eternal principles, this is why I see him as actually a little bit outside of what I love about classical music. Beethoven is his own thing, and for me it is not related to what I enjoy about music. If his music never existed it wouldn't bother me.


----------



## AeolianStrains

larold said:


> Seems to me Bach always comes in third in these polls; he did in mine too.


He's second right now. Beethoven has more than double the number of Mozart votes. Choosing among the top 5, 10, 15 has always been a bit difficult. Instead of hierarchies, we should just have a large pantheon.


----------



## Littlephrase

This talk of Beethoven’s verbosity is confusing. If anything, Beethoven is among the most economic composers in the way he managed his thematic material. The rigorous structure of his music, especially the symphonies, represent the consummation of Classicism, not the destruction of it.


----------



## chu42

tdc said:


> If his music never existed it wouldn't bother me.


If Beethoven's music never existed we wouldn't have Schumann and Brahms, and that bothers me.

Among other things.


----------



## adriesba

Littlephrase1913 said:


> This talk of Beethoven's verbosity is confusing. If anything, Beethoven is among the most economic composers in the way he managed his thematic material. The rigorous structure of his music, especially the symphonies, represent the consummation of Classicism, not the destruction of it.


He did break the rules though (e.g., five-movement symphony, choral symphony). Didn't he often go against sonata form and break away from the accepted tempo differences between movements? Not that such things are bad. (I'm no music expert though.)


----------



## adriesba

AeolianStrains said:


> He's second right now. Beethoven has more than double the number of Mozart votes. Choosing among the top 5, 10, 15 has always been a bit difficult. Instead of hierarchies, we should just have a large pantheon.


I like that idea.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> I like Bach and Mozart not far behind. Actually the cartoon in Ken's post illustrates something about Beethoven, it always seems as though he is in a musical sense throwing tantrums, shouting, and over stating things. Its like art for people who need to be beaten over the head with the message.
> 
> I also agree with the verbose comment earlier in the thread. Beethoven's musical phrases seem very "wordy", like someone who rants and rants, and just when you think they are getting to the point they explode about another topic. It grates me.
> 
> When Beethoven is being solemn and slow it is a grandiose and over the top way. Everything is always too much with him. Mahler and Bruckner may be longer time wise, but they aren't so 'chatty' like that. I agree with Chopin's comments on him, I think Beethoven turned his back on eternal principles, this is why I see him as actually a little bit outside of what I love about classical music. Beethoven is his own thing, and for me it is not related to what I enjoy about music. If his music never existed it wouldn't bother me.


I realize that you're sharing a personal impression of Beethoven, and you've said similar things before, but I nevertheless would have spit out my coffee (if I'd been drinking coffee) at this: "When Beethoven is being solemn and slow it is a grandiose and over the top way. Everything is always too much with him. Mahler and Bruckner may be longer time wise, but they aren't so 'chatty' like that." I doubt that I even need to say what I'm thinking, but I will: "solemn and slow in a grandiose and over the top way" and "too much" strike me as far more applicable to the music of Mahler and Bruckner than to that of, not only Beethoven, but just about any other composer I can think of. Reger, maybe?

I guess whether you feel something is over the top depends on where your top is located. Beethoven certainly has his grand and even violent side. But few composers are as many-sided. It's hard for me to imagine, for example, his chamber music striking anyone as "always" (or ever) "throwing tantrums, shouting, and over stating things," or beating anyone over the head with any message. Among the first Beethoven works I got to know, along with the symphonies, were his string quartets and the "Archduke" Trio, and the impression they gave me of his essential spirit did not remotely resemble your description.

Really, don't you think Beethoven's range of style and expression is far too varied to be summed up in such terms? To me those terms sound like a caricature of the Beethoven of Hollywood and the popular imagination - based perhaps on a handful of middle period works like the 5th Symphony, "Egmont," or the "Appassionata" Sonata - and on tales of the scowling, deaf colossus lying on his deathbed shaking his fist at the sky. But when I listen to the "Pastoral" Symphony, or the Violin or Cello Sonatas, or the Violin Concerto, that cartoon Beethoven isn't even in my imagination's radar.

What "eternal principles" do you and Chopin think Beethoven turned his back on?


----------



## SONNET CLV

*Who is your favorite of the big 3 composers?*

The one often identified by a _three_-part name, of course.


----------



## Lilijana

Mozart is one of my favourite composers


----------



## DaveM

When I see anyone say that Beethoven is verbose, first of all I note that the use of the word does not apply to music in the first place and second I assume that the person hasn't listened to much Beethoven. I could put out a whole lot of examples to prove the point. Just a few:


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> ...Really, don't you think Beethoven's range of style and expression is far too varied to be summed up in such terms? To me those terms sound like a caricature of the Beethoven of Hollywood and the popular imagination - based perhaps on a handful of middle period works like the 5th Symphony, "Egmont," or the "Appassionata" Sonata - and on tales of the scowling, deaf colossus lying on his deathbed shaking his fist at the sky. But when I listen to the "Pastoral" Symphony, or the Violin or Cello Sonatas, or the Violin Concerto, that cartoon Beethoven isn't even in my imagination's radar...


Indeed. Beethoven wrote fewer than ten works in his "heroic manner," yet to many they represent his whole composing life. Listen to the other 90+ percent of his musical output and you'll get an idea of his variety and the breadth of his musical personality.

Still, critics like John Ruskin have said, "Beethoven always sounds like the upsetting of bags - with here and there a dropped hammer." :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Indeed. Beethoven wrote fewer than ten works in his "heroic manner," yet to many they represent his whole composing life. Listen to the other 90+ percent of his musical output and you'll get an idea of his variety and the breadth of his musical personality.
> 
> Still, critics like John Ruskin have said, "Beethoven always sounds like the upsetting of bags - with here and there a dropped hammer." :lol:


Hmmm. I'm going to have to upset a bag to see whether the effect is more heroic or pastoral. Maybe it depends on what's in the bag, or who the bag is.


----------



## Rogerx

Who is your favorite of the big 3 composers?
Bach
Mozart
Beethoven

They are family for me, refuse to vote.


----------



## Rogerx

Captainnumber36 said:


> I voted Mozart. He is probably the most concise composer, with the most refined melodies.


Please explain this Capatain. 

https://www.talkclassical.com/58464-mozart-my-enemy.html?highlight=


----------



## Prodromides

None of the above.

My favorite is Charles Koechlin.


----------



## janxharris

Captainnumber36 said:


> As it is generally accepted, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, are the big three. Of the three, who do you love most?
> 
> If you can't pick, just add to the discussion, but don't vote, please.


How do you define 'big'?


----------



## flamencosketches

SONNET CLV said:


> *Who is your favorite of the big 3 composers?*
> 
> The one often identified by a _three_-part name, of course.


Johann Sebastian Bach?

Oh, no, you must mean Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

... or Ludwig van Beethoven... if that counts


----------



## AeolianStrains

janxharris said:


> How do you define 'big'?


Consider it axiomatic to the thread. Out of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, whom do you love more?

Note, all, this isn't who is best, but *Bo Diddley Impression* Who do love?


----------



## Guest002

Art Rock said:


> Bach, clearly. My #1 composer. Mozart comes in around the #10 spot. Beethoven around #30.


We think alike, it seems! 
For me, Bach is #2 (Britten is #1, but only just), Mozart is #10 (a curious coincidence!) and Beethoven is languishing at #19, behind the likes of Stravinsky and Elgar.


----------



## janxharris

AeolianStrains said:


> Consider it axiomatic to the thread. Out of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, whom do you love more?
> 
> Note, all, this isn't who is best, but *Bo Diddley Impression* Who do love?


I prefer to have the word defined.


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> Indeed. Beethoven wrote fewer than ten works in his "heroic manner," yet to many they represent his whole composing life. Listen to the other 90+ percent of his musical output and you'll get an idea of his variety and the breadth of his musical personality.


I wholly agree with the main point about variety and breadth, but I'm curious about what works you think fall in the heroic category. The third and fifth symphonies, obviously, but what else? Are you including the tragic ones (e.g. Appassionata and Tempest sonatas)? Is the Waldstein heroic? Opus 95? The Fifth Concerto? I'm not disagreeing or nit picking. You always have good information on and insights into Beethoven and I'm not sure how I would define the category.


----------



## DaveM

^^^Another heroic-category work:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Beethoven is rarely 'powerful' with melody; and this might be the main cause his methods at times feel 'contrived'. However he has a keen sense to expand or lengthen space and time (or whatever you want to call it) as a way of express 'sublimity'. I consider it a valuable trait not found in his predecessors. The one that shows up in several moments of the late string quartets, and was highly valued by Wagner:






It's not exactly the same idea, but I also like Bach's sense of "manipulating time". The fermata at Measure 80 (5:10) in the 20th fugue in WTC Book 1 in for example:






Measure 163 (8:00) of Mozart's Rondo K511 is when I feel time suddenly "stops". Like his many other ideas, This seems to have been derived from his operatic thinking. And by the way, Measure 100 (5:10) is a 'variant' of his 'proto-Tristanesque technique':


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> Beethoven is rarely 'powerful' with melody...










----------


----------



## AeolianStrains

janxharris said:


> I prefer to have the word defined.


You could always, I dunno, start a new thread instead of hijacking another. The question OP posed is simple enough without disingenuous inquiries.


----------



## Strange Magic

Bulldog said:


> It's Bach for me with Mozart a distant second.


It's Bach for me also, with Mozart a close second. Perhaps a trivial reason; perhaps not--Bach most often evokes strong emotions (of joy and of an almost pleasurable pain) in me. Mozart to almost the same extent (usually joy), and neither of the two come close to the danger of having been listened to too much.


----------



## janxharris

AeolianStrains said:


> You could always, I dunno, start a new thread instead of hijacking another. The question OP posed is simple enough without disingenuous inquiries.


The question was to the OP.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I'm always in the mood for Bach, and his music is never any less affecting depending on when and how often I hear it. My enjoyment of Mozart and Beethoven is often conditional - I find Mozart works best for me at night, and Beethoven has a dosage limit. Whenever I hear one of his symphonies or quartets, I don't feel like listening to him for another week or so. One day I listened to all five late quartets in the same sitting, and though it was an amazing experience it's not one I think I would repeat. I think he made the biggest impact on me when I first starting out with classical, and I wept my way with awe through the Heiliger Dankgesang, the slow movment of the Hammerklavier, Op. 111, the Diabelli Variations, and the Emperor Concerto. Now he's starting to lose a bit of his luster for me, and I'm afraid he might drop out of my top 5.


----------



## Simplicissimus

Bach. Even though I spend most of my time these days listening to modernist composers, my performance background is in early music and nothing engages me as strongly and consistently as Bach. I would listen to him more now if I hadn’t listened to him extremely disproportionately for 40 straight years up until about 10 years ago. Absolutely love Beethoven and like Mozart a whole lot, so I think I can understand their proponents here.


----------



## adriesba

I see Bach has overtaken Mozart on the poll, an interesting turn of events!

Beethoven is still well ahead though.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> View attachment 132358
> 
> ----------


I fail to come up with a Beethoven sonata where there were no powerful melodies present.


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> What "eternal principles" do you and Chopin think Beethoven turned his back on?


Well, I can't speak for Chopin, but for me it relates to the roots of classical music which is about honoring the sacred. Beethoven's music sounds to me as though it is more about honoring and glorifying himself. His music sounds as if it is actually composed in such a way as to make music a competition or a measuring contest of sorts if you catch my drift. In which Beethoven declares himself the winner.

I know my points about his 'chattiness' and aggression were generalized to an extent, but I think they hold true for the most part. The first two clips in DaveM's posts are actually perfect examples of when Beethoven sounds 'over the top', and melodramatic to me. Sensationalizing quite banal material. I think part of that movement from the Pathetique is performed in the movie _The Man Who Wasn't There_, it was one of the first times I heard that music and (without knowing who the composer was at the time) thought to myself what is that awful, banal music performed in such a way as to 'milk' all this emotionality out of it, when the theme and use of harmony is so weak. I later found out it was Beethoven.

I agree that the Archduke Trio is a good piece, but his compositional personality comes through in parts and makes me feel like even here Beethoven is composing this music to 'check all the boxes', so he can show that he can do everything well, because he is the greatest. I admit this is a little harsh, and perhaps not even true in the case of that work (I can't know). This is just how his music comes across to me.


----------



## tdc

chu42 said:


> If Beethoven's music never existed *we wouldn't have Schumann and Brahms,* and that bothers me.
> 
> Among other things.


You can't know that, the seeds of Romanticism were sown in many places, not just Beethoven, there are seeds of it in music before Beethoven, and also in the music of composers like Weber, (who was critical of Beethoven's music). A different Schumann and Brahms may have emerged. Any speculation on how music would be different without Beethoven is only that - speculation.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> Well, I can't speak for Chopin, but for me it relates to the roots of classical music which is about honoring the sacred. Beethoven's music sounds to me as though it is more about honoring and glorifying himself. His music sounds as if it is actually composed in such a way as to make music a competition or a measuring contest of sorts if you catch my drift. In which Beethoven declares himself the winner.


I don't detect self-glorification in Beethoven's music. But then, I honestly don't even know what that would sound like (unless perhaps it sounds like the flashy virtuosity we hear in a lot of Liszt's piano music). I do know that when Beethoven sets out to deal with specific ideas in his work, he is quite high-minded and idealistic. Where is the self-glorification in the Eroica, in Fidelio, in Christ on the Mount of Olives, in the Missa Solemnis, in the 9th Symphony?

As for "honoring the sacred," how does Fidelio, with its celebration of love, courage and freedom, compare with Cosi fan Tutte or Don Giovanni, which Beethoven criticized on moral grounds? Do the symphonies of Haydn have any more to do with "the sacred" than Beethoven's? Do his quartets approach "the sacred" more closely than Beethoven's? I don't know what's sacred to you,or how you think that should be expressed in art. But as far as I can see, Beethoven's works make pretty clear what was sacred to him. He was concerned with ideas he considered universally significant, and I have never thought that his view of art was less than noble.


----------



## hammeredklavier

chu42 said:


> I fail to come up with a Beethoven sonata where there were no powerful melodies present.


There are some good 'melodies' in Beethoven such as Romance in F major Op.50, the "Spring" violin sonata Op.24, cello sonatas No.2,3. But mostly I find that the catchiness comes more from the rhythmic and motivic working. It's more about what he does with them than the appeal of the melodies themselves. The last movements of piano sonatas Op.31 No.2 and Op.57 are good examples of this.
Beethoven rarely ever goes about doing things like
Tchaikovsky's Romeo and Juliet fantasy overture, or 
"Magna opera Domini exquisita" in Confitebor tibi or "Gloria patri et filio" in Magnificat anima from Mozart Vesperae solennes de confessore, 
or Chopin's Andante spianato & Grande Polonaise Brillante, or Schubert's Arpeggione sonata for example.


----------



## mikeh375

Bach for me, then LVB. Mozart now and again.


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> I don't detect self-glorification in Beethoven's music. But then, I honestly don't even know what that would sound like (unless perhaps it sounds like the flashy virtuosity we hear in a lot of Liszt's piano music). I do know that when Beethoven sets out to deal with specific ideas in his work, he is quite high-minded and idealistic. Where is the self-glorification in the Eroica, in Fidelio, in Christ on the Mount of Olives, in the Missa Solemnis, in the 9th Symphony?
> 
> As for "honoring the sacred," how does Fidelio, with its celebration of love, courage and freedom, compare with Cosi fan Tutte or Don Giovanni, which Beethoven criticized on moral grounds? Do the symphonies of Haydn have any more to do with "the sacred" than Beethoven's? Do his quartets approach "the sacred" more closely than Beethoven's? I don't know what's sacred to you,or how you think that should be expressed in art. But as far as I can see, Beethoven's works make pretty clear what was sacred to him. He was concerned with ideas he considered universally significant, and I have never thought that his view of art was less than noble.


Well, I'm referring more to the sound of the music itself, not extra musical elements such as the stories in operas etc. You mention Liszt the virtuoso I'm reminded of a story regarding Beethoven where he was at a musical gathering and someone there had composed a chamber piece and asked Beethoven to try the piano part, Beethoven reportedly sat down at the piano turned the sheet music upside down and started playing the theme and improvised variations on the theme on the spot. This sounds similar to something Liszt might do.

I would say Beethoven generally had a more rigorous and classical approach to form compared to Liszt, but in certain ways I don't think their musical temperaments were really that far apart.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> Beethoven is composing this music to 'check all the boxes', so he can show that he can do everything well


This reminds me of:

"... The "full exploitation of contrapuntal devices" in K. 426, is the one aspect of this work that is so atypical - for Mozart, his contemporaries, and most of his predecessors - as to suggest the influence of J. S. Bach and no one else. ...
... Even the progression of events in K. 426 has a kind of relentless logic to it, as if Mozart was going down an elaborate checklist (something akin to my Table 3.2) as he composed this fugue, with the intention of utilizing his subject in every conceivable combination with itself. ..."
(<Engaging Bach: The Keyboard Legacy from Marpurg to Mendelssohn> by Matthew Charles Dirst, pg. 78)

Elsewhere I read that it was an 'encyclopedia of contrapuntal devices', 
_"Some people insist that the relatively few fugues that Mozart did write are too consciously disciplined that they try to get in as many tricks as possible with a sort of "look ma, no hands" attitude."_ -Glenn Gould


----------



## Strange Magic

Bach speaks to his God; Mozart to his Friends and Acquaintances; Beethoven to the Zeitgeist and Posterity. And Brahms speaks to Me.


----------



## hammeredklavier

adriesba said:


> He did break the rules though (e.g., *five-movement symphony*, choral symphony).


Haydn wrote a six-movement symphony (No.60), and I don't think the number of movements is really that big of a deal. Mozart Divertimento K334, (which I think is a better work than his early symphonies for its content, rigorous shades of chromaticism) is essentially a six-movement symphony. More like a string symphony with added horns, to be precise. Since there was little distinction between the symphony and the divertimento (or sometimes the Italian overture) in the early Classical era. 
I would say Beethoven's 6th is noteworthy more for the 'programmatic' elements.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> Beethoven reportedly sat down at the piano turned the sheet music upside down and started playing the theme and improvised variations on the theme on the spot.


According to Ries, this was what Beethoven did in his improvisation duel against Steibelt.






Eventually it was his increasing deafness that put an end to his "look ma, no hands" attitude as a performer:





but as a composer, he continued to have this attitude:




_"Can't hear, can't drink, can't ****. Thank god poor Beethoven can compose!"_

But you got to understand, this sort of attitude was also something Beethoven learned from his predecessors. So we should be blaming them for the bad influence.

"Beethoven remarked to his student Carl Czerny that with it (string quartet K464) Mozart was telling the world, "Look what I could do if you were ready for it!""


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> Well, I'm referring more to the sound of the music itself, not extra musical elements such as the stories in operas etc.


That raises the interesting possibility of a radical disparity between what a composer wants to express musically and what we feel he actually does. Evidently you do hear such a disparity in Beethoven's works. When I listen to Fidelio I hear a beautiful musical expression of the noble, humane themes of its story, and the musical language B. employs in expressing those things is very much that of other works composed during that period of his career.

There are people who claim to hear jackboots and racial genocide when they listen to Wagner, too. I guess there's ultimately no arguing with this sort of thing.



> You mention Liszt the virtuoso I'm reminded of a story regarding Beethoven where he was at a musical gathering and someone there had composed a chamber piece and asked Beethoven to try the piano part, Beethoven reportedly sat down at the piano turned the sheet music upside down and started playing the theme and improvised variations on the theme on the spot. This sounds similar to something Liszt might do.


It also sounds like something Mozart might do. Or maybe that any of the extremely few people actually capable of doing it would do. I'd like to have been there.



> I would say Beethoven generally had a more rigorous and classical approach to form compared to Liszt,


That is the understatement of the year.



> but in certain ways I don't think their musical temperaments were really that far apart.


I can't relate to that - the two seem like extremely different people and composers to me - but it's clear that your feelings about Beethoven are pretty hard-wired. I do think you extrapolate too many questionable ideas from your feelings, though. For example, I don't think any truly great music is capable of expressing self-glorification. I might imagine myself hearing that in music full of empty gestures and little real musical substance, but even then I might simply be hearing the work of an untalented composer whose fondest wish was to prove to his dad that he shouldn't inherit the family's dairy farm and spend his life milking cows.


----------



## chu42

tdc said:


> You can't know that, the seeds of Romanticism were sown in many places, not just Beethoven, there are seeds of it in music before Beethoven, and also in the music of composers like Weber, (who was critical of Beethoven's music). A different Schumann and Brahms may have emerged. Any speculation on how music would be different without Beethoven is only that - speculation.


Yes, it is true that Schumann and Brahms would have been geniuses with or without Beethoven. But we would have lost the wonderful Fantasie in C Major, Brahms' 1st...among other works that were direct tributes to Beethoven.


----------



## chu42

hammeredklavier said:


> There are some good 'melodies' in Beethoven such as Romance in F major Op.50, the "Spring" violin sonata Op.24, cello sonatas No.2,3. But mostly I find that the catchiness comes more from the rhythmic and motivic working. It's more about what he does with them than the appeal of the melodies themselves. The last movements of piano sonatas Op.31 No.2 and Op.57 are good examples of this.
> Beethoven rarely ever goes about doing things like
> Tchaikovsky's Romeo and Juliet fantasy overture, or
> "Magna opera Domini exquisita" in Confitebor tibi or "Gloria patri et filio" in Magnificat anima from Mozart Vesperae solennes de confessore,
> or Chopin's Andante spianato & Grande Polonaise Brillante, or Schubert's Arpeggione sonata for example.


You mean to say that he does not compose melodies in the long operatic bel canto style, like that of Bellini. That does not make his melodies any less powerful.


----------



## Woodduck

chu42 said:


> You mean to say that he does not compose melodies in the long operatic bel canto style, like that of Bellini. That does not make his melodies any less powerful.


In my experience, that's ALWAYS what people have in mind when they talk about Beethoven as "not a melodist." In fact, his works are full of striking and unforgettable melody. He could write a long cantilena when he wanted to, as in the slow movements of his 9th symphony and his string quartets Opp. 127, 130 and 135, and achieve an extraordinary depth of expression.


----------



## DaveM

So with everyone in a state of anxiety, worry, fear and uncertainty for the future, what did the musicians of the Colorado Symphony perform online together?: part of the final movement of Beethoven’s 9th. Why not something from Ferneyhough?


----------



## Fabulin

Beethoven was a better melodist than most composers before or after.


----------



## Shosty

Bach is my all time favorite composer so I voted for him, but I do also love Mozart and Beethoven.


----------



## janxharris

No composer has an entitlement to be labelled 'big' except in terms of their popularity. That in no way belittles their achievements.

None of the three top my list but Beethoven got my vote.


----------



## jegreenwood

Back and forth over the years between Bach and Mozart. At the moment, Mozart.


----------



## DaveM

janxharris said:


> No composer has an entitlement to be labelled 'big' except in terms of their popularity...










--------------


----------



## janxharris

DaveM said:


> View attachment 132476
> 
> --------------


If you disagree then it should be easy to demonstrate - I keep asking you to do so but you haven't.


----------



## DaveM

janxharris said:


> If you disagree then it should be easy to demonstrate - I keep asking you to do so but you haven't.










------------


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> No composer has an entitlement to be labelled 'big' except in terms of their popularity. That in no way belittles their achievements.


Maybe not, but it demonstrates that you don't understand what musical achievement consists of. It's OK. Some people can't tell that Ibsen's plays are greater achievements than TV soaps.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> Maybe not, but it demonstrates that you don't understand what musical achievement consists of. It's OK. Some people can't tell that Ibsen's plays are greater achievements than TV soaps.


I assumed the context of the the thread limited the scope to the 'big three' who are 'superior' to the rest of the classical composers. We'd probably (maybe) largely agree on other areas of art - but I haven't watched a TV soap opera in about 30 years.

I just don't see the need or feel comfortable with telling someone that they love inferior art.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> I assumed the context of the the thread limited the scope to the 'big three' who are 'superior' to the rest of the classical composers. We'd probably (maybe) largely agree on other areas of art - but I haven't watched a TV soap opera in about 30 years.
> 
> I just don't see the need or feel comfortable with tell someone that they love inferior art.


I love lots of inferior art. There are plenty of reasons for its appeal. A life of nothing but transcendental experiences would be exhausting.


----------



## AeolianStrains

I still don't understand why the fuss over the op's premise. It's a premise. If you don't agree with it, go somewhere else. But it's very clear:

Assuming that Bach & Mozart & Beethoven are the big three, which of them do you love most? It basically wants to know which of the three is most beloved here. Why is this a difficult question?


----------



## adriesba

AeolianStrains said:


> I still don't understand why the fuss over the op's premise. It's a premise. If you don't agree with it, go somewhere else. But it's very clear:
> 
> Assuming that Bach & Mozart & Beethoven are the big three, which of them do you love most? It basically wants to know which of the three is most beloved here. Why is this a difficult question?


LOL, IKR. I guess everyone's been cooped up too long already and are overanalyzing the situation. 
It's just a fun little thread.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> I love lots of inferior art. There are plenty of reasons for its appeal. A life of nothing but transcendental experiences would be exhausting.


It only becomes an issue when you arrogate a definition of what is and what isn't superior.

Since when is there an objective 'transcendental' art experience? Why would it be superior?


----------



## janxharris

AeolianStrains said:


> I still don't understand why the fuss over the op's premise. It's a premise. If you don't agree with it, go somewhere else. But it's very clear:
> 
> Assuming that Bach & Mozart & Beethoven are the big three, which of them do you love most? It basically wants to know which of the three is most beloved here. Why is this a difficult question?


It's okay to ask an OP for clarification is it not?


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> It only becomes an issue when you arrogate a definition of what is and what isn't superior.
> 
> Since when is there an objective 'transcendental' art experience? Why would it be superior?


There's no such thing as "objective transcendental experience." The phrase is an oxymoron. Experience is subjective by definition. But art can give people extraordinary experiences, experiences that take them beyond anything they could imagine - beyond their accustomed modes of perception, feeling and understanding. Some art has proved exceptionally capable of doing that. That art tends to be identified as superior. The "big three" produced an unusual quantity of it.

I don't think any of this is an "issue" at all.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> There's no such thing as "objective transcendental experience." The phrase is an oxymoron. Experience is subjective by definition. But art can give people extraordinary experiences, experiences that take them beyond anything they could imagine - beyond their accustomed modes of perception, feeling and understanding. Some art has proved exceptionally capable of doing that. That art tends to be identified as superior. The "big three" produced an unusual quantity of it.
> 
> I don't think any of this is an "issue" at all.


You *appeared* to be arrogating a definition of what is and is not superior - which implies that you were attempting to take it beyond the subjective.

Yes - 'There's no such thing as "objective transcendental experience."'

Yes - a good number of listeners through many years have enjoyed the works of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.

It's not an issue if 'big' means 'popular'.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Anyone who claims objectivity in labeling superior and inferior arts, is best to be ignored.


----------



## caracalla

Has to be Bach for me; there is simply no other composer whose music I find half as involving and/or uplifting. Not that I have any problem at all with Mozart or Beethoven.

Subjective, of course, and maybe taste in idiom has a lot to do with it. I don't know how I would rank these composers if they had all lived and worked during the Baroque period. As it is, there are plenty of Baroque composers I listen to more often (and which usually appeal to me more) than M or B without imagining that they are of equal or greater stature.


----------



## Strange Magic

NLAdriaan said:


> Anyone who claims objectivity in labeling superior and inferior arts, is best to be ignored.


We've had this discussion 257 times previously. Again, my observation: All Esthetics is Personal. _De gustibus_, etc. We can count noses and sum up who likes what (popularity contests); we can form judgements as to the taste and refinement of particular audiences and say their opinions are the ones that matter--or ought to matter. But it all comes back to each individual permitting themselves to acknowledge the validity of their own choices.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> You *appeared* to be arrogating a definition of what is and is not superior - which implies that you were attempting to take it beyond the subjective.
> 
> Yes - 'There's no such thing as "objective transcendental experience."'
> 
> Yes - a good number of listeners through many years have enjoyed the works of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.
> 
> It's not an issue if 'big' means 'popular'.


OK. If you think the collective aesthetic judgment of mankind is equivalent to "popularity," you're welcome to your definitions.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> We've had this discussion 257 times previously. Again, my observation: All Esthetics is Personal. _De gustibus_, etc. We can count noses and sum up who likes what (popularity contests); we can form judgements as to the taste and refinement of particular audiences and say their opinions are the ones that matter--or ought to matter. But* it all comes back to each individual permitting themselves to acknowledge the validity of their own choices.*


What is the "all" in "it all"? When I say that that Beethoven is a greater composer than Dittersdorf, I'm not questioning the "validity" of anyone's preference for Dittersdorf. "Validity" isn't an applicable concept.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> We've had this discussion 257 times previously...


On that we agree. Ole *janxharris* seems to have missed all of them because I've been part of and gone into some detail explaining why you are wrong  in all 257 of them.


----------



## Woodduck

NLAdriaan said:


> Anyone who claims objectivity in labeling superior and inferior arts, is best to be ignored.


Anyone who claims to know that people who assert the superiority of Bach over Pachelbel should be ignored is going to have to ignore an awful lot of people from whom he might learn something.

Ignore all you like. Meanwhile every serious musician and student of music is going to devote herself to understanding why and how Bach is better - and, if she is philosophically inclined, understanding how she knows that to be true.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> What is the "all" in "it all"? When I say that that Beethoven is a greater composer than Dittersdorf, I'm not questioning the "validity" of anyone's preference for Dittersdorf. "Validity" isn't an applicable concept.


Neither, really, is "greatness" in esthetics. There is no objective, "out there" standard or measure or template for artistic "greatness" that exists outside of individual minds. What is to be done with the person--a _rara avis_ to be sure--who prefers Dittersdorf to Beethoven and tells you and the world that Dittersdorf is "greater"? Must they be denounced, pitied, wept over?, told their preferences are inauthentic or Just Plain Wrong? Nope, not buying it. All Esthetics is indeed Personal. All the Objectivists can fall back on is winning a vote or popularity contest for their views, and carefully selecting the parameters of that voting body such that the "agreement" appears essentially self-validating: "It must be the best because all the best people say so"; their congruence, once all the outliers are cleared away, is the hallmark of their excellence. A herd mentality.


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> Neither, really, is "greatness" in esthetics. There is no objective, "out there" standard or measure or template for artistic "greatness" that exists outside of individual minds. What is to be done with the person--a _rara avis_ to be sure--who prefers Dittersdorf to Beethoven and tells you and the world that Dittersdorf is "greater"? Must they be denounced, pitied, wept over?, told their preferences are inauthentic or Just Plain Wrong? Nope, not buying it. All Esthetics is indeed Personal. All the Objectivists can fall back on is winning a vote or popularity contest for their views, and carefully selecting the parameters of that voting body such that the "agreement" appears essentially self-validating: "It must be the best because all the best people say so"; their congruence, once all the outliers are cleared away, is the hallmark of their excellence. A herd mentality.


There's also no objective "out there" standard or measure for arithmetical truth so I suppose arithmetical truth must also be, to some degree, subjective. I'm honestly not sure how you accept anything as objectively true.

Also, the informed consensus amongst experts is not really the same thing as a popularity contest amongst the general population.


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> There's also no objective "out there" standard or measure for arithmetical truth so I suppose arithmetical truth must also be, to some degree, subjective. I'm honestly not sure how you accept anything as objectively true.
> 
> Also, the informed consensus amongst experts is not really the same thing as a popularity contest amongst the general population.


Mathematics and Esthetics: Apples and Oranges. Euclid's proof that there is no largest prime is light-years away from determining whether Prokofiev was a "greater" composer than Bartók or than John Williams. The informed consensus of experts is a popularity contest with a high-falutin' name. I hate (love!) to do this, but what is the best flavor of ice cream? I have no quarrel with anybody's ranking of anybody or anything in the arts any way they like, and if they find companions to share some of their views (it seems that, were Objective Truth manifest in the Arts, there would total agreement), everybody's happy. But said rankings, judgements, have no force beyond themselves. Art just is; how good it is, what value it has, is whatever is ascribed to it by individual minds--which agree or disagree for a host of reasons. Is Bach best?


----------



## janxharris

BachIsBest said:


> There's also no objective "out there" standard or measure for arithmetical truth so I suppose arithmetical truth must also be, to some degree, subjective. I'm honestly not sure how you accept anything as objectively true.


Could you explain please?



> Also, the informed consensus amongst experts is not really the same thing as a popularity contest amongst the general population.


Aren't you unjustifiably extrapolating here? Yes, a good number of 'experts' will say they put Bach (for example) above all others - but it's quite another thing to claim that such consensus points to objective proof. One would assume that most experts would be humble enough to obviate such inferences.

Distinguishing 'experts' is an attempt to avoid the argumentum ad populum charge is it not?


----------



## Room2201974

"Ah, Bach!" ~ Walter Eugene O'Reilly, Cpl, US Army Ret.


----------



## BachIsBest

janxharris said:


> Could you explain please?


I'm not sure what there is to explain? This isn't a logic forum, so I can't go into technical details, but it's been known since the 30's that, in essence, there is no way to 'satisfactorily' define arithmetical truth.



janxharris said:


> Aren't you unjustifiably extrapolating here? Yes, a good number of 'experts' will say they put Bach (for example) above all others - but it's quite another thing to claim that such consensus points to objective proof. One would assume that most experts would be humble enough to obviate such inferences.
> 
> Distinguishing 'experts' is an attempt to avoid the argumentum ad populum charge is it not?


If a consensus amongst reasonable people informed on a topic does not point to objective truth then I really don't know what does. I do agree about issues defining things like 'informed' or 'reasonable' and even 'consensus' can be problematic (does 99% agreement count as consensus?) but I don't think these things are so vague as to be entirely useless either.


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> Mathematics and Esthetics: Apples and Oranges. Euclid's proof that there is no largest prime is light-years away from determining whether Prokofiev was a "greater" composer than Bartók or than John Williams. The informed consensus of experts is a popularity contest with a high-falutin' name. I hate (love!) to do this, but what is the best flavor of ice cream? I have no quarrel with anybody's ranking of anybody or anything in the arts any way they like, and if they find companions to share some of their views (it seems that, were Objective Truth manifest in the Arts, there would total agreement), everybody's happy. But said rankings, judgements, have no force beyond themselves. Art just is; how good it is, what value it has, is whatever is ascribed to it by individual minds--which agree or disagree for a host of reasons. Is Bach best?


There is no total agreement in any field; I'm not so sure why the arts would be any different objective truth or otherwise. My username is jocular in intent, I don't claim to be able to determine whether Bach or Mozart is objectively superior. I do, however, claim to know that Bach was an objectively superior composer to Salieri.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> I hate (love!) to do this, but what is the best flavor of ice cream?


Are you comparing what is behind the best flavor of ice cream with why Beethoven is said to be a greater composer than Engelbert Humperdinck?


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Are comparing what is behind the best flavor of ice cream with why Beethoven is said to be a greater composer than Engelbert Humperdinck?


Could you rephrase the question?


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> There is no total agreement in any field; I'm not so sure why the arts would be any different objective truth or otherwise. My username is jocular in intent, I don't claim to be able to determine whether Bach or Mozart is objectively superior. I do, however, claim to know that Bach was an objectively superior composer to Salieri.


While, as a general statement, the assertion that there is no total agreement in any field is accurate, yet everything that has been formally and correctly proven in mathematics is indeed formally proven. The proofs may be confined to a certain topology--sum of angles in a triangle=180° on a plane but not not on a curved surface, etc., but, once proven it's over. And if you cannot determine the relative ranking of Bach or Mozart, then how can you claim that Bach is "objectively" superior to Salieri? I concur in your opinion, so Bach has at least your vote and mine.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Could you rephrase the question?


If you clarify where you were heading by the ice cream comment then maybe I'll be able to rephrase my question or maybe I won't need to.


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> While, as a general statement, the assertion that there is no total agreement in any field is accurate, yet everything that has been formally and correctly proven in mathematics is indeed formally proven. The proofs may be confined to a certain topology--sum of angles in a triangle=180° on a plane but not not on a curved surface, etc., but, once proven it's over. And if you cannot determine the relative ranking of Bach or Mozart, then how can you claim that Bach is "objectively" superior to Salieri? I concur in your opinion, so Bach has at least your vote and mine.


I do agree that if you are going to believe anything to be objectively true then math is a pretty good place to start, but, nevertheless, even here the foundations are very shaky. When one says 'formalised' in mathematics it is indeed proven from some basic assumptions. But in general, these assumptions more or less include assumptions like "the real numbers are known", or that we have some sort of objectively true arithmetic that is intuitively understood. Attempts to formalise mathematics as being derived from some universal principles have (disregarding some fringe opinions) failed.

Regardless, it is perfectly reasonable to assert that you can partially order, but not totally order, the set of all composers based on compositional talent. If you do believe in mathematical truth then you certainly agree with this assertation.


----------



## adriesba

I think we need to find a happy medium here. The truth is, music, like any art, is both subjective _and _objective. One can not reasonably say that a Beethoven symphony is not objectively better than, say, a Justin Bieber song. The objective quality of music is based on things such as the amount of creativity involved in creating the music, the skill required to create the piece of music, and the level of knowledge of music theory needed to construct the piece. True, my comparison of Beethoven and Bieber is extreme, but such a concept can be hard to grasp without an extreme example. I think the reason people have a hard time understanding the objective nature of music is that there is no unit of measurement to compare the quality of musical works. Judging the quality of musical works is a qualitative, not quantitative assessment, but that does not mean there is no objective nature to music. We can't put numbers on whether one work is better than another (maybe someday someone with make some sort of musical quality scale), but we can look at what level of intellect went into the piece to understand why it may be better than another in a way. This ability to judge music increases with increased knowledge of music theory.

At the same time, music is very subjective. Determining the relative quality of a piece becomes difficult when the playing field becomes more even. If we want to compare Beethoven's ninth symphony to Mozart's requiem, how are we to determine which is better? This is where the subjective nature of music comes into play. They may be relatively the same quality objectively, but is it incorrect for me to say that I enjoy Beethoven's ninth symphony much more than I enjoy Mozart's requiem? No, that's perfectly fine. How the audience responds to a piece is important as well. The subjective nature also becomes especially important in two particular cases:

1. A piece that is objectively good because of its technical brilliance may actually be quite boring to listen to (at least for some people).

2. A piece may be a good piece and a well-loved piece either because of or in spite of its technical simplicity.

An example of the first case (for me personally) would be many concertos. I have listened to several concertos with several different soloist instruments. I can't recall ever hearing a concerto (except maybe a couple of single movements from Beethoven piano concertos) that actually held my attention and thoroughly entertained me. Does that mean they are objectively bad? No. I'm sure they are quite good. I just don't find any subjective quality in them for me personally. An example of the second case is Orff's _Carmina Burana. _I love the piece, and many other people do as well. From an objective standpoint, it may be quite simple and lacking the more objective quality of something like a Beethoven symphony, but one must not forget the subjective nature of music. From a more subjective view, it is a masterpiece and, I believe, is actually loved _for_ its simplicity. Indeed, a work does not have to have a high quality objectively to become a classic. After all, here we are some eighty years later, and _Carmina Burana_ is still performed often, perhaps more than many other works of that past with a higher quality objectively.

Music appreciation is complicated, and we must remember that music is meant to create some sort of response from the audience. That is why the subjective nature of music is so important. Are there times that the objective nature of music needs to be considered? Of course! But both elements of music must be considered for a full appreciation of music. Ultimately, each individual decides what music they enjoy over other music. Thus, it is important that we don't get too stressed over every single detail or be annoyed when someone decides they don't like what we like.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Neither, really, is "greatness" in esthetics. There is no objective, "out there" standard or measure or template for artistic "greatness" that exists outside of individual minds.


The criteria for knowledge in all interior psychological experience are different from those which apply to physical reality. There is, for example, no "out there" proof of moral value. Are we going to argue that Charles Manson is the moral equal of Nelson Mandela because some people prefer murderers? Should we smile approvingly at a president more concerned with the stock market than with the health of the public because that's his "preference"? Not everything true, knowable or worthwhile can be proved "scientifically."



> What is to be done with the person--a _rara avis_ to be sure--who prefers Dittersdorf to Beethoven and tells you and the world that Dittersdorf is "greater"? Must they be denounced, pitied, wept over?, told their preferences are inauthentic or Just Plain Wrong? Nope, not buying it.


I'm not buying it either. Nothing is to be done with them, except giving them Beethoven to listen to and watching as it slowly dawns on them that Dittersdorf was a talented musician and Beethoven was a surpassing genius.



> All Esthetics is indeed Personal.


There is no proof of that "out there." On the contrary, there are studies that show that many aesthetic responses and values are intrinsic to the human brain, and there is music out there that possesses objectively existing, perfectly graspable aesthetic qualities that only relatively few composers can achieve. Of course you have to be able to perceive those qualities to know that, and the more you refine your perceptions the more those composers grow in your esteem.



> All the Objectivists can fall back on is winning a vote or popularity contest for their views, and carefully selecting the parameters of that voting body such that the "agreement" appears essentially self-validating: "It must be the best because all the best people say so"; their congruence, once all the outliers are cleared away, is the hallmark of their excellence. A herd mentality.


You're accusing the greatest musicians in the world of having a herd mentality. "Not buying it!" (speaking as a damned fine musician myself, who knows a hawk from a handsaw).

Aesthetic qualities are filtered through our subjective preferences, but not identical to those preferences. We can enjoy Bach's music or not, but his worldwide, enduring reputation for greatness is not some gigantic accident.


----------



## AeolianStrains

Beethoven still has a commanding lead over the other two and Mozart is still in 3rd place.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

adriesba stole what I was going to say in his excellent post right before I was going to say it. Essentially: no one with even a smidgen of artistic taste would argue if I said that _Hamlet_ is an objectively better work than _Twilight_, or that the _Art of Fugue_ is objectively better than _Wellington's Victory_. But, if I argued that _Hamlet_ is indisputably of greater worth than _The Brothers Karamazov_, Rembrandt was a better artist than Michelangelo, or the _Art of Fugue_ is a more towering achievement than _Der Ring des Nibelungen_...well, I would be called an arrogant snob who doesn't respect others' viewpoints. There is no easy answer to this, and I certainly don't have it...just throwing out discussion fodder. But I do have one harsh statement to make about the former group - if you take relativism to such an extreme fashion so as to think that you have no right to say that Bach is better than Bieber...well, I'm afraid I just can't take that seriously.


----------



## Strange Magic

I'll not comment further on this topic other than to again say that it is obviously of great comfort to almost all of us (you) to believe that whatever music, or art, we love and hold dear is also held dear by others. Some of those others we respect _a priori_; others gain our respect by liking what we like and telling us that they like it for the very same reasons we do. If they like it for different reasons, we can deal with that as long as they say they like it also. It becomes then concerning when peers or authority figures don't like what we like; it puts our thinking in doubt: Am I wrong to like this? A troubling idea.

My own experience and my observation of the remarks of others clearly indicate to me that I am an outlier in believing in the primacy and the validity of my own opinions about what is "good" (I like it) or bad (I don't like it) in music and the arts. What is art for, for the vast majority of its "consumers"? Is it to acquire a reputation (like an oenophile) for the excellence of one's taste? The corollary question arises: if art or composer A is objectively better/greater than art or composer B, then how can one justify listening to or looking at the work of B. Is one slumming when one listens to (your third tier composer or piece here) rather than (your paragon here)?

My esthetics is all about UHURU--freedom--to interact directly with music, literature, art unburdened by the clutter of bad, good, better, best, and the whole notion that there is something/anything in the art itself that radiates out like a force field but that only those with the proper sensors can detect, but that, if truly inherent and objective, should be obvious and detectable by anyone. My philosophy also permits anyone to construct any sort of fantastic theory about what is good/bad/great/greater. We all do it, but most fail (in my opinion) to recognize how subjective it all is. Art is like ice cream: many flavors. Which is The Best?


----------



## AeolianStrains

I think it helps to put this in perspective. A nice porterhouse from a good steakhouse is objectively a better piece of meat than a McDonald's burger by any criteria outside taste.

It isn't an affront to those who like McDonald's to say that. It isn't an affront to those who like McDonald's better to say that.

Liking something doesn't change it's value. _De gustibus_ is a matter of preference, but things can still be measured, even if imprecisely.


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> Art is like ice cream: many flavors. Which is The Best?


I'll give you four ice cream flavours: Strawberry, Vanilla, Vomit, and Dog Crap. Now, I may not be able to determine if Strawberry or Vanilla is better, or if Dog Crap is worse than Vomit, but I can certainly say Vanilla is better than Dog Crap. Just because there is subjectivity involved, doesn't mean we are in a hopeless sea of subjectivity where no objective statements may be made.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Bach - tonality and counterpoint
Debussy - ambiguity and harmony
Webern - atonality and the "diagonal dimension of music"


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Strange Magic said:


> My own experience and my observation of the remarks of others clearly indicate to me that I am an outlier in believing in the primacy and the validity of my own opinions about what is "good" (I like it) or bad (I don't like it) in music and the arts. What is art for, for the vast majority of its "consumers"? Is it to acquire a reputation (like an oenophile) for the excellence of one's taste? The corollary question arises: if art or composer A is objectively better/greater than art or composer B, then how can one justify listening to or looking at the work of B. Is one slumming when one listens to (your third tier composer or piece here) rather than (your paragon here)?


Objective "greatness" (granted, if it exists) is not a guideline which postulates criteria for excellence in taste. Art is both objective and subjective by nature, and it is important to recognize and appreciate both of these facets. Although I am not entirely convinced of any stance when it comes to objective "greatness" (or similar metrics), I can certainly see and perhaps lean towards accepting the arguments for distinguishing quality in art with some sort of partial ordering as BachIsBest suggest (perhaps a tiered system, or some sort of subset relation based on characterizing certain fundamental aspects of music). At the same time, this notion does not present a burden to my tastes, because my subjective appreciation of art and my preferences therein are a separate matter. My tastes usually don't align perfectly - often not even well - with my notions of "greatness", and I admit that there is probably a lot of first-rate art that I don't really connect with (and a lot of lesser art that I greatly enjoy). This is not at all a concern for me, and similarly I would never judge someone's character by their artistic preferences. Appreciating "greater" art does not really equate to having "better" tastes. I don't think anyone even suggested anything about greatness in TASTE.

At the same time, I think you make some good points in your post that serve as reminders to many who might be prone to take the notion of greatness too far. Greatness, if it exists, certainly should not constitute or dictate a work's personal value to the listener (and nor should any kind of preference relation / favoritism). To reduce the beauty and complexity of art to a single metric is absolutely ridiculous; this we can all agree upon.

We've gotten a little off topic, though, haven't we?


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> I'll not comment further on this topic other than to again say that it is obviously of great comfort to almost all of us (you) to believe that whatever music, or art, we love and hold dear is also held dear by others. Some of those others we respect _a priori_; others gain our respect by liking what we like and telling us that they like it for the very same reasons we do. If they like it for different reasons, we can deal with that as long as they say they like it also. It becomes then concerning when peers or authority figures don't like what we like; it puts our thinking in doubt: Am I wrong to like this? A troubling idea.
> 
> My own experience and my observation of the remarks of others clearly indicate to me that I am an outlier in believing in the primacy and the validity of my own opinions about what is "good" (I like it) or bad (I don't like it) in music and the arts. What is art for, for the vast majority of its "consumers"? Is it to acquire a reputation (like an oenophile) for the excellence of one's taste? The corollary question arises: if art or composer A is objectively better/greater than art or composer B, then how can one justify listening to or looking at the work of B. Is one slumming when one listens to (your third tier composer or piece here) rather than (your paragon here)?
> 
> My esthetics is all about UHURU--freedom--to interact directly with music, literature, art unburdened by the clutter of bad, good, better, best, and the whole notion that there is something/anything in the art itself that radiates out like a force field but that only those with the proper sensors can detect, but that, if truly inherent and objective, should be obvious and detectable by anyone. My philosophy also permits anyone to construct any sort of fantastic theory about what is good/bad/great/greater. We all do it, but most fail (in my opinion) to recognize how subjective it all is. Art is like ice cream: many flavors. Which is The Best?


I support the general judgment that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven deserve their rankjng as the "Big Three" of Western music. I support it not because of any psychological pressure or herd mentality, but because my musical knowledge and perceptions lead me to believe it. But I listen to Beethoven only occasionally, Bach rarely, and Mozart almost never. My personal big three are probably Wagner, Brahms and Sibelius. These facts imply no value judgments on my taste in music or on me as a person. The problems you cite simply don't exist for me. If we're concerned with objectivity, I suggest that they have no objective existence at all.


----------



## tdc

I think one can make arguments for certain composers being in the same tier as the "big 3". I do think all 3 of those composers have some good reasons for being considered that way, and I don't really mind people using the phrase 'big 3'. Nor am I really invested in perceiving them that way or defending their place either, as I said there are other composers that are arguably as great.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Strange Magic said:


> We've had this discussion 257 times previously. Again, my observation: All Esthetics is Personal. _De gustibus_, etc. We can count noses and sum up who likes what (popularity contests); we can form judgements as to the taste and refinement of particular audiences and say their opinions are the ones that matter--or ought to matter. But it all comes back to each individual permitting themselves to acknowledge the validity of their own choices.


Of course I agree, but the self-proclaimed 'connaisseurs' keep on polarizing, even within this self-selected quite knowledgeable forum.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> I support the general judgment that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven deserve their rankjng as the "Big Three" of Western music. I support it not because of any psychological pressure or herd mentality, but because my musical knowledge and perceptions lead me to believe it. But I listen to Beethoven only occasionally, Bach rarely, and Mozart almost never. My personal big three are probably Wagner, Brahms and Sibelius. These facts imply no value judgments on my taste in music or on me as a person. The problems you cite simply don't exist for me. If we're concerned with objectivity, I suggest that they have no objective existence at all.


Interesting - has it ever been the case for you that either or all of the 'big three' have also been your personal favourites?


----------



## Strange Magic

It is comforting for me to know that--actually, in reality, where it counts in our innermost thinking and responses--everyone is a subjectivist such as myself when it come to music and the arts. I know part of us says it's important to like Good Stuff that others also say they like and that the authority figures say they like. But very few of us can conceal our Secret and Unworthy Pleasures in the arts from ourselves and thus realize the conflict within. Hence the energy put into fashioning theories of the "objective" properties of art. BTW, there are objective properties in art, such as weight, color, size, shape, duration, complexity, creator, date created, etc.--all measurable, often with great accuracy. These have nothing to do with whether something is Good or Bad; only voting can determine those "qualities".

"Why, then, 'tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, *but thinking makes it so*. To me it is a prison". In the field of esthetics, truer words were never penned.


----------



## tdc

In some ways I agree with the big 3, but as has been pointed out in this thread music is partially subjective, its a mix between objective and subjective. So I think there are other viewpoints that could be considered. I remember reading that Django Reinhardt felt the greatest composers were J.S. Bach and Debussy. I think an argument could be made for that, and I think its a valid opinion by an excellent musician and jazz composer.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> ....there are studies that show that many aesthetic responses and values are intrinsic to the human brain, and there is music out there that possesses objectively existing, perfectly graspable aesthetic qualities that only relatively few composers can achieve.....
> 
> You're accusing the greatest musicians in the world of having a herd mentality.
> 
> We can enjoy Bach's music or not, but his worldwide, enduring reputation for greatness is not some gigantic accident.


I always enjoy these dialogues with you, my friend!

I could not agree more about those studies, and those companion analyses by our guide Leonard Meyer. Yet there remains the intractable problem of the bell curve/popularity/voting aspect of esthetic judgement--what to make of all this. It is perfectly sensible to assert that the vast majority of a selected audience will prefer Beethoven to Dittersdorf because Beethoven more closely patterned his music to appeal to the receptors/processors in the majority of the minds of a preselected audience. But of what use is this to explain or to validate or invalidate the experience of the hapless outlier lover of Dittersdorf? Let him be merely outvoted rather than to be found unfit, incapable, invalid, wanting. His opinion in his own mind is as valid as anyone's in their own mind. All esthetics is personal and subjective.

And Bach's reputation is indeed well-earned, as he often draws more votes than his peers.


----------



## janxharris

Do we have a Dittersdorf fan here? - an enraged one even?


----------



## Strange Magic

janxharris said:


> Do we have a Dittersdorf fan here? - an enraged one even?


Who cannot love Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf?:angel: One can just imagine the foursome of Dittersdorf, first violin; Haydn, second violin; Mozart, viola; and Wanhal, 'cello--perhaps playing a Bartok string quartet! The idea inflames my imagination:lol:.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> In some ways I agree with the big 3, but as has been pointed out in this thread music is partially subjective, its a mix between objective and subjective. So I think there are other viewpoints that could be considered. I remember reading that Django Reinhardt felt the greatest composers were J.S. Bach and Debussy. I think an argument could be made for that, and I think its a valid opinion by an excellent musician and jazz composer.















Again, Yuhki Kuramoto and Yiruma might think Chopin is the greatest composer who ever lived. I've noticed that quite a number of practitioners and enthusiasts of emotive New-age piano genres actually idolize Chopin (which doesn't mean Chopin is superficial.) But what non-classical musicians think about classical music is only as significant to me as what David C F Wright thinks about classical music.






And I don't know why janxharris keeps repeating his points, without elaborating on them: "music is subjective, the there's no such thing as "objective greatness". Bach, Mozart, Beethoven are only popular, and not objectively great."-Even though we've explained to him many times already: "even though music is subjective, the fact remains some artists made greater impact than others."


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> And I don't know why janxharris keeps repeating his points, without elaborating on them: "music is subjective, the there's no such thing as "objective greatness". Bach, Mozart, Beethoven are only popular, and not objectively great."-Even though we've explained to him many times already: "even though music is subjective, the fact remains some artists made greater impact than others."


Of course the three have made a big impact - what's your point? Nobody is suggesting that their compositions are objectively superior to other great composer's works. They just happen to click with more listeners...and that's all well and good.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Strange Magic said:


> Who cannot love Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf?:angel: One can just imagine the foursome of Dittersdorf, first violin; Haydn, *second violin; Mozart*, viola; and Wanhal, 'cello--perhaps playing a Bartok string quartet! The idea inflames my imagination:lol:.


The viola was Mozart's favorite string instrument. He played the viola in the gatherings. And it's probably the reason why his string quintets have their ensemble as "quartet + 1 viola".






EDIT: sorry, I misread your comment, I thought you meant "second violin played by Mozart". Disregard my comment.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> Do we have a Dittersdorf fan here? - an enraged one even?


I should like to meet an enraged Dittersdorf fan. I'd tell him that his musical tastes are no reflection on his personal worth, the suspicions of Strange Magic to the contrary.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> I always enjoy these dialogues with you, my friend!
> 
> I could not agree more about those studies, and those companion analyses by our guide Leonard Meyer. Yet there remains the intractable problem of the bell curve/popularity/voting aspect of esthetic judgement--what to make of all this. It is perfectly sensible to assert that the vast majority of a selected audience will prefer Beethoven to Dittersdorf because Beethoven more closely patterned his music to appeal to the receptors/processors in the majority of the minds of a preselected audience. But of what use is this to explain or to validate or invalidate the experience of the hapless outlier lover of Dittersdorf? Let him be merely outvoted rather than to be found unfit, incapable, invalid, wanting. His opinion in his own mind is as valid as anyone's in their own mind. * All esthetics is personal and subjective.*


All artistic _taste_ is personal and subjective. To say that all _aesthetics_ is personal and subjective - as in your comparison with tastes in food - is to claim that aesthetic qualities have no psychological - cognitive and emotional - significance, that they represent, express and evoke nothing of objective value. Tastes in food are mere sensations with no further meaning than the immediate sense of pleasure (except by accidental associations we may attach to them). Art engages the mind and emotions, and even the moral sense, in demonstrable ways, ways which reveal abundant correspondences between aesthetic form and content and specific areas of human experience. To dismiss this entire realm of human experience in assigning value to works of art is absurd. Some works of art, and some artists, have more to say, more significant things to say, and and say it with greater imagination and craft, than others. That makes them superior. How can anyone not understand this?


----------



## mmsbls

What's interesting to me is that this thread simply asks whose music you love the most of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. Instead of using the phrase "the Big Three," the OP could have said something like, "On the vast majority of polls Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the top 3 composers. Of those 3, who do you like the most?" The intent would have been the exact same. The OP uses the words "love" and "favorite" not "best" or "greatest." For the purposes of this thread, it simply doesn't matter if there is any consensus about The Big Three, or which composers are best, or whether one's answer is subjective or objective or a mixture of both. 

Of course, for many it's more interesting to discuss subjects such as "Can there be an objective set of the top 3 composers?", "Are Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart truly the best 3 composers?", "How can humans listen to Ferneyhough without brain damage?", and "Does anyone seriously think Chopin is a top composer?" (The last 2 are jokes - sort of) so diversions are understandable.

Since I love The Big Three (as defined in this thread) more than other composers, I'm always interested to hear why someone enjoys one or two of them significantly more than the others.


----------



## Woodduck

mmsbls said:


> "How can humans listen to Ferneyhough without brain damage?"


Perhaps by realizing that he's every bit as great as Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. And Dittersdorf.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> Perhaps by realizing that he's every bit as great as Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. And Dittersdorf.


What would I do without Dittersdorf on my daily playlist.


----------



## AeolianStrains

mmsbls said:


> Since I love The Big Three (as defined in this thread) more than other composers, I'm always interested to hear why someone enjoys one or two of them significantly more than the others.


Thank you! This is in itself a very interesting question. Too bad it got derailed early on.

I voted for Mozart and I stand by that, although really Beethoven and Mozart are tied in my book. While I like Bach immensely and find his intricacies profound, I am just more moved by Mozart's mature works. I looked at how much of either composer I have and Mozart just barely edges out Beethoven, so that's with whom I went.

I never had the experience that many had wherein I found Mozart to "airy" or "fluffy" for me. I very early on was hooked on Magic Flute, the Requiem, his Fantasias, his latter symphonies, and even enjoyed the overly popular serenades and sonatas. I never knew how to be tired of his Serenade No. 13 or Piano Sonata No. 11.

I never tired of Beethoven either, but there was just more of Mozart I liked earlier.

When I was young I didn't know much Bach, despite having read GEB. I really, really liked Toccata and Fugue in D minor, though now I find out that might not even be by him! It was only after I started practicing Bach and really trying to understand counterpoint and fugue that I began to fully appreciate Bach much more than his recognizable pieces. And some years now that meant increasing my collection of Bach works to be 3rd only to Mozart and Beethoven.


----------



## Art Rock

mmsbls said:


> Since I love The Big Three (as defined in this thread) more than other composers, I'm always interested to hear why someone enjoys one or two of them significantly more than the others.


For me personally, I look at how many compositions a composer has that I rate in my personal top 100, how many just one tier below that, and how many are still really worthwhile below that. I'm handing out negative points in my head for (famous) compositions I don't like at all. Bach scores high on all positives, and has zero negatives. The same with Mahler, but Bach gets the #1 spot based on sheer volume of works that are worthwhile. Mozart scores pretty high on the positive side as well, although clearly less than a number of other composers. He gets some negative points for his operas (I know, sacrilege, but I really don't like them). So all in all, a still respectable 10th place. Beethoven scores only one or two compositions in the top (Symphony 6, and possibly the violin concerto), a good deal in the next tier (many piano sonatas, late string quartets, symphony 5, piano cocnertos 3 and 4), but he also has a lot of famous compositions I really don't like (Symphonies 1,2, and especially 9, yes, sacrilege again, the triple concerto, the cello sonatas, Fidelio and a few others). That's why he loses out to many more consistently likable (for me) composers, and ended up around the #30 spot. Of course, all of this is purely my own taste, and does not reflect in any way on their acknowledged standing.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> All artistic _taste_ is personal and subjective. To say that all _aestheics_ is personal and subjective - as in your comparison with tastes in food - is to claim that aesthetic qualities have no psychological - cognitive and emotional - significance, that they represent, express and evoke nothing of *objective value.(??)* Tastes in food are mere sensations with no further meaning than the immediate sense of pleasure (except by accidental associations we may attach to them). *Art engages the mind and emotions, and even the moral sense, in demonstrable ways, ways which reveal abundant correspondences between aesthetic form and content and specific areas of human experience. To dismiss this entire realm of human experience in assigning value to works of art is absurd. Some works of art have more to say, and say it better, than others.*


Regarding the bolded sections above: I agree completely with the idea that esthetic qualities have psychological, cognitive,emotional significance. Whether they/Art expresses anything of objective value is Still To Be Demonstrated.

The second bolded statement I also agree with, with the proviso that we speak always of the idiosyncratic, unique experience, and the psychological and neurological profile, of each individual. I dispute the relevance of such correspondances to all of humankind or to any agglomeration of humans. Art is relevant only to individuals, as it reacts with individuals as individuals. "Some works of art have more to say, and say it better, than others" indeed, to specific others as individuals. When we begin to sum individual reactions, we are back to voting.

Question: what are the esthetics of the 1934 Nuremburg Rally? What objective values were revealed? Most were enthralled. A Triumph of the Will? or a descent into psychosis? Or utter dismay? It depended entirely upon the individual. I do not ask to be provocative (merely), but wonder what such an example can tell us about the subject.


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> Regarding the bolded sections above: I agree completely with the idea that esthetic qualities have psychological, cognitive,emotional significance. Whether they/Art expresses anything of objective value is Still To Be Demonstrated.
> 
> The second bolded statement I also agree with, with the proviso that we speak always of the idiosyncratic, unique experience, and the psychological and neurological profile, of each individual. I dispute the relevance of such correspondances to all of humankind or to any agglomeration of humans. Art is relevant only to individuals, as it reacts with individuals as individuals. "Some works of art have more to say, and say it better, than others" indeed, to specific others as individuals. When we begin to sum individual reactions, we are back to voting.
> 
> Question: what are the esthetics of the 1934 Nuremburg Rally? What objective values were revealed? Most were enthralled. A Triumph of the Will? or a descent into psychosis? Or utter dismay? It depended entirely upon the individual. I do not ask to be provocative (merely), but wonder what such an example can tell us about the subject.


I'm wondering what your definition of objective value is? Does anything have objective value?


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> I'm wondering what your definition of objective value is? Does anything have objective value?


Actually it's a phrase I picked up from Woodduck. He would be the best source for a definition. I do understand something about measureable, quantifiable aspects or parameters, and music and the arts are full of them as I outlined previously, and they can easily be agreed upon. These measureable aspects are about the best we can do when discussing the objective properties of music and the arts. Good, bad, great: not so much, except as internalized and then assigned by each individual.


----------



## Agamenon

After Bach, to die, to die, to die....


----------



## mmsbls

AeolianStrains said:


> Thank you! This is in itself a very interesting question. Too bad it got derailed early on.
> 
> I voted for Mozart and I stand by that, although really Beethoven and Mozart are tied in my book. While I like Bach immensely and find his intricacies profound, I am just more moved by Mozart's mature works. I looked at how much of either composer I have and Mozart just barely edges out Beethoven, so that's with whom I went.
> 
> I never had the experience that many had wherein I found Mozart to "airy" or "fluffy" for me. I very early on was hooked on Magic Flute, the Requiem, his Fantasias, his latter symphonies, and even enjoyed the overly popular serenades and sonatas. I never knew how to be tired of his Serenade No. 13 or Piano Sonata No. 11.
> 
> I never tired of Beethoven either, but there was just more of Mozart I liked earlier.
> 
> When I was young I didn't know much Bach, despite having read GEB. I really, really liked Toccata and Fugue in D minor, though now I find out that might not even be by him! It was only after I started practicing Bach and really trying to understand counterpoint and fugue that I began to fully appreciate Bach much more than his recognizable pieces. And some years now that meant increasing my collection of Bach works to be 3rd only to Mozart and Beethoven.


I never thought of Mozart as airy or fluffy or lightweight. The professional musicians I know love to play Serenade No. 13 because it's so beautiful. It's far from my favorite Mozart work, but I can't imagine not loving hearing it.

I adore Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart, but Mozart stands alone at the top for me because he simply wrote more compellingly beautiful music than anyone else I know. Further, he wrote exquisite works in almost every genre. I admit that I don't view his piano sonatas as superior, but I understand they were essentially written as study pieces. Still, his symphonies, concertos, chamber music, choral works, are in the very highest echelon. I'm truly stunned by the number and scope of world class concertos he wrote. And given all of that, there's his opera. I view him as almost Wagner's equal in opera and far ahead of others. I really do love both Beethoven and Bach, but it's just impossible for me to place anyone in the same class as Mozart.

I guess what's interesting is that with all the praise I can give Mozart, Bach and Beethoven are really not far behind. I also perfectly understand anyone elevating Brahms into that category.


----------



## mmsbls

Art Rock said:


> For me personally, I look at how many compositions a composer has that I rate in my personal top 100, how many just one tier below that, and how many are still really worthwhile below that. I'm handing out negative points in my head for (famous) compositions I don't like at all. Bach scores high on all positives, and has zero negatives. The same with Mahler, but Bach gets the #1 spot based on sheer volume of works that are worthwhile. Mozart scores pretty high on the positive side as well, although clearly less than a number of other composers. He gets some negative points for his operas (I know, sacrilege, but I really don't like them). So all in all, a still respectable 10th place. Beethoven scores only one or two compositions in the top (Symphony 6, and possibly the violin concerto), a good deal in the next tier (many piano sonatas, late string quartets, symphony 5, piano cocnertos 3 and 4), but he also has a lot of famous compositions I really don't like (Symphonies 1,2, and especially 9, yes, sacrilege again, the triple concerto, the cello sonatas, Fidelio and a few others). That's why he loses out to many more consistently likable (for me) composers, and ended up around the #30 spot. Of course, all of this is purely my own taste, and does not reflect in any way on their acknowledged standing.


For me, Bach would score high on almost all his works. Unfortunately for me, I've never really enjoyed organ music (don't tell Frederik or Krummhorn), and of course, Bach wrote plenty in that genre, but I don't hold that against him since I just don't listen to those works. I'm generally surprised by how much I like every Bach cantata I hear. I have only the highest praise for Beethoven's works. He wrote my favorite symphony (we do differ quite a bit on his 9th) and possibly my favorite string quartet.

Overall it's very hard for me to find anything negative for any of the Big Three. I guess for me it's just that I love more Mozart. Although I love Mahler, he just didn't produce enough in a variety of genres to get into the top echelon. And yes, it's all highly personal.


----------



## tdc

hammeredklavier said:


> Again, Yuhki Kuramoto and Yiruma might think Chopin is the greatest composer who ever lived. I've noticed that quite a number of practitioners and enthusiasts of emotive New-age piano genres actually idolize Chopin (which doesn't mean Chopin is superficial.) But what non-classical musicians think about classical music is only as significant to me as what David C F Wright thinks about classical music.


I have really no knowledge about Yuhki Kuramoto or Yiruma, you are obviously much more interested in their music than I am. I don't know why you keep trying to post so much of their music here, why would I listen to it? I'm not making a value judgement on their music because I know nothing about it. Do you really think there are no mediocre composers that are influenced by Bach, Mozart and Beethoven? What does that prove? Nothing. So I don't know why you keep bringing up irrelevant points like this.

Ravel thought Debussy was greater than Beethoven, Bartok's holy trinity are Bach, Beethoven and Debussy. Mahler felt that Beethoven and Wagner were the greatest composers. There are plenty of classical composers whose views differed from your idea of the 'big 3'.



hammeredklavier said:


> And I don't know why janxharris keeps repeating his points, without elaborating on them: "music is subjective, the there's no such thing as "objective greatness". Bach, Mozart, Beethoven are only popular, and not objectively great."-Even though we've explained to him many times already: "even though music is subjective, the fact remains some artists made greater impact than others."


Exactly and Debussy had a major impact, his music was to Modernism what Beethoven was to Romanticism.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> I have really no knowledge about Yuhki Kuramoto or Yiruma, you are obviously much more interested in their music than I am. I don't know why you keep trying to post so much of their music here, why would I listen to it? I'm not making a value judgement on their music because I know nothing about it. Do you really think there are no mediocre composers that are influenced by Bach, Mozart and Beethoven? What does that prove? Nothing. So I don't know why you keep bringing up irrelevant points like this.


The point I was making by using those examples was that - I can't care less about the musicians of random genres you quote. I just can't care less about what a prog rock musician (for example) thinks about classical music because it's an alien genre outside the realm of classical music. They have different philosophies from classical music, speak different languages or dialects from classical music, and so they create different kinds of art from classical music. John Cage (whom I don't consider as a real classical music composer) thought "traffic noise was more interesting than Mozart and Beethoven, because it always sounded different, whereas Mozart and Beethoven always sounded the same". I'm not saying John Cage, or Paul McCartney are mediocre composers or writers of music. I'm saying we should take a moment to question how much of their work is philosophically in line with the classical music tradition. 
I can't take the jazz musician you quote seriously, in the context of classical music discussion. It's like quoting Paul McCartney's view on classical music. It almost makes me want to say "Ok..um.. Ask me if I care?"



tdc said:


> Ravel thought Debussy was greater than Beethoven, Bartok's holy trinity are Bach, Beethoven and Debussy. Mahler felt that Beethoven and Wagner were the greatest composers. There are plenty of classical composers whose views differed from your idea of the 'big 3'.


You forget to mention, Ravel considered Mozart the greatest. ( "Mozart was revered above all other composers: the clarity, perfection of workmanship, and the purity of his lyricism, not to mention his prodigious output, struck Ravel as virtually superhuman." [Ravel: Man and Musician By Arbie Orenstein, pg. 123] )
Bartok was indeed more interested in Beethoven and Debussy as his own models than he was in Bach and Mozart, ( "In my youth Bach and Mozart were not my ideals of the beautiful, but rather Beethoven." -bartók, after completing his Fourth String Quartet (1929) ) but that doesn't mean he didn't care for Bach and Mozart. For example, Bartok used Mozart's requiem in his teaching.
Mahler said "In Bach the vital cells of music are united as the world is in God." Also, take a look at this article: Bach and Mahler by William Hoffman. and (as I told you before), he was a renowned opera conductor who spent his career promoting the stage works of Mozart, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, - and his final word was "Mozart". 
So the fact still remains, the general view the real mainstream practitioners of classical music had was that the Big Three were generally important than most others. Debussy never inspired to the extent the Big Three did, never gained respect and admiration like them in classical music. And you forget to mention Saint-Saëns (who said that "_What gives Sebastian Bach and Mozart a place apart is that these two great expressive composers never sacrificed form to expression. As high as their expression may soar, their musical form remains supreme and all-sufficient._") said that Debussy's music was noise. Schoenberg said that Bach and Mozart were his principal teachers, and Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner his secondary teachers. Was there ever a time Debussy had more general impact than the Big Three in the realm of classical music? I doubt it.
I've never understood the infatuation in today's classical music community trying to make Debussy seem like he was as important as the Big Three. I think it was Larkenfield who often sounded as if it was an absolute sacrilege to say Debussy didn't have his own voice. (And Larkenfield went around around mocking Haydn and Mozart that they sounded too similar, even though I told him several times of the specific different qualities in their music). It just seems bizarre to me.
Sorry, but Debussy is just not the kind of inventor they make him out to be. I see the good parts of "_Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun_" as his attempts to imitate Wagner in a mundane way. However creative his music may be in terms of freedom of expression in atmosphere, mood, color or whatever, -the fact remains most of it is rid of the difficulty of writing for form and voice-leading. And if you ask my frank opinion, Debussy's music mostly strikes me as mere exercises in creating momentary atmospheres. "The father of modern ambient music and film scores."
A great, respectable composer, no doubt. But if you're going any further than this to say he's one of the Big Three in terms of impact, I think you're just overrating him.



tdc said:


> Exactly and Debussy had a major impact, his music was to Modernism what Beethoven was to Romanticism.


It depends on how much of "Modernism" you view as "classical music". There's certain truth to what DaveM and others often say: "the age of classical music composition ended with the death of Shostakovich". For this, I honestly have to blame on the modernists for not having been exemplary influence to their own successors. The modernists failed to inspire like the masters of the past did. If Debussy and Stravinsky actually had genius like the masters of the past did, I don't think "the age of classical music composition" would have ended like it gradually did half a century ago. They didn't live up to the expectations. So nowadays, there's not really any more "source" to draw "inspiration" from, at least in the realm of classical music composition.


----------



## tdc

@ hammeredklavier

You are going off on tangents that don't have anything to do with my points for example I said "Ravel rated Debussy higher than Beethoven", you then explain how Ravel rated Mozart the highest, so what? My point still stands. 

The more I read your ideas about music its become clear that you idolize what you consider to be Germanic classical music and feel anything else is inferior. You even talked about trying to like Stockhausen until you found out about his comments on 9/11 and then you didn't like his music anymore. What do his political views have to do with his music? I'm not interested much in Stockhausen anyway, but at least I didn't try to get into him simply because he was German.

I think you have a narrow view of music. I'm more interested in all kinds of good music. 

Another thing I find hilarious is that you disregard the opinions of world famous and highly respected musicians like Django Reinhardt and Paul McCartney, then go on to say that because posters on this forum like DaveM and others say classical music ended with Shostakovich in 1975 we should listen to them.


----------



## Duncan

Post deleted... Wrong thread... 

Note to self: try looking up every once in a while to see which thread you're actually posting on, eh?


----------



## SixFootScowl

I am surprised that, with the love of Mozart I see on this site, Mozart is trailing heavily in third place.


----------



## Woodduck

SixFootScowl said:


> I am surprised that, with the love of Mozart I see on this site, Mozart is trailing heavily in third place.


Mozarteans may simply be a more exuberant and loquacious bunch than Bachians and Beethovenians. They also seem to have better business sense. I'm unaware of any candies, pastries and beverages named for Bach or Beethoven.

https://www.food.com/recipe/mozart-cake-36227
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozartkugel
https://www.bevnet.com/reviews/mozart_energy/branddetails

It can really screw your perspective on music.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Woodduck said:


> Mozarteans may simply be a more exuberant and loquacious bunch than Bachians and Beethovenians. They also seem to have better business sense. I'm unaware of any candies, pastries and beverages named for Bach or Beethoven.
> 
> https://www.food.com/recipe/mozart-cake-36227
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozartkugel
> https://www.bevnet.com/reviews/mozart_energy/branddetails
> 
> It can really screw your perspective on music.


Desecrated by commercialism. Shameful! I don't like how all our sports arenas are now being named after big corporations, but as they say, money talks. Used to be Tiger Stadium and now the new one is Comerica Park. Just does not sound right to me.


----------



## janxharris

Beethoven Beer...


----------



## SixFootScowl

Misspelled for this purpose, but can't help posting it.


----------



## Art Rock




----------



## flamencosketches

Art Rock said:


>


:lol: I have a Vietnamese friend whose middle name is Bach, and for a while I thought his parents were great classical music fans. Nope, just another name there.


----------



## janxharris

Did Bach or Mozart write anything as good as this?


----------



## Art Rock

Better. Much better. For instance Bach's St Matthew's Passion and Cello suites, Mozart's Clarinet concerto and Requiem.


----------



## DaveM

tdc said:


> @ hammeredklavier
> ...Another thing I find hilarious is that you disregard the opinions of world famous and highly respected musicians like Django Reinhardt and Paul McCartney..


I didn't know they were world-renown classical music experts.


----------



## BachIsBest

janxharris said:


> Did Bach or Mozart write anything as good as this?


Yes. Yes, they did.


----------



## marijke

Zart for life

Beethoven for yoga


----------



## KenOC

I see quite a few votes for composers other than Beethoven. I ask that they be removed since they are clearly in error, probably resulting either from pranking or from voting so hurriedly that the wrong box was checked. Thank you.


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> I see quite a few votes for composers other than Beethoven. I ask that they be removed since they are clearly in error, probably resulting either from pranking or from voting so hurriedly that the wrong box was checked. Thank you.


They prefer red and blue.


----------



## BachIsBest

KenOC said:


> I see quite a few votes for composers other than Beethoven. I ask that they be removed since they are clearly in error, probably resulting either from pranking or from voting so hurriedly that the wrong box was checked. Thank you.


I don't think we can trust the TC voting system at all if I'm being frank. Luckily, the website ordered the composers for us already! Bach is at the top, Mozart second, and Beethoven is hanging around at the bottom (if anyone really cares).


----------



## KenOC

BachIsBest said:


> I don't think we can trust the TC voting system at all if I'm being frank. Luckily, the website ordered the composers for us already! Bach is at the top, Mozart second, and Beethoven is hanging around at the bottom (if anyone really cares).


But of course you're not being Frank, you're being BachIsBest. So the rest of your comment can be safely disregarded.


----------



## tdc

DaveM said:


> I didn't know they were world-renown classical music experts.


Right, they are not, and neither are you. They are still two musicians whose opinions I respect, though perhaps they aren't quite on your level of musical understanding. Anyway, after I was challenged on this I provided several other opinions by famous classical composers whose views also differed in the same way, so the point still stands.


----------



## DaveM

tdc said:


> Right, they are not, and neither are you....


And here after I thought I had convinced everyone that I was.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> I think you have a narrow view of music. I'm more interested in all kinds of good music.
> Another thing I find hilarious is that you disregard the opinions of world famous and highly respected musicians like Django Reinhardt and Paul McCartney, then go on to say that because posters on this forum like DaveM and others say classical music ended with Shostakovich in 1975 we should listen to them.





tdc said:


> My contention here is that rhythm and dynamics are less sophisticated modes of expression than harmony and counterpoint, rhythm and dynamics are fundamental modes of expression in rock music. When I use the term rock here I am including sub genres like prog and metal.


On several occasions you expressed your negative view on Beethoven that he superficially relies on dynamics and rhythm as a way of expression, and that "comparing Beethoven to Bach" is like "comparing rock to classical music". So what you perceive in Beethovenian aesthetics as "non-classical" is what you don't like about Beethoven? Now you quote a jazz musician to discuss matters of classical music. -would it be also appropriate to quote a rock musician who believes in "the supremecy of rock aesthetics" to discuss matters in classical music as well?

I'm not a fan of Yuhki Kuramoto or Yiruma either, but I have always been baffled by some people's views that "John Cage is classical music, whereas the new age practitioners like Yuhki Kuramoto or Yiruma are not", or "the Beatles were descendents of great composers of the past, while Yuhki Kuramoto or Yiruma are cheap pop.". 
From what I know, the Beatles including Paul McCartney didn't work with standard music notation -But Kuramoto and Yiruma do. And the newage guys specifically referenced a classical music composer (Chopin) in their work. And unlike jazz, their work is not an endless series of improvisations on progressions. The new age guys actually "compose" written music. What's the reasoning behind considering them "not serious musicians" compared to the Beatles, for example?
If Yuhki Kuramoto or Yiruma regarded Chopin as the greatest, would it carry any less weight than Django Reinhardt's opinion on Debussy?






Since you are fond of using quotes by composers like Weber to prove your point that Beethoven is actually not that great as people make him out to be - Let me ask you this: what if someone made an argument Bach is not the kind of great composer everyone makes him out to be, by using quotes by Tchaikovsky and Berlioz? What would you say? Would you just say: "yeah.. I guess you can perfectly make an argument Bach doesn't really deserve the place he has in classical music. To each his own." 
No. You would refute their argument by quoting Mozart's, Schumann's, Brahms's views on Bach, right?

I don't know what's so hard to understand about my post, for you. A classical music listener sensible and knowledgeable such as yourself should know this. If you "sum up" or "average out" all views and philosophies of real practitioners of classical music, the Big Three score points higher than most others like Debussy. It's because they had more impact than most others in its tradition.
Stop using opinions of random musicians of non-classical genres and backgrounds to validate your point. Just look at Paul McCartney's view on classical music. Would you seriously listen to this guy discoursing on classical music? They don't add anything to our discussion. All of them just sound like "Yiruma idolized Chopin" to me.






I admit I have been harsh on Debussy in my recent posts. A great composer alright. But I find it baffling sometimes, every now and then there are people who talk as if Debussy deserves a place with the Big Three. They sometimes talk like the Big Three have weaknesses, while Debussy has none. I just don't think he's the kind of God Almighty they make him out to be. That's all. 
About Stockhausen, you've misterpreted my words. I never "tried" to like his music. Personally I don't buy into the modern philosophy that "anything can be art", which leads to the way of thinking: "anything can be classical music". I think the mentality has done more harm than good to classical music. Rather, I think there should be a more strict line dividing classical music from non-classical music. I was saying that Stockhausen's comment on 9/11 that it is the greatest art ever created perfectly reflects the mentality: "anything can be art". I think John Cage's infatuation with traffic noise shows that he wasn't interested in being a real classical music composer either.





^A good video on modern art. I think the same thing described in the video is happening in classical music as well.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Mozarteans may simply be a more exuberant and loquacious bunch than Bachians and Beethovenians. They also seem to have better business sense. I'm unaware of any candies, pastries and beverages named for Bach or Beethoven.
> https://www.food.com/recipe/mozart-cake-36227
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozartkugel
> https://www.bevnet.com/reviews/mozart_energy/branddetails
> It can really screw your perspective on music.


I don't think any other composers were _dehumanized_ like:


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

hammeredklavier said:


> Personally I don't buy into the modern philosophy that "anything can be art", which leads to the way of thinking: "anything can be classical music". I think the mentality has done more harm than good to classical music. Rather, I think there should be a more strict line dividing classical music from non-classical music. I was saying that Stockhausen's comment on 9/11 that it is the greatest art ever created perfectly reflects the mentality: "anything can be art". I think John Cage infatuation with traffic noise shows that he wasn't interested in being a real classical music composer either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^A good video on modern art. I think the same thing described in the video is happening in classical music as well.


I don't buy into that philosophy either, and I generally agree with the video, but the problem with the video is that it only focuses on the extremely relativistic, "anti-art" facet of modern art, which is a huge and variegated set of movements and ideas (the organization that put it out also has a strong political bias just so you know). I certainly don't believe that Duchamp's "Fountain" and Cage's 4'33 are actual art (and I think even their most ardent defenders would admit that they are about the concept, not the imagination/creation) but nor do I believe that all modern art is about ugliness and fragmentation. Composers like Schoenberg, Webern, and even some Boulez still believed in tight craftsmanship and clear expression of ideas - they just had a different aesthetic. Messiaen and Gubaidulina wrote music based off spirituality, certainly not the empty nihilism that some people think passes for all modern art. Modern/postmodern aesthetics have produced many meaningful masterpieces, but there are boundaries for what can be done with it, and it's that rejection of clear formal boundaries that concerns me most about many modern/contemporary artists. I don't respect those who take it to the extremes as discussed in the video, and those like Cage who thought they could just do whatever they wanted and call it art. Nor do I respect the elitist attitude of some defenders of modern art - "if you don't like it, you're closed-minded", etc. I firmly believe there are objective standards for aesthetics, but I remain convinced that there is a difference between using the modernist aesthetic to create real art, and abusing it to make egoistic philosophical points.

Well, none of that had to do with the thread topic. Can we all agree that the world would be a sadder place without the St. Matthew Passion, the late quartets, and Don Giovanni?


----------



## chu42

hammeredklavier said:


> Since you are fond of using quotes by composers like Weber to prove your point that Beethoven is actually not that great as people make him out to be - Let me ask you this: what if someone made an argument Bach is not the kind of great composer everyone makes him out to be, by using quotes by Tchaikovsky and Berlioz? What would you say? Would you just say: "yeah.. I guess you can perfectly make an argument Bach doesn't really deserve the place he has in classical music. To each his own."
> No. You would refute their argument by quoting Mozart's, Schumann's, Brahms's views on Bach, right?


Now, to be clear, I think Bach is the greatest. But what I see here is that KenOC is arguing against Beethoven by abusing "argumentum ad verecundiam"-that is, using some other authority's quotes as the foundation of an argument.

As you have already partially illustrated, this is a logical mistake of the worst sort. It is a non-argument and a fallacious non-argument at that. If you believe something is true you should be able to formulate your belief on your own without relying on the words of others. Intelligent people are not correct just because they are intelligent.

If Bach had not been praised by Schumann, is Bach's music suddenly worse? If Beethoven had not been criticized by Wagner, is Beethoven's music suddenly better? What foolishness.

Additionally, people who employ _argumentum ad verecundiam_ often ignore all quotes that don't match their agenda-this is a fallacious cognitive bias known as confirmation bias.

By the way, if we are using quotes from famous composers who is the "greatest", I'm fairly certain that Mozart would win.


----------



## KenOC

chu42 said:


> Now, to be clear, I think Bach is the greatest. But what I see here is that KenOC is arguing against Beethoven by abusing "argumentum ad verecundiam"-that is, using some other authority's quotes as the foundation of an argument.


I have not, would not, and will not "argue against Beethoven", because quite simply Beethoven is
*The Greatest!*


----------



## BachIsBest

KenOC said:


> I have not, would not, and will not "argue against Beethoven", because quite simply Beethoven is
> *The Greatest!*


We should get through all the best logical argument styles in this thread. Modus ponens, reductio ad absurdum, and the greatest of all arguments forms (I apologise for my limited Latin ability so this one is going to be in English): put it really big and in red. Truly a fail-safe strategy to win every argument and influence all the people.


----------



## hammeredklavier

chu42 said:


> As you have already partially illustrated, this is a logical mistake of the worst sort. It is a non-argument and a fallacious non-argument at that. If you believe something is true you should be able to formulate your belief on your own without relying on the words of others. Intelligent people are not correct just because they are intelligent.


That may be true. And I have already formulated my view on Schubert and Debussy (for example) without relying on the words of others. But if everyone expresses their subjective opinion on [X] composer or [Y] music all the time, the discussions will be nothing but just endless of exchange of opinions, without arriving at something concretely objective. (This would be boring, because I don't care for many other people's opinions on this forum, and I don't expect other people to really care for mine.) Sometimes and at some point, we need to add a bit of "facts" in our arguments.


----------



## chu42

hammeredklavier said:


> That may be true. And I have already formulated my view on Schubert and Debussy (for example) without relying on the words of others. But if everyone expresses their subjective opinion on [X] composer or [Y] music all the time, the discussions will be nothing but just endless of exchange of opinions, without arriving at something concretely objective. (This would be boring, because I don't care for many other people's opinions on this forum, and I don't expect other people to really care for mine.) Sometimes and at some point, we need to add a bit of "facts" in our arguments.


Somebody quoting somebody else will never be "adding fact". And through all this quoting...has anybody arrived at a concrete conclusion? No? Maybe because classical music, like all art worth discussing, is completely subjective and maybe all we can do is exchange opinions all day.

If someone is set on, let's say, Tchaikovsky being the greatest composer, nothing ought to be able to convince them otherwise other than expanding their personal listening repertoire and increasing their knowledge about music. Surely somebody else's words on the Internet should not be able to sway their beliefs. Just imagine if all of our opinions of composers were based on other people's opinions.


----------



## hammeredklavier

chu42 said:


> Somebody quoting somebody else will never be "adding fact". And through all this quoting...has anybody arrived at a concrete conclusion? No? Maybe because classical music, like all art worth discussing, is completely subjective and maybe all we can do is exchange opinions all day.
> If someone is set on, let's say, Tchaikovsky being the greatest composer, nothing ought to be able to convince them otherwise other than expanding their personal listening repertoire and increasing their knowledge about music. Surely somebody else's words on the Internet should not be able to sway their beliefs. Just imagine if all of our opinions of composers were based on other people's opinions.


So what do you think of janxharris's argument (which he expresses frequently on this forum):



janxharris said:


> What is an acceptable definition of this often used shorthand that generally refers to Bach, Beethoven and Mozart?
> Without denigrating these composers in any way, _I would assume it cannot mean general compositional superiority_. It is, surely, more a rather nebulous acknowledgement of their popularity amongst concert goers and record buyers (dilettante or otherwise).
> As an example, YouGuv's 'The most popular classical composers in the UK' has:
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Mozart
> 3. J.S. Bach


Do you agree or disagree? 
I don't think it's all about "listing famous people's opinions" or "appealing to autority". You said yourself, if there was no Beethoven, there wouldn't be Schumann and Brahms. Tchaikovsky: "It is to Mozart that I am obliged for the fact that I have dedicated my life to music.". Some artists shaped the course of history more than others did. Even in physics, there are Issac Newton and Albert Einstein. There are many that inspired others for decades; but there are also some that did strongly and consistently for centuries.


----------



## Alinde

hammeredklavier said:


> That may be true. And I have already formulated my view on Schubert and Debussy (for example) without relying on the words of others.


Ha ha ha. Dear Hammered, I think you are probably very young and enthusiatic, which is great, but you should remember that you have relied on the words of others! You bolstered your view of Schubert's music by linking to the blog of David C. Wright (of all people!).


----------



## Strange Magic

I urge all to again consider adopting the intrinsically and demonstrably correct thesis that all esthetics is personal and subjective. That way, everybody's "greatest" composer is actually whomever they think it is, coinciding often with their favorite composer. The only alternative is to locate a working and calibrated Greatness Meter but that search has so far yielded only three chimeras, a skunk ape, and seven "authenticated" visits by alien spacecraft.


----------



## chu42

> Some artists shaped the course of history more than others did. Even in physics, there are Issac Newton and Albert Einstein. There are many that inspired others for decades; but there are also some that did strongly and consistently for centuries.


Of course, in physics they are working with building objective facts and testable conclusions, but I believe that there are indeed artists who were more important than others which is why my personal greatest composers does NOT coincide with my personal favorite composers.

In fact, I am the one who started this heated discussion with my rather immature list. From that discussion the conclusion is clear that "greatness" in art is subjective since the factors that lead people to to label somebody as"great" hold different relevance for different people. For lovers of opera, perhaps Wagner and Verdi will have more weight over those who didn't write opera. For lovers of the keyboard, there will be bias for Chopin. Et cetera.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> I urge all to again consider adopting the intrinsically and demonstrably correct thesis that all esthetics is personal and subjective. That way, everybody's "greatest" composer is actually whomever they think it is, coinciding often with their favorite composer. The only alternative is to locate a working and calibrated Greatness Meter but that search has so far yielded only three chimeras, a skunk ape, and seven "authenticated" visits by alien spacecraft.










------------


----------



## janxharris

chu42 said:


> Of course, in physics they are working with building objective facts and testable conclusions, but I believe that there are indeed artists who were more important than others which is why my personal greatest composers does NOT coincide with my personal favorite composers.
> 
> In fact, I am the one who started this heated discussion with my rather immature list. From that discussion the conclusion is clear that "greatness" in art is subjective since the factors that lead people to to label somebody as"great" hold different relevance for different people. For lovers of opera, perhaps Wagner and Verdi will have more weight over those who didn't write opera. For lovers of the keyboard, there will be bias for Chopin. Et cetera.


I am struggling to draw any conclusion from this. (Not a criticism btw).


----------



## AeolianStrains

chu42 said:


> I believe that there are indeed artists who were more important than others which is why my personal greatest composers does NOT coincide with my personal favorite composers.


This is certainly the case for me, too. Some of the "greats" I'll admit have an outstanding impact on music but whose works I largely do not care for. Wagner was never one of my favorites, but there's no denying his importance and influence. Same with Mahler.


----------



## mmsbls

chu42 said:


> ... I believe that there are indeed artists who were more important than others which is why my personal greatest composers does NOT coincide with my personal favorite composers. ...


I assume your comment is true for many, and perhaps most, members. What I have found in my continued listening is that as I listen more and more to those composers who have been highly recommended, my enjoyment of their work has increased. Originally, I though Haydn was good but not really a top composer. As I listened to more works, he gradually rose in both my estimation and enjoyment. The same is true of Wagner, Mahler, and other, perhaps lesser, composers.

I assume much of the increase in my enjoyment/evaluation of these composers stemmed from hearing more in their works than I had before. I think it's likely that I would not have listened quite as much if it weren't for the almost ubiquitous praise some composers receive.

Interestingly, I don't believe my view of any composer has fallen due to continued listening.


----------



## Woodduck

chu42 said:


> the conclusion is clear that "greatness" in art is subjective since the factors that lead people to to label somebody as"great" hold different relevance for different people. For lovers of opera, perhaps Wagner and Verdi will have more weight over those who didn't write opera.


Wagner and Verdi also have more weight in the general estimate (and not only among opera lovers) than many others who DID write opera, and this has been true from their day to ours. Why? Surely not because they wrote greater operas...


----------



## Duncan

*List of foods named after people*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foods_named_after_people


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

> the intrinsically and demonstrably correct thesis that all esthetics is personal and subjective.


Can you objectively prove that something is subjective?


----------



## chu42

janxharris said:


> I am struggling to draw any conclusion from this. (Not a criticism btw).


The general conclusion is that art is subjective.


----------



## chu42

Woodduck said:


> Wagner and Verdi also have more weight in the general estimate (and not only among opera lovers) than many others who DID write opera, and this has been true from their day to ours. Why? Surely not because they wrote greater operas...


People overwhelmingly prefer the opera of Wagner and Verdi over, say, those of Vivaldi.

People also overwhelmingly prefer chocolate ice cream over licorice ice cream. So what is it exactly that makes chocolate ice cream objectively better than licorice ice cream?


----------



## janxharris

chu42 said:


> The general conclusion is that art is subjective.


Differentiating your personal favourites from your 'greatest' appears to point to a degree of objectivism does it not?


----------



## Strange Magic

Depending upon the audience polled, perhaps Puccini might draw more votes than Wagner and Verdi (maybe combined!)

It may be, to reply to janxharris, that an artist's importance, which is measurable by various means, can be substituted in people's minds for the idea of "greatness". Which can differ from one's favorites.


----------



## Woodduck

chu42 said:


> People overwhelmingly prefer the opera of Wagner and Verdi over, say, those of Vivaldi.
> 
> People also overwhelmingly prefer chocolate ice cream over licorice ice cream. So what is it exactly that makes chocolate ice cream objectively better than licorice ice cream?


Art isn't food. Well, food for the soul, maybe. If music be the food of love ... etc.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Depending upon the audience polled, perhaps Puccini might draw more votes than Wagner and Verdi (maybe combined!)


And soap opera is more popular than opera. Let us not speculate on why...


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> And soap opera is more popular than opera. Let us not speculate on why...


Why not speculate? Much of the world's most beloved fiction is soap opera presented in wonderful and evocative prose. Think of all the serializations that have been done of _War and Peace_.


----------



## janxharris

Strange Magic said:


> Depending upon the audience polled, perhaps Puccini might draw more votes than Wagner and Verdi (maybe combined!)
> 
> It may be, to reply to janxharris, that an artist's importance, which is measurable by various means, can be substituted in people's minds for the idea of "greatness". Which can differ from one's favorites.


It's all on the definition of such terms isn't it? 'Big' of big 3 is what?


----------



## chu42

Woodduck said:


> Art isn't food. Well, food for the soul, maybe. If music be the food of love ... etc.


Yup. But it's all chemical reactions and hormonal responses and whatnot, so what makes enjoying music different from enjoying food?

If we are to bring true objectivity into it: If somebody got a greater pleasurable chemical reaction from a Vivaldi opera versus a Wagner opera, then for that specific person, the Vivaldi opera is objectively greater.

That's about as objective as it gets for art.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Why not speculate? Much of the world's most beloved fiction is soap opera presented in wonderful and evocative prose. Think of all the serializations that have been done of _War and Peace_.


I believe the wonderful and evocative prose is of some relevance here.

I can't think of those serializations right now. It's almost time for _General Hospital._


----------



## Woodduck

chu42 said:


> Yup. But it's all chemical reactions and hormonal responses and whatnot, so what makes enjoying music different from enjoying food?
> 
> If we are to bring true objectivity into it: If somebody got a greater pleasurable chemical reaction from a Vivaldi opera versus a Wagner opera, then for that specific person, the Vivaldi opera is objectively greater.
> 
> That's about as objective as it gets for art.


Ah yes. The aesthetics of chemical reactions. Mix a few chemicals and - boom! - _Hamlet._ Chemistry in C# minor. The Chemistry of the Fugue.


----------



## Bulldog

Woodduck said:


> And soap opera is more popular than opera. Let us not speculate on why...


No singing. :lol:


----------



## DaveM

It’s easy to think that a composer on the level of Beethoven is considered greater than another composer on the basis of simple popularity because one doesn’t have do any deep thinking beyond that. Just use simple comparisons with preferences of flavors of ice cream. Case closed. Oh yes, and keep repeating the ‘popularity agenda’ over and over as if that will convince everybody. Heaven forbid people educate themselves on the complexity of this subject. The very fact that someone would associate the preference of one flavor of ice cream over another with the premise that Beethoven is perhaps our greatest composer over other composers is nothing short of pathetic.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> It's easy to think that a composer on the level of Beethoven is considered greater than another composer on the basis of simple popularity because one doesn't have do any deep thinking beyond that. Just use simple comparisons with preferences of flavors of ice cream. Case closed. Oh yes, and keep repeating the 'popularity agenda' over and over as if that will convince everybody. Heaven forbid people educate themselves on the complexity of this subject. The very fact that someone would associate the preference of one flavor of ice cream over another with the premise that Beethoven is perhaps our greatest composer over other composers is nothing short of pathetic.


Pathetic? Or maybe even all of complex reasons why we like a certain composer are also subjective. Why does a certain progression sound good or bad to you? Why does chromatic complexity matter at all to you? What about complexity or simplicity appeals to you? Why does a texture sound good when it is done with a certain combination of instruments over a different combination of instruments? Why do you like the sound of the flute in a certain context, and why do you like the sound of a bassoon in another context?

Answering these questions will make you realize that music is just as subjective as ice cream, right down to the very last note. Are you somehow offended by the ice cream comparison? If so, then I'll switch to a more high-brow analogy like oil-painting or wine-tasting just to protect your feelings. My apologies.

There is a certain aesthetic to what makes music sound good to either a lot of people, or a small amount of experts, or everything else in between. Whom we call the "greatest" are a small number of people who have come the closest to fulfilling this certain aesthetic. There is certainly a lot to learn about the complexities of this aesthetic and why it matters to us. But even so, it is all subjective.

Realize that if our brains were just slightly different, maybe Beethoven would have been forgotten for all time. Maybe we would hate Bach. Maybe Mozart would sound no more appealing than Limp Bizkit.

How does that make you feel?


----------



## KenOC

Many people think that simple popularity is the best indicator of greatness. But it's more complex than that. I prefer to use box office revenues.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> Realize that if our brains were just slightly different, maybe Beethoven would have been forgotten for all time. Maybe we would hate Bach. Maybe Mozart would sound no more appealing than Limp Bizkit.
> 
> How does that make you feel?


Maybe there wouldn't be classical music at all. Maybe we wouldn't be able to intelligently communicate. On the other hand, what if our brains were a little better and we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. How does that make you feel?


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> It's easy to think that a composer on the level of Beethoven is considered greater than another composer on the basis of simple popularity because one doesn't have do any deep thinking beyond that. Just use simple comparisons with preferences of flavors of ice cream. Case closed. Oh yes, and keep repeating the 'popularity agenda' over and over as if that will convince everybody. Heaven forbid people educate themselves on the complexity of this subject. The very fact that someone would associate the preference of one flavor of ice cream over another with the premise that Beethoven is perhaps our greatest composer over other composers is nothing short of pathetic.


Now I'm feeling as if I've done something wrong.

And what do you mean by "perhaps"? Either he is the greatest, or he isn't.


----------



## Woodduck

chu42 said:


> Pathetic? Or maybe even all of complex reasons why we like a certain composer are also subjective. Why does a certain progression sound good or bad to you? Why does chromatic complexity matter at all to you? What about complexity or simplicity appeals to you? Why does a texture sound good when it is done with a certain combination of instruments over a different combination of instruments? Why do you like the sound of the flute in a certain context, and why do you like the sound of a bassoon in another context?
> 
> *Answering these questions will make you realize that music is just as subjective as ice cream, right down to the very last note.*


Have you answered those questions? Care to share some of the the answers - the ones you're certain of, I mean? The ones that lead necessarily to your conclusion?



> Are you somehow offended by the ice cream comparison?


No, I just find it hilarious.



> There is certainly a lot to learn about the complexities of this aesthetic and why it matters to us.


There certainly is.



> But even so, it is all subjective.


Where are those answers you must have found in order to know this?



> Realize that *if our brains were just slightly different*, maybe Beethoven would have been forgotten for all time. Maybe we would hate Bach. Maybe Mozart would sound no more appealing than Limp Bizkit.


Our brains ARE different. For some brains, Beethoven _is_ easily forgotten for all time. Some brains _do_ hate Bach. But that's not what's interesting. No one enjoys everything, not even life itself. What's interesting is how so many people - and virtually all musicians and students of music who possess more knowledge than the kid who practices the snare drum in the garage - have not forgotten Beethoven and don't hate Bach. In fact, most of them are absolutely certain that these composers are some of the greatest masters of the art. That's _really_ interesting, isn't it? It's also interesting that even less musically knowledgeable audiences seem to agree with the musicians and scholars, as evidenced by the way they attend concerts and buy recordings. But wait! Maybe even more interesting is that enormous numbers of people raised in other cultures with completely different musical traditions, when they discover Beethoven and Bach, agree with Western musicians, scholars and audiences that those composers are among the greatest masters of music.

Why?

If you want some questions to answer, work on that one.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Now I'm feeling as if I've done something wrong.
> 
> And what do you mean by "perhaps"? Either he is the greatest, or he isn't.


Wait a minute. I'll ask KenOC.


----------



## Strange Magic

KenOC said:


> Many people think that simple popularity is the best indicator of greatness. But it's more complex than that. I prefer to use box office revenues.


Probably, using the idea of importance as a stand-in for greatness, one might comparatively measure column-inches of type devoted to each composer. This would include books, journals, Internet verbiage, etc. This would show Beethoven well ahead of Vincent d'Indy: hence more important. Measurable stuff.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> Maybe there wouldn't be classical music at all. Maybe we wouldn't be able to intelligently communicate. On the other hand, what if our brains were a little better and we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. How does that make you feel?


You are getting off topic and moving towards reductio ad absurdum because you have run out of points to make. Let me explain my own points better

This is an objective statement: "The Große Fuge is more complex than Für Elise".

This is not an objective statement: "The Große Fuge is a greater work than Für Elise."

If you think this is untrue, what if someone went up to you and said: "I completely understand everything about the Große Fuge. I appreciate it's harmonic and chromatic complexity. I know the theory behind why it's such a powerful and innovative work. But even so, I think Für Elise is better because I prefer the simplicity."

Who decided that complexity has more merit than simplicity in this context? Who decides that a certain series of notes, or a certain use of techniques, is better than another?

We can take the analogy further. Let's say that a Stradivarius violin sounds objectively "sweeter" than an equivalent Guarneri (humor me as if such a thing were possible.) Who decided that a sweeter tone is more appealing in the first place? Why do we prefer a sweet sound to a strained sound? Let me answer this question: Music is a democracy. How anything is decided is through the experience of the people.

We love the Große Fuge today. It is considered to be one of the greatest works of all time. You might even say that it is "objectively great", in our current view of musical aesthetics. But we often forget a certain aesthetic in a certain zeitgeist despised the work-that is, the zeitgeist present 200 years ago. Does the Große Fuge magically metamorphize from being "objectively great" to "objecticely awful", just because we went back in time by 200 years?

Music is subjective.


----------



## AeolianStrains

chu42 said:


> This is not an objective statement: "The Große Fuge is a greater work than Für Elise."


I think you mean "better," or using the more metaphorical meaning of "greatness." The Große Fugue is certainly a greater work than Für Elise, if we take greatness at its literal value: "considerably above normal in extent, amount, or intensity." That's a measurable quantity.

Better/Worse can be objective too if objective criteria are defined.

Your last point is wrong. It's not that music is subjective. It's that the standards of quality are subjective. The standards themselves can be objective.


----------



## BachIsBest

chu42 said:


> We can take the analogy further. Let's say that a Stradivarius violin sounds objectively "sweeter" than an equivalent Guarneri (humor me as if such a thing were possible.) Who decided that a sweeter tone is more appealing in the first place? Why do we prefer a sweet sound to a strained sound?


I dunno. Why do we like not experiencing intense amounts of physical pain? Why do we prefer scientific theories that predict the results of experiments? Why do we frown upon serial killers? Who decided these things in the first place? It's all just subjective crap and anyone who says otherwise is just exalting their own experiences above others. Clearly.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> You are getting off topic and moving towards reductio ad absurdum because you have run out of points to make. Let me explain my own points better...


You are late to the game. This has been discussed several times in the past and I've explained why 'it's all subjective' misleadingly reduces the subject to the lowest common denominator. Don't confuse my alleged 'running out of points' with the fact that I will decide when, where and with whom I choose to discuss the matter further. And resorting to Latin doesn't impress anybody either. Meanwhile, Woodduck has given you some homework.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck's argument is most persuasive, especially the part about enormous numbers of people raised in other cultures grooving on Bach and Beethoven. Yet CM continues to shrink as a percentage of total musical interest as the pie grows ever larger, bringing into question the real size of "enormous numbers". But all of this again boils down to voting: who likes what? Each person's reaction to music and the arts is subjective and personal. Their reactions can be summed, bell curves constructed, conclusions laboriously drawn showing correspondences in certain brains between certain musics and sensations of pleasure, awe, well-being. But rather than being able to say that composer or work X is the greatest, it's more accurate to say that composer X most closely matched his/her output to the most other minds in some defined audience. If someone is moved more powerfully by composer Y, they can say "While I affirm that the data shows X more popular than Y, I still find Y moves me more powerfully and that's what matters."


----------



## Woodduck

Artists spend their lives making their work better. Not liking it better. Making it better. For them, liking it better is contingent on it becoming better. They know the difference.

To an amazing extent, we do too.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Artists spend their lives making their work better. Not liking it better. Making it better. For them, liking it better is contingent on it becoming better. They know the difference.
> 
> To an amazing extent, we do too.


Sometimes we agree with the artist that it's been improved. Sometimes not.


----------



## chu42

AeolianStrains said:


> I think you mean "better," or using the more metaphorical meaning of "greatness." The Große Fugue is certainly a greater work than Für Elise, if we take greatness at its literal value: "considerably above normal in extent, amount, or intensity." That's a measurable quantity.
> 
> Better/Worse can be objective too if objective criteria are defined.
> 
> Your last point is wrong. It's not that music is subjective. It's that the standards of quality are subjective. The standards themselves can be objective.


You put it better than I do.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> You are late to the game. This has been discussed several times in the past and I've explained why 'it's all subjective' misleadingly reduces the subject to the lowest common denominator. Don't confuse my alleged 'running out of points' with the fact that I will decide when, where and with whom I choose to discuss the matter further. And resorting to Latin doesn't impress anybody either. Meanwhile, Woodduck has given you some homework.


Am I late to the game? It was in this 31-page discussion where I argued incessantly that composers could indeed be ranked objectively, and I was then convinced otherwise by a large lot.

Where are all these naysayers now? How very interesting.


----------



## chu42

Woodduck said:


> Have you answered those questions? Care to share some of the the answers - the ones you're certain of, I mean? The ones that lead necessarily to your conclusion?
> 
> No, I just find it hilarious.
> 
> There certainly is.
> 
> Where are those answers you must have found in order to know this?
> 
> Our brains ARE different. For some brains, Beethoven _is_ easily forgotten for all time. Some brains _do_ hate Bach. But that's not what's interesting. No one enjoys everything, not even life itself. What's interesting is how so many people - and virtually all musicians and students of music who possess more knowledge than the kid who practices the snare drum in the garage - have not forgotten Beethoven and don't hate Bach. In fact, most of them are absolutely certain that these composers are some of the greatest masters of the art. That's _really_ interesting, isn't it? It's also interesting that even less musically knowledgeable audiences seem to agree with the musicians and scholars, as evidenced by the way they attend concerts and buy recordings. But wait! Maybe even more interesting is that enormous numbers of people raised in other cultures with completely different musical traditions, when they discover Beethoven and Bach, agree with Western musicians, scholars and audiences that those composers are among the greatest masters of music.
> 
> Why?
> 
> If you want some questions to answer, work on that one.


There is nothing to answer. It all boils down to the chemical makeup of our brains. I suppose you can dive into what chemical/hormonal reaction the average brain produces when it is processing the sound of a bassoon versus a flute.

It seems like your argument hinges on the idea that when a certain amount of people around the world agree on something, it is suddenly objective good. Again, 200 years ago, people agreed that the Große Fuge was rubbish. What does that say about the supposed "musical aesthetic"? How can it be at all objective if it changes drastically with time?


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Sometimes we agree with the artist that it's been improved. Sometimes not.


Anyone can be mistaken. But the artists usually know best, and we can usually tell. Hardly anyone thinks that the revised versions of Verdi's _Macbeth, _Wagner's _Tannhauser,_ and Sibelius's 5th symphony are not superior, even far superior, to the original versions. In the first two instances, the revisions actually create some stylistic incongruity, but they add so much depth and power to the works that it matters only to people dead from the neck down.

An interesting exception to this is Mendelssohn's "Italian" Symphony. The revised version is fine but is never played. The original needed no improving, but Mendelssohn was (surprisingly) chronically insecure. The fact that the changes were generally slight makes even more interesting the general unanimity of opinion. How do we know that the original needs no improving and is better than the revision? We can't consult "objective" factors such as number of performances, which in this case would tell us that the revised version is worthless. It isn't, and if the original didn't exist the revision would probably be played as often as the original is now. I have them both on one CD, and only one hearing was needed to tell that the original is marginally superior. Why? I can't tell you, but that's art for you. Not everything that can be known can be explained. The subtleties of art can be beyond explaining, yet not beyond perceiving. Which is why some will never believe in them, and will feel compelled to ignore or deny any amount of evidence, internal or external.


----------



## Woodduck

chu42 said:


> There is nothing to answer. It all boils down to the chemical makeup of our brains. I suppose you can dive into what chemical/hormonal reaction the average brain produces when it is processing the sound of a bassoon versus a flute.
> 
> It seems like your argument hinges on the idea that when a certain amount of people around the world agree on something, it is suddenly objective good. Again, 200 years ago, people agreed that the Große Fuge was rubbish. What does that say about the supposed "musical aesthetic"? How can it be at all objective if it changes drastically with time?


Hey, you're the one making claims here. I'm just questioning them. You said that answering certain questions, questions you posed, led to a necessary conclusion which you stated. That doesn't sound to me as if there's "nothing to answer." I'd say it puts you out on a long, thin limb.

The music world is waiting to hear why its near-unanimous judgments that Bach and Beethoven are brilliant, profound artists have no more significance than somebody's enjoyment of peanut butter and chicken liver sandwiches, and why one of these things is of no greater objective value to humanity than the other.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> Am I late to the game? It was in this 31-page discussion where I argued incessantly that composers could indeed be ranked objectively, and I was then convinced otherwise by a large lot.
> 
> Where are all these naysayers now? How very interesting.


So you changed your mind. Who knows, maybe you'll change it back.


----------



## tdc

hammeredklavier said:


> On several occasions you expressed your negative view on Beethoven that he superficially relies on dynamics and rhythm as a way of expression, and that "comparing Beethoven to Bach" is like "comparing rock to classical music". So what you perceive in Beethovenian aesthetics as "non-classical" is what you don't like about Beethoven? Now you quote a jazz musician to discuss matters of classical music. -would it be also appropriate to quote a rock musician who believes in "the supremecy of rock aesthetics" to discuss matters in classical music as well?


I don't know why you and DaveM keep bringing this up, I already showed you that the same general point was made by famous classical composers as well. Its like you guys are so threatened by the idea of another composer being equal to the 'big 3', that you have to try and harp on this one minor thing for so long. I've already moved past it and then it resurfaces 'but look lets not forget you brought up a non-classical artist opinion into this, (OMG) that automatically disregards all of your other points! Even though you showed the same exact kind of attitude exists among classical composers!'

For the record *you* are the one who brought up McCartney not me, though I happen to agree with his point that Monteverdi is arguably one of the greatest composers. That point happens to be true regardless of who says it. There are classical musicians who feel the same way. I only brought up one non-classical musician - Reinhardt. This is a musician whose creativity and improvisational abilities exceeds that of the many classical musicians. Did you know that arguably the most well respected classical guitarist of all time (Julian Bream) considered Reinhardt among the greatest guitarists? I think it is hubris to disregard the views of a musician of that calibre just because he is jazz. But if you want to go right ahead, because the same points are made by classical music experts as well. Lets not forget that Stravinsky placed higher than Beethoven or Mozart on a recent poll among contemporary classical composers. This is further evidence of my point that there are other composers that can arguably be considered as just as great. Monteverdi and Debussy are another two of those composers. Delius and Boccherini are not. Music is partially subjective, but not completely.

I've said some things in the past about Beethoven that were off the mark. I accept that he is arguably one of the greatest, but I think there are other composers arguably as great. In my opinion I still do not think he is quite at the level of Bach or Mozart, especially Bach. That is just my view, and I don't think my view is the only valid view on partially subjective questions like that of 'greatest'. I do think it is interesting that Beethoven usually does better on polls where the question is: "favorite" of the big 3, rather than "greatest" of the big 3. So clearly there are others out there that acknowledge there is a difference between favorite and greatest.


----------



## chu42

Woodduck said:


> Hey, you're the one making claims here. I'm just questioning them. You said that answering certain questions, questions you posed, led to a necessary conclusion which you stated. That doesn't sound to me as if there's "nothing to answer." I'd say it puts you out on a long, thin limb.
> 
> The music world is waiting to hear why its near-unanimous judgments that Bach and Beethoven are brilliant, profound artists have no more significance than somebody's enjoyment of peanut butter and chicken liver sandwiches, and why one of these things is of no greater objective value to humanity than the other.


Does the perceived value of Bach have more value than than "somebody's enjoyment of peanut butter and chicken liver sandwiches?" Well, I don't at all value somebody else's enjoyment of peanut butter and chicken liver sandwiches. Quite a strawman of a question.

My original thesis was that someone preferring Vivaldi over Wagner is no different than a matter of taste. You have now stretched it to encompass the idea of "value to humanity", which make much sense.

A discussion can be certainly be had between the value of cuisine to humanity and the value of music to humanity, since they are both arts perfected over centuries which create emotional responses in us humans. What makes the combination of different flavors less valuable than a combination of different notes? Wouldn't answering that require you to be a culinary expert as well as a musical one?


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> So you changed your mind. Who knows, maybe you'll change it back.


We, as a collective culture, have agreed on certain musical standards and values.

Just because we agreed on it doesn't make it any less subjective.

Just because a certain composer or piece holds a lot of value for me does not mean it should hold any value at all for anybody else. Do you think otherwise?


----------



## DaveM

tdc said:


> I don't know why you and DaveM keep bringing this up, *I already showed you that the same general point was made by famous classical composers as well.* Its like you guys are so threatened by the idea of another composer being equal to the 'big 3', that you have to try and harp on this one minor thing for so long. _*I've already moved past it*_ and then it resurfaces..


Yes, we know you're a prince. I don't keep bringing anything up in a vacuum. Please point to any post of mine that indicates that I'm _'threatened by the idea of another composer being equal to the 'big 3_'.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> We, as a collective culture, have agreed on certain musical standards and values.
> 
> Just because we agreed on it doesn't make it any less subjective.


Yes it does.



> Just because a certain composer or piece holds a lot of value for me does not mean it should hold any value at all for anybody else. Do you think otherwise?


This isn't about my personal opinion. If you think it is then that's where you are going wrong.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> Yes it does.


Ah, so the Große Fuge, Prokofiev's 2nd Concerto, the Rite of Spring, Tristan und Isolde, etc. were all objectively bad when they were premiered because everybody agreed that they were bad?

Why are these works now considered "objectively good" when they had previously been considered "objectively bad"?

How can musical taste be objective when it has changed drastically over time?


----------



## Woodduck

chu42 said:


> Does the perceived value of Bach have more value than than "somebody's enjoyment of peanut butter and chicken liver sandwiches?" Well, I don't at all value somebody else's enjoyment of peanut butter and chicken liver sandwiches, while I value Bach very much-what a foolish question.


I think it's perfectly clear what I mean when I say, "The music world is waiting to hear why its near-unanimous judgments that Bach and Beethoven are brilliant, profound artists have no more significance than somebody's enjoyment of peanut butter and chicken liver sandwiches, and why one of these things is of no greater objective value to humanity than the other." I'm not asking you to compare symphonies with sandwiches, but if you say, as you did say, "People overwhelmingly prefer the opera of Wagner and Verdi over, say, those of Vivaldi. People also overwhelmingly prefer chocolate ice cream over licorice ice cream", it seems that you _are_ making that sort of comparison. My contention is that the two do not compare: aesthetic judgments are different, and have greater significance, than judgments about food.



> My original thesis was that someone preferring Vivaldi over Wagner is no different than a matter of taste. You have now stretched to encompass the idea of "value to humanity", which doesn't at all make sense.


Oh, but it does. "Preference" may be used as a synonym for "taste"; to say that "someone preferring Vivaldi over Wagner is no different than a matter of taste" is simply tautological. It doesn't say anything. But it's clear that mankind places art in a different category from food. Why _does_ great art offer value to humanity - and I mean real, lasting value, not just momentary pleasure? What's in the art that accounts for that? What's in Beethoven's quartets that isn't in Cherubini's? Why are people moved to think and write and wonder about Beethoven's, but not about Cherubini's, which are fine, enjoyable pieces but don't seem to inspire much of anyone? They're all string quartets by technically accomplished composers of the same era, aren't they?

This willingness to dismiss artistic valuation as nothing but "taste" gets us absolutely nowhere in understanding what is screamingly obvious in human experience, both within us and around us. It's shocking that people who claim to have a scientific respect for facts and evidence have so little curiosity about realities right in front of them but instead withdraw into a fortress of subjectivity.


----------



## Woodduck

chu42 said:


> Ah, so the Große Fuge, Prokofiev's 2nd Concerto, the Rite of Spring, Tristan und Isolde, etc. were all objectively bad when they were premiered because everybody agreed that they were bad?
> 
> Why are these works now considered "objectively good" when they had previously been considered "objectively bad"?
> 
> How can musical taste be objective when it has changed drastically over time?


Things which are new and unfamiliar are frequently not understood immediately. But the fact is that most such works are very soon appreciated if people have a chance to be exposed to them. The initial resistance to works now considered masterpieces has been greatly exaggerated in popular mythology.


----------



## chu42

Woodduck said:


> Oh, but it does. "Preference" may be used as a synonym for "taste"; to say that "someone preferring Vivaldi over Wagner is no different than a matter of taste" is simply tautological. It doesn't say anything. But it's clear that mankind places art in a different category from food. Why _does_ great art offer value to humanity - and I mean real, lasting value, not just momentary pleasure? What's in the art that accounts for that? What's in Beethoven's quartets that isn't in Cherubini's? Why are people moved to think and write and wonder about Beethoven's, but not about Cherubini's, which are fine, enjoyable pieces but don't seem to inspire much of anyone? They're all string quartets by technically accomplished composers of the same era, aren't they?
> 
> This willingness to dismiss artistic valuation as nothing but "taste" gets us absolutely nowhere in understanding what is screamingly obvious in human experience, both within us and around us. It's shocking that people who claim to have a scientific respect for facts and evidence have so little curiosity about realities right in front of them but instead withdraw into a fortress of subjectivity.


This is where you misunderstand me, since you seem to be bemoaning a sort of complacency or ignorance that can be developed when everything is considered "subjective". On the contrary, my passion is for music history and music theory. I have read dozens of books about the subject you speak of.

Let me show you a quote from the book I am reading right now, called _The Romantic Generation_ by Charles Rosen. Here he explains why a particular passage from Schumann's Kreisleriana (almost unanimously agreed upon to be one of the greatest piano works) is so remarkable:



> The scherzando character piece is unique in its treatment of the bass. Schumann has placed many of the bass notes on the wrong beat: coming too late or too early for the harmony, emphasizing the weakest beats with no justification from the melody, emphasizing the weakest beats with no justification from the melody, at odds with the rest of the texture. The melody is played, all twenty-eight bars of it, three times in a simple ABACA rondo form; the first of the subsidiary sections is a long lyrical melody played in the left hand in a duple time against the right hand's continuous dotted triple time, while the second is an outburst of power marked "With all force" in the dotted rhythm, both sections in striking contrast with each other as well as with the playful opening strain. The range of sentiment is remarkable. Each time the opening section comes back, the bass returns in a more different, more and more unexpected way.


In my opinion, it is a great sequence, and Rosen is clearly mesmerized by it. To you or me, Rosen may perfectly illustrate why it is beautiful, as he does with hundreds of other sequences.

But to somebody else, they may not care or find the same sequence beautiful even if they understand what is going on. They may say that the factors that Rosen believes to make the sequence great actually makes the sequence sound awkward or clumsy. They may say that the melody is not a memorable or likable melody. They may say that the rhythm is jarring and irritating. All these factors that led Rosen to enjoy this piece can be refuted even by someone who understands it well. The same can be done with literally any analysis of a "great" work.

That's what makes it subjective.


----------



## chu42

Woodduck said:


> Things which are new and unfamiliar are frequently not understood immediately. But the fact is that most such works are very soon appreciated if people have a chance to be exposed to them.


Does that still not suggest a change in the supposedly "objective" musical standards? How do people change the course of musical history at all if it has always been objective?


----------



## BachIsBest

chu42 said:


> Does that still not suggest a change in the supposedly "objective" musical standards? How do people change the course of musical history at all if it has always been objective?


The same way scientific beliefs change over the course of scientific history; increased understanding.


----------



## chu42

BachIsBest said:


> The same way scientific beliefs change over the course of scientific history; increased understanding.


Ah, but that is building upon previous known facts; when someone like Beethoven or Charles Ives upsets the established order of their times, this calls for a dramatic change taste and not simply an addition.

If a scientist were to overturn previously developed theories (such as Copernicus with heliocentrism) , then these previous theories were objectively wrong. Such is not the same with music, because-you guessed it, art is subjective.


----------



## Woodduck

chu42 said:


> Does that still not suggest a change in the supposedly "objective" musical standards? How do people change the course of musical history at all if it has always been objective?


No, I don't believe it does. It indicates only a change in what people are familiar with and expect, and it shows that change can be growth, not negation. Even if people considered, say, _Don Giovanni_ a great opera, which it is by any reasonable standard, appreciating _Tristan und Isolde_ doesn't necessarily mean that their former values must be abandoned, but that they can be expanded. It can take exposure and time to see that certain criteria of excellence can pertain to works so radically different, and that both can be superb musical creations. Some people may have thought that operas must be in the style of _Don Giovanni_ to be considered great operas, or that Mozart's style represented some eternal standard against which all others must be measured and found wanting (I think some people believe this even now!), but all that shows is that some people have more to learn than others less narrow-minded. That such learning is possible is proved over and over again.


----------



## BachIsBest

chu42 said:


> Ah, but that is building upon previous known facts; when someone like Beethoven or Charles Ives upsets the established order of their times, this calls for a dramatic change taste and not simply an addition.


I wasn't talking about building upon known facts but there is a sort of argument that an equivalent thing happens in art.



chu42 said:


> If a scientist were to overturn previously developed theories (such as Copernicus with heliocentrism) , then these previous theories were objectively wrong. Such is not the same with music, because-you guessed it, art is subjective.


That makes no sense. Why can't you just equivalently claim that the judgement of the time was objectively wrong and that the Grosse Fugue, for example, is an objectively great piece of music (just for clarification there was some positive reception to the Grosse fugue during its time)? To just state that such is not the same with music without providing any reasoning is just stating your claim with no evidence.


----------



## Woodduck

chu42 said:


> This is where you misunderstand me, since you seem to be bemoaning a sort of complacency or ignorance that can be developed when everything is considered "subjective". On the contrary, my passion is for music history and music theory. I have read dozens of books about the subject you speak of.
> 
> Let me show you a quote from the book I am reading right now, called _The Romantic Generation_ by Charles Rosen. Here he explains why a particular passage from Schumann's Kreisleriana (almost unanimously agreed upon to be one of the greatest piano works) is so remarkable:
> 
> In my opinion, it is a great sequence, and Rosen is clearly mesmerized by it. To you or me, Rosen may perfectly illustrate why it is beautiful, as he does with hundreds of other sequences.
> 
> But to somebody else, they may not care or find the same sequence beautiful even if they understand what is going on. They may say that the factors that Rosen believes to make the sequence great actually makes the sequence sound awkward or clumsy. They may say that the melody is not a memorable or likable melody. They may say that the rhythm is jarring and irritating. All these factors that led Rosen to enjoy this piece can be refuted even by someone who understands it well. The same can be done with literally any analysis of a "great" work.
> 
> That's what makes it subjective.


No one denies that individuals value works of art differently. Personal valuation is of course subjective, and for some people personal likings and aversions are so strong that they simply can't see what an artist has accomplished that makes his work exceptional. But we can easily see that truly exceptional work tends to transcend these extreme individual reactions, virtually canceling them out in the aggregate, and it's common experience that it's possible to reach a considerable appreciation of works one doesn't particularly like.


----------



## chu42

Woodduck said:


> No one denies that individuals value works of art differently. Personal valuation is of course subjective, and for some people personal likings and aversions are so strong that they simply can't see what an artist has accomplished that makes his work exceptional. But we can easily see that truly exceptional work tends to transcend these extreme individual reactions, virtually canceling them out in the aggregate, and it's common experience that it's possible to reach a considerable appreciation of works one doesn't particularly like.


I agree with this. I fail to see how it points to objectivity.

Is it a fact that Bach is a great composer? Just because 99.9% of us agrees with the idea that Bach was great does not make it a fact. There are reasons why we value Bach so much and these valuations can twist and turn with time (and they do).

Back in the 1860s, 99.9% of people would have agreed that Joachim Raff was a great composer. That number is close to 0% today. So in 1860, would you have said that Raff is "objectively great"?


----------



## Strange Magic

After following this and so many parallel discussions for years now on TC, it is clear that, for many listeners, there must be some inherent properties in certain musics that "explain"--nay even compel--a belief that something beyond preference is at work. There must be something surpassing "merely" a shared enthusiasm for certain works among people we regard as our peers or betters; some inner quality that would compel any and all properly equipped auditors to shudder with the realization that they were hearing genius, greatness, transcendence. To the extent that this is the case with the proper audience, this notion is given powerful reinforcement. And it is then difficult to understand how someone can have other preferences, different preferences. That may be because people are more heavily emotionally and psychologically invested in music than, say, in pictorial art or sculpture where there is a much broader spectrum of opinion on what's good; what's bad, and less emphasis--certainly less agreement--on intrinsic ''greatness" within a work. But music just is, art just is, and people's reaction to it are subjective and almost infinitely variable. The only greatness within the arts is what each individual imbues it with; it is not inherent in the art itself.


----------



## BachIsBest

chu42 said:


> I agree with this. I fail to see how it points to objectivity.
> 
> Is it a fact that Bach is a great composer? Just because 99.9% of us agrees with the idea that Bach was great does not make it a fact. There are reasons why we value Bach so much and these valuations can twist and turn with time (and they do).
> 
> Back in the 1860s, 99.9% of people would have agreed that Joachim Raff was a great composer. That number is close to 0% today. So in 1860, would you have said that Raff is "objectively great"?


In 1860 you would have argued Galilean transformations are objectively true. No one is arguing that belief about what is objectively true can't change as it obviously can. What we are arguing is whether or not there is objective truth involved in musical quality.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> Back in the 1860s, 99.9% of people would have agreed that Joachim Raff was a great composer. That number is close to 0% today. So in 1860, would you have said that Raff is "objectively great"?


Oh goody! Off the top-of our-heads statistics. I'll play: in 1860 99.9% of people thought Beethoven was great. Today, 99.9% of people think Beethoven is great. That's how great he is.


----------



## chu42

BachIsBest said:


> In 1860 you would have argued Galilean transformations are objectively true. No one is arguing that belief about what is objectively true can't change as it obviously can. What we are arguing is whether or not there is objective truth involved in musical quality.


And I would have been wrong, and therefore it isn't objectively true-what is objectively true does not change unless the facts themselves change (i.e. age, color, temperature are all facts that can change).

No facts have changed between the time that Raff was considered great and the time Raff wasn't considered great. His music has not changed. Only the perception of musical values, which are constantly changing to public taste and therefore cannot be objective.

What am I missing here? Has the meaning of "objective" been altered for you guys?


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> Oh goody! Off the top-of our-heads statistics. I'll play: in 1860 99.9% of people thought Beethoven was great. Today, 99.9% of people think Beethoven is great. That's how great he is.


To me, Beethoven is great. To 99.9% of us, Beethoven is great. But the fact that this _can_ change means that it isn't an objective fact. Not that it _will_, but that it _can_.

Or are you proposing that the musical standards and ideals of today will remain the same forever? I bet that's what the people in 1860 thought. They would be greatly surprised that Raff was not immortalized, but Brahms and Wagner were.

And perhaps Wagner or Brahms will not even be a footnote in the year 3000 (assuming that the world survives til then). Perhaps classical music will die out completely, God forbid. Then, what of your so called "objective standards"?


----------



## BachIsBest

chu42 said:


> And I would have been wrong, and therefore it isn't objectively true-what is objectively true does not change unless the facts themselves change (i.e. age, color, temperature are all facts that can change).
> 
> No facts have changed between the time that Raff was considered great and the time Raff wasn't considered great. His music has not changed. Only the perception of musical values, which are constantly changing to public taste and therefore cannot be objective.
> 
> What am I missing here? Has the meaning of "objective" been altered for you guys?


So, just to be clear, you're arguing for a definition of objectivity that transcends all human experience, observation, and evidence. Of course, this is the most useless of all concepts as, definitionally, we can know nothing about it since it transcends everything we can know. If this is what you're arguing with, then I'll abstain from posting further.


----------



## chu42

BachIsBest said:


> So, just to be clear, you're arguing for a definition of objectivity that transcends all human experience, observation, and evidence. Of course, this is the most useless of all concepts as, definitionally, we can know nothing about it since it transcends everything we can know. If this is what you're arguing with, then I'll abstain from posting further.


My definition of objective is the commonly accepted term pertaining to a statement that is backed up by facts.

Here's an objective statement: It is 70 degrees Fahrenheit in my room as I am typing this. This is an objective statement that does not "transcends all human experience, observation, and evidence". Facts are testable or observable. For example it is a fact that the Earth is round because we can see that it so-before people could see test or observe that the Earth was round, it was a theory to them and not an objective fact-although even then it was true (since the Earth hasn't changed since).

I also never said there was any use to labelling something as "objective" or "subjective", only that people are not using the words correctly. When one is dealing with values behind art which are a direct product of non-quantifiable concepts such as cultural perceptions and social zeitgeists, nothing is objective.

It is an objective fact that many people consider Bach to be great. But it is not an objective fact that Bach is great. Does greatness have the same meaning for everybody? If not, then it cannot be an objective observation.


----------



## KenOC

This is all very simple. In the mid-1800s, nobody (aside from an occasional crazed composer, perhaps) would have considered Bach's 48 to be masterpieces. But as noted above, Raff was valued highly. Today we denigrate Raff and worship Bach's tinkly harpsichord. Were we wrong then and right now -- or vice versa? How can we know which?

The answer is obvious: Our consensus judgments of music are expressions of fashions of the time, pure and simple. Like hemlines and the tailfins on cars, or favored breeds of dogs, fashions rise and fall without logical reason, as they always have - including musical fashions.

Beethoven is of course an exception, since he is *objectively great*.


----------



## BachIsBest

chu42 said:


> My definition of objective is the commonly accepted term pertaining to a statement that is backed up by facts.


The statement that Galilean transformations are true is backed up by a lot of facts. Just try measuring it yourself; your data will surely coincide with the truth of Galilean transformations to within any error your home measurement systems can establish.



chu42 said:


> Here's an objective statement: It is 70 degrees Fahrenheit in my room as I am typing this. This is an objective statement that does not "transcends all human experience, observation, and evidence". Facts are testable or observable. For example it is a fact that the Earth is round because we can see that it so-before people could see test or observe that the Earth was round, it was a theory to them and not an objective fact-although even then it was true (since the Earth hasn't changed since).


Think more carefully about what you mean when you say it is 70 degrees Fahrenheit in your room. There are a lot of assumptions behind that that I don't think, if you think more carefully, will nicely consider with what you think of as objective truth.

People knew the Earth was round if they seriously thought about it since they seriously thought about. The evidence was available even to the ancient Greeks. The reason that flat earth ideas continued for so long was purely political. A much better example of changed scientific thought is Galilean transformations. There was literally massive amounts of evidence to support them, there was no reason to doubt them, in fact, they were regarded as one of the most intuitively obvious and fundamental facts about physics until the dawn of the twentieth century when it was realised they were, in fact, false.

Not all facts are testable or observable in the way you want. Take the question "is the universe overall spatially flat" (as in there is no innate curvature). No matter how accurately you measure this and find it close to spatially flat one can always just choose an arbitrarily small curvature that coincides with all tests and observations. It is completely impossible to distinguish between a slightly curved universe and a perfectly flat one.

Things get even worse when you have two theories with identical physical predictions (not just ones which are arbitrarily close) but completely different "factual" interpretations. There is no way to determine which one is "objectively true" in the sense that you are using it; it does indeed "transcends all human experience, observation, and evidence".



chu42 said:


> I also never said there was any use to labelling something as "objective" or "subjective", only that people are not using the words correctly. When one is dealing with values behind art which are a direct product of non-quantifiable concepts such as cultural perceptions and social zeitgeists, nothing is objective.
> 
> It is an objective fact that many people consider Bach to be great. But it is not an objective fact that Bach is great. Does greatness have the same meaning for everybody? If not, then it cannot be an objective observation.


Non-quantifiable considerations can clearly be objective. Any yes or no question is non-quantifiable and I assume I can leave it to you to come up with one that you consider objective. I do agree that objectivity should transcend any individual considerations but this is precisely what many of us have been arguing; the so-called "big three" achievements transcend any individual recognition.


----------



## chu42

BachIsBest said:


> Think more carefully about what you mean when you say it is 70 degrees Fahrenheit in your room. There are a lot of assumptions behind that that I don't think, if you think more carefully, will nicely consider with what you think of as objective truth.


At this point we're getting into semantics. What is scientifically "truly" objective isn't relevant to this discussion.

Let's talk about the idea of "objective greatness" and the impossibilities we must bypass to achieve this definition:

1. First we must agree on what is "greatness". It is such a vague and abstract term that this is impossible, because greatness means different things to different people. Perhaps in the context of this conversation the conversers can agree on a set definition for the time being, and in your case it could be "achievements that transcend individual recognition"-which in itself has different meanings to different people. But for the sake of discussion, let us say that you have bypassed the first impossibility: defining what is "greatness."

2. Next, the definition of what is "great" would thus have objective criteria. This is the second impossibility since the value of such criteria cannot be objective since they mean different things to different people. But again, for the sake of discussion, let us bypass this impossibility.

3. Once objective definitions and criteria have been set (two impossibilities), then there should be a composer that is objectively the greatest, objectively second greatest, third greatest, fourth greatest, ad inifinitum. Do you think that it is possible to make such a list and be ingeneous in calling it "objective" by any stretch of the word, even when criteria have been rigidly defined?

4. Assume such an impossible list has been created. We are now up to 3 impossibilities in order to fulfill so-called "objectivity". Does this list change in 100 years? Would it have been the same 100 years ago? If the answer is no, then the list is not objective. Changes in musical fashion are dictated by the _personal_ tastes of a multitude of people. Just because 99% of people appreciate a certain value makes it no less personal than if 1% of people appreciated it.

So what does objectivity mean to you?


----------



## AeolianStrains

chu42 said:


> 1. First we must agree on what is "greatness".


This is such a misuse of the term "objective."

"not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts"

We might be able to argue the criteria, but once we have the criteria and apply it, it's no longer subjective.

Again, you're abusing semantics here.

And this thread should be used as evidence in court for animal abuse, since that horses was bludgeoned to death many pages ago.

-----------------

Anyone else voted Mozart? There's at least 18 others here who did.


----------



## KenOC

At this point I can only, as in so many similar threads in the past, suggest my patent-pending _Great-O-Meter_, the best solution to assessing greatness in music. The _Great-O-Meter_ measures greatness in a flash and reports its results on a big backlighted meter, expressed in milliLudwigs. For minimalist music, a separate scale expressed in microLudwigs is selectable.

For this week, and this week only, the _Great-O-Meter_ is offered at a special low price which includes its first annual recalibration. Batteries included. PayPal accepted.


----------



## chu42

Well, moving away from my irrelevant ideas about objectivity, here is the general breakdown why the big three are the big three.

*Symphonies:* Bach didn't write symphonies because they didn't exist the way we know them now, so he's exempt from this category. Mozart's symphonies are huge in number and high in quality. Beethoven's 9 symphonies are considered the foundation of classical music.

There are very few composers who rival Mozart and Beethoven in terms of symphonies, even when they are mainly known for writing symphonies (Mahler, Sibelius, Bruckner, etc.)

*Concerti:* Bach's Brandenburg concerti are considered some of the finest Baroque instrumental works. His other concerti for keyboard, violin, etc. are standards of the repertoire. Mozart composed a very large number of concerti, considered to be essentially perfect works. Beethoven's 5 piano concerti are superb, and his other concerti are highly regarded as well (especially the Violin concerto).

Again, very few composers have left a mark on concerti as deeply as these three. The contenders here would be Haydn, Brahms, and Vivaldi.

*Chamber Music:* Bach's accompanied works for flute and violin make up a large portion of their solo repertoire. And the chamber music of Mozart and Beethoven is above scrutiny. Beethoven's later string quartets and Grosse Fuge are considered to be some of the greatest works of any genre.

Other similarly great composers of chamber music include Schubert, Dvorak, Brahms, Schumann, Mendelssohn, but most agree that Beethoven stands above all of them.

*Opera: *Bach didn't care for opera and didn't write any. Beethoven's single opera is fairly well-performed but not considered to be top-tier. Mozart however, is considered to be the greatest opera composer of the Classical era, and his operas are only rivalled in popularity by those of Wagner, Puccini, and Verdi.

The big three are a bit weaker in this category, but then opera has always been a polarizing genre among classical fans. One must note that Mozart was as great as any other composer in this genre, and most of the other great opera composers wrote _exclusively_ for opera, unlike Mozart who wrote for everything.

*Choral:* Most agree that Bach is the greatest composer of choral music. His Passions, Masses, Cantatas, Oratorios, etc. are the most commonly performed in their genre. Mozart also had some great choral music- his Requiem is a standout in the genre. Beethoven's choral music is significantly weaker than Bach and Mozart but some of it is still considered standard repertoire.

Nobody in history that I can recall comes close to rivalling Bach in sheer quality and quantity here.

*Solo keyboard:* Bach's keyboard music is massive in number and regarded as the cornerstone of all classical music. The Art of Fugue, Well-Tempered Clavier, various suites and sonatas, fantasies, Musical Offering, etc. are incredibly inventive and reveal so much about writing music. Mozart's piano sonatas are also an indispensable part of the repertoire. And what more can be said for Beethoven's sonatas, which are collectively regarded to be a pinnacle of human achievement?

Chopin is perhaps the only true contender in this category. Others that are close but not quite there include Handel, Rachmaninov, Scriabin, Prokofiev, Schubert, Haydn, Scarlatti, Liszt, Brahms, and Schumann.

So that's my general statement on why these three are considered the greatest, while trying to remove some of my personal bias. They simply dominate in too many categories, and yes lot of this is information that most of us here should be familiar with.

Other contending composers that have been brought up-Debussy, Wagner, and some others-do not quite match the big three in as many or as deeply in these categories, although some are not too far away. Those that come close would make up my second tier of "greats"-Brahms, Haydn, Handel, Schubert. Maybe Debussy, Ravel, and Prokofiev.

Of course this is all subjective because I personally feel that this is the best way to determine the "greatest". Feel free to disagree and criticize this method of determination.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> I don't know why you and DaveM keep bringing this up, I already showed you that the same general point was made by famous classical composers as well. Its like you guys are so threatened by the idea of another composer being equal to the 'big 3', that you have to try and harp on this one minor thing for so long. I've already moved past it and then it resurfaces 'but look lets not forget you brought up a non-classical artist opinion into this, (OMG) that automatically disregards all of your other points! Even though you showed the same exact kind of attitude exists among classical composers!'
> For the record *you* are the one who brought up McCartney not me, though I happen to agree with his point that Monteverdi is arguably one of the greatest composers. That point happens to be true regardless of who says it. There are classical musicians who feel the same way. I only brought up one non-classical musician - Reinhardt. This is a musician whose creativity and improvisational abilities exceeds that of the many classical musicians. Did you know that arguably the most well respected classical guitarist of all time (Julian Bream) considered Reinhardt among the greatest guitarists? I think it is hubris to disregard the views of a musician of that calibre just because he is jazz. But if you want to go right ahead, because the same points are made by classical music experts as well. Lets not forget that Stravinsky placed higher than Beethoven or Mozart on a recent poll among contemporary classical composers. This is further evidence of my point that there are other composers that can arguably be considered as just as great. Monteverdi and Debussy are another two of those composers. Delius and Boccherini are not. Music is partially subjective, but not completely.


It's weird that you bring up minor things I've said (such as Stockhausen's view on 9/11), but not "my view on the BBC ranking poll by some random contemporary composers" which I actually explained in great length. I have zero respect for Unsuk Chin and other contemporary composers who participated in that BBC ranking. Their decision to "keep Philip Glass and John Cage high up in the ranking, while completely neglecting Handel and Mendelssohn" is also bizarre to me. It almost makes me want to ask: "why not add Kuramoto or Paul McCartney to the ranking." It's this kind of thing that baffles me and confirms my belief a lot of today's "contemporary music" is no longer "classical music" in philosophy or awareness of values and tradition. 
David Bruce is a contemporary composer whose youtube channel is quite popular with a lot of subscribers. I often see him participating in another forum I go to. I remember one instance when he said that later common practice music (the Classical and especially the Romantic era) is a half-baked attempt at innovation. But he defends John Cage at all costs using published books and writings about him. (Maybe he's just frustrated with the forumers' bias toward Romantic era music. I don't know.) In his own words:


> Most of all I enjoy the experimentalism and wild creativity of the 20th and 21st centuries. And how composers think about art and music philosophically and not just what sounds pretty. After that I enjoy the rigid structures found in some of the Baroque (Bach, especially). The Romantic period feels half-assed to me. Things are moving toward freer forms but you always end up back at the tonic. It feels like a big letdown to hear an interesting extended chord that safely resolves to a conventional sound. It's also with the Romantic period that the idea of the Composer as a Great Man of Genius seems to really take hold of the public's imagination. A plague which we still suffer from today.


If a lot of composers today do think this way, I think "contemporary classical music" is a lost cause as a 'classical music philosophy'. It's because classical music is such a huge genre with various different philosophies and aesthetics, we can't hold them all in one single genre. It's about time we have to separate the whole community and fandom into different factions, like jazz and rock. In literature they do. "classical literature vs contemporary literature." So why don't we do the same: "classical music vs contemporary music". "We should part our ways".


PetrB said:


> It is an antique 'top' and its repute (unrevised / not updated for generations) is in place now primarily due to generations of rote teaching, like state propaganda... yes it has a genuine validity. It is a complete falsehood that there is not room at that same top for some of the others I mentioned, and I think the sovereignty of that plateau being solely Germanic is also political, and no longer at all valid. "Self-evident,' if programmed in by rote repetition since we were tots, seriously needs some examining. We need to think for ourselves, realize that perhaps Debussy has as much universal respect and admiration from composers and musicians, for example, and Stravinsky, and not feel fear that it would 'knock off or down,' the holy trinity if they were no longer a trinity.


I've seen people having attitudes like Bruce in other cases. I still remember one instance where someone opined on another community: _"Come on, guys, Debussy is more important than Mozart."_ and received a huge number of likes. Another instance, I heard someone say _"Everything Debussy wrote is good"_. And trust me, these aren't even the worst that I've seen. I've been far more disturbed by the idolatry around Debussy than any other composers to be honest. I mean, there have been a lot of threads discussing the weaknesses of the Big Three. But was there ever a thread discussing Debussy's "weaknesses"? Surely, we don't believe he has none, do we? And I did not like their attitude of branding the "proponents of the Big Three" as propagandists, ignoring the fact they themselves were propagandists AND also history-revisionists. I mean, it's still perfectly ok even if you did not care for the Big Three, but you should at least give credit where it's due.
Another thing that disturbs me is those piano music fans (particularly the massive number around Chopin) that often write cringey prose about his music and how it conveys the greatest emotions. (I don't mean any of the knowledge people here at TC). The ones that sound like they started liking classical music by looking for elements similar to the kinds like Yiruma and Kuramoto. Philip Glass does regard Schubert a crucial influence on his own music (and even has the same birthday as him). I'm not saying any of these artists are inferior musicians or composers, but the way many of their enthusiasts talk strikes me as if they're interested in different aesthetics and philosophies from 'classical music'. Again, it makes me feel "We should part our ways". 


Partita said:


> Bach just made more of as dog's breakfast of the whole thing, by over-extending it to a quite ludicrous length.
> 
> 
> Bulldog said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go. Pump up the Schubert mass by disparaging Bach's.
Click to expand...

But I'll admit you, chu42, janxharris, and Allegro con brio have some good points. I too have been usually careful not to directly imply composer A is greater (superior in composing) than composer B, or that composer C is the greatest who ever lived, for all the time I've spent on this forum. But when I did criticize some composers, I've tried to be specific, rather than just talking of "objective greatness".


----------



## janxharris

Captainnumber36 said:


> As it is generally accepted, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, are the big three. Of the three, who do you love most?
> 
> If you can't pick, just add to the discussion, but don't vote, please.


It's your thread C36 - but you still haven't defined what 'big' means. Do you know?


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> It's your thread C36 - but you still haven't defined what 'big' means. Do you know?


Others have explained that the OP's question does not depend on the definition of "big" in this case. It could mean most translucent, tallest, or quarrelsome, and the question remains the same. That could be why you don't get your answer.

You seem fine with popular and wish to object to superior or best. So why not simply state that you are OK with popular and explain your disagreement with superior or best? Or maybe the OP really did mean translucent. You could debate that one if you wish.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> Others have explained that the OP's question does not depend on the definition of "big" in this case. It could mean most translucent, tallest, or quarrelsome, and the question remains the same. That could be why you don't get your answer.
> 
> You seem fine with popular and wish to object to superior or best. So why not simply state that you are OK with popular and explain your disagreement with superior or best? Or maybe the OP really did mean translucent. You could debate that one if you wish.


Rather baffled by your post. It was a simple question of clarification.


----------



## Fabulin

janxharris said:


> Rather baffled by your post. It was a simple question of clarification.


If definitions are so much more important to you than to anyone else, why don't _you _come up with a definition instead of pestering others?


----------



## janxharris

Fabulin said:


> If definitions are so much more important to you than to anyone else, why don't _you _come up with a definition instead of pestering others?


I did previously - but there does not seem to be any consensus about word meanings here - what is 'important' and 'greatest' in this context?

Why would you suggest I am pestering anyone? Subjective claims about the supposed superiority of any composer needs examining.


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> Rather baffled by your post. It was a simple question of clarification.


It's simply that you have asked this question repeatedly. Clearly you wish to discuss subjective claims about the superiority of composers or perhaps these 3 composers. You don't need the OP's OK to do so. Just do it. Actually, since the thread has been focused on that question for quite awhile now, just join in.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> I only brought up one non-classical musician - Reinhardt. This is a musician whose creativity and improvisational abilities exceeds that of the many classical musicians. Did you know that arguably the most well respected classical guitarist of all time (Julian Bream) considered Reinhardt among the greatest guitarists? I think it is hubris to disregard the views of a musician of that calibre just because he is jazz. But if you want to go right ahead, because the same points are made by classical music experts as well. Lets not forget that Stravinsky placed higher than Beethoven or Mozart on a recent poll among contemporary classical composers. This is further evidence of my point that there are other composers that can arguably be considered as just as great. Monteverdi and Debussy are another two of those composers. Delius and Boccherini are not. Music is partially subjective, but not completely.


I also expressed my view on a few occasions that classical musicians today only play stuff written on score, and some are little more than just "performing machines". But that doesn't mean jazz musicians are musically better. Lots of them are "improvising machines" that just improvise for the sake of improvising (in my view). Yes, you only brought up one non-classical musician. And his view on classical music doesn't really seem all that important to me. A jazz musician's domain is mainly jazz, especially if he's a serious professional. He spends most of his life practicing and studying jazz music, NOT classical music. How much time and effort did he put into listening examining works of various classical music composers? How much music of the Big Three does he know other than Air on G String, Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, Fur Elise? Yes, classical musicians can admire non-classical musicians. Bernstein praised the Beatles a bit on one occasion. But the fact remains the Beatles are not classical. As I pointed out using the video of Paul McCartney discussing classical music, he has a philosophy entirely different from the classical music tradition. He said it. -_"ignorance is bliss"_. Lots of non-classical musicians think this way. But it's not how things work in classical music.



tdc said:


> I do think it is interesting that Beethoven usually does better on polls where the question is: "favorite" of the big 3, rather than "greatest" of the big 3. So clearly there are others out there that acknowledge there is a difference between favorite and greatest.


According to the Greatest Composer Poll that existed from 2013, the order is: 1. Beethoven 2. Bach 3. Mozart. The one that ArtRock did a few months ago produced the same results. I don't see much difference.
If you sincerely think that Monteverdi is really that great, (which is not a bad thing) you should talk about his greatness more regularly, what he did to music, and how other great composers were inspired to follow his footsteps (like the Mozart-Tchaikovsky example). From what I've seen, you (and Jacck, in another thread) just seem to be using him to justify your lack of admiration for the Big Three in threads like this. This is the first time I hear you talk as if Monteverdi is equal to Bach. (which is quite surprising) I'll be looking forward to see you discuss in future posts of Monteverdi's greatness, which makes Bach's seem so average in comparison according to you.

I do accept that there can be great composers other than the Big Three. I sometimes talk of C.P.E. Bach's achievements and I even said once that C.P.E. Bach is as significant as J.S. Bach and Mozart in terms of concertos, (I remember you disagreed with me on that one). There's nothing objective or absolute about Debussy's greatness in comparison to C.P.E. Bach's.


----------



## tdc

hammeredklavier said:


> If you sincerely think that Monteverdi is really that great, (which is not a bad thing) you should talk about his greatness more regularly, what he did to music, and how other great composers were inspired to follow his footsteps (like the Mozart-Tchaikovsky example). From what I've seen, you (and Jacck, in another thread) just seem to be using him to justify your lack of admiration for the Big Three in threads like this. This is the first time I hear you talk as if Monteverdi is equal to Bach. (which is quite surprising) I'll be looking forward to see you discuss in future posts of Monteverdi's greatness, which makes Bach's seem so average in comparison according to you.
> 
> I do accept the fact there can be great composers other than the Big Three. I sometimes talk of C.P.E. Bach's achievements and I even said once that C.P.E. Bach is significant as J.S. Bach and Mozart in terms of concertos, (I remember you disagreed with me on that one). There's nothing objective or absolute about Debussy's greatness in comparison to C.P.E. Bach's.


You are going off about stuff I didn't even say. I prefer Bach's music to Monteverdi's that is why I post about his music more often. I have talked about Monteverdi here before on a number of occasions, he is in my top ten favorite composers, but there are at least 7 or 8 composers I like even more than him, and I tend to talk about Bach the most.

All I said was that if someone else considered Monteverdi among the greatest I think it is a valid view, based on his major contribution to music.

EdwardBast seems to think CPE belongs in this discussion too, and maybe he does. He is more of a grey area to me, I'm honestly not that familiar with his music.

I think it is ok to have separate categories for different kinds of classical music, which I guess we already do through subcategories. I'm not that concerned with it. You are not a big fan of Modernism or contemporary from what I can tell, so for you the 'big 3' makes perfect sense. But for those who are fans of a lot of Modernism (which includes many listeners on this forum) other composers may be seen as their equals.


----------



## Enthusiast

A big part of what it is about Beethoven and Bach that makes them great seems rather tangible to me (not that I could define it). It is much less clear to me with Mozart .... and for me the extra miraculousness of Mozart's greatness lifts him above the other two. It is more magical.


----------



## Xisten267

My favorite is Beethoven, but I acknowledge the three composers as being amongst the very greatest of all, at least from what I know of music.


----------



## DaveM

Those who think that Beethoven is great based on the parameter of popularity ignore the fact that he was great because of the originality and complexity of the music he created. Composing at the level that Beethoven did throughout his life was like nothing that had come before and, arguably, since. When Beethoven was 20, Mozart was still alive. When Beethoven was 39, Haydn was still alive. Of course, these composers influenced Beethoven to a lesser or greater degree, but except for his very early works, his music was totally original. On the other hand, some of Beethoven’s contemporaries continued to compose much in the way of Mozart and/or Haydn a decade or two into the 19th century.

Take a look at Beethoven’s scores some time and compare them to those of his contemporaries and even those of Haydn and Mozart. They are outstandingly original. For one thing, the winds were never used like this before. In fact, all the instruments of the orchestra were not used like this by anyone before. This is skill of thee highest order. And yet, some people want to measure greatness like this at the lowest common denominator of popularity. Beethoven is popular because he was great.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> Those who think that Beethoven is great based on the parameter of popularity ignore the fact that he was great because of the originality and complexity of the music he created. Composing at the level that Beethoven did throughout his life was like nothing that had come before and, arguably, since. When Beethoven was 20, Mozart was still alive. When Beethoven was 39, Haydn was still alive. Of course, these composers influenced Beethoven to a lesser or greater degree, but except for his very early works, his music was totally original. On the other hand, some of Beethoven's contemporaries continued to compose much in the way of Mozart and/or Haydn a decade or two into the 19th century.
> 
> Take a look at Beethoven's scores some time and compare them to those of his contemporaries and even those of Haydn and Mozart. They are outstandingly original. For one thing, the winds were never used like this before. In fact, all the instruments of the orchestra were not used like this by anyone before. This is skill of thee highest order. And yet, some people want to measure greatness like this at the lowest common denominator of popularity. Beethoven is popular because he was great.


I had one person tell me adamantly that Beethoven's sonatas were only considered innovative and creative because Beethoven was so popular; I told him that perhaps Beethoven is so popular partially _because_ his sonatas are so innovative and creative.


----------



## Abdel ove Allhan

The biggest one...Handel


----------



## Abdel ove Allhan

Oh, and Haydn is as great or greater, er, bigger (?) than Mozart.


----------



## janxharris

DaveM said:


> Those who think that Beethoven is great based on the parameter of popularity ignore the fact that he was great because of the originality and complexity of the music he created. Composing at the level that Beethoven did throughout his life was like nothing that had come before and, arguably, since. When Beethoven was 20, Mozart was still alive. When Beethoven was 39, Haydn was still alive. Of course, these composers influenced Beethoven to a lesser or greater degree, but except for his very early works, his music was totally original. On the other hand, some of Beethoven's contemporaries continued to compose much in the way of Mozart and/or Haydn a decade or two into the 19th century.
> 
> Take a look at Beethoven's scores some time and compare them to those of his contemporaries and even those of Haydn and Mozart. They are outstandingly original. For one thing, the winds were never used like this before. In fact, all the instruments of the orchestra were not used like this by anyone before. This is skill of thee highest order. And yet, some people want to measure greatness like this at the lowest common denominator of popularity. Beethoven is popular because he was great.


I also praise Beethoven in the way you do - whilst the 18th century to my ears seemed to have reached a harmonic dead end, Beethoven (eventually) struck out on a new path - and much of his mature work still sounds fresh to me. But to claim that this is anything beyond the subjective is unjustified. Different folk perceive music in different ways and no one has the authority to pronounce definitively.

But please do go ahead and prove objectively that Beethoven's compositional level was 'like nothing that had come before and, arguably, since.'

(I agree with your 'before' but not your 'since' btw (subjectively, of course)).


----------



## DaveM

janxharris said:


> I also praise Beethoven in the way you do - whilst the 18th century to my ears seemed to have reached a harmonic dead end, Beethoven (eventually) struck out on a new path - and much of his mature work still sounds fresh to me. But to claim that this is anything beyond the subjective is unjustified. Different folk perceive music in different ways and no one has the authority to pronounce definitively.
> 
> But please do go ahead and prove objectively that Beethoven's compositional level was 'like nothing that had come before and, arguably, since.'
> 
> (I agree with your 'before' but not your 'since' btw (subjectively, of course)).


I put in 'arguably' for a reason. You keep demanding homework from people: prove this, prove that, what do you mean by this, what do you mean by that. However, you can take a stab at proving that Beethoven was surpassed in what he accomplished as a composer. Or you can prove that 'to claim that this is anything beyond the subjective is unjustified.'


----------



## janxharris

DaveM said:


> I put in 'arguably' for a reason. You keep demanding homework from people: prove this, prove that, what do you mean by this, what do you mean by that. However, you can take a stab at proving that Beethoven was surpassed in what he accomplished as a composer. Or you can prove that 'to claim that this is anything beyond the subjective is unjustified.'


Why would I need to 'prove' anything? - I'm not defending the notion of a 'big three' in an objective sense - you have repeatedly hinted at such evidence but it hasn't been forthcoming.

In *my mind* the mature works of Sibelius are superior to all else - but I don't have to defend it.


----------



## DaveM

janxharris said:


> Why would I need to 'prove' anything? - I'm not defending the notion of a 'big three' in an objective sense - you have repeatedly hinted at such evidence but it hasn't been forthcoming.
> 
> In *my mind* the mature works of Sibelius are superior to all else - but I don't have to defend it.


It hasn't been forthcoming to you because I don't choose to spend precious minutes of my life explaining something I've already explained to someone whose communications on this subject I don't respect. Meanwhile, read Woodduck's posts #226 and #248.


----------



## pianozach

I thought I'd decided, but couldn't pull the trigger on just one.

I used to compete in Bach Fests, and I've played all three composers.

Stylistically, the three are completely different to play from a pianistic view. So, intellectually I get a lot of joy from playing Bach, and my heart loves Beethoven.

However, Mozart . . . . amuses me. I find a great deal of humor in his piano works.


----------



## janxharris

DaveM said:


> It hasn't been forthcoming to you because I don't choose to spend precious minutes of my life explaining something I've already explained to someone whose communications on this subject I don't respect. Meanwhile, read Woodduck's posts #226 and #248.


I remain unclear as to the exact details of your stance and you have made it clear that you aren't willing to fully engage.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> I also praise Beethoven in the way you do - whilst the 18th century to my ears seemed to have reached a harmonic dead end, Beethoven (eventually) struck out on a new path - and much of his mature work still sounds fresh to me. But to claim that this is anything beyond the subjective is unjustified. Different folk perceive music in different ways and no one has the authority to pronounce definitively.


I think the 18th century marks a new beginning. For example, this passage (5:05 ) in sonata K533 strike me as pointing toward Wagner.





"What the new power of the mediant relationships attacked was the coherence of the tonal hierarchy, which in the eighteenth century gave opposing functions of the chords of the dominant and the subdominant. Movement to the dominant raised the tension of the music; an allusion to the subdominant decreased it. That is why, in a Bach fugue or a Mozart sonata, the music first goes to the dominant, and generally emphasizes subdominant harmony only in the latter half of the form. This distinction, wonderfully useful for dramatic expression throughout the eighteenth century, practically disappeared for the generation of composers born around 1810. A new chromaticism, largely arrived at through the use of mediant relations, blurs the clarity of the tonal system: one is no longer so certain which harmonies are most distant from the central tonic, a doubt which never arises with the music of Bach, Haydn, or Beethoven.
A sudden shift to the mediant or submediant was a dramatic effect in the late eighteenth century; it was generally reserved for the center of a piece, as when Mozart moves suddenly from the dominant to its mediant in the sextet from Don Giovanni at the moment when Donna Anna and Don Ottavio enter and prevent Leporello from escaping. Within Mozart's style this new harmony is electrifying, and is magnified by a pianissimo drum roll and a soft trumpet sonority."
(The Romantic Generation By Charles Rosen. Page 237)


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> I think the 18th century marks a new beginning. For example, this passage (5:05 ) in sonata K533 strike me as pointing toward Wagner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "What the new power of the mediant relationships attacked was the coherence of the tonal hierarchy, which in the eighteenth century gave opposing functions of the chords of the dominant and the subdominant. Movement to the dominant raised the tension of the music; an allusion to the subdominant decreased it. That is why, in a Bach fugue or a Mozart sonata, the music first goes to the dominant, and generally emphasizes subdominant harmony only in the latter half of the form. This distinction, wonderfully useful for dramatic expression throughout the eighteenth century, practically disappeared for the generation of composers born around 1810. A new chromaticism, largely arrived at through the use of mediant relations, blurs the clarity of the tonal system: one is no longer so certain which harmonies are most distant from the central tonic, a doubt which never arises with the music of Bach, Haydn, or Beethoven.
> A sudden shift to the mediant or submediant was a dramatic effect in the late eighteenth century; it was generally reserved for the center of a piece, as when Mozart moves suddenly from the dominant to its mediant in the sextet from Don Giovanni at the moment when Donna Anna and Don Ottavio enter and prevent Leporello from escaping. Within Mozart's style this new harmony is electrifying, and is magnified by a pianissimo drum roll and a soft trumpet sonority."
> (The Romantic Generation By Charles Rosen. Page 237)


I didn't notice anything as you described it in the sonata nor a significant mediant chord in D. Giovani. It's best I don't respond with a general critique as it would only be a regurgitation of all that I have previously said.


----------



## Euler

janxharris said:


> I didn't notice ... a significant mediant chord in D. Giovani.


Just before 1:00 it modulates abruptly from B-flat major to D major.



janxharris said:


> It's best I don't respond with a general critique as it would only be a regurgitation of all that I have previously said.


Heh, I don't think hammeredklavier could criticise you for that


----------



## janxharris

Euler said:


> Just before 1:00 it modulates abruptly from B-flat major to D major.


Right you are. I was assuming such a chord within an existing key rather than the basis for a new one.



> Heh, I don't think hammeredklavier could criticise you for that


Ok.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> After following this and so many parallel discussions for years now on TC, it is clear that, for many listeners, there must be some inherent properties in certain musics that "explain"--nay even compel--a belief that something beyond preference is at work. There must be something surpassing "merely" a shared enthusiasm for certain works among people we regard as our peers or betters; some inner quality that would compel any and all properly equipped auditors to shudder with the realization that they were hearing genius, greatness, transcendence. To the extent that this is the case with the proper audience, this notion is given powerful reinforcement. And it is then difficult to understand how someone can have other preferences, different preferences. That may be because people are more heavily emotionally and psychologically invested in music than, say, in pictorial art or sculpture where there is a much broader spectrum of opinion on what's good; what's bad, and less emphasis--certainly less agreement--on intrinsic ''greatness" within a work. But music just is, art just is, and people's reaction to it are subjective and almost infinitely variable. The only greatness within the arts is what each individual imbues it with; it is not inherent in the art itself.


"The only greatness within the arts is what each individual imbues it with; it is not inherent in the art itself."

Each individual? A 10-year-old? rebellious teenager? a young adult? an octogenarian composer/conductor?

Performances are subject to subjectivity. Also the sound quality and the skill. But not the scores.


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> This is all very simple. In the mid-1800s, nobody (aside from an occasional crazed composer, perhaps) would have considered Bach's 48 to be masterpieces. But as noted above, Raff was valued highly. Today we denigrate Raff and worship Bach's tinkly harpsichord. Were we wrong then and right now -- or vice versa? How can we know which?
> 
> The answer is obvious: Our consensus judgments of music are expressions of fashions of the time, pure and simple. Like hemlines and the tailfins on cars, or favored breeds of dogs, fashions rise and fall without logical reason, as they always have - including musical fashions.
> 
> Beethoven is of course an exception, since he is *objectively great*.


You're talking about the affectations of music, not the scores, not the complexity/ideas, developmental achivements and cleverness.


----------



## DaddyGeorge

Voted for Mozart, just because he didn't have enough time to mature like Bach or Beethoven. I love all three ...


----------



## janxharris

Luchesi said:


> You're talking about the affectations of music, not the scores, not the complexity/ideas, developmental achivements and cleverness.


Whom do we choose to be the one who will pronounce authoritatively on the merits of a score?


----------



## Caesura

Voted for Beethoven 1st. Mozart would be 2nd, and Bach 3rd.


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> Whom do we choose to be the one who will pronounce authoritatively on the merits of a score?


I would rely on a person who has studied music for many years and performed for many years. They can look at a score and tell that it's from the young Mozart or mature Mozart or JC Bach or that upstart, LvB. They might not 'like' a work, they might not agree but they can evaluate it objectively. It's no different than in the other arts or sports or chess or dog shows..


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> Each individual? A 10-year-old? rebellious teenager? a young adult? an octogenarian composer/conductor?





Luchesi said:


> I would rely on a person who has studied music for many years and performed for many years.


Unlike many of us here, Yuhki Kuramoto is an experienced (69-year old) composer and musician who achieved great success in public, attained millions of fans worldwide. That doesn't mean we have to take his personal bias toward Chopin seriously or follow his philosophies or values in music.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Unlike many of us here, Yuhki Kuramoto is an experienced (69-year old) composer and musician who achieved great success in public, attained millions of fans worldwide. That doesn't mean we have to take his personal bias toward Chopin seriously or follow his philosophies or values in music.


Email him. See what he says about Chopin's output.


----------



## Room2201974

Luchesi said:


> I would rely on a person who has studied music for many years and performed for many years. They can look at a score and tell that it's from the young Mozart or mature Mozart or JC Bach or that upstart, LvB. They might not 'like' a work, they might not agree but they can evaluate it objectively. It's no different than in the other arts or sports or chess or dog shows..


So this is interesting. You say they can evaluate it objectively? Ok! What objective standards are they using for that evaluation????


----------



## Strange Magic

Room2201974 said:


> So this is interesting. You say they can evaluate it objectively? Ok! What objective standards are they using for that evaluation????


Sounds like identifying flavors of ice cream. Even I can tell pistachio from Cherry Garcia.


----------



## Room2201974

Strange Magic said:


> Sounds like identifying flavors of ice cream. Even I can tell pistachio from Cherry Garcia.


Why of course *Strange*! And the fughatos in Beethoven's _Diabelli Variations_ are greater than the fughatos in Brahms' _Ein Deutsches Requiem_. Everyone who can read a score can see that. Why, it's obvious!


----------



## Ethereality

I enjoy all 3, though starting to come around more to Bach.


----------



## Woodduck

> Originally Posted by *Strange Magic *
> Sounds like identifying flavors of ice cream. Even I can tell pistachio from Cherry Garcia.





Room2201974 said:


> Why of course *Strange*! And the fughatos in Beethoven's _Diabelli Variations_ are greater than the fughatos in Brahms' _Ein Deutsches Requiem_. Everyone who can read a score can see that. Why, it's obvious!


It's equally obvious that this song






is as great an artistic achievement as this one






Everyone who understands ice cream can see that.


----------



## Room2201974

Woodduck said:


> It's equally obvious that this song
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is as great an artistic achievement as this one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who understands ice cream can see that.


Well, no *Woodduck*, its not obvious at all. I mean, one would need a score to show the obvious objective differences. Just like the obvious objective differences between Beethoven fughatos and Brahms fughatos clearly show to everyone concerned that Beethoven's are the greater. All you need to do is consult the score!

Now if you had provided the scores to the linked music we could have plugged the values from Dr. J. Evers Pritchard, Ph.D. into the *Strange Magic* Greatness Meter® to determine which song has the greater artistic achievement. However, I have it on the best authority that some of the 2.7 million views for the fish head song were from people who regularly vote in TC composer polls so our greatness results might be different than popularity polls may suggest.


----------



## FranzSchubert

They all mastered their art, but I object to the idea of a "big three". I mean there's also the "Three Bs" - originally Bach, Beethoven, Berlioz (then Brahms)... History gifted us many geniuses - Palestrina, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, etc. - why place blinkers on your musical outlook?


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> It's equally obvious that this song
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is as great an artistic achievement as this one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who understands ice cream can see that.


All I can say in response is that the idea that all esthetics is both subjective and personal is very difficult for some people to come to terms with. Every cell in many people's bodies screams out that this human construct of Art (music, the arts) somehow objectively mirrors--or ought to mirror--some Platonic set of forms and sounds and shapes hanging somewhere in the noösphere surrounding Earth and the other planets and celestial bodies. But it just is not so. All we can say is that some prefer A to B; others, the reverse. After the preference has been acknowledged, there is then the _ex post facto_ scramble to establish the proper rationale for why we prefer A to B. or the reverse. This process usually ends up as a vote or poll of either a general or a specialist population, the results of which then are disputed.

Shakespeare had it right.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Woodduck said:


> It's equally obvious that this song
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is as great an artistic achievement as this one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who understands ice cream can see that.





Strange Magic said:


> All I can say in response is that the idea that all esthetics is both subjective and personal is very difficult for some people to come to terms with. Every cell in many people's bodies screams out that this human construct of Art (music, the arts) somehow objectively mirrors--or ought to mirror--some Platonic set of forms and sounds and shapes hanging somewhere in the noösphere surrounding Earth and the other planets and celestial bodies. But it just is not so. All we can say is that some prefer A to B; others, the reverse. After the preference has been acknowledged, there is then the _ex post facto_ scramble to establish the proper rationale for why we prefer A to B. or the reverse. This process usually ends up as a vote or poll of either a general or a specialist population, the results of which then are disputed.
> 
> Shakespeare had it right.


I think there is more we can say in why we prefer A to B, prior to making the judgement. In Woodduck's example, I think it became more hazy when he used 'artistic achievement' instead of 'music'. Obviously the Lazy Afternoon is greater music, and you don't need a score to figure that out, it's pretty obviously from a technical, objective standpoint. But which is a greater artistic achievement is more ambiguous. The Fish Heads was better as comedy, satire. The Lazy Afternoon was better as dreamy, ethereal music. I can say I found both corny, some could disagree with me, but there is no doubt the Lazy Afternoon has better music.


----------



## Strange Magic

Phil loves classical said:


> I think there is more we can say in why we prefer A to B, prior to making the judgement. In Woodduck's example, I think it became more hazy when he used 'artistic achievement' instead of 'music'. Obviously the Lazy Afternoon is greater music, and you don't need a score to figure that out, it's pretty obviously from a technical, objective standpoint. But which is a greater artistic achievement is more ambiguous. The Fish Heads was better as comedy, satire. The Lazy Afternoon was better as dreamy, ethereal music. I can say I found both corny, some could disagree with me, but there is no doubt the Lazy Afternoon has better music.


As I say, some people have trouble.... We have talk of "pretty obvious from a technical, objective [sic] standpoint" and "no doubt the Lazy Afternoon has better music", and, if we put it to a vote of TC members, most would agree--I certainly would say I prefer Lazy Afternoon to Fish Heads. But That's Just Me (and You): that's the whole point, yet it is difficult to relinquish the idea that we serve or embody nobler, more "objective" impulses.


----------



## janxharris

It's interesting that Beethoven's fifth is '_generally_' considered a masterful work (and I agree)...and yet this view _is_ held:



KenOC said:


> There's no doubt that the first movement of the 5th Symphony would gain by deletion of the infinitely many repeats of the main theme. Or motif. Or whatever the heck it is.
> 
> While the resulting movement would be somewhat...uh...short, I'm sure it would gain in force!


On occasion I have even thought along similar lines myself - but it still remains one of my favourite symphonies. Clearly, the difficulty for the 'objective' arbiter who is to judge the greatness of music works is laid bare.


----------



## Strange Magic

Some people are put off by my offering selecting among flavors of ice cream as an admittedly crude analogy to the question of what's Good/Bad/Great/Not Great in the Arts. Let us then rise many levels above the crude, plebeian subject of ice cream flavors--what's Good, what's Popular--and turn instead to the rarified atmosphere of the tasting and grading of fine wines: Oenophilia...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oenophilia

I'm sure there are experienced, knowledgeable oenophiles in the TC membership who can comment upon the similarities and the differences between their enthusiasm and the subject of musical appreciation. Is the judging of whether a wine is "great" an analysis of a wine's "objective" qualities? My view, which should surprise no one, is that the esthetics of musical (and other artistic) activities is essentially a variant of the esthetics of tasting wines, and just as personal and subjective.


----------



## Room2201974

Strange Magic said:


> Some people are put off by my offering selecting among flavors of ice cream as an admittedly crude analogy to the question of what's Good/Bad/Great/Not Great in the Arts. Let us then rise many levels above the crude, plebeian subject of ice cream flavors--what's Good, what's Popular--and turn instead to the rarified atmosphere of the tasting and grading of fine wines: Oenophilia...
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oenophilia
> 
> I'm sure there are experienced, knowledgeable oenophiles in the TC membership who can comment upon the similarities and the differences between their enthusiasm and the subject of musical appreciation. Is the judging of whether a wine is "great" an analysis of a wine's "objective" qualities? My view, which should surprise no one, is that the esthetics of musical (and other artistic) activities is essentially a variant of the esthetics of tasting wines, and just as personal and subjective.


Better yet *Strange* let's pair greatness in composers with greatness in wine. If we do so, Machaut/Champagne would be the winning duo - that terroir/score is in the 99 - 100 points range! Besides, with today's HIP's Machaut gets turned in his grave about as often as the bottles in the chalk caves! Clearly a winning combination. Pair with chilled color and talea.


----------



## Strange Magic

An excellent article on the subject of wine tasting. The article is titled--ready for it--"Wine tasting".....,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_tasting


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> All I can say in response is that the idea that all esthetics is both subjective and personal is very difficult for some people to come to terms with. Every cell in many people's bodies screams out that this human construct of Art (music, the arts) somehow objectively mirrors--or ought to mirror--some Platonic set of forms and sounds and shapes hanging somewhere in the noösphere surrounding Earth and the other planets and celestial bodies. But it just is not so. All we can say is that some prefer A to B; others, the reverse. After the preference has been acknowledged, there is then the _ex post facto_ scramble to establish the proper rationale for why we prefer A to B. or the reverse. This process usually ends up as a vote or poll of either a general or a specialist population, the results of which then are disputed.
> 
> Shakespeare had it right.


And all _I_ can say is that "preference" has nothing to do with whether "Fish Heads" or "Lazy Afternoon" is a superior - deeper, richer, more subtle, more resonant, more sophisticated, asking more of both composer and listener - artistic achievement. "Fish Heads" may stand for an infinite number of silly things which have little resonance in our psyches and that contribute only momentary pleasure (like your ice cream flavors). Such pleasures are more or less interchangeable and individually expendable. "Lazy Afternoon," on the other hand, may stand for things that take us beyond the moment, that speak to various dimensions of our life experience, that focus and heighten our perceptions, and that can become a part of the way we experience the things of which they speak.

Whether any individual prefers an ephemeral bit of nonsense to a timeless, poetic evocation of an experience or dream of love on a summer day, or is even capable of experiencing the latter, is completely uninteresting, and irrelevant to the question of which is the finer work of art.


----------



## Strange Magic

A matter of opinion, really.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> And all _I_ can say is that "preference" has nothing to do with whether "Fish Heads" or "Lazy Afternoon" is a superior - deeper, richer, more subtle, more resonant, more sophisticated, asking more of both composer and listener - artistic achievement. "Fish Heads" may stand for an infinite number of silly things which have little resonance in our psyches and that contribute only momentary pleasure (like your ice cream flavors). Such pleasures are more or less interchangeable and individually expendable. "Lazy Afternoon," on the other hand, may stand for things that take us beyond the moment, that speak to various dimensions of our life experience, that focus and heighten our perceptions, and that can become a part of the way we experience the things of which they speak.
> 
> Whether any individual prefers an ephemeral bit of nonsense to a timeless, poetic evocation of an experience or dream of love on a summer day, or is even capable of experiencing the latter, is completely uninteresting, and irrelevant to the question of which is the finer work of art.


You're attempting to compare disparate songs and the criteria you chose most suited Lazy Afternoon. Why is it important for you to impose your opinion?


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> You're attempting to compare disparate songs and the criteria you chose most suited Lazy Afternoon. Why is it important for you to impose your opinion?


Well, choose some other criteria you prefer. Let's see how meaningful they are. Why is it important for you to do whatever it is that you're doing here?


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> A matter of opinion, really.


Yes, everything's opinion. Did the wider multiverse, out of which our universe has evolved, also evolve earlier or was it created by intelligences? Until we figure that out we can't know about any of the ultimates, the origins, the basic questions of "why?".

Why do we study geology objectively? Why not just continue to wallow in our subjective ignorance?


----------



## DaveM

Consider a situation where there are 20 flavors of ice cream, all of them selling reasonably well, a very few better than the others for reasons no one seems to have determined. Ice-cream expert pundits opine that preference for the various flavors are purely subjective and thus, greatness of one flavor over the other has little meaning.

Then a small upstart company by the name of Ludwig’s seemingly out of nowhere releases a new flavor that starts to gain interest over virtually all the other flavors. Time goes by and over a period of years, Ludwig’s ice cream only gets better and better. Somehow it has attained a superiority in attracting more people routinely than the other competitors due to what the pundits continue to say are subjective tastes.

Finally, some of the other companies have had it. They hire a detective to go undercover, infiltrate Ludwig’s and discover the secret of its success. After a few years, the detective has established himself as an employee in the research department and has befriended the person most responsible for the success of Ludwig’s ice-cream.

One evening after a few drinks, the detective finally gets the chief researcher to open up about the Ludwig’s success. The researcher says:

‘In our earlier years, we educated ourselves about the elements in our competitors ice cream that people liked. We found that a powerful flavor all at once attracted people initially but wore out its welcome over time. On the other hand, if flavor was too subtle, people lost interest. Ludwig’s ice cream starts off with what seems like subtle flavor, but as one experiences it there will be moments of powerful flavor when one least expects it. 

But we don’t stop there. Every once in a while using a proprietary method, our customers will notice an almost off-flavor that suddenly surprises, but just when it seems that it will overwhelm the wonderful experience that preceded it, special Ludwig’s flavor pearls explode with a burst of flavor that resolves the off-flavor resulting in an unexpected pleasurable experience.’

Finally, the detective asks what his clients most want to know: ‘Many people say that Ludwig’s ice cream is the greatest, while others dismiss the greatness as being simply a subjective judgment on the part of people who like it.’. The researcher answers, ‘Through our education, our evaluation of what people have already been attracted to in the past, our own intuition, our own innovation and, apparently, as a result of extensive research, our successful appeal to the subjectivity of peoples’ tastes, we have successfully created an ice cream that more people like over others. 

No matter how much the pundits want to perseverate on the subjectivity of our clients’ tastes, we have objective evidence behind the success of our ice cream due to reasons mentioned just above. Furthermore, there is objective evidence that we appeal to subjective tastes of various cultures all over the world and have for many years. This is the result of our objective skills. Skills that others apparently don’t have at the level we do. Perhaps if other ice cream makers looked more objectively at the reasons behind the subjective tastes of their customers, they would be more objectively successful and more objectively great.’


----------



## Room2201974

Strange Magic said:


> A matter of opinion, really.


Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Besides, _Fish Heads_ has important social commentary. Fish heads implies fish mongering - real work is getting done. While _Lazy Afternoon_ has drug induced idlers waiting for the sound of daisies rioting. I ask you, who is holding "as 'twere the mirror up to nature" more?

Note to self: add harps and violins to next composition to assure artistic achievement.


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> Why do we study geology objectively? Why not just continue to wallow in our subjective ignorance?


It would seem that the perception that Mt. Washington is higher than Bunker Hill is more trustworthy than the perception that Bach's musical achievements are higher than Biber's (not to mention Bieber's).

And here I always thought there were great qualities in art I might come to understand and appreciate more as my experience and thinking deepened. I've even labored under the illusion that that's actually happened. Imagine that! I do note that my imaginings are widely shared, but I guess that makes those who share them elitist and undemocratic. God forbid that anyone should have their self-esteem shaken by being told that someday they might come to see the greatness in something that presently escapes them.


----------



## Luchesi

Yes, we don't want to be perceived as elitist. But I've decided that conclusions resulting from subjectively comparing any two things tells us more about the person doing the 'evaluating'. 

Why do we have musical analysis? Why do we have aesthetics at all?


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> Why do we have musical analysis? Why do we have aesthetics at all?[/COLOR][/FONT]


Humans want to understand the nature and causes of their experiences, and by understanding enrich those experiences. Can you think of another reason?


----------



## Strange Magic

I believe DaveM has best captured and dramatized the heart of esthetics of ice cream, oenophilia, and Art. Some flavors, bouquets, nuances, aromas, note sequences, colors, visual sequences, etc, _ad infinitum_ most please, pleasure, titillate, move, enthrall certain audiences. All the aforementioned and suggested qualities and quantities can be weighed, chemically or spectroscopically analyzed, dated, or otherwise admeasured with great accuracy. Then a bell curve or some other mathematical curve or graph can illustrate just what populations of how many auditors, tasters, viewers, etc. like each variety. Then, knowing that all esthetics is both subjective and personal, each individual can announce their own unique preferences and then sort among the various parameters for just which ones account for the "objective" inevitability of their choices.

Again, Who Rules? The Tastemeisters? or the primacy and validity of one's own esthetics?


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Humans want to understand the nature and causes of their experiences, and by understanding enrich those experiences. Can you think of another reason?


Totally true. People just come up with different answers.


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> Humans want to understand the nature and causes of their experiences, and by understanding enrich those experiences. Can you think of another reason?


Yes. In every field of study, the ability to make reliable predictions is so important. In music I think we can predict the relative enduring value of works. ..Because we can analyze what happened in the past. It's not easy, it's a huge subject.


----------



## Luchesi

"Again, Who Rules? The Tastemeisters? or the primacy and validity of one's own esthetics?"

But ask a 5 year old what he LIKES? It's irrelevant. His tastes will change every decade.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> "Again, Who Rules? The Tastemeisters? or the primacy and validity of one's own esthetics?"
> 
> But ask a 5 year old what he LIKES? It's irrelevant. His tastes will change every decade.


I agree. But I'm more interested in my own tastes and preferences. They too may change. I'm also intrigued by your idea of being able to predict the future success of composed works of music or art. I do know that retrospective analysis of success is on firmer ground than prospective analysis.


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> I agree. But I'm more interested in my own tastes and preferences. They too may change. I'm also intrigued by your idea of being able to predict the future success of composed works of music or art. I do know that retrospective analysis of success is on firmer ground than prospective analysis.


Do you really think we have no ability to predict the future success of works?


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> Do you really think we have no ability to predict the future success of works?


I like my formulation: that retrospective analysis of success is on firmer ground than prospective analysis. Nothing so set-in-stone as your ''really think"/"no ability" question.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> "Again, Who Rules? The Tastemeisters? or the primacy and validity of one's own esthetics?" But ask a 5 year old what he LIKES? It's irrelevant. His tastes will change every decade.


I don't think everyone's tastes change every decade. (maybe yours does, but mine doesn't). Also- there is subjectivity in art, but there are also objective facts (such as history etc) that don't change with time. 
What did the composers themselves THINK? Why not consult the opinions of the composers themselves? Did Schubert really think his own "masterpieces" could measure up to Beethoven's? If he really thought he was "professional" enough, why did he keep getting lessons til the end of his life? (I hate to say this, but by looking at his methods, I think even if he lived up to 40, he would have kept getting lessons til that age.) Why did Chopin want his unpublished works destroyed - If he was really that confident he could measure up to Bach's achievements? Was he insecure he would not be regarded as one of the 'greats' by the posterity?


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't think everyone's tastes change every decade. (maybe yours does, but mine doesn't). Also- there is subjectivity in art, but there are also objective facts (such as history etc) that don't change with time.
> What did the composers themselves THINK? Why not consult the opinions of the composers themselves? Did Schubert really think his own "masterpieces" could measure up to Beethoven's? If he really thought he was "professional" enough, why did he keep getting lessons til the end of his life? (I hate to say this, but by looking at his methods, I think even if he lived up to 40, he would have kept getting lessons til that age.) Why did Chopin want his unpublished works destroyed - If he was really that confident he could measure up to Bach's achievements? Was he insecure he would not be regarded as one of the 'greats' by the posterity?


You have to look back over a long life. But maybe you will be different..

I think Schubert avoided composing in the Beethovenian will to power vein. He didn't want to be compared to LvB. He found his own way and he acheived greatness in his 31 years.

You've said that you've played the large works of Chopin. You can answer the question about what he wanted destroyed. We're lucky to have them for comparison.


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> I like my formulation: that retrospective analysis of success is on firmer ground than prospective analysis. Nothing so set-in-stone as your ''really think"/"no ability" question.


You said:



Strange Magic said:


> I'm also intrigued by your idea of being able to predict the future success of composed works of music or art.


I interpreted this as being facetious. If so, I think my question was in good faith. Otherwise, you seem to agree with the possibility of predicting the future success of works which you appeared to be arguing against. No one, shockingly enough, is disagreeing that anaylising the future success of works in the future is not easier than anaylising it before the results are in.


----------



## Red Terror

Captainnumber36 said:


> Bach is too repetitive, yet very spiritual.


Repetitive? To each his own I suppose.


----------



## Red Terror

My personal three: Bach, Beethoven, Haydn. Scandalous, I know.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> I like my formulation: that retrospective analysis of success is on firmer ground than prospective analysis. Nothing so set-in-stone as your ''really think"/"no ability" question.


I can't tell whether you're being proud, humble or evasive. The judgments of future generations on our art can't be predicted completely, and it's foolish to be overconfident, but if you want to be retrospective, one thing that retrospect tells us is that composers widely considered preeminent now were to a very great extent recognized as such in their time, and the works now judged masterpieces were fairly soon acclaimed as such by those who had the opportunity to become acquainted with them through study or performance. Many variables, some having nothing directly to do with music, affect the way works are first received, but excellence has a way of making its way, and people equipped with a certain amount of experience have a way of recognizing it, even when it presents the usual challenges of newness and originality.


----------



## Red Terror

Woodduck said:


> I can't tell whether you're being proud, humble or evasive.


Proud and evasive.

You're welcome.


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> I interpreted this as being facetious. If so, I think my question was in good faith. Otherwise, you seem to agree with the possibility of predicting the future success of works which you appeared to be arguing against. No one, shockingly enough, is disagreeing that anaylising the future success of works in the future is not easier than anaylising it before the results are in.


Yes. I was hoping that Luchesi would explain, amplify, clarify his suggestion that one could predict the future success of a work of art/music. I think we're in the same boat, except you seem to have decided to question me rather than him, which I thought odd.


----------



## Room2201974

The self-fulfilling prophecies have a tendency to come to fuition.

Most of the pedagogical training on instruments happens within the confines of functional harmony. That those drawn to classical music, even those from other cultures, are products of that pedagogical training either directly or indirectly is inescapable. This creates an intellectual inbreeding that is so obvious that even Captain Renault would say, "I'm shocked, shocked to find out gambling is going on at this establishment." (He said that after reviewing Art Rock's last composer poll.) 

Wish I had more time to write but I must get back to my studies. We are singing Webern tone rows in Sightsinging I, so I must prepare. And, I'm behind in my Machaut examples for String Techniques II, so gotta go rosin the bow.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> I can't tell whether you're being proud, humble or evasive. The judgments of future generations on our art can't be predicted completely, and it's foolish to be overconfident, but if you want to be retrospective, one thing that retrospect tells us is that composers widely considered preeminent now were to a very great extent recognized as such in their time, and the works now judged masterpieces were fairly soon acclaimed as such by those who had the opportunity to become acquainted with them through study or performance. Many variables, some having nothing directly to do with music, affect the way works are first received, but excellence has a way of making its way, and people equipped with a certain amount of experience have a way of recognizing it, even when it presents the usual challenges of newness and originality.


Where is Luchesi? This is his area of claimed knowledge. Anyway, let's not make more of this than it will bear. What about those composers and works judged preeminent then who today are footnotes, also-rans, or the hobby-horse enthusiasms of a few loyal aficionados? And let us consider those critics of the time who dismissed various composers and works as failures and humbugs. Yet success has many fathers. But in general I agree with your post, including the caution about not being able to predict completely, which covers a lot of ground.


----------



## Room2201974

Validity in test theory:

It would be naive (Wagner) to assume (Wagner) that one composer (Wagner) isn't consistently (Wagner) down graded (Wagner) in popularity polls (Wagner) for reasons that are (Wagner) non musical (Wagner). Popularity polls (Wagner) are a lovely set (Wagner) of skewed data (Wagner), or is it screwed data? (Wagner)


----------



## Strange Magic

The discussion of prospective success (or failure) in music and art is inherently skewed from the get-go by the nature of the historical record and human nature itself. Consider: A loved, remembered work will have brought down with it through time a record both of those touting from the beginning its assured success and of those unhappy souls who thought it a failure at the time. This provides ample fodder for anyone making a case for the wisdom and acuity of the work's or its creator's early cheerleaders, and of the folly and blindness of the detractors. But artistic failure is mostly forgotten or ignored, along with the record of those who at that time praised it and those who condemned it. This factor of a skewed historical record is enough to render suspect sweeping claims as to the inevitability of a predicted success. We remember what has been presented to us to remember.


----------



## The3Bs

Which is better?

The most common answer is ... It depends.. 
It depends on so many variables, mostly personal, that are constantly changing and what might be your favorite now will probably change in a day, week, month or year(s) time, or maybe not.....

I used to think of a single favorite composer but can no longer be comfortable with that concept....


----------



## ZeR0

I voted for Beethoven largely on account of his string quartets and piano sonatas. However, I just as easily could have voted for the other two. I love Mozart's piano concertos and operas, and Bach's keyboard and choral music.


----------



## Guest002

As someone who voted for Bach, having come to his music only within the past 15 years or so, I am genuinely surprised at the voting. I had it firmly in mind that Bach the Father, Mozart the Son and Beethoven the Holy Ghost would have appeared in the voting in that order. Maybe it's my choral background: we sang a lot of Bach, quite a bit of Mozart... and hoped to heaven that we didn't have to sing much Beethoven!

Apparently it's not true that Beethoven couldn't write for the voice. Well, I can only say by way of rebuttal that I have sight-read a performance of Vaughan Williams' Sea Symphony and got through that rather well, I thought; and on the strength of that, I was then asked to bump up the numbers for a performance of Beethoven's 9th, which I then also sight-read. It was not my finest moment, _very_ hard -and I blame Ludwig, not me!!


----------



## hammeredklavier

dizwell said:


> Apparently it's not true that Beethoven couldn't write for the voice. Well, I can only say by way of rebuttal that I have sight-read a performance of Vaughan Williams' Sea Symphony and got through that rather well, I thought; and on the strength of that, I was then asked to bump up the numbers for a performance of Beethoven's 9th, which I then also sight-read. It was not my finest moment, _very_ hard -and I blame Ludwig, not me!!


"... We must remember that he served a long apprenticeship in the Opera House at Bonn, accompanying and conducting rehearsals of works in which the vocal writing was of the most grateful type; and that he realized the importance of this part of a composer's equipment is shown by the fact that on his arrival in Vienna he backed up his former valuable experience by going to Salieri for lessons in vocal writing-apparently with the setting of recitative specially in view. He was so well acquainted with good models that his shortcomings are evidently due rather to lack of sympathy with the voice than want of knowledge. Perhaps if he had been a chorister in his boyhood his attitude would have been different. But he seems to have shown no aptitude for singing, and his vocal efforts when trying to over his own works at the pianoforte consisted of the desolating sounds we usually hear from creative musicians in the throes. (In fact, "composer's voice" is now almost a generally recognized classification.) The clue to his ungrateful vocal writing lies in a casual remark: "When I think of a theme, it is always for some instrument." Add to this his constant impatience with any kind of technical limitations, and we can account for those terrible strings of high notes, the ungrateful arpeggios and other florid passages, and the long breathless stretches that make his choral writing so formidable. On the score of excessive range, however, Professor Tovey defends him, saying that the extravagant vocal compass "looks like some enormous violence of Beethoven's genius; whereas it is but little worse than the habits of contemporaries of his who were under no excitement whatever." It was unfortunate for this department of Beethoven's work that he lived in a bad choral period, when the idiom was secular and operatic, and the beauty of unaccompanied singing seems to have been unrealized. Thus in the whole of the Missa Solemnis there are only about a dozen bars in which the orchestra is silent. Moreover, the vocal lines are often obscured by being doubled in an aggressively florid way by the orchestra.
Another reason for Beethoven's shortcomings in writing for the voice was his poor literary sense. He was always unhandy in dealing with words, and a text often hampered rather than inspired him. In this respect he is the very reverse of Bach, who was almost over-ready to respond to the appeal of a graphic phrase. ..."
{ Revival: Beethoven (1933), By Harvey Grace, Page 163 }


----------



## Merl

Guess my vote.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Where is Luchesi? This is his area of claimed knowledge. Anyway, let's not make more of this than it will bear. What about those composers and works judged preeminent then who today are footnotes, also-rans, or the hobby-horse enthusiasms of a few loyal aficionados? And let us consider those critics of the time who dismissed various composers and works as failures and humbugs. Yet success has many fathers. But in general I agree with your post, including the caution about not being able to predict completely, which covers a lot of ground.


I'm here, just watching the talk about preferences and early (mis)understandings of works and an eventual consensus of popularity arising etc.. Aestheticians care about how those affectations come from the music theory employed by the composer. Just like how a painter does it with his elements and tools of ambiguity etc.

How much do you want to learn about the basic and boring nuts and bolts of music theory?


----------



## Luchesi

Why did Schubert want lessons in counterpoint in this last year. He had a natural ability with intertwined voices, but he wanted to know how it was taught to see if there was anything that he wasn't familiar with. That's my take, just an opinion.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> Why did Schubert want lessons in counterpoint in this last year. He had a natural ability with intertwined voices, but he wanted to know how it was taught to see if there was anything that he wasn't familiar with. That's my take, just an opinion.


Schubert was eager to improve on his counterpoint because he was a classical music composer at heart. Classical music is a genre that emphasizes various structural techniques such as counterpoint to aid skills of harmony and enrich expression. If you don't think this is important, maybe New age is the right genre for you. Even Chopin's efforts in contrapuntal studies of early 1840 (copying down of Cherubini's 3 fugues) helped him greatly in writing his final masterpieces (of classical music) such as Ballade No.4.
Mr. Luchesi, sometimes you talk too much like a New age enthusiast, rather than a classical music one. I wonder if you secretly love Yuhki Kuramoto. XD (Not that it's a bad thing, but remember, this is a classical music forum)
"I was just curious what the classical guys did, so I listened to their music, just to know what I shouldn't do." This is the exact kind of mindset Paul McCartney has.

[ 3:00 ]


----------



## karlsoren

To me Bach and Beethoven are really just another, much greater, species of composer than anyone else. 
Mozart is fab, but a touch repetitive. Doesn't have the range of the B's. Just think of all the very different kinds of things each of them did: from the B minor mass to the solo violin, from the first movement of the moonlight to the late quartets. Amazing variety of instruments, styles, emotional content. No one else comes close!


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Schubert was eager to improve on his counterpoint because he was a classical music composer at heart. Classical music is a genre that emphasizes various structural techniques such as counterpoint to aid skills of harmony and enrich expression. If you don't think this is important, maybe New age is the right genre for you. Even Chopin's efforts in contrapuntal studies of early 1840 (copying down of Cherubini's 3 fugues) helped him greatly in writing his final masterpieces (of classical music) such as Ballade No.4.
> Mr. Luchesi, sometimes you talk too much like a New age enthusiast, rather than a classical music one. I wonder if you secretly love Yuhki Kuramoto. XD (Not that it's a bad thing, but remember, this is a classical music forum)
> "I was just curious what the classical guys did, so I listened to their music, just to know what I shouldn't do." This is the exact kind of mindset Paul McCartney has.
> 
> [ 3:00 ]


Sometimes I try to imitate Yiruma (이루마) in an improvisational display (always over the top). People are surprised and think it's funny. But I can't take too much of those sugary sweet resolutions.


----------



## The3Bs

ZeR0 said:


> I voted for Beethoven largely on account of his string quartets and piano sonatas. However, I just as easily could have voted for the other two. I love Mozart's piano concertos and operas, and Bach's keyboard and choral music.


That is why I stated it depends.... in the post just before yours.
Sometimes we might be inclined to vote with the heart others with the head... and so on


----------



## EdwardBast

Luchesi said:


> Why did Schubert want lessons in counterpoint in this last year. He had a natural ability with intertwined voices, but he wanted to know how it was taught to see if there was anything that he wasn't familiar with. That's my take, just an opinion.


I'm not sure how this fits into the thread. Oh wait. I have it!:

Schubert was too smart not to realize that if he was ever going to compete with the "big three," he was going to need some serious work on counterpoint. It's admirable that he realized this and was willing to do the work, even after he had produced a body of great music that insured his immortality.


----------



## BachIsBest

karlsoren said:


> To me Bach and Beethoven are really just another, much greater, species of composer than anyone else.
> Mozart is fab, but a touch repetitive. Doesn't have the range of the B's. Just think of all the very different kinds of things each of them did: from the B minor mass to the solo violin, from the first movement of the moonlight to the late quartets. Amazing variety of instruments, styles, emotional content. No one else comes close!


Have you listened to the operas of Mozart? He was certainly the best operatic composer of the three (winning over Bach by default) and I think this may change your mind regarding his so-called lack of variety.


----------



## Xisten267

dizwell said:


> As someone who voted for Bach, having come to his music only within the past 15 years or so, I am genuinely surprised at the voting. I had it firmly in mind that Bach the Father, Mozart the Son and Beethoven the Holy Ghost would have appeared in the voting in that order. Maybe it's my choral background: we sang a lot of Bach, quite a bit of Mozart... and hoped to heaven that we didn't have to sing much Beethoven!
> 
> Apparently it's not true that Beethoven couldn't write for the voice. Well, I can only say by way of rebuttal that I have sight-read a performance of Vaughan Williams' Sea Symphony and got through that rather well, I thought; and on the strength of that, I was then asked to bump up the numbers for a performance of Beethoven's 9th, which I then also sight-read. It was not my finest moment, _very_ hard -and I blame Ludwig, not me!!


Well, as an enthusiast of Beethoven, I have to say that I love his vocal works. For me the difficulty of his vocal music and the differences in the way it sounds when compared to previous masters is a strenght, not a shortcoming: it's sign of originality. With his background in music theory I believe that he could have easily imitated the styles of Salieri and Mozart if he wanted to, but that he instead chose to try a new path and develop his own style.

Beethoven has relatively few vocal works when compared to Mozart and Bach, but it's my opinion that the best of them are very great music. After all, it should be noted that it's due one of his vocal works, a cantata, that Haydn decided to welcome the young Ludwig as his pupil.

A relatively unknown work by him that I consider a masterpiece, and that I usually recommend to friends, is his Mass in C, Op. 86. I really wish that he had composed more masses like this (and Op. 123):






The Gardiner version is overall superb IMO but especifically for the Agnus Dei/Dona Nobis I prefer others such as Giulini's:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> With his background in music theory I believe that he could have easily imitated the styles of Salieri and Mozart if he wanted to, but that he instead chose to try a new path and develop his own style.
> Beethoven has relatively few vocal works when compared to Mozart and Bach, but it's my opinion that the best of them are very great music. After all, it should be noted that it's due one of his vocal works, a cantata, that Haydn decided to welcome the young Ludwig as his pupil.


I find that in choral music, Mozart is closer to Michael Haydn, and Beethoven is closer to Joseph Haydn in general impression. Beethoven actually studied Joseph Haydn's late masses (right before composing his own Op.86) and called them "inimitable masterpieces".


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

EdwardBast said:


> I'm not sure how this fits into the thread. Oh wait. I have it!:
> 
> Schubert was too smart not to realize that if he was ever going to compete with the "big three," he was going to need some serious work on counterpoint. It's admirable that he realized this and was willing to do the work, even after he had produced a body of great music that insured his immortality.


Yes; surely if Schubert was a man of any dignity his primary concern must have been for his future reputation on TC, specifically how he might measure up against the Big 3. Personal artistic development and affinities were, at most, a secondary concern.


----------



## Luchesi

EdwardBast said:


> I'm not sure how this fits into the thread. Oh wait. I have it!:
> 
> Schubert was too smart not to realize that if he was ever going to compete with the "big three," he was going to need some serious work on counterpoint. It's admirable that he realized this and was willing to do the work, even after he had produced a body of great music that insured his immortality.


Our young hammeredklavier poster has implied that Schubert was second rate because he sought out counterpoint lessons.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> Our young hammeredklavier poster has implied that Schubert was second rate because he sought out counterpoint lessons.


Well, the fact remains that Schubert sought lessons (probably not just on counterpoint) til the end of his life, because he knew his own deficiencies that held him back from being a fully stand-alone professional. Have I committed some sort of sacrilege by stating the fact? Based on everything I've said, I don't *personally* think he's the greatest composer who ever lived. What does my age have to do with anything being discussed here? I haven't seen anyone else on this forum having this much obsession with age, like seriously. =)


----------



## janxharris

DaveM said:


> Consider a situation where there are 20 flavors of ice cream, all of them selling reasonably well, a very few better than the others for reasons no one seems to have determined. Ice-cream expert pundits opine that preference for the various flavors are purely subjective and thus, greatness of one flavor over the other has little meaning.
> 
> Then a small upstart company by the name of Ludwig's seemingly out of nowhere releases a new flavor that starts to gain interest over virtually all the other flavors. Time goes by and over a period of years, Ludwig's ice cream only gets better and better. Somehow it has attained a superiority in attracting more people routinely than the other competitors due to what the pundits continue to say are subjective tastes.
> 
> Finally, some of the other companies have had it. They hire a detective to go undercover, infiltrate Ludwig's and discover the secret of its success. After a few years, the detective has established himself as an employee in the research department and has befriended the person most responsible for the success of Ludwig's ice-cream.
> 
> One evening after a few drinks, the detective finally gets the chief researcher to open up about the Ludwig's success. The researcher says:
> 
> 'In our earlier years, we educated ourselves about the elements in our competitors ice cream that people liked. We found that a powerful flavor all at once attracted people initially but wore out its welcome over time. On the other hand, if flavor was too subtle, people lost interest. Ludwig's ice cream starts off with what seems like subtle flavor, but as one experiences it there will be moments of powerful flavor when one least expects it.
> 
> But we don't stop there. Every once in a while using a proprietary method, our customers will notice an almost off-flavor that suddenly surprises, but just when it seems that it will overwhelm the wonderful experience that preceded it, special Ludwig's flavor pearls explode with a burst of flavor that resolves the off-flavor resulting in an unexpected pleasurable experience.'
> 
> Finally, the detective asks what his clients most want to know: 'Many people say that Ludwig's ice cream is the greatest, while others dismiss the greatness as being simply a subjective judgment on the part of people who like it.'. The researcher answers, 'Through our education, our evaluation of what people have already been attracted to in the past, our own intuition, our own innovation and, apparently, as a result of extensive research, our successful appeal to the subjectivity of peoples' tastes, we have successfully created an ice cream that more people like over others.
> 
> No matter how much the pundits want to perseverate on the subjectivity of our clients' tastes, we have objective evidence behind the success of our ice cream due to reasons mentioned just above. Furthermore, there is objective evidence that we appeal to subjective tastes of various cultures all over the world and have for many years. This is the result of our objective skills. Skills that others apparently don't have at the level we do. Perhaps if other ice cream makers looked more objectively at the reasons behind the subjective tastes of their customers, they would be more objectively successful and more objectively great.'


Nothing here that proves that Ludwig's is objectively superior to other successful purveyors (Wolfie's, Dimitri's, Jean's and Richard's to name just a few). Of course one has to produce a quality product in the first place - one that will attract enough customers (and Ludwig's is to be commended for this of course), but taste is important - genetic disposition, accustomed diet and other factors will be significant.

If it was all about the objective superiority then why do some lover's of Wolfie's hate the taste of Ludwig's? Is the consumer of Dimitri's having an inferior ice-cream experience compared to that had by the consumer of Ludwig's?


----------



## Guest002

Allerius said:


> Beethoven has relatively few vocal works when compared to Mozart and Bach, but it's my opinion that the best of them are very great music


I don't disagree with your opinion at all.

If I gave the impression that I disliked the 9th after my sight-reading experience, that's my mistake: I love it, very much. I would just prefer hearing someone else singing it than having another go at it myself!

The degree of difficulty his vocal writing exhibits isn't however, in my view, a strength. I think it's a genuine technical failing. He simply didn't write for the (tenor) voice _comfortably_, because I don't think he understood how it worked very well. That doesn't make his choral works less powerful in overall effect, or indeed, poorer musically, but it is something a singer definitely experiences, I think.

In fact, an equivalent argument can be made about Bach: he was also unkind to voices, since he seemed to forget they need to breathe now and again  But that's a minor detail(!), because in every other respect, he wrote music that is musically complex but is a lot easier on the vocal cords.


----------



## EdwardBast

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Yes; surely if Schubert was a man of any dignity his primary concern must have been for his future reputation on TC, specifically how he might measure up against the Big 3. Personal artistic development and affinities were, at most, a secondary concern.


He was increasingly influenced by Beethoven in the 1820s. The comparison was part of his personal artistic development.


----------



## Xisten267

dizwell said:


> *The degree of difficulty his vocal writing exhibits isn't however, in my view, a strength. I think it's a genuine technical failing.* He simply didn't write for the (tenor) voice _comfortably_, because I don't think he understood how it worked very well. That doesn't make his choral works less powerful in overall effect, or indeed, poorer musically, but it is something a singer definitely experiences, I think.


I see from where you're coming, as I've seem singers complaining about Beethoven's last vocal works before. I disagree with you and them.

Late Beethoven is very technically demanding not only for voices, but overall. The first movement of the Ninth, the Hammerklavier sonata (particularly the last movement), the Diabelli variations, the Große Fuge etc. are very difficult to play, especially if the performer will take into consideration Beethoven's metronome marks. But expert pianists, violinists, violists etc. don't complain about the difficulty of these works - rather, they seem to take it as a personal challenge, and view it positively. If elsewhere difficulty can be appreciated, from the works of Paganini and Ernst to those of Liszt and Rautavaara, then why vocal music in particular should be easy? Beethoven was almost completely deaf by the time when he composed his _Missa Solemnis_ and his last complete symphony (I believe that it was in his Thayer biography that I've read that in his last years he was completely deaf in his right ear and that only if someone talked loudly next to his left ear that he could still listen a bit to what was being said), and it must have taken an immense effort to him to compose these two magistral pieces; consider this, I don't see why then they should be effortless to play.


----------



## Guest002

Allerius said:


> I see from where you're coming, as I've seem singers complaining about Beethoven's last vocal works before. I disagree with you and them.
> 
> Late Beethoven is very technically demanding not only for voices, but overall. The first movement of the Ninth, the Hammerklavier sonata (particularly the last movement), the Diabelli variations, the Große Fuge etc. are very difficult to play, especially if the performer will take into consideration Beethoven's metronome marks. But expert pianists, violinists, violists etc. don't complain about the difficulty of these works - rather, they seem to take it as a personal challenge, and view it positively. If elsewhere difficulty can be appreciated, from the works of Paganini and Ernst to those of Liszt and Rautavaara, then why vocal music in particular should be easy? Beethoven was almost completely deaf by the time when he composed his _Missa Solemnis_ and his last complete symphony (I believe that it was in his Thayer biography that I've read that in his last years he was completely deaf in his right ear and that only if someone talked loudly next to his left ear that he could still listen a bit to what was being said), and it must have taken an immense effort to him to compose these two magistral pieces; consider this, I don't see why then they should be effortless to play.


I agree with you: Why should his choral music be easy to sing? No reason at all. But if you write tenor parts with a tessitura that takes a Domingo to pull off, then you're setting up your basic choral tenors to conk out just when you need them to sound out loudly against a full orchestral passage (for example). If you write lots of awkward interval jumps, then your singers will be concentrating more on getting them right than, say, getting the expressiveness of a passage correct. And if you write long, sustained notes in the higher reaches of the upper register and expect a singer to diminuendo to pp on it, you're pushing your luck, basically.

It's fine to make technical demands on your choirs. But if you make fundamentally _impossible_ or unreasonable demands, then your music will be performed with approximation and workarounds, rather than as your 'inner ear' wanted them to be performed.


----------



## DaveM

janxharris said:


> Nothing here that proves that Ludwig's is objectively superior to other successful purveyors (Wolfie's, Dimitri's, Jean's and Richard's to name just a few). Of course one has to produce a quality product in the first place - one that will attract enough customers (and Ludwig's is to be commended for this of course), but taste is important - genetic disposition, accustomed diet and other factors will be significant.


You start off with an alleged statement of fact and then continue with the reason why it is wrong. Ludwig's produced a quality product that has attracted customers from all over the world for centuries. Is that not a great accomplishment? Is that not the reason that Ludwig's is one of the greatest if not (arguably) the greatest? Was not the skill of Ludwig's ice cream experts greater than all or most of its competitors?



> If it was all about the objective superiority then why do some lover's of Wolfie's hate the taste of Ludwig's? Is the consumer of Dimitri's having an inferior ice-cream experience compared to that had by the consumer of Ludwig's?


A mere handful of other ice-cream makers came close, some would say equaled, if not surpassed, Ludwig's ice cream. In any event, people generally agree that Ludwig's ice-cream is one of the greatest which is different than saying it is perfect. Ludwig's has always recognized the subjective component of its customers' taste and has apparently exploited it better than most of its competitors all over the world. Those who fixate on the element of subjectivity over that accomplishment are missing the point.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> A mere handful of other ice-cream makers came close, some would say equaled, if not surpassed, Ludwig's ice cream. In any event, *people generally agree that Ludwig's ice-cream is one of the greatest* which is different than saying it is perfect. Ludwig's has always recognized the subjective component of its customers' taste and has apparently exploited it better than most of its competitors all over the world. *Those who fixate on the element of subjectivity over that accomplishment are missing the point.*


The fixators, such as myself, fixate only because of the near-universality of the erroneous notion that there is something "objectively", Platonically inherent within LVB's music (or anybody else's music) that makes it measurably,"objectively" (they mean "obviously") better, Greater, whatever-er, than some other music. The point actually is that many, many people, especially lovers of CM--including me--think very highly of, prefer, enjoy, select, vote for, the music of LVB or (your personal favorite here). Still a subjective choice, experience, but one that is shared.


----------



## Woodduck

The musicians of the world - the composers, the performers, even the teachers, scholars and critics whose musical talent and skills may not suffice for careers in music-making - devote their lives to making their music better, to showing others how to make better music, and to recognizing when and how musical excellence has been achieved.

The claim that all these people are not doing what they think they're doing, but merely expressing and confirming their tastes, is about as credible and noteworthy as a six-times bankrupted con artist's claim that he alone can make America great again. Neither claim is subject to "objective" proof or disproof - after all, who decides when America is great again? - but people with an appropriate amount of relevant experience and perception don't find the matter debatable or, generally, worth debating. The first violinist and cellist of a string quartet may differ as to whether Beethoven's Op. 127 or Op. 130 is the better work, but the question of whether Beethoven's quartets are better than Cherubini's is never - absolutely never - going to come up.

The epistemology of accountants and statisticians is of little relevance in matters of art or love.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> The fixators, such as myself, fixate only because of the near-universality of the erroneous notion that there is something "objectively", Platonically inherent within LVB's music (or anybody else's music) that makes it measurably,"objectively" (they mean "obviously") better, Greater, whatever-er, than some other music. The point actually is that many, many people, especially lovers of CM--including me--think very highly of, prefer, enjoy, select, vote for, the music of LVB or (your personal favorite here). Still a subjective choice, experience, but one that is shared.


Nothing in appreciation of the superiority of some artists over others in the great arts is as simple as the subjectivity of the target audience. As classical music developed, there were certain parameters that became what attracted people, earlier on, counterpoint, later melody and 'hooks' closely related to melody and then sophistication of orchestration using all the instruments in ways not seen before.

The great composers were not only the ones that created music using these parameters better than others, but were the ones that introduced music that was ahead of its time, in a sense, anticipating future subjective tastes before listeners even knew they had them. This is perhaps a primary example of objective proof of the superiority of a composer at the level of Beethoven over many others. His music was not only resonating with listeners in the moment, but was creating music that was not immediately accepted, but which was developing an entirely new paradigm.

The appreciation of the reasons why some composers of classical music are objectively greater than others because they have perfected the parameters that have already been determined by subjective tastes requires something beyond the superficial repetition of 'it's all subjectivity, case closed'.


----------



## Strange Magic

I sense that the realization of the subjectivity of esthetics continues to elude many here. DaveM totters on the edge of acknowledgement with his idea of the "objectively greater than others because they have perfected the parameters that have already been determined by subjective tastes" formulation. The "some composers of classical music" whom he asserts are "objectively greater" are so, insomuch as they have indeed acquired majorities of certain select audiences who consider them "great". No one disputes this---it is measurable, once the audience is selected, identified, and the "votes" counted. Truth by a show of the proper hands--OK by me. Vanilla is preferred over butter pecan (unless the audience is comprised of butter pecan lovers), and I will assert that fact with vigor, and will hold it to be an objective fact/truth.


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> The musicians of the world - the composers, the performers, even the teachers, scholars and critics whose musical talent and skills may not suffice for careers in music-making - devote their lives to making their music better, to showing others how to make better music, and to recognizing when and how musical excellence has been achieved.
> 
> The claim that all these people are not doing what they think they're doing, but merely expressing and confirming their tastes, is about as credible and noteworthy as a six-times bankrupted con artist's claim that he alone can make America great again. Neither claim is subject to "objective" proof or disproof - after all, who decides when America is great again? - but people with an appropriate amount of relevant experience and perception don't find the matter debatable or, generally, worth debating. The first violinist and cellist of a string quartet may differ as to whether Beethoven's Op. 127 or Op. 130 is the better work, but the question of whether Beethoven's quartets are better than Cherubini's is never - absolutely never - going to come up.
> 
> The epistemology of accountants and statisticians is of little relevance in matters of art or love.


Very good points. 
If few people liked, "preferred", enjoyed, the achievements of Beethoven would that convey something reliable? Would his scores be less valuable? I want to ask SM why, but not repeat myself too much..


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> I sense that the realization of the subjectivity of esthetics continues to elude many here. DaveM totters on the edge of acknowledgement with his idea of the "objectively greater than others because they have perfected the parameters that have already been determined by subjective tastes" formulation. The "some composers of classical music" whom he asserts are "objectively greater" are so, insomuch as they have indeed acquired majorities of certain select audiences who consider them "great". No one disputes this---it is measurable, once the audience is selected, identified, and the "votes" counted. Truth by a show of the proper hands--OK by me. Vanilla is preferred over butter pecan (unless the audience is comprised of butter pecan lovers), and I will assert that fact with vigor, and will hold it to be an objective fact/truth.


There's no audience required. You look at what the composer did with the music he grew up with. Do the scores show  originality, development, intelligence, skill? Are the ideas ingenious, innovative for their time? Long essays of analysis are written about this.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> I sense that the realization of the subjectivity of esthetics continues to elude many here. DaveM totters on the edge of acknowledgement with his idea of the "objectively greater than others because they have perfected the parameters that have already been determined by subjective tastes" formulation...


What you consider to be tottering 'on the edge of acknowledgement' is actually someone who sees the big picture rather than being stuck in the quicksand of the semantics of the word 'subjectivity' or in other words, in acknowledging the roll of subjectivity has an enlightened perspective rather than being locked in a rigid extreme.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> What you consider to be tottering 'on the edge of acknowledgement' is actually someone who sees the big picture rather than being stuck in the quicksand of the semantics of the word 'subjectivity' or in other words, in acknowledging the roll of subjectivity has an enlightened perspective rather than being locked in a rigid extreme.


OK. I don't like rigid extremes either, and think between the two of us we have figured out what is subjective; what objective in contemplating the esthetics of the human construct that is music and the arts.


----------



## Room2201974

If you string together a bunch of subjective ideas called opinions and then say, "look, I have more opinions about composer X than composer Y," that doesn't prove objectively that composer X is "greater." It just proves you have gathered more subjective opinions. Therefore all you have is more G in the expression GIGO.

"Opinions are like rear ends, everyone has one and they all stink."

Here is a little exercise which may illustrate my point. It has been argued in here that *learned opinion* should be given much weight in these matters. Ok, let's take a very, very learned opinion, Pierre Boulez. Who was Boulez talking about when he gave this "opinion????"

"The music of (composer X) displays a quite remarkable complexity, subtlety, and refinement: he was a complete master, as much of melodic as of rhythmic counterpoint, his work is a landmark in the evolution of European music."

Wow! What a testimony! Not too many composers are at the "landmark status."

So, which one of the "greatest" was he referring to? Certainly his *learned opinion* should be of help in our deliberations.

Any guesses?


----------



## KenOC

Room2201974 said:


> So, which one of the "greatest" was he referring to? Certainly his *learned opinion **should be of help in our deliberations.
> *​
> Any guesses?


Uh...himself?


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> Uh...himself?


No, G. Machaut.


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> You look at what the composer did with the music he grew up with. Do the scores show originality, development, intelligence, skill? Are the ideas ingenious, innovative for their time? Long essays of analysis are written about this.


Indeed they are. There is no universe we know about in which originality, intelligence, ingenuity and skill are not considered marks of excellence, and in which human achievement is not judged by the presence of them. This is as true in art as in any other field, and we can investigate all the elements of music for the evidence of such qualities. For example, we can ask of a work's thematic material whether it's distinctive, memorable, coherently shaped, capable of variation and development, and suited to the context in which it occurs. Such qualities may be challenging to describe, or even imperceptible to some people, but then we can't describe the sparkling blue-green of a tropical lagoon, or even prove that such a sight exists, to someone who's been blind from birth.


----------



## Xisten267

dizwell said:


> I agree with you: Why should his choral music be easy to sing? No reason at all. But if you write tenor parts with a tessitura that takes a Domingo to pull off, then you're setting up your basic choral tenors to conk out just when you need them to sound out loudly against a full orchestral passage (for example). If you write lots of awkward interval jumps, then your singers will be concentrating more on getting them right than, say, getting the expressiveness of a passage correct. And if you write long, sustained notes in the higher reaches of the upper register and expect a singer to diminuendo to pp on it, you're pushing your luck, basically.
> 
> It's fine to make technical demands on your choirs. But if you make fundamentally _impossible_ or unreasonable demands, then your music will be performed with approximation and workarounds, rather than as your 'inner ear' wanted them to be performed.


Aren't these demands possible to be satisfied with very good singers? Why a top singer wouldn't be able to sing these awkward interval jumps and concentrate in the expressiveness at the same time for example? Isn't it just a matter of training a lot? The _Hammerklavier_ was said to be unplayable in the indicated tempi until Liszt did it in 1836 (Goode, Pollini, Lisitsa and others also can play it in that speed); diverse works by other composers have been called _impossible_ and, yet, someone managed to play them. I think that the composer who said that "do you think I bother about your puny little fiddle when God speaks to me?" probably had the same attitude towards vocal music, and that the difficulty in passages of the Ninth symphony and the Missa Solemnis are deliberate, not just weaknesses.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> Aren't these demands possible to be satisfied with very good singers? Why a top singer wouldn't be able to sing these awkward interval jumps and concentrate in the expressiveness at the same time for example? Isn't it just a matter of training a lot? ...the difficulty in passages of the Ninth symphony and the Missa Solemnis are deliberate, not just weaknesses.


I think you're reaching the point of distorting truths. Your argument that Beethoven's vocal writing is analogous to the violin/piano writing of 19th century virtuosos such as Paganini, Liszt, Chopin (whose etudes in his time were wrongly criticized by Ludwig Rellstab as exercises for people with deformed fingers) seems a bit extreme. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to compare Beethoven's vocal writing with something like Chopin's orchestral writing?

"In fact, Beethoven himself seems to have been well aware of this, as he observed in a letter to the librettist Friedrich Kind: 'When sounds stir within me I always hear the full orchestra; I know what to expect of instrumentalists, who are capable of almost everything, but with vocal compositions I must always be asking myself, can this be sung?'"

"The alpha and omega is Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, marvelous in the first three movements, very badly set in the last. No one will ever approach the sublimity of the first movement, but it will be an easy task to write as badly for voices as in the last movement. And supported by the authority of Beethoven, they will all shout: "That's the way to do it..."
- Giuseppe Verdi, 1878


----------



## Woodduck

The vocal writing in the 9th and the _Missa_ is challenging. I've sung in the latter's chorus, and the tenor lines can be treacherous at times. I didn't feel put upon. Good singers can do it, and it's a great experience to be a part of such music. All that matters is how it sounds, and it sounds fine, Verdi and his Italian opera bias notwithstanding. Some of Verdi's vocal music is very difficult, and his ensembles can sound pretty hairy if not carefully sung.


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> Indeed they are. There is no universe we know about in which originality, intelligence, ingenuity and skill are not considered marks of excellence, and in which human achievement is not judged by the presence of them. This is as true in art as in any other field, and we can investigate all the elements of music for the evidence of such qualities. For example, we can ask of a work's thematic material whether it's distinctive, memorable, coherently shaped, capable of variation and development, and suited to the context in which it occurs. Such qualities may be challenging to describe, or even imperceptible to some people, but then we can't describe the sparkling blue-green of a tropical lagoon, or even prove that such a sight exists, to someone who's been blind from birth.


I'm guessing, but you and I know how easy it is to read music, and so other folks might have a limited idea of what a score reveals. Especially before the 1900s, the same chordal patterns etc. used in more and more sophisticated and effective ways.


----------



## Luchesi

Allerius said:


> Aren't these demands possible to be satisfied with very good singers? Why a top singer wouldn't be able to sing these awkward interval jumps and concentrate in the expressiveness at the same time for example? Isn't it just a matter of training a lot? The _Hammerklavier_ was said to be unplayable in the indicated tempi until Liszt did it in 1836 (Goode, Pollini, Lisitsa and others also can play it in that speed); diverse works by other composers have been called _impossible_ and, yet, someone managed to play them. I think that the composer who said that "do you think I bother about your puny little fiddle when God speaks to me?" probably had the same attitude towards vocal music, and that the difficulty in passages of the Ninth symphony and the Missa Solemnis are deliberate, not just weaknesses.


The mentor of this young man has a whole channel wherein he offers many works at half the customary speed, because he thinks that's what the composers actually wanted.


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> I'm guessing, but you and I know how easy it is to read music, and so other folks might have a limited idea of what a score reveals.


Alas, that doesn't stop other folk from telling us that our profound admiration is a mere matter of taste.


----------



## Guest002

Allerius said:


> Aren't these demands possible to be satisfied with very good singers?


You're missing the point, I think. Of course a good choir can make up for a lot of awkwardnesses in the score, but that they are making up for something doesn't make the 'something' just go away.



Allerius said:


> Why a top singer wouldn't be able to sing these awkward interval jumps and concentrate in the expressiveness at the same time for example?


Firstly, let's just not move goalposts, please. I am referring to choirs. Good choirs, yes. But no, they aren't all made up of hoardes of Pavarottis and Domingos, so no, if you put a lot of awkward intervals in a piece and then a lot of dynamics and other expressive markings, you are asking a lot of choirs.

And it wasn't just the awkward intervals I mentioned anyway. If you ask your tenors to sing ff on a very high note whilst the full orchestra thunders out in front of them, I'm not convinced you know how to get the best out of your choir. You could have redistributed the notes around the choir (so the altos are belting out low notes, rather than make tenors belt out high ones for example). That you didn't... well, I think that means you don't know what notes fall comfortably in the ranges of most choral singers and what dynamics are appropriate for which ranges.



Allerius said:


> Isn't it just a matter of training a lot?


No, actually. It's physics. The human voice can only do certain things. You can certainly push it. And of course a trained voice can do more than a less-well-trained one, but if you ask a choral tenor (just as an example, not one LvB actually wrote) to sing a sustained high D sharp ff over 6 adagio bars with a diminuendo to ppp, you're just taking the proverbial. Training the choir cannot make up for not understanding what voices can reasonably be expected to do in the first place.



Allerius said:


> The _Hammerklavier_ was said to be unplayable in the indicated tempi until Liszt did it in 1836 (Goode, Pollini, Lisitsa and others also can play it in that speed); diverse works by other composers have been called _impossible_ and, yet, someone managed to play them. I think that the composer who said that "do you think I bother about your puny little fiddle when God speaks to me?" probably had the same attitude towards vocal music, and that the difficulty in passages of the Ninth symphony and the Missa Solemnis are deliberate, not just weaknesses.


I don't think anyone's suggesting that the difficulties are not deliberate! He thought as an instrumentalist and wrote for the voice, quite deliberately, in the same manner. But that means his choral writing is poor choral writing. You can train a choir to get round those difficulties, but it doesn't make them go away, and it does mean that achieving in performance what the music's creator was hoping for is more problematic than a skilled choral composer would have made it.

You previously said you don't agree with the observation that he wrote poorly for choirs. But your counter-argument consists of saying the choirs need to be better and better trained. In my view, that's actually an admission that the observations you profess to disagree with are actually correct. If those same choirs are _not_ making that observation about, say, Mahler or Britten or Vaughan Williams, then I rather suspect it's your hero at fault, not the choirs.

None of which is to diminish his musical achievements, which I love very much, in all their complexity.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Alas, that doesn't stop other folk from telling us that our profound admiration is a mere matter of taste.


Would that be so terribly wrong, if one's profound admiration were (merely) a matter of taste? Is one's personal taste too frail to support, to validate, a person's esthetic inclinations? Or is the supporting skeleton or framework of a postulated "objective" excellence, perhaps transcending entire peoples and cultures and existing independently in the aether, necessary for the fullest authentic enjoyment of a work of art?


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Would that be so terribly wrong, if one's profound admiration were (merely) a matter of taste? Is one's personal taste too frail to support, to validate, a person's esthetic inclinations?


"Personal taste" and "aesthetic inclinations" are synonyms. One doesn't support the other. Aesthetic _judgments_ are generally, perhaps always to a degree, _affected by _one's taste/inclinations, but are decidedly not the same thing. Hence the routine recognition of excellence in works of art that one doesn't personally like.



> Or is the supporting skeleton or framework of a postulated "objective" excellence, perhaps transcending entire peoples and cultures and existing independently in the aether, necessary for the fullest authentic enjoyment of a work of art?


Artistic perceptions aren't fantasies existing in an imaginary aether. They exist in the human mind and derive their principles from the structure of cognitive and emotional processes. It's because humans share these processes that vast coincidences in artistic appraisals exist, both within cultures and across cultures and across centuries. Individual capability, temperament and experience create variation in taste, which can obscure and override the perception of basic aesthetic qualities. A person who never listens to anything but rhythm and blues might be unable, given his experience and established taste, to hear why C. P. E. Bach is considered a greater composer than Joachim Quantz, but he might come to such a realization after a bit of exposure.

No, it isn't necessary to make such judgments to enjoy rhythm and blues, C. P. E. Bach, or Joachim Quantz. Most people don't make them. Most people don't, and can't, think much about the music they enjoy. But that has no bearing on the nature of aesthetic judgments - on where they come from, on how and why they're made. To the extent that people do judge music, they're apt to say "that's great" when they mean "I like that." Musicians are much less likely to make that conflation; in fact, we tend to be careful not to make it. A composer or performer whose life revolves around discerning a precise significance in every nuance of a musical score is always engaged in making judgments about that score's quality. It's an oversimplification, but nevertheless a valid assertion, I think, to say that while listeners may make judgments based on their tastes, musicians may find their tastes influenced by their judgments.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Strange Magic said:


> Would that be so terribly wrong, if one's profound admiration were (merely) a matter of taste? Is one's personal taste too frail to support, to validate, a person's esthetic inclinations? Or is the supporting skeleton or framework of a postulated "objective" excellence, perhaps transcending entire peoples and cultures and existing independently in the aether, necessary for the fullest authentic enjoyment of a work of art?


I'd say there is nothing wrong with admiration from just a simple matter of taste. What can be wrong? But admiration does not only necessarily need to be due only to aesthetic inclination. I think that is a certain presumption, that all admiration comes from a matter of taste. Creation of art could be simple or more complex. The angle of the recipient (viewer or listener) is where a lot of things get thrown into the mix. Is John Cage's 4'33" a masterpiece of art? I could agree it is, but that is due to perspective and the idea behind it. While the appreciation of a fugue by Bach is not only from a certain perspective. There is structure there (in music) as in the Golden Gate Bridge. It's not some whimsical fantasy.


----------



## Xisten267

dizwell said:


> You're missing the point, I think. Of course a good choir can make up for a lot of awkwardnesses in the score, but that they are making up for something doesn't make the 'something' just go away.
> 
> Firstly, let's just not move goalposts, please. I am referring to choirs. Good choirs, yes. But no, they aren't all made up of hoardes of Pavarottis and Domingos, so no, if you put a lot of awkward intervals in a piece and then a lot of dynamics and other expressive markings, you are asking a lot of choirs.
> 
> And it wasn't just the awkward intervals I mentioned anyway. If you ask your tenors to sing ff on a very high note whilst the full orchestra thunders out in front of them, I'm not convinced you know how to get the best out of your choir. You could have redistributed the notes around the choir (so the altos are belting out low notes, rather than make tenors belt out high ones for example). That you didn't... well, I think that means you don't know what notes fall comfortably in the ranges of most choral singers and what dynamics are appropriate for which ranges.
> 
> No, actually. It's physics. The human voice can only do certain things. You can certainly push it. And of course a trained voice can do more than a less-well-trained one, but if you ask a choral tenor (just as an example, not one LvB actually wrote) to sing a sustained high D sharp ff over 6 adagio bars with a diminuendo to ppp, you're just taking the proverbial. Training the choir cannot make up for not understanding what voices can reasonably be expected to do in the first place.
> 
> I don't think anyone's suggesting that the difficulties are not deliberate! He thought as an instrumentalist and wrote for the voice, quite deliberately, in the same manner. But that means his choral writing is *poor choral writing*. You can train a choir to get round those difficulties, but it doesn't make them go away, and it does mean that achieving in performance what the music's creator was hoping for is more problematic than a skilled choral composer would have made it.
> 
> You previously said you don't agree with the observation that he wrote poorly for choirs. But your counter-argument consists of saying the choirs need to be better and better trained. In my view, that's actually an admission that the observations you profess to disagree with are actually correct. If those same choirs are _not_ making that observation about, say, Mahler or Britten or Vaughan Williams, then I rather suspect it's your hero at fault, not the choirs.
> 
> None of which is to diminish his musical achievements, which I love very much, in all their complexity.


I don't like the term "poor choral writing" applied to these masterpieces that you acknowledge as being great. Can't we agree that Beethoven's late choral writing is just "very difficult to sing" instead, and that this does not diminish the quality of the music in any way (it's the opposite if you ask me) and, considering this, that it's not "weak?" If the "awkwardnesses" in the score make the music sound great, then they aren't "awkwardnesses", right?


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> "Personal taste" and "aesthetic inclinations" are synonyms. One doesn't support the other. Aesthetic _judgments_ are generally, perhaps always to a degree, _affected by _one's taste/inclinations, but are decidedly not the same thing. Hence the routine recognition of excellence in works of art that one doesn't personally like.
> 
> Artistic perceptions aren't fantasies existing in an imaginary aether. They exist in the human mind and derive their principles from the structure of cognitive and emotional processes. It's because humans share these processes that vast coincidences in artistic appraisals exist, both within cultures and across cultures and across centuries. Individual capability, temperament and experience create variation in taste, which can obscure and override the perception of basic aesthetic qualities. A person who never listens to anything but rhythm and blues might be unable, given his experience and established taste, to hear why C. P. E. Bach is considered a greater composer than Joachim Quantz, but he might come to such a realization after a bit of exposure.
> 
> No, it isn't necessary to make such judgments to enjoy rhythm and blues, C. P. E. Bach, or Joachim Quantz. Most people don't make them. Most people don't, and can't, think much about the music they enjoy. But that has no bearing on the nature of aesthetic judgments - on where they come from, on how and why they're made. To the extent that people do judge music, they're apt to say "that's great" when they mean "I like that." Musicians are much less likely to make that conflation; in fact, we tend to be careful not to make it. A composer or performer whose life revolves around discerning a precise significance in every nuance of a musical score is always engaged in making judgments about that score's quality. It's an oversimplification, but nevertheless a valid assertion, I think, to say that while listeners may make judgments based on their tastes, musicians may find their tastes influenced by their judgments.


Yes. Articulate and succinct. Where were you in the 70s when I was having this debate with my musician friends, and even my wife? ha! They just didn't get it.


----------



## Luchesi

Phil loves classical said:


> I'd say there is nothing wrong with admiration from just a simple matter of taste. What can be wrong? But admiration does not only necessarily need to be due only to aesthetic inclination. I think that is a certain presumption, that all admiration comes from a matter of taste. Creation of art could be simple or more complex. The angle of the recipient (viewer or listener) is where a lot of things get thrown into the mix. Is John Cage's 4'33" a masterpiece of art? I could agree it is, but that is due to perspective and the idea behind it. While the appreciation of a fugue by Bach is not only from a certain perspective. There is structure there (in music) as in the Golden Gate Bridge. It's not some whimsical fantasy.


If music is merely a whimsical adventure then I've wasted a lot of time in my life.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> I think you're reaching the point of distorting truths. Your argument that Beethoven's vocal writing is analogous to the violin/piano writing of 19th century virtuosos such as Paganini, Liszt, Chopin (whose etudes in his time were wrongly criticized by Ludwig Rellstab as exercises for people with deformed fingers) seems a bit extreme. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to compare Beethoven's vocal writing with something like Chopin's orchestral writing?
> 
> "In fact, Beethoven himself seems to have been well aware of this, as he observed in a letter to the librettist Friedrich Kind: 'When sounds stir within me I always hear the full orchestra; I know what to expect of instrumentalists, who are capable of almost everything, but with vocal compositions I must always be asking myself, can this be sung?'"
> 
> "The alpha and omega is Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, marvelous in the first three movements, very badly set in the last. No one will ever approach the sublimity of the first movement, but it will be an easy task to write as badly for voices as in the last movement. And supported by the authority of Beethoven, they will all shout: "That's the way to do it..."
> - Giuseppe Verdi, 1878


That's the way to do it!


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> Yes. Articulate and succinct. Where were you in the 70s when I was having this debate with my musician friends, and even my wife? ha! They just didn't get it.


Ha. I was in college arguing with my own set of friends. Most of that set are gone, so now I'm pestering y'all on TC.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> If music is merely a whimsical adventure then I've wasted a lot of time in my life.


Now that is taking things much too far! If you reexamine your past, you'll find that it is and was just fine that you liked and listened to whatever it was. Give yourself permission.


----------



## Sad Al

Art Rock said:


> Bach, clearly. My #1 composer. Mozart comes in around the #10 spot. Beethoven around #30.


That's it. Bach, then Victoria, then Obrecht, then Caron, then Gombert, then de la Rue.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> "Personal taste" and "aesthetic inclinations" are synonyms. One doesn't support the other. Aesthetic _judgments_ are generally, perhaps always to a degree, _affected by _one's taste/inclinations, but are decidedly not the same thing. Hence the routine recognition of excellence in works of art that one doesn't personally like.
> 
> Artistic perceptions aren't fantasies existing in an imaginary aether. They exist in the human mind and derive their principles from the structure of cognitive and emotional processes. It's because humans share these processes that vast coincidences in artistic appraisals exist, both within cultures and across cultures and across centuries. Individual capability, temperament and experience create variation in taste, which can obscure and override the perception of basic aesthetic qualities. A person who never listens to anything but rhythm and blues might be unable, given his experience and established taste, to hear why C. P. E. Bach is considered a greater composer than Joachim Quantz, but he might come to such a realization after a bit of exposure.
> 
> No, it isn't necessary to make such judgments to enjoy rhythm and blues, C. P. E. Bach, or Joachim Quantz. Most people don't make them. Most people don't, and can't, think much about the music they enjoy. But that has no bearing on the nature of aesthetic judgments - on where they come from, on how and why they're made. To the extent that people do judge music, they're apt to say "that's great" when they mean "I like that." Musicians are much less likely to make that conflation; in fact, we tend to be careful not to make it. A composer or performer whose life revolves around discerning a precise significance in every nuance of a musical score is always engaged in making judgments about that score's quality. It's an oversimplification, but nevertheless a valid assertion, I think, to say that while listeners may make judgments based on their tastes, musicians may find their tastes influenced by their judgments.


It would be interesting to examine in detail such an example of 'excellence in...art that one doesn't personally like.'


----------



## Strange Magic

As a "consumer" of music and the arts, the obligation of any art's creator is to please/engage me, using whatever skills, gifts, tools, experiences they may, through luck or craft, bring to the creative act. In my case, and I do not presume to impose my standards on anyone else, the primacy and validity of my reaction to an artist's work reigns supreme. The artist may have--doubtless does have--other goals, targets, aspirations rather than to just please me specifically. But when the art object meets the need, scratches the itch, that completes the circuit as far as I am concerned. Hence my emphasis in these discussions upon the centrality of both subjectivity and of the individual's (my) reaction to an art object. Others may comfort themselves beyond the direct experience of the art object with the notion that their peer group, or posterity, or an aesthetic elite class also approves of that object--they are like me; I am like them. And that's fine. But to take the next step into space of finding inherent qualities within the art object beyond those involving neurological or psychological factors that appeal to polled members of specific (or general) audiences, but which establish objective "goodness" or "greatness", is to take a step too far. Art objects exist, with many measurable and "objective" qualities and quantities. "Goodness/badness", "greatness" are not among those measurable qualities or quantities--other than, of course, by polls.

Edit: I misspoke when I brought forward the notion of an obligation on the part of an artist to please/engage me. That is not a mandatory condition: the artist and any potential audience meet on terms of equality. One, though, can presuppose a desire on the part of an artist to please somebody other than him/herself. Or not.


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> Ha. I was in college arguing with my own set of friends. Most of that set are gone, so now I'm pestering y'all on TC.


My rock friend was getting into ELO and he said I would love it because it sounded so much like Beethoven (orchestral). What can I say?


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Now that is taking things much too far! If you reexamine your past, you'll find that it is and was just fine that you liked and listened to whatever it was. Give yourself permission.


Yes, I could enjoy music without studying it. But it's only one 3rd of the enjoyment. Playing and studying and analyzing is two thirds of the enjoyment for me.

On another subject, what is the timeout on this TC forum? Is it three minutes? I have to put in my password again?


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> As a "consumer" of music and the arts, the obligation of any art's creator is to please/engage me, using whatever skills, gifts, tools, experiences they may, through luck or craft, bring to the creative act. In my case, and I do not presume to impose my standards on anyone else, the primacy and validity of my reaction to an artist's work reigns supreme. The artist may have--doubtless does have--other goals, targets, aspirations rather than to just please me specifically. But when the art object meets the need, scratches the itch, that completes the circuit as far as I am concerned. Hence my emphasis in these discussions upon the centrality of both subjectivity and of the individual's (my) reaction to an art object. Others may comfort themselves beyond the direct experience of the art object with the notion that their peer group, or posterity, or an aesthetic elite class also approves of that object--they are like me; I am like them. And that's fine. But to take the next step into space of finding inherent qualities within the art object beyond those involving neurological or psychological factors that appeal to polled members of specific (or general) audiences, but which establish objective "goodness" or "greatness", is to take a step too far. Art objects exist, with many measurable and "objective" qualities and quantities. "Goodness/badness", "greatness" are not among those measurable qualities or quantities--other than, of course, by polls.


Another interesting post. But of course this isn't about people, for me. Not what their experiences are, not what their knowledge is usually focussed upon, or what they do for a living..

If there's two cutouts by a highway crew, through hills for a new road, and we can see the strata. My wife as a rock collector would like to see the pretty colors, crystaline rocks and the dark ones and light ones etc.. But geologists would look at the layers and know about Time periods and those conditions/fprmation mechanisms and the fossils to expect in the layers. The geologist might "prefer" one slice of Time aesthetically and the rock collector would prefer another one. If we just go by "likes" it tells us nothing.


----------



## Euler

Strange Magic said:


> But to take the next step into space of finding inherent qualities within the art object beyond those involving neurological or psychological factors that appeal to polled members of specific (or general) audiences, but which establish objective "goodness" or "greatness", is to take a step too far. Art objects exist, with many measurable and "objective" qualities and quantities. "Goodness/badness", "greatness" are not among those measurable qualities or quantities--other than, of course, by polls.


It's true that "goodness/badness" is not a directly measurable quality. Rather it is a function of the measurable and objective qualities you admit do exist. Music can contain clear evidence of imagination, humour, insight, emotional sensitivity, logic, appreciation of beauty, and much more. Now you may say, "So what? To value these things is subjective -- I happen to despise wit and complexity." But then you're arguing the definition of greatness rather than denying that, once defined, greatness can be perceived. Of course greatness is a human concept, but no less meaningful for that.


----------



## Luchesi

Euler said:


> It's true that "goodness/badness" is not a directly measurable quality. Rather it is a function of the measurable and objective qualities you admit do exist. Music can contain clear evidence of imagination, humour, insight, emotional sensitivity, logic, appreciation of beauty, and much more. Now you may say, "So what? To value these things is subjective -- I happen to despise wit and complexity." But then you're arguing the definition of greatness rather than denying that, once defined, greatness can be perceived. Of course greatness is a human concept, but no less meaningful for that.


I think you look at the score, like an art critic looking at a painting. You don't care what people think. Why would you? It tells you about the people, for good or bad, but nothing about the score.


----------



## kwspc

Without Bach, there is no Mozart. Without Mozart, there is no Beethoven. One influenced another.


----------



## Room2201974

It's a good thing Bach, Beethoven and Mozart weren't serialist. It would be a shame to waste all that "greatness" on tone row.


----------



## Strange Magic

Euler said:


> It's true that "goodness/badness" is not a directly measurable quality. Rather it is a function of the measurable and objective qualities you admit do exist. Music can contain clear evidence of imagination, humour, insight, emotional sensitivity, logic, appreciation of beauty, and much more. Now you may say, "So what? To value these things is subjective -- I happen to despise wit and complexity." But then you're arguing the definition of greatness rather than denying that, once defined, greatness can be perceived. Of course greatness is a human concept, but no less meaningful for that.


I certainly assert that objective and measurable qualities and quantities exist and are inherent within the art object; indeed I have been asserting that for many posts and threads. And indeed goodness/badness and greatness are not measurable entities. Your host of other attributes--imagination, humour, insight, etc. etc.--are also more of those very things that we bring to the art object ("find" within it if you will}, that each of us conjures up--together or separately as we contemplate the object. Some see or feel this; others that; some nothing at all. They are not inherent within the object. I have no problem whatsoever if something is or seems great to you; there are heaps and piles of art/music I think are great and/or engender within me thoughts/notions/moods that call up ideas of emotional sensitivity, logic, appreciation of beauty, "and much more" out of my own head as I contemplate the art object. They are not in the object.


----------



## janxharris

DaveM said:


> You start off with an alleged statement of fact and then continue with the reason why it is wrong. Ludwig's produced a quality product that has attracted customers from all over the world for centuries. Is that not a great accomplishment? Is that not the reason that Ludwig's is one of the greatest if not (arguably) the greatest? Was not the skill of Ludwig's ice cream experts greater than all or most of its competitors?
> 
> A mere handful of other ice-cream makers came close, some would say equaled, if not surpassed, Ludwig's ice cream. In any event, people generally agree that Ludwig's ice-cream is one of the greatest which is different than saying it is perfect. Ludwig's has always recognized the subjective component of its customers' taste and has apparently exploited it better than most of its competitors all over the world. Those who fixate on the element of subjectivity over that accomplishment are missing the point.


Not sure there is much that separates us based on this post.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> I certainly assert that objective and measurable qualities and quantities exist and are inherent within the art object; indeed I have been asserting that for many posts and threads. And indeed goodness/badness and greatness are not measurable entities. Your host of other attributes--imagination, humour, insight, etc. etc.--are also more of those very things that we bring to the art object ("find" within it if you will}, that each of us conjures up--together or separately as we contemplate the object. Some see or feel this; others that; some nothing at all. They are not inherent within the object. I have no problem whatsoever if something is or seems great to you; there are heaps and piles of art/music I think are great and/or engender within me thoughts/notions/moods that call up ideas of emotional sensitivity, logic, appreciation of beauty, "and much more" out of my own head as I contemplate the art object. They are not in the object.


You speak for most people. They don't study music. They find no enjoyment in learning dry music theory. Is this why serious music like CM and difficult jazz is dying?
In fact, I've had students who were concerned that the joy of music would be lost.


----------



## janxharris

Luchesi said:


> You speak for most people. They don't study music. They find no enjoyment in learning dry music theory. Is this why serious music like CM and difficult jazz is dying?
> In fact, I've had students who were concerned that the joy of music would be lost.


How does this address Strange Magic's post?

Igor Stravinsky said:

_"For I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc. Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence. If, as is nearly always the case, music appears to express something, this is only an illusion and not a reality. It is simply an additional attribute which, by tacit and inveterate agreement, we have lent it, thrust upon it, as a label, a convention - in short, an aspect which, unconsciously or by force of habit, we have come to confuse with its essential being." _


----------



## Guest002

Allerius said:


> I don't like the term "poor choral writing" applied to these masterpieces that you acknowledge as being great. Can't we agree that Beethoven's late choral writing is just "very difficult to sing" instead


No, because I think the works are great _despite_ their choral writing being (sometimes) technically poor.

You seem to think a work has to be perfect to be considered great. I don't. I think there can be imperfections in the choral writing which a good choir can obscure and the overall thrust of the music make irrelevant. But that doesn't mean the imperfections aren't there, being worked around.



Allerius said:


> , and that this does not diminish the quality of the music in any way (it's the opposite if you ask me) and, considering this, that it's not "weak?" If the "awkwardnesses" in the score make the music sound great, then they aren't "awkwardnesses", right?


Wrong. It means you're having to work your choir harder to achieve an equivalent (or likely slightly less than equivalent) effect. Harder than, perhaps, was strictly needed if the composer had been more considerate of his vocal resources.

It's like if I went around writing a brilliant violin concerto with lots of three- and four-note chords for the violin to play, without indicating that I was expecting arpeggiation. You can't actually play such chords on a (modern) violin, so what's the violinist to do? Approximate, so you maybe won't notice his finagling the impossible?

Same thing for choral writing. I could write the B above middle C to be sung by tenors. It would sound very high in their head voice; potentially thin and weedy; probably difficult for them to sustain; certainly tricky to sustain at volume. So if I ask them to sing it long, slow and _ff_, I'm not going to get the sure-footed thunderous outcome I might want to hear. Or I could write the same B to by sung by Altos. It would probably sit comfortably in their chest voice, and they could probably pump that out at _ff_ at length very comfortably. Writing it one way would be awkward; writing it the other way would be less awkward. Maybe most people wouldn't really spot the difference... but the choir singing it would!

Look, you have to accept, I think, that it's _possible_ to write poorly for a choir, just as it's possible to get your technique wrong and write stupid stuff for the violin or any other instrument. And if you can accept that a poor composer could write poorly for choirs, is it so much to ask you to accept that Beethoven wasn't always _perfect_ in the manner he wrote for choirs, especially when (as you say) lots of choristers have told you he's a bit of a pain to sing compared to other composers? And that therefore, yes, there are places in his choral writing when you can tell he wasn't very expert at doing it.

I'm not knocking him or denigrating the works. I'm merely suggesting that he wasn't God and didn't get it perfect every time... and, in particular, that his choral writing was quite often less than perfect. If you can't accept that, that's fine: but it means we have nothing further to discuss, because the idea of Beethoven writing perfection is just silly.


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> How does this address Strange Magic's post?
> 
> Igor Stravinsky said:
> 
> _"For I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc. Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence. If, as is nearly always the case, music appears to express something, this is only an illusion and not a reality. It is simply an additional attribute which, by tacit and inveterate agreement, we have lent it, thrust upon it, as a label, a convention - in short, an aspect which, unconsciously or by force of habit, we have come to confuse with its essential being." _


oops! You're right, I posted a reply to wrong one of his posts. Should be #409.

He's fond of saying "Some see or feel this; others that; some nothing at all." It's true, but why does it matter?

Some music is an intellectual achievement, far more than entertainment. Can we determine objectively why? For Igor in one of his moods, music is also for serious human expression and personal expression, just like painting and dance.


----------



## philoctetes

Haydn so therefore Mozart except when Beethoven... well, I know which one I like the least...


----------



## BachIsBest

janxharris said:


> How does this address Strange Magic's post?
> 
> Igor Stravinsky said:
> 
> _"For I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc. Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence. If, as is nearly always the case, music appears to express something, this is only an illusion and not a reality. It is simply an additional attribute which, by tacit and inveterate agreement, we have lent it, thrust upon it, as a label, a convention - in short, an aspect which, unconsciously or by force of habit, we have come to confuse with its essential being." _


Perhaps it is telling that many of what are considered Stravinsky's greatest masterpieces were written when he thought music could express things like barbaric pagan rituals rather than when he was convinced it was all sound and fury signifying nothing.


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> Perhaps it is telling that many of what are considered Stravinsky's greatest masterpieces were written when he thought music could express things like barbaric pagan rituals rather than when he was convinced it was all sound and fury signifying nothing.


Maybe the costumes and dancing helped. And the playbill.


----------



## Xisten267

dizwell said:


> I'm not knocking him or denigrating the works. I'm merely suggesting that he wasn't God and didn't get it perfect every time... *and, in particular, that his choral writing was quite often less than perfect. If you can't accept that, that's fine: but it means we have nothing further to discuss, because the idea of Beethoven writing perfection is just silly.*


I respect your opinion. Let's agree to disagree then.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> How does this address Strange Magic's post?
> 
> Igor Stravinsky said:
> 
> _"For I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc. Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence. If, as is nearly always the case, music appears to express something, this is only an illusion and not a reality. It is simply an additional attribute which, by tacit and inveterate agreement, we have lent it, thrust upon it, as a label, a convention - in short, an aspect which, unconsciously or by force of habit, we have come to confuse with its essential being." _


Stravinsky's pronouncements are best taken with a large chunk of salt. After he tells us that it isn't the purpose of music to express "anything at all," he fails to tell us what the purpose of music really is. Given that he achieved an unusual degree of success as a composer, perhaps he felt that the essential purpose of music was to make money.


----------



## Strange Magic

Here is, in English, the description of _Le Sacre_ in the original playbill:

ACT I -Adoration of the Earth
Spring
The Earth is covered with flowers. The Earth is covered with grass. A great joy reigns over the Earth. The men join in the dance and invoke the future according to the rites.
The Sage among all the Ancestors (Elders) participates in the glorifcation of the Spring.
All are made one (led to unite) with the abundant and rich Earth.
Everyone tramples the Earth with ecstasy.

ACT II -The Sacrifice
After the day: after midnight
On the hills are the consecrated stones.
The (young) maidens carry-out the mystical games and look for the Great Path.
They glorify, they exalt the maiden who is designated to be the chosen one of the god.
They call the Ancestors, venerated witnesses. And the wise Ancestors of Men contemplate the (Dance of) Sacrifice.
It is thus they sacrifice to Yarilo* the magnifcent, the flaming.

-From the original program, May 29, 1913, Theatre des Champs-Elysees, Paris, France


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Here is, in English, the description of _Le Sacre_ in the original playbill:
> 
> ACT I -Adoration of the Earth
> Spring
> The Earth is covered with flowers. The Earth is covered with grass. A great joy reigns over the Earth. The men join in the dance and invoke the future according to the rites.
> The Sage among all the Ancestors (Elders) participates in the glorifcation of the Spring.
> All are made one (led to unite) with the abundant and rich Earth.
> Everyone tramples the Earth with ecstasy.
> 
> ACT II -The Sacrifice
> After the day: after midnight
> On the hills are the consecrated stones.
> The (young) maidens carry-out the mystical games and look for the Great Path.
> They glorify, they exalt the maiden who is designated to be the chosen one of the god.
> They call the Ancestors, venerated witnesses. And the wise Ancestors of Men contemplate the (Dance of) Sacrifice.
> It is thus they sacrifice to Yarilo* the magnifcent, the flaming.
> 
> -From the original program, May 29, 1913, Theatre des Champs-Elysees, Paris, France


That is all very well, but we must remember that, according to the composer, it wasn't the purpose of the music to evoke any feelings one might associate with such a subject, or any feelings, ideas or images at all. Maybe its purpose was to prove that it's possible to dance in 11/16 time.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> That is all very well, but we must remember that, according to the composer, it wasn't the purpose of the music to evoke any feelings one might associate with such a subject, or any feelings, ideas or images at all. Maybe its purpose was to prove that it's possible to dance in 11/16 time.


It's likely that Stravinsky started out thinking about music in one way and then slowly? rapidly? changed his mind. But it's likely that images, or perhaps artists' imagined depictions of long-ago tribespeople dancing on the steppes of old Mother Russia, coupled perhaps with real examples of central Asian folk dance, set him to composition; mimicking the imaginary screenplay or set of _tableaux_ in his mind. To the extent that the receiving mind (audience) has been primed and programmed to entertain the idea that this is what the composer intends to communicate, all is well and the circuit is completed. Sibelius's _Nightride and Sunrise_ works the same way, as does much of the music of Respighi, and Villa-Lobos. Even Beethoven. The subjective, impressionable mind at work. Don't know if an auditor in T'ang China would have the same impressions without the preliminary programming.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> It's likely that Stravinsky started out thinking about music in one way and then slowly? rapidly? changed his mind. But it's likely that images, or perhaps artists' imagined depictions of long-ago tribespeople dancing on the steppes of old Mother Russia, coupled perhaps with real examples of central Asian folk dance, set him to composition; mimicking the imaginary screenplay or set of _tableaux_ in his mind. To the extent that the receiving mind (audience) has been primed and programmed to entertain the idea that this is what the composer intends to communicate, all is well and the circuit is completed. Sibelius's _Nightride and Sunrise_ works the same way, as does much of the music of Respighi, and Villa-Lobos. Even Beethoven. The subjective, impressionable mind at work. Don't know if an auditor in T'ang China would have the same impressions.


You seem to be oversimplifying the nature of musical expression (must we invoke T'ang China to demonstrate the presumed emotional vacuity of Beethoven's 5th?), but not as much as Stravinsky did in his infamous statement. It was a statement which, I'd wager, no human being would have made in all the millennia of human existence up until the mid-20th century, the first time in history when it was fashionable to hold the truth value of a statement as inversely proportional to the common belief in it.


----------



## Strange Magic

Emotional vacuity of the Beethoven 5th? The ability of Beethoven's 5th to evoke/trigger/induce emotion(s) in its auditors (and in Beethoven himself) is not fixed and intrinsic within the music; it varies from zero (or near zero) to mind-blowing depending upon each individual hearing it (personal and subjective). I always enjoy Mosolov's _Iron Foundry's_ relentless pounding cacophony for its evocation of lurching, clanking, unstoppable power. Others' reactions may vary.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Emotional vacuity of the Beethoven 5th? *The ability of Beethoven's 5th to evoke/trigger/induce emotion(s) in its auditors (and in Beethoven himself) is not fixed and intrinsic within the music;* it varies from zero (or near zero) to mind-blowing depending upon each individual hearing it (personal and subjective). I always enjoy Mosolov's _Iron Foundry's_ relentless pounding cacophony for its evocation of lurching, clanking, unstoppable power. Others' reactions may vary.


The ABILITY of Beethoven's 5th to evoke feeling responses is indeed intrinsic in the music. Clearly the work has that ability to an extraordinary degree, which is one of the things that make it an extraordinary work of art. Naturally the responses themselves will vary, yet I'll bet that even here the music's intrinsic characteristics are so distinctive and potent that a survey of listeners' responses would find an unusually high percentage of people describing their impressions in similar ways. Beethoven's 5th can do what it does to people because it is what it is. Intrinsically.

The difficulty or impossibility of describing feelings, especially in aesthetic responses, and the variation among the responses of different people, are no validation of Stravinsky's remark, which strikes me as nothing but a rationalization of his Neoclassical aesthetic and a putdown of Romanticism. It's almost funny coming from an avowed lover of Tchaikovsky, whose reaction to it would have been a dropped jaw and bulging eyes.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Room2201974 said:


> "The music of (composer X) displays a quite remarkable complexity, subtlety, and refinement: he was a complete master, as much of melodic as of rhythmic counterpoint, his work is a landmark in the evolution of European music."
> Wow! What a testimony! Not too many composers are at the "landmark status."


We all have an urge to stay in our comfort zone of "delusions", making up our own conclusions, (much like how certain extreme right-wing groups do in some countries with fascist past like Japan). Sure, it may be OK to think that with regard to counterpoint, Schubert was just fking around, not taking things seriously; was simply curious to see if how it could apply to his own art (like Paul McCartney's attitude toward classical music.) But how close to the "truth" would this be? Lots of artists we consider great embody similar patterns of philosophies and ideals. Values that continuously survived and had been passed down to later generations of artists. The more we find out about the work and lives of great composers, it becomes apparent. Some did more work in "setting examples" than others. As some other people have said, -this is why (even though all artists are unique in their own creative ways, and art is subjective), it is still safe to say Beethoven is more significant, then say, Carl Friedrich Abel. Luchesi sometimes seems to draw his own conclusions about the artists. I guess he's free to think whatever way he wants, but I wouldn't want to do the same because I wouldn't want to indulge in wishful thinking about what these great artists truly stood for -their philosophies and values.

[ 3:00 ]





"... With regard to counterpoint in Chopin's music, you might be interested in the conversation that Chopin had not long before his death with the painter Eugène Delacroix. Delacroix was one of a handful of quite intimate friends of Chopin's. In his diary, he mentions how he had picked Chopin up in a carriage, and they had ridden out beyond the Arc de Triomphe and gone to a café. Chopin then began to speak about music. *What makes logic in music, Chopin said, is counterpoint*, getting notes to sound against each other. *He said the problem with the way they teach nowadays is that they teach the chords before they teach the movement of voices that creates the chords.* That's the problem, he said, with Berlioz. He applies the chords as a kind of veneer and fills in the gaps the best way he can. Chopin then said that you can get a sense of pure logic in music with fugue and he cited not Bach-though we know that he worshiped Bach-but Mozart. He said, in every one of Mozart's pieces, you feel the counterpoint. *The fact that Chopin had this idea about counterpoint as being so foundational in music is, I think, very significant.* ..."
(The Art of Tonal Analysis: Twelve Lessons in Schenkerian Theory, By Carl Schachter, Page 57)






"... It had been no empty rhetoric when the German musician in his Parisian tale died professing his faith in Beethoven and Mozart. A biography of Mozart, read to him when he was only six, had made an undying impression on him. ...
The overture to Die Zauberflöte was his earliest musical love: it captured so exactly the note of a fairy tale. He conducted it in Mannheim in 1871 at the concert celebrating the founding of the German Richard Wagner Society. He often reminisced about his childhood impressions when Mozart was played at Wahnfried. He had discovered the C minor Fantasy at his Uncle Adolf's house and had dreamt about it for ages afterwards. ...
During his studies with Weinlig he had tried to discover the secret of Mozart's fluency and lightness in solving difficult technical problems. In particular *he tried to emulate the fugal finale of the great C major Symphony, 'magnificent, never surpassed', as he called it years later*, and at eighteen he wrote a fugato as the finale of his C major Concert Overture, 'the very best that I could do, as I thought at the time, in honour of my new exemplar'. In the last years of his life he liked to call himself the 'last Mozartian'. ..."
(Wagner: A Biography, By Curt von Westernhagen, Pages 81~82)



Room2201974 said:


> It's a good thing Bach, Beethoven and Mozart weren't serialist. It would be a shame to waste all that "greatness" on tone row.


Why especially say this about Bach, Beethoven, Mozart? Whatabout non-serialist composers of the 20th century? Would it have been also a shame if they wasted their "greatness" on tone row?


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> The ABILITY of Beethoven's 5th to evoke feeling responses is indeed intrinsic in the music. Clearly the work has that ability to an extraordinary degree, which is one of the things that make it an extraordinary work of art. Naturally the responses themselves will vary, yet I'll bet that even here the music's intrinsic characteristics are so distinctive and potent that a survey of listeners' responses would find an unusually high percentage of people describing their impressions in similar ways. Beethoven's 5th can do what it does to people because it is what it is. Intrinsically.
> 
> The difficulty or impossibility of describing feelings, especially in aesthetic responses, and the variation among the responses of different people, are no validation of Stravinsky's remark, which strikes me as nothing but a rationalization of his Neoclassical aesthetic and a putdown of Romanticism. It's almost funny coming from an avowed lover of Tchaikovsky, whose reaction to it would have been a dropped jaw and bulging eyes.


Yes, the 5th Symphony is an example of some of the intangibles that draw people in for reasons that go beyond simple subjectivity. Different people will be attracted to it for different reasons: feelings of joy, hope, optimism and victory. The opening was the perfect music in WW2 for the side that ironically was fighting against the homeland of the composer. How did Beethoven come up with this? It's not like any of his other symphonies. This is only one of many reasons why so many of us have both him and his music in a top 3. In general, so much of Beethoven's music spoke to the human condition, something far more profound than simple subjectivity.


----------



## Room2201974

hammeredklavier said:


> Why especially say this about Bach, Beethoven, Mozart? Whatabout non-serialist composers of the 20th century? Would be also a shame if they wasted their "greatness" on tone row?


My point was that if they were serialists there wouldn't be enough listeners out there to vote for them in popularity polls - it wouldn't have made any difference what "great" works they wrote. They wouldn't be the "Big Three."

As for "learned opinion" my Boulez quote on Machaut brings forth a thought. I mean, how could Boulez have Machaut so obviously over-graded? In Art Rock's last composer poll TC members' responses put Machaut at 61st place. Surely the collective knowledge of TC responders outweighs whatever musical acumen Pierre Boulez had and reinforces test validity.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Yes, the 5th Symphony is an example of some of the intangibles that draw people in for reasons that go beyond simple subjectivity. Different people will be attracted to it for different reasons: feelings of joy, hope, optimism and victory. The opening was the perfect music in WW2 for the side that ironically was fighting against the homeland of the composer. How did Beethoven come up with this? It's not like any of his other symphonies. This is only one of many reasons why so many of us have both him and his music in a top 3. In general, so much of Beethoven's music spoke to the human condition, something far more profound than simple subjectivity.


DaveM, be careful! You continue to hover on the edge of being my Secret Sharer when it comes to the multiplicity of emotions, images, "intangibles" that music and art evoke (and can evoke) in disparate minds. Personal and subjective (though I easily grant to Beethoven his knowing inclusion of Morse code, V for Victory, as the opening for the Fifth--it's there as an objective fact).

Actually, I am becoming even more convinced that I have several other Secret Sharers.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> We all have an urge to stay in our comfort zone of "delusions", making up our own conclusions, (much like how certain extreme right-wing groups do in some countries with fascist past like Japan). Sure, it may be OK to think that with regard to counterpoint, Schubert was just fking around, not taking things seriously; was simply curious to see if how it could apply to his own art (like Paul McCartney's attitude toward classical music.) But how close to the "truth" would this be? Lots of artists we consider great embody similar patterns of philosophies and ideals. Values that continuously survived and had been passed down to later generations of artists. The more we find out about the work and lives of great composers, it becomes apparent. Some did more work in "setting examples" than others. As some other people have said, -this is why (even though all artists are unique in their own creative ways, and art is subjective), it is still safe to say Beethoven is more significant, then say, Carl Friedrich Abel. Luchesi sometimes seems to draw his own conclusions about the artists. I guess he's free to think whatever way he wants, but I wouldn't want to do the same because I wouldn't want to indulge in wishful thinking about what these great artists truly stood for -their philosophies and values.
> 
> [ 3:00 ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "... With regard to counterpoint in Chopin's music, you might be interested in the conversation that Chopin had not long before his death with the painter Eugène Delacroix. Delacroix was one of a handful of quite intimate friends of Chopin's. In his diary, he mentions how he had picked Chopin up in a carriage, and they had ridden out beyond the Arc de Triomphe and gone to a café. Chopin then began to speak about music. *What makes logic in music, Chopin said, is counterpoint*, getting notes to sound against each other. *He said the problem with the way they teach nowadays is that they teach the chords before they teach the movement of voices that creates the chords.* That's the problem, he said, with Berlioz. He applies the chords as a kind of veneer and fills in the gaps the best way he can. Chopin then said that you can get a sense of pure logic in music with fugue and he cited not Bach-though we know that he worshiped Bach-but Mozart. He said, in every one of Mozart's pieces, you feel the counterpoint. *The fact that Chopin had this idea about counterpoint as being so foundational in music is, I think, very significant.* ..."
> (The Art of Tonal Analysis: Twelve Lessons in Schenkerian Theory, By Carl Schachter, Page 57)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "... It had been no empty rhetoric when the German musician in his Parisian tale died professing his faith in Beethoven and Mozart. A biography of Mozart, read to him when he was only six, had made an undying impression on him. ...
> The overture to Die Zauberflöte was his earliest musical love: it captured so exactly the note of a fairy tale. He conducted it in Mannheim in 1871 at the concert celebrating the founding of the German Richard Wagner Society. He often reminisced about his childhood impressions when Mozart was played at Wahnfried. He had discovered the C minor Fantasy at his Uncle Adolf's house and had dreamt about it for ages afterwards. ...
> During his studies with Weinlig he had tried to discover the secret of Mozart's fluency and lightness in solving difficult technical problems. In particular *he tried to emulate the fugal finale of the great C major Symphony, 'magnificent, never surpassed', as he called it years later*, and at eighteen he wrote a fugato as the finale of his C major Concert Overture, 'the very best that I could do, as I thought at the time, in honour of my new exemplar'. In the last years of his life he liked to call himself the 'last Mozartian'. ..."
> (Wagner: A Biography, By Curt von Westernhagen, Pages 81~82)
> 
> Why especially say this about Bach, Beethoven, Mozart? Whatabout non-serialist composers of the 20th century? Would it have been also a shame if they wasted their "greatness" on tone row?


You put effort into that long post. What are our delusions -- and how could you know?


----------



## Luchesi

Room2201974 said:


> My point was that if they were serialists there wouldn't be enough listeners out there to vote for them in popularity polls - it wouldn't have made any difference what "great" works they wrote. They wouldn't be the "Big Three."
> 
> As for "learned opinion" my Boulez quote on Machaut brings forth a thought. I mean, how could Boulez have Machaut so obviously over-graded? In Art Rock's last composer poll TC members' responses put Machaut at 61st place. Surely the collective knowledge of TC responders outweighs whatever musical acumen Pierre Boulez had and reinforces test validity.


Being facetious online is hit or miss at best. Give some indication of how we should read you.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> DaveM, be careful! You continue to hover on the edge of being my Secret Sharer when it comes to the multiplicity of emotions, images, "intangibles" that music and art evoke (and can evoke) in disparate minds. Personal and subjective (though I easily grant to Beethoven his knowing inclusion of Morse code, V for Victory, as the opening for the Fifth--it's there as an objective fact).
> 
> Actually, I am becoming even more convinced that I have several other Secret Sharers.


Grasping at straws. I know people right here in our lab who 'like' geology partly for subjective reasons. Many chemists especially are rock collectors (not physicists so much lol).


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> I easily grant to Beethoven his knowing inclusion of Morse code, V for Victory, as the opening for the Fifth--it's there as an objective fact.


Erm. You know that as a matter of objective fact that Samuel Morse didn't invent Morse Code until 1837, right? And that Symphony No. 5 was first performed in 1808, right? So there's no possible way that Beethoven could have knowingly included any reference to a coding system that wouldn't be invented for around another 30 years...

I'm also interested to know why he wouldn't have started his symphony with an abbreviated dot-dot-dot rhythm, since that's the Morse code for 'S', which is what Beethoven would have known as 'Victory' (i.e., as a German, he would have called it 'S für Sieg', not 'V for Victory').

Minor details, I realise. But some objectivity! Some fact! (With apologies to Winston).


----------



## Strange Magic

dizwell said:


> Erm. You know that as a matter of objective fact that Samuel Morse didn't invent Morse Code until 1837, right? And that Symphony No. 5 was first performed in 1808, right? So there's no possible way that Beethoven could have knowingly included any reference to a coding system that wouldn't be invented for around another 30 years...
> 
> I'm also interested to know why he wouldn't have started his symphony with an abbreviated dot-dot-dot rhythm, since that's the Morse code for 'S', which is what Beethoven would have known as 'Victory' (i.e., as a German, he would have called it 'S für Sieg', not 'V for Victory').
> 
> Minor details, I realise. But some objectivity! Some fact! (With apologies to Winston).


Oh, please! I will try to be more labored and obvious in my attempts at play.


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> Oh, please! I will try to be more labored and obvious in my attempts at play.


Yeah, please do. Have a check on Poe's Law whilst you're at it.

To be clear about it, your 'knowing wink' smiley appeared at the end of a sentence in which you (presumably jokingly) warned DaveM about becoming a 'secret sharer' (whatever that might be) and in which you mentioned the Morse Code bit. It was not clear to me to which part your 'knowing wink/pulling your leg' applied.

If I underestimated your erudition on the chronology of the development of Morse Code, I apologise.


----------



## Strange Magic

dizwell said:


> Yeah, please do. Have a check on Poe's Law whilst you're at it.


I sense we differ on our assessment of the acumen of the average TC member.:tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

I've noticed, in this thread, that the question of what makes the Big Three "big," and whether some composers and music can be properly said to be "great," has merged with the question of whether music can have intrinsic meaning. This may have happened when Stravinsky's statement that music "expresses nothing at all" was slipped in.

Those two questions are not unrelated, but they are not the same. Judgments of quality in art rest partly on perceptions of meaning, but also significantly on technical considerations. The meaning of "greatness" and the meaning of "meaning" are both complex questions deserving the attention of musicians, musicologists, philosophers, historians, ethnologists and neuropsychologists, among others. Pursuing them involves accounting for vast amounts of data, some of it generally observable, some of it specialized. But the questions are easily lumped together and trivialized if the only datum considered is the obvious fact that people's responses to music differ. The statement that kicked off this discussion, "No composer has an entitlement to be labelled 'big' except in terms of their popularity" (post #101), explains nothing about either music or the human response to it. It simply erects a wall beyond which nothing need be seen or suspected. But even the obvious question, "_Why_ is Mozart more popular than Salieri?," opens a crack in that wall and reveals a world of phenomena, perceptions, and potential understanding.


----------



## 1000YearsOfMusic

In my book a fact is objective if it’s true independently of anyone’s opinion. To put it another way, if it would be true even if no people had ever lived on Earth or anywhere. For example, if I take two pebbles, the fact that one of them might be heavier than the other doesn’t depend on anyone’s opinion. If I put them on the plates of a scale, the one that pushes down its plate is the heavier one, whether someone thinks otherwise or not.

Not so with adjectives like good, bad, better, worse, pretty, ugly, etc. These are always someone’s opinion. In Nature, without people who can form these opinions, there are no such things as good or bad, better or worse. There is Nature and there are various changes or processes constantly going on in it, without any parts of those being good or bad, pretty or ugly, or whatever. For example, I can say that this cell phone is better or prettier than that one, I could even justify this opinion by emphasizing some of its characteristics, but if tomorrow all humans suddenly disappeared from the face of Earth, then in what sense would be one phone better (or worse) than the other? There would be just two masses of matter remaining, each with certain physical properties, but neither of them would be „better” (or „worse”) than the other. Without people it wouldn’t make any sense.

It’s exactly the same with pieces of art. Music is even more special, since the pieces don’t exist as objects, unless we consider e.g. Mozart’s Requiem identical to its score or to the CD that contains it, which I don’t think many of us would do. Music, or a piece of music is not an object, it is a process during which there’s a continuous interaction going on between the listener and the constantly changing sound, the latter of wich may be being produced by the former themselves, or even might not be „real”, it might be „heard” only by the one listener whose mind is producing it, as when recalling a melody or composing a piece. The result of this interaction, that is the effect of the stream of sounds on the listener will be determined by the cultural environment, within that the listener’s personal history, their biological aptitudes and their current psychical state. But without the listener there is no music, and without the listener’s opinion there is no „good” or „bad” music, and their opinion is just that: someone’s opinion.


----------



## Strange Magic

dizwell said:


> Yeah, please do. Have a check on Poe's Law whilst you're at it.
> 
> To be clear about it, your 'knowing wink' smiley appeared at the end of a sentence in which you (presumably jokingly) warned DaveM about becoming a 'secret sharer' (whatever that might be) and in which you mentioned the Morse Code bit. It was not clear to me to which part your 'knowing wink/pulling your leg' applied.
> 
> If I underestimated your erudition on the chronology of the development of Morse Code, I apologise.


No quarrel. The reference to DaveM perhaps being a secret sharer alludes to Joseph Conrad's novella _The Secret Sharer_, a classic of English literature: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Sharer

Another light allusion to "secret sharer" is found in the _Rolling Stone Book of the Women in Rock_, p.278, where essayist Carola Dibbell describes Disco as Punk's secret sharer.


----------



## DaveM

dizwell said:


> Erm. You know that as a matter of objective fact that Samuel Morse didn't invent Morse Code until 1837, right? And that Symphony No. 5 was first performed in 1808, right? So there's no possible way that Beethoven could have knowingly included any reference to a coding system that wouldn't be invented for around another 30 years...
> 
> I'm also interested to know why he wouldn't have started his symphony with an abbreviated dot-dot-dot rhythm, since that's the Morse code for 'S', which is what Beethoven would have known as 'Victory' (i.e., as a German, he would have called it 'S für Sieg', not 'V for Victory').
> 
> Minor details, I realise. But some objectivity! Some fact! (With apologies to Winston).


Actually, Morse, being a major Beethoven fan, decided to pattern the Morse code for V, dot-dot-dot-dash, after the opening of the 5th Symphony


----------



## Strange Magic

According to our ongoing TC poll, Beethoven is more popular than Bach, who is more popular than Mozart. Why? Another poll may reveal different rankings..


----------



## annaw

Strange Magic said:


> According to our ongoing TC poll, Beethoven is more popular than Bach, who is more popular than Mozart. Why? Another poll may reveal different rankings..


Surely, I think it all depends just on the voters and on the accounts who are active at the present period. That kind of differences and fluctuations between different rankings can be seen in other TC polls as well, especially in "The Talk Classical Top ..." ones which are repeated more or less regularly. Nevertheless, this shows perfectly the subjectivity of such polls.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> I've noticed, in this thread, that the question of what makes the Big Three "big," and whether some composers and music can be properly said to be "great," has merged with the question of whether music can have intrinsic meaning. This may have happened when Stravinsky's statement that music "expresses nothing at all" was slipped in.
> 
> Those two questions are not unrelated, but they are not the same. Judgments of quality in art rest partly on perceptions of meaning, but also significantly on technical considerations. The meaning of "greatness" and the meaning of "meaning" are both complex questions deserving the attention of musicians, musicologists, philosophers, historians, ethnologists and neuropsychologists, among others. Pursuing them involves accounting for vast amounts of data, some of it generally observable, some of it specialized. But the questions are easily lumped together and trivialized if the only datum considered is the obvious fact that people's responses to music differ. The statement that kicked off this discussion, "No composer has an entitlement to be labelled 'big' except in terms of their popularity" (post #101), explains nothing about either music or the human response to it. It simply erects a wall beyond which nothing need be seen or suspected. But even the obvious question, "_Why_ is Mozart more popular than Salieri?," opens a crack in that wall and reveals a world of phenomena, perceptions, and potential understanding.


'Popular' needn't have pejorative connotations.


----------



## Luchesi

annaw said:


> Surely, I think it all depends just on the voters and on the accounts who are active at the present period. That kind of differences and fluctuations between different rankings can be seen in other TC polls as well, especially in "The Talk Classical Top ..." ones which are repeated more or less regularly. Nevertheless, this shows perfectly the subjectivity of such polls.


Strange Magic is keeping this stimulating and diverting thread going. I'm grateful. Whenever he enters a thread the levels go up. it's revivifying. And on this topic he speaks for the man-in-the-street, even Joe 6 pack..


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> Strange Magic is keeping this stimulating and diverting thread going. I'm grateful. Whenever he enters a thread the levels go up. it's revivifying. And on this topic he speaks for the man-in-the-street, even Joe 6 pack..


I give voice to the voiceless.....:angel:


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> 'Popular' needn't have pejorative connotations.


It doesn't to those for whom it's the highest praise.


----------



## DaveM

Luchesi said:


> Strange Magic is keeping this stimulating and diverting thread going. I'm grateful. Whenever he enters a thread the levels go up. it's revivifying. And on this topic he speaks for the man-in-the-street, even Joe 6 pack..


I don't know about the thread levels, but the number of posts increase as we correct him and bring him back to center.


----------



## BachIsBest

1000YearsOfMusic said:


> In my book a fact is objective if it's true independently of anyone's opinion. To put it another way, if it would be true even if no people had ever lived on Earth or anywhere. For example, if I take two pebbles, the fact that one of them might be heavier than the other doesn't depend on anyone's opinion. If I put them on the plates of a scale, the one that pushes down its plate is the heavier one, whether someone thinks otherwise or not.
> 
> Not so with adjectives like good, bad, better, worse, pretty, ugly, etc. These are always someone's opinion. In Nature, without people who can form these opinions, there are no such things as good or bad, better or worse. There is Nature and there are various changes or processes constantly going on in it, without any parts of those being good or bad, pretty or ugly, or whatever. For example, I can say that this cell phone is better or prettier than that one, I could even justify this opinion by emphasizing some of its characteristics, but if tomorrow all humans suddenly disappeared from the face of Earth, then in what sense would be one phone better (or worse) than the other? There would be just two masses of matter remaining, each with certain physical properties, but neither of them would be „better" (or „worse") than the other. Without people it wouldn't make any sense.
> 
> It's exactly the same with pieces of art. Music is even more special, since the pieces don't exist as objects, unless we consider e.g. Mozart's Requiem identical to its score or to the CD that contains it, which I don't think many of us would do. Music, or a piece of music is not an object, it is a process during which there's a continuous interaction going on between the listener and the constantly changing sound, the latter of wich may be being produced by the former themselves, or even might not be „real", it might be „heard" only by the one listener whose mind is producing it, as when recalling a melody or composing a piece. The result of this interaction, that is the effect of the stream of sounds on the listener will be determined by the cultural environment, within that the listener's personal history, their biological aptitudes and their current psychical state. But without the listener there is no music, and without the listener's opinion there is no „good" or „bad" music, and their opinion is just that: someone's opinion.


I'm not sure your argument works. As far as I can tell you wish to define things as objectively true if they are true independent of human existence and then conclude that music can't possibly be objectively true. I'll try and explain why I think this is a bit fallacious.

Let's take the statement "there are n objects" where n is some number. If there are, indeed, in the usual sense, n objects then you probably wish to conclude that this statement is objectively true. However, let's try and apply your notion of objectivity; that it would still be true if no humans existed. Disregarding defining the notion of an object we immediately arrive at a the quandary of "what is a number?". Essentially, if a number is anything, it must be one of two things:
1. something human's defined;
2. something that exists independent of human conception.

If 1. is the case the statement "there are n objects" can never be objectively true (by your definition) as, without humans, we can't even speak of numbers since they only exist through human thought. If 2. is the case then the statement "there are n objects" certainly seems to be a reasonable claim. However, we now have allowed for the existence of something entirely abstract, that exists in no physical sense, that is, so to speak, objective. Once we have allowed for such things to exist it seems reasonable to argue that music is, indeed, such an abstract thing that can be spoken of objectively. At the very least, the argument does not preclude it.


----------



## Woodduck

1000YearsOfMusic said:


> In my book *a fact is objective if it's true independently of anyone's opinion.* To put it another way, if it would be true even if no people had ever lived on Earth or anywhere. For example, if I take two pebbles, the fact that one of them might be heavier than the other doesn't depend on anyone's opinion. If I put them on the plates of a scale, the one that pushes down its plate is the heavier one, whether someone thinks otherwise or not.
> 
> *Not so with adjectives like good, bad, better, worse, pretty, ugly, etc. These are always someone's opinion. In Nature, without people who can form these opinions, there are no such things as good or bad, better or worse. *


This is simply not true. Values are not merely opinions, and not exclusive to humans. "This is good" is a statement of relationship. It implies the question, "Good for what?" Food is good for animals. A moist climate is good for redwoods. Heat and pressure are good for creating diamonds. "Goodness" depends upon some condition being fulfilled, and depending on the degree of fulfillment we recognize things as good, better, bad, or worse. Those conditions are fulfilled whether or not humans exist to see and acknowledge them.

But more than this: when "good" is applied to human experience, it is not necessarily mere opinion. A thing may be objectively good for people, regardless of anyone's opinion. A loving family is good for a child's mental health. The ability to read and write is good for the acquisition of knowledge, mental acuity, and successful communication. The ability to perceive sensory qualities and formal relationships in visual and auditory images is good for the enjoyment and appreciation of art and music.



> It's exactly the same with pieces of art. Music is even more special, since the pieces don't exist as objects, unless we consider e.g. Mozart's Requiem identical to its score or to the CD that contains it, which I don't think many of us would do. Music, or a piece of music is not an object, it is a process during which there's a continuous interaction going on between the listener and the constantly changing sound, the latter of wich may be being produced by the former themselves, or even might not be „real", it might be „heard" only by the one listener whose mind is producing it, as when recalling a melody or composing a piece. The result of this interaction, that is the effect of the stream of sounds on the listener will be determined by the cultural environment, within that the listener's personal history, their biological aptitudes and their current psychical state. But *without the listener there is no music, and without the listener's opinion there is no „good" or „bad" music, and their opinion is just that: someone's opinion.*


When evaluating more complex phenomena and situations, things that have a variety of elements, applications or effects, we need to ask, "Good in what respect"? It's always necessary to ask this when evaluating art. If the question is, "Is this painting good?", we ask, "What aspect of it are we evaluating?" If we choose to evaluate its composition, we ask such questions as, "What is the artist trying to do with his design? Do we perceive a clear concept and purpose? Does the composition carry through with its basic idea, or does it seem to work against itself? Does it have dynamic qualities of a sort compatible with its subject? Do its masses, weights, forces and energies balance and hold together as an entity? Is the design distinctive and arresting?" Implicit in these judgments is the deeper question: are purpose, clarity of concept, consistency, aptness of means to ends, integrity and distinctiveness good things? Are these things of real, objective value? To the extent that we can answer this in the affirmative, and to the extent that we find these values embodied in the painting, we recognize a successful artistic effort and we judge the work "good." Our judgment is specific and contextual, answering the questions, "good for what" and good in what respect." And note: we do not have to like a work of art to perceive good qualities in it, although liking it might make us more alert to those qualities.

It's certainly true that without human beings there would be no "good" or "bad" music, since without human beings music would not exist! But we can safely take the existence of both humans and music for granted, and move on to the question of why humans persist in finding works of music good, better, bad, and worse, and why they persist in recognizing the appreciation of aesthetic values as something more than personal taste. Is it conceivable that art can represent and evoke things which are more or less good for human beings - and, furthermore, that it can represent and evoke these things more or less successfully, and that humans are capable of evaluating its success in doing so?


----------



## Rogerx

1000YearsOfMusic said:


> In my book a fact is objective if it's true independently of anyone's opinion. To put it another way, if it would be true even if no people had ever lived on Earth or anywhere. For example, if I take two pebbles, the fact that one of them might be heavier than the other doesn't depend on anyone's opinion. If I put them on the plates of a scale, the one that pushes down its plate is the heavier one, whether someone thinks otherwise or not.
> 
> Not so with adjectives like good, bad, better, worse, pretty, ugly, etc. These are always someone's opinion. In Nature, without people who can form these opinions, there are no such things as good or bad, better or worse. There is Nature and there are various changes or processes constantly going on in it, without any parts of those being good or bad, pretty or ugly, or whatever. For example, I can say that this cell phone is better or prettier than that one, I could even justify this opinion by emphasizing some of its characteristics, but if tomorrow all humans suddenly disappeared from the face of Earth, then in what sense would be one phone better (or worse) than the other? There would be just two masses of matter remaining, each with certain physical properties, but neither of them would be „better" (or „worse") than the other. Without people it wouldn't make any sense.
> 
> It's exactly the same with pieces of art. Music is even more special, since the pieces don't exist as objects, unless we consider e.g. Mozart's Requiem identical to its score or to the CD that contains it, which I don't think many of us would do. Music, or a piece of music is not an object, it is a process during which there's a continuous interaction going on between the listener and the constantly changing sound, the latter of wich may be being produced by the former themselves, or even might not be „real", it might be „heard" only by the one listener whose mind is producing it, as when recalling a melody or composing a piece. The result of this interaction, that is the effect of the stream of sounds on the listener will be determined by the cultural environment, within that the listener's personal history, their biological aptitudes and their current psychical state. But without the listener there is no music, and without the listener's opinion there is no „good" or „bad" music, and their opinion is just that: someone's opinion.


You can repeat that in every thread .


----------



## Strange Magic

The several critiques of 1000YearsOfMusic's succinct summary, seen immediately above in this thread, actually serve to reinforce his position (and mine). While we can discuss Good and Bad in terms of human health, for instance, it is strictly in relation to human well-being, and offers no consideration of whether pathogens, parasites, etc. derive benefit. When we get down to whether "people" benefit from listening to Beethoven v. seeing _Star Wars_ v. looking at a painting of dogs playing poker--esthetic decisions--we're back to voting, polls, opinions, who is the audience, etc. Close examination of the critiques will reveal the thinness of the counterarguments. Shakespeare was right.


----------



## annaw

Strange Magic said:


> The several critiques of 1000YearsOfMusic's succinct summary, seen immediately above in this thread, actually serve to reinforce his position (and mine). While we can discuss Good and Bad in terms of human health, for instance, it is strictly in relation to human well-being, and offers no consideration of whether pathogens, parasites, etc. derive benefit. When we get down to whether "people" benefit from listening to Beethoven v. seeing _Star Wars_ v. looking at a painting of dogs playing poker--esthetic decisions--we're back to voting, polls, opinions, who is the audience, etc. Close examination of the critiques will reveal the thinness of the counterarguments. Shakespeare was right.


I don't think we have to essentially talk about "benefiting" from something - as Woodduck said earlier, one doesn't have to like what one considers to be masterful and skilfully made. You can just perceive that Bach was very good at counterpoint (while you are saying that based on what we consider by definition to be counterpoint) but that doesn't mean that I personally should benefit, enjoy or like counterpoint or Bach at all. Schoenberg was good at writing atonal music - that doesn't mean I have to like it but still, based on the "definition" of atonal music or the way we usually see it, I can say that he was good at it. Wagner was good at conveying emotions and thoughts through his music (an objective example is how he combines e.g. 6 different leitmotifs, that we know have certain meanings, to describe a certain situation) - that doesn't mean I have to like his operas, their plots or his music.

Actually, operas are a good example to bring in as they include one additional factor or variable that one has to consider - the plot and the drama. Let's assume that there's an opera composer X who writes utterly amazing music, but whose plots are terrible and aren't in accordance with the emotions conveyed through the music. If I personally perceive the drama to be something very important, I would say that composer X wasn't that good composer because he didn't achieve his goal as an opera composer. On the other hand, if I didn't care for the drama but only for the music, I can say that composer X was an amazing composer, because for me, personally, he achieved his goal as a composer. (This is exactly why such polls cannot give an objective result.) Thus, it's very difficult to compare opera composers to any other composer, because to compare them, I should neglect and important factor of evaluating a good opera composer. Whether I'm willing to neglect that aspect comes down to how much I appreciate the drama. The same thing works with other artists. Who was "greater" - Goethe or Mozart? I cannot compare literature and poems with music. There's nothing to compare and thus asking such question wouldn't even be sensible. If I asked who was better at writing good harmonies, I think the majority of people would say Mozart. If I asked who was better at conveying human psychology through his writing, the most probable answer would be Goethe but I cannot compare these two objectively, as collections of qualities, because I know I perceive different qualities differently. This is where the subjectivity comes in - it's just a result of people appreciating different qualities differently. The meaning of "goodness" in such poll as this one is basically the "goodness" of the collection of composer's qualities. Because I cannot say what's better - counterpoint or good harmony, I cannot give an objective evaluation to these collections of qualities because they are, in the most literal meaning of the word, incomparable.

If we made a poll, whose counterpoint was the best and you would have the same options, I suspect that Bach would win every time no difference when you made the poll because this is a pretty objective evaluation based on the way we understand counterpoint.


----------



## Strange Magic

Polls and polling. Voting. Opinions. Objectivity in esthetics should be made of sterner stuff, methinks.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> The several critiques of 1000YearsOfMusic's succinct summary, seen immediately above in this thread, actually serve to reinforce his position (and mine).


No, they don't.



> While we can discuss Good and Bad in terms of human health, for instance, it is strictly in relation to human well-being, and offers no consideration of whether pathogens, parasites, etc. derive benefit. When we get down to whether "people" benefit from listening to Beethoven v. seeing Star Wars v. looking at a painting of dogs playing poker--esthetic decisions--we're back to voting, polls, opinions, who is the audience, etc.


You've missed the point, again.



> Close examination of the critiques will reveal the thinness of the counterarguments.


I notice that you aren't offering such a close examination. I'm ready when you are.



> Polls and polling. Voting. Opinions. Objectivity in esthetics should be made of sterner stuff, methinks.


You can say exactly the same (insubstantial) thing a million times (and you must be getting close by now). But while you're taking polls and comparing flavors of ice cream, artists all over the world are learning to make their work BETTER: mastering their craft, refining their sense of form, rhythm, color and sonority, finding the means to make sensory and verbal signs into vehicles of meaning, and in the process gaining the ability to pursue higher goals and convey deeper meanings with the means they've worked relentlessly to acquire.

When you gain some comprehension of what making great art actually entails, you may have an inkling of what "sterner stuff" art and artists are made of.


----------



## millionrainbows

Hmm, I would've thought Woodduck's answer would be "Bwagner."


----------



## Room2201974

millionrainbows said:


> Hmm, I would've thought Woodduck's answer would be "Bwagner."


No, sorry. Wagner is currently polling across the board with high negatives.

See Pete Palmer and Bill James re: "park effects." Bayreuth has so much foul ground associated with it that it's not a *pitch*ers ballpark. So, sorry, no HOF votes.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> I don't know about the thread levels, but the number of posts increase as we correct him and bring him back to center.


It does sound elitist, but I think non-musicians get different things out of the music than musicians. Musicians lose a little bit of the mystery and surprises, but they can put themselves back in the place of a listener.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> No, they don't.
> You've missed the point, again.
> I notice that you aren't offering such a close examination. I'm ready when you are.
> You can say exactly the same (insubstantial) thing a million times (and you must be getting close by now). But while you're taking polls and comparing flavors of ice cream, artists all over the world are learning to make their work BETTER: mastering their craft, refining their sense of form, rhythm, color and sonority, finding the means to make sensory and verbal signs into vehicles of meaning, and in the process gaining the ability to pursue higher goals and convey deeper meanings with the means they've worked relentlessly to acquire.
> When you gain some comprehension of what making great art actually entails, you may have an inkling of what "sterner stuff" art and artists are made of.


I have no intention of laying out a long, tedious close examination of the arguments of those attempting to establish the "objectivity" of the esthetics of art; the aforementioned arguments themselves, upon the careful inspection of the reader, provide, sticking out through all of their cracks and fissures, all of the counterargument necessary to the discerning mind, both mine and Shakespeare's. I am not making polls; there is no need when every "objectivist" defense boils down to just that. The above paean describing the artists all over the world learning to make their work BETTER, etc. is moving and wonderful and accurate but it does not address the subject. Who says the resulting efforts are better? No, I refer to polls, voting, ice cream, wine tasting and judging--the whole creaking mechanism of attempting to establish an objective basis for judging of the human construct that is art _sensu lato_--as a edifice of straw and tissue constructed largely _ex post facto_ to retrofit our subjective, individual preferences into some larger, more "meaningful'', more worthy superstructure. That's my position; that's my argument. People either agree or they do not. So be it.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> I have no intention of laying out a long, tedious close examination of the arguments of those attempting to establish the "objectivity" of the esthetics of art; the aforementioned arguments themselves, upon the careful inspection of the reader, provide, sticking out through all of their cracks and fissures, all of the counterargument necessary to the discerning mind, both mine and Shakespeare's. I am not making polls; there is no need when every "objectivist" defense boils down to just that. The above paean describing the artists all over the world learning to make their work BETTER, etc. is moving and wonderful and accurate but it does not address the subject. Who says the resulting efforts are better? No, I refer to polls, voting, ice cream, wine tasting and judging--the whole creaking mechanism of attempting to establish an objective basis for judging of the human construct that is art _sensu lato_--as a edifice of straw and tissue constructed largely _ex post facto_ to retrofit our subjective, individual preferences into some larger, more "meaningful'', more worthy superstructure. That's my position; that's my argument. People either agree or they do not. So be it.


Okay you're apparently back to the 'it's all subjectivity, case closed' with the, what is getting very old, addition of Latin to add, arguably, to the credibility. So let's pull back for a minute. Taking Beethoven for the moment, in your opinion, did he have any special skills? And if so, were they any better than any other composers of the period?


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Okay you're apparently back to the 'it's all subjectivity, case closed' with the, what is getting very old, addition of Latin to add, arguably, to the credibility. So let's pull back for a minute. Taking Beethoven for the moment, in your opinion, did he have any special skills? And if so, were they any better than any other composers of the period?


Yes. Beethoven had the gift of bringing a big musical talent and ability into play when the _Zeitgeist_ was ripe for his music. Millions have voted his music Number One.

There really is no difference, when you look at these two contrasting views of the arts, in the nature of each's conviction of how good the evidence is. Looking coldly at the objectivist arguments, I see nothing new, convincing, persuasive--only the same tired touting of polls of select audiences, opinions, etc. Oenophilia all over again, with roots just as shallow. Sorry, but that's the way I see it. I'll very likely lose any vote myself among the TC select audience, but I can live with the pain.

There seems to be endless confusion about what my "all esthetics is subjective and personal" position means. Some think (or want to think) I believe that all art and artists are an indistinguishable undifferentiated mass. I do not. I have, like all of us, my favorites, my Greats, my Masterpieces--who doesn't? But they are mine, valid only for me, not necessarily transferable to you, and vice versa. That is part of the appeal of my position though it is not essential to establishing its correctness--it's a freebee, that each of us can appreciate what we will without checking the pulse and demeanor of some controlling group of arbiters of taste.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> I have no intention of laying out a long, tedious close examination of the arguments of those attempting to establish the "objectivity" of the esthetics of art; the aforementioned arguments themselves, upon *the careful inspection of the reader,* provide, sticking out through all of their cracks and fissures, all of the counterargument necessary to *the discerning mind, both mine and Shakespeare's.*


You mean "the careful inspection of this reader." I'd be very interested to know what Shakespeare had to say about artistic excellence. I'll bet he never said anything like "poetry is only as good as you think it is" or "actually, there's no such thing as a good play, only one that you like or don't like" or "trouble thyself not with King Lear! I mean, like, in sooth, ne'er did I intend the madness, humiliation and enlightenment of a proud but selfish parent to be of greater human significance than 'Little Bo Peep.'"



> I am not making polls; there is no need when every "objectivist" defense boils down to just that. The above paean describing the artists all over the world learning to make their work BETTER, etc. is moving and wonderful and accurate but *it does not address the subject. *


That IS the subject, as we artists know. The subject is: "the reality of artistic excellence."



> Who says the resulting efforts are better?


Who SAYS - or who KNOWS? Some people know how to judge art, some don't. Most do to some extent; humans have an innate sense of aesthetic fitness. Conscientious artists have it more than most; they judge their own work harshly and sweat over minute improvements that most people wouldn't be capable of perceiving, yet might well be able to sense in the finished work.



> No, I refer to polls, voting, ice cream, wine tasting and judging--the whole creaking mechanism of attempting to establish an objective basis for judging of the human construct that is art _sensu lato_--as a edifice of straw and tissue constructed largely _ex post facto_ to retrofit our subjective, individual preferences into some larger, more "meaningful'', more worthy superstructure. That's my position; that's my argument. People either agree or they do not. So be it.


Your "argument" is a categorical statement with no evidence to back it up except the premise that where disagreement is possible no knowledge is possible. That isn't evidence. It's a philosophical position, which asserts that nothing that can't be perceived by everyone, replicated forever in a lab, or obtained through logical proof, can legitimately be taken as real knowledge. Actual, real evidence - evidence for the reality of artistic excellence and the possibility of making valid artistic judgments - is on the other side. Some of that evidence? Let's try:

the possibility of improving one's awareness of aesthetic qualities;

the existence of common artistic values across disparate cultures;

the ability of people to appreciate deeply the art of other cultures and even become expert practitioners;

the persistence over long spans of time - even many centuries - of the pre-eminent stature of some artists, and the power of some artworks to affect people through the ages;

the ability of people to comprehend the excellence of art which is not to their personal taste;

the fact that art has expressive potential and conveys both emotional and cognitive information which people tend to read in similar ways;

the understanding of all the great, and most of the less great, artists in history, who would respond to the notion that what they've produced at age 50 is "objectively" of no greater beauty, depth, or skill than what they produced at age 11, with complete incredulity, withering contempt, indignation, or pity;

the assumption - generally implicit, since they don't even entertain the opposite view long enough to dignify it with a mention - by artists, scholars, critics and artistically sensitive and educated people that there are inherent differences between fine art and garbage.

As a lifelong practicing artist (in several arts), I feel mainly incredulity when confronted with people who would try to "disprove" what I know to be a form of knowledge as legitimate as any other. Any theory of knowledge which can't take aesthetic perception and discrimination into account is a defective theory. As Shakespeare actually did say, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."


----------



## Ethereality

My favorite of the big 3 is the first guy of course. Pretty silly question I think.

My favorite of the big 16 is also the first guy.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Yes. Beethoven had the gift of bringing a big musical talent and ability into play when the _Zeitgeist_ was ripe for his music. Millions have voted his music Number One.


Just so we're clear, I'm not trying to argue against the subjectivity involved in polls and whatnot. And I have the feeling we are talking at cross purposes and there may be room for agreement. So with that in mind, when it comes to why Beethoven is widely considered to be one of the greatest composers, I'm trying to figure out whether you find there to be any objective reasons why he is.

Your answer above mentions a big musical talent and ability which suggests that likely the talent and ability of a number of other composers wasn't quite as big. Doesn't that imply that there might be some objective reasons behind that?


----------



## Strange Magic

Regarding Post #461: Sorry, No Sale. I see that my view is clearly a minority view, and I'm fine with that. I am impressed with the sheer quantity of verbiage marshalled in attempts at refutation, as I also am impressed with the emotional fervor this subject arouses in opposition to my view. But I'll stick with Shakespeare's formulation that nothing (in this case in the arts) is good or bad unless we think it so. Wine? Ice cream? Music? 

Please feel free to respond at length and at leisure, but my position is what it is, and I believe it correctly mirrors reality. None of this is meant to in any way diminish or demean the efforts of artists, vintners, ice cream makers to work feverishly and diligently on their works, or their dedication to their craft. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, on the part of each of us, independently.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Just so we're clear, I'm not trying to argue against the subjectivity involved in polls and whatnot. And I have the feeling we are talking at cross purposes and there may be room for agreement. So with that in mind, when it comes to why Beethoven is widely considered to be one of the greatest composers, I'm trying to figure out whether you find there to be any objective reasons why he is.
> 
> Your answer above mentions a big musical talent and ability which suggests that likely the talent and ability of a number of other composers wasn't quite as big. Doesn't that imply that there might be some objective reasons behind that?


Check the (minority) views that, in the poll, Bach and Mozart also received votes as Numero Uno. The idea that Beethoven had a big talent is a popular idea among CM enthusiasts, as the polling demonstrates. Puccini had a big talent also: his operas are very popular.


----------



## EdwardBast

Strange Magic said:


> Regarding Post #461: Sorry, No Sale. I see that my view is clearly a minority view, and I'm fine with that. I am impressed with the sheer quantity of verbiage marshalled in attempts at refutation, as I also am impressed with the emotional fervor this subject arouses in opposition to my view. But *I'll stick with Shakespeare's formulation that nothing (in this case in the arts) is good or bad unless we think it so.* Wine? Ice cream? Music?
> 
> Please feel free to respond at length and at leisure, but my position is what it is, and I believe it correctly mirrors reality. None of this is meant to in any way diminish or demean the efforts of artists, vintners, ice cream makers to work feverishly and diligently on their works, or their dedication to their craft. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, on the part of each of us, independently.


Since no one has pointed out the obvious, I will: This is not Shakespeare's formulation, it's Hamlet's. Hamlet's fictional statements cannot be taken to express the beliefs of the author and you can't reasonably claim the authority of Shakespeare in support of your position. You can of course claim the lunatic support of a fictional being if you think that helps.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Check the (minority) views that, in the poll, Bach and Mozart also received votes as Numero Uno. The idea that Beethoven had a big talent is a popular idea among CM enthusiasts, as the polling demonstrates. Puccini had a big talent also: his operas are very popular.


Well, you side-stepped my question, not to mention that my post didn't even say anything about Beethoven being Numero Uno.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> my position is what it is, and I believe it correctly mirrors reality.


What realities does it mirror? What facts can be adduced in favor of it? Any, besides the obvious one that people disagree on things? Or is "reality" not dependent on observed realities, such as those I listed in my last post?



> I see that my view is clearly a minority view, and I'm fine with that. I am impressed with the sheer quantity of verbiage marshalled in attempts at refutation, as I also am impressed with the emotional fervor this subject arouses in opposition to my view.


Better to be impressed with how much greater Verdi's _Otello_ is than his _Ernani,_ or Mozart's last symphony than his first.



> I'll stick with Shakespeare's formulation that nothing (in this case in the arts) is good or bad unless we think it so... the proof of the pudding is in the eating, on the part of each of us, independently.


Shakespeare's characters say a lot of things. I think what Shakespeare himself might have said is more interesting to speculate on. I'll bet he would not have compared artistic qualities to the flavors of food, despite "If music be the food of love..." His most famous passage about music is probably more like it (but of course it's still the statement of a fictional character):

But music for the time doth change his nature.
The man that hath no music in himself,
Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds,
Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils.
The motions of his spirit are dull as night,
And his affections dark as Erebus.
Let no such man be trusted. Mark the music.

(_The Merchant of Venice, _Act 5, Scene 1)

I'm not sure I understand what this debate is really about. It seems to me that your definition of "value" is narrow, and that it does, rather than "reflect realty," shut out important and inescapable realities of mankind's intellectual and emotional life, or at least fail to address them. You seem to be under the impression that a belief in artistic excellence (including its presence or absence) is an idea that must never be entertained lest it somehow invalidate your own artistic preferences. As one who is perfectly happy to enjoy wide polarities in art - frivolity and profundity, simplicity and complexity, crudity and refinement, even amateurishness and professionalism - without even asking what my tastes say about me, I don't understand your resistance to acknowledging that things can have intrinsic merit that deserves recognition. In my lexicon, it's absolutely possible for something to be "good" in terms of its intrinsic qualities, but "no good" - i.e., of no value - to me at all. For example, I am not much of a reader of literature. Most of the world's great novels will remain, literally, closed books for me. They are of no _personal_ value. But does that mean that Faulkner is not a great writer? Of course not. That is self-evidently absurd. I trust that if and when I do read _As I Lay Dying_ or _Light in August,_ I'll be able to appreciate their literary merit even if Faulkner's style and sensibility are not to my taste. I don't see why this is difficult to comprehend or accept.


----------



## Strange Magic

EdwardBast said:


> Since no one has pointed out the obvious, I will: This is not Shakespeare's formulation, it's Hamlet's. Hamlet's fictional statements cannot be taken to express the beliefs of the author and you can't reasonably claim the authority of Shakespeare in support of your position. You can of course claim the lunatic support of a fictional being if you think that helps.


Why cannot Hamlet's formulation be taken as Shakespeare's? Why should it not?


----------



## Strange Magic

I believe in artistic excellence. People do seem not to understand that I of course have a whole hierarchy of works, artists, composers just like everybody else. It is unique to me, as all of yours are unique to you. I have my favorites, my Greatest, my the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Unlike some, I refrain as a general rule from knocking the musical choices of others, as those who know my posting history will attest. This idea of one's unique, personal, subjective, and valid esthetic concerning music and the arts ought to be the easiest thing in the world to grasp, yet it seems to dance just beyond full comprehension.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> I believe in artistic excellence. People do seem not to understand that I of course have a whole hierarchy of works, artists, composers just like everybody else. It is unique to me, as all of yours are unique to you. I have my favorites, my Greatest, my the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Unlike some, I refrain as a general rule from knocking the musical choices of others, as those who know my posting history will attest. This idea of one's unique, personal, subjective, and valid esthetic concerning music and the arts ought to be the easiest thing in the world to grasp, yet it seems to dance just beyond full comprehension.


If you believe in artistic excellence, and we all (I'm guessing) have personal hierarchies of the favored and less favored, wherein lies the dispute? Does it lie in the idea that appraisal is possible based on criteria other than personal enjoyment? Does it lie in accepting that a thing may exhibit excellence even if we don't like it? That it might even possess excellent qualities that we, as individuals, cannot see and never will see? This, too, is a good reason to refrain from knocking the musical choices of others. It's an acknowledgement that, exactly as you say, their choices are absolutely valid for them, but it also recognizes that there are qualities of excellence in art that either I or others may be insensitive to in a given case for one reason or another. Refraining from "knocking" things can show respect for the possibility of learning something, as well as respect for those who may already have learned it. For example, I don't enjoy a lot of jazz, but I can sense that there's more to it than my present level of interest allows me to hear - significant artistic qualities in the music and in the performance of it that many people comprehend on a very sophisticated level. On the other hand, there is a lot of music which others claim to enjoy which I can easily recognize as trite, impoverished, uninventive, simple-minded and vacuous, music in which no amount of exposure is going to reveal anything deeper, and although I don't go around looking for opportunities to say that, I have no hesitation in thinking it. I have no objection to anyone enjoying such music, and - surprise! - I may even, occasionally, in an admittedly uncharacteristic mood, enjoy it myself (may God forgive me...). But I have to admit it makes my visits to the Goodwill store somewhat painful. I mean, couldn't they play some Beatles songs or something?


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> If you believe in artistic excellence, and we all (I'm guessing) have personal hierarchies of the favored and less favored, wherein lies the dispute? Does it lie in the idea that appraisal is possible based on criteria other than personal enjoyment? Does it lie in accepting that a thing may exhibit excellence even if we don't like it? That it might even possess excellent qualities that we, as individuals, cannot see and never will see? This, too, is a good reason to refrain from knocking the musical choices of others. It's an acknowledgement that, exactly as you say, their choices are absolutely valid for them, but it also recognizes that there are qualities of excellence in art that either I or others may be insensitive to in a given case for one reason or another. Refraining from "knocking" things can show respect for the possibility of learning something, as well as respect for those who may already have learned it. For example, I don't enjoy a lot of jazz, but I can sense that there's more to it than my present level of interest allows me to hear - significant artistic qualities in the music and in the performance of it that many people comprehend on a very sophisticated level...


It occurs to me that what you are saying about our appreciating that music may exhibit excellence even if we don't like it suggests another reason why there are objective parameters at work. Subjectively, I don't like much jazz, but I've never questioned the value/quality of great jazz works and artists and, objectively, I know it when I hear & see it.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> It occurs to me that what you are saying about our appreciating that music may exhibit excellence even if we don't like it suggests another reason why there are objective parameters at work. Subjectively, I don't like much jazz, but I've never questioned the value/quality of great jazz works and artists and I know it when I hear & see it.


We need to give SM examples from the scores for an explanation.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> If you believe in artistic excellence, and we all (I'm guessing) have personal hierarchies of the favored and less favored, wherein lies the dispute? Does it lie in the idea that appraisal is possible based on criteria other than personal enjoyment? Does it lie in accepting that a thing may exhibit excellence even if we don't like it? That it might even possess excellent qualities that we, as individuals, cannot see and never will see? This, too, is a good reason to refrain from knocking the musical choices of others. It's an acknowledgement that, exactly as you say, their choices are absolutely valid for them, but it also recognizes that there are qualities of excellence in art that either I or others may be insensitive to in a given case for one reason or another. Refraining from "knocking" things can show respect for the possibility of learning something, as well as respect for those who may already have learned it. For example, I don't enjoy a lot of jazz, but I can sense that there's more to it than my present level of interest allows me to hear - significant artistic qualities in the music and in the performance of it that many people comprehend on a very sophisticated level. On the other hand, there is a lot of music which others claim to enjoy which I can easily recognize as trite, impoverished, uninventive, simple-minded and vacuous, music in which no amount of exposure is going to reveal anything deeper, and although I don't go around looking for opportunities to say that, I have no hesitation in thinking it. I have no objection to anyone enjoying such music, and - surprise! - I may even, occasionally, in an admittedly uncharacteristic mood, enjoy it myself (may God forgive me...). But I have to admit it makes my visits to the Goodwill store somewhat painful. I mean, couldn't they play some Beatles songs or something?


We've seen examples of experienced listeners seemingly unable to appreciate works (or even whole eras) that many consider masterpieces - does such a consensus trump the individuals experience? If the work is determined to be objectively good - perhaps even a work of the 'big' three - then aren't we de facto telling the individual that their cognition of the work is inferior - that their reasons given for why they consider the work poor are just wrong?


----------



## janxharris

annaw said:


> I don't think we have to essentially talk about "benefiting" from something - as Woodduck said earlier, one doesn't have to like what one considers to be masterful and skilfully made. You can just perceive that Bach was very good at counterpoint (while you are saying that based on what we consider by definition to be counterpoint) but that doesn't mean that I personally should benefit, enjoy or like counterpoint or Bach at all. Schoenberg was good at writing atonal music - that doesn't mean I have to like it but still, based on the "definition" of atonal music or the way we usually see it, I can say that he was good at it. Wagner was good at conveying emotions and thoughts through his music (an objective example is how he combines e.g. 6 different leitmotifs, that we know have certain meanings, to describe a certain situation) - that doesn't mean I have to like his operas, their plots or his music.


If one does not 'like' a particular example of Bachian counterpoint then one is presumably finding fault with it - so isn't it rather that what you are really saying is that it's because Bach is so revered that you are deferring to popular/expert opinion?

Perhaps it does all depend on the specifics of the criticism and how adamant one is (in that criticism).


----------



## Ethereality

DaveM said:


> Subjectively, I don't like much jazz, but I've never questioned the value/quality of great jazz works and artists and, objectively, I know it when I hear & see it.


I don't follow this part. If there are objective parameters you identify as qualitative, yet they're arranged in a way that is unpleasant to you, it seems to me to suggest your identification of parameters in this circumstance is quite limited and superficial. By that I mean, you're ie. noticing certain repeated patterns here from other music, but they in no way indicate a correct usage or understanding of what makes a whole composition work. It's scarce to say you could achieve this holistic understanding.


----------



## Strange Magic

janxharris said:


> We've seen examples of experienced listeners seemingly unable to appreciate works (or even whole eras) that many consider masterpieces - does such a consensus trump the individuals experience? *If the work is determined to be objectively good* - perhaps even a work of the 'big' three - then aren't we de facto telling the individual that their cognition of the work is inferior - that their reasons given for why they consider the work poor are just wrong?


That is the gigantic If. Without having a functioning, calibrated greatness meter, the determination of "objective" goodness/greatness of human art must fall back on polls, voting, opinions (selected) of tastemeisters, and the whole machinery of summing individual, subjective views into an accepted (by whom?) mass opinion that passes for objectivity in the absence of the real thing.

And what of those pieces that any individual You considers to be a masterpiece, yet Your peer group does not?


----------



## Strange Magic

Regarding Woodduck's Post #471, our only disagreement (on a primitive level to be sure) is: Who Is To Be Master? The Individual in a one-on-one relationship with the artist and the art, or the individual peering about for validation and nods of approval from others before granting him/herself permission to either enjoy or reject the artist and/or work? My usual and oft-repeated arguments against excellence being found within an art object itself as some inherent measurable quantity or quality remain in full force.


----------



## Strange Magic

Finally, in response to EdwardBast on the degree to which Hamlet can be considered Shakespeare himself speaking, I recommend Kenneth Clark's short take on Shakespeare on pp.163-165 in his book _Civilization_. Clark (I will use a Scholastic argument, summoning forth an Expert) believes so and would have us believe so also.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Regarding Woodduck's Post #471, our only disagreement (on a primitive level to be sure) is: Who Is To Be Master? The Individual in a one-on-one relationship with the artist and the art, or the individual peering about for validation and nods of approval from others before granting him/herself permission to either enjoy or reject the artist and/or work? My usual and oft-repeated arguments against excellence being found within an art object itself as some inherent measurable quantity or quality remain in full force.


You learn from the teachers who have the knowledge and experience. In addition to all the education, it saves you a lot of time, instead of starting from zero on your own.. and maybe never getting anywhere..

Is music different to you than other forms of art which have a long and honed history? What about other subjects of study? You separate out music? Amazing. ----This is about you and many folks like you.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> You learn from the teachers who have the knowledge and experience. In addition to all the education, it saves you a lot of time, instead of starting from zero on your own.. and maybe never getting anywhere..
> 
> Is music different to you than other forms of art which have a long and honed history? What about other subjects of study? You separate out music? Amazing. ----This is about you and many folks like you.


I like learning about things. That's how I got to be so opinionated!


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> We've seen examples of experienced listeners seemingly unable to appreciate works (or even whole eras) that many consider masterpieces - does such a consensus trump the individuals experience? If the work is determined to be objectively good - perhaps even a work of the 'big' three - then aren't we de facto telling the individual that their cognition of the work is inferior - that their reasons given for why they consider the work poor are just wrong?


I think it helps to be concrete in discussing art, so I'll give an example. I'm not particularly a lover of Mozart, yet I have no doubt whatsoever, listening to his huge output of brilliantly composed music, that he is one of our greatest composers. His ability to create musical structures full of fresh, varied, memorable material that unfolds, develops and resolves with a sense of absolute ease and spontaneity simply amazes me, despite my lack of close identification with the Classical sensibility with respect to qualities I do and don't find in it. I never think in terms of any "consensus" of opinion, or of anything "trumping" anything else. I rely on my own artistic sensitivity and knowledge, I respond to Mozart on two planes simultaneously - which I'll call "appraisal" and "taste" - and the two don't set up any inner conflict in me, or suggest a need to set one kind of response against the other.

Anyone who would judge Mozart's work to be "poor" does indeed have a limitation on their cognition of music. Mozart is not a poor composer. Not in any way. His music may be poor in elements that a particular listener personally values, but that's a different meaning of "poor" and is inevitable among composers and listeners. We might have all sorts of reasons for liking or disliking things, but not all reasons are of equal value in exhibiting an understanding of what we're criticizing. Part of deepening our experience of art is learning to discriminate between actual artistic virtues/defects and our own subjective reactions and tastes. I don't think our ability to to do that is ever perfect, because, first, the spectrum of qualities art exhibits is virtually infinite in variety, breadth and subtlety; second, because art is experienced differently, however slightly, by each of us despite our common human nature; and third, because artistic values, though real and significant, don't exist on any precisely calibrated scale of best to worst. But then, worrying about what's "best" and "worst" is an idle game. Who cares?

Liking/disliking music is a glorious free-for-all. Understanding/appraising it is a serious responsibility, which, of course, no one is obligated to take on. But if we do take it on, to whatever extent, we have to realize that understanding and evaluating our own subjective responses in order to see beyond them is part of the process.


----------



## EdwardBast

Strange Magic said:


> Why cannot Hamlet's formulation be taken as Shakespeare's? Why should it not?


You're joking right? In case you're not: For the same reason one doesn't invoke Dostoyevsky to justify murder just because Raskolnikov thought it was an acceptable action for the truly superior man. For the same reason one can't cite Hugo to advocate law and order over justice just because Javert made statements to that effect. Authors often create characters who express opinions they abhor. Consequently: *One can never assume the statements of fictional characters express the views of their creators. This principle is basic in reading any form of fiction!*


----------



## Strange Magic

EdwardBast said:


> You're joking right? In case you're not: For the same reason one doesn't invoke Dostoyevsky to justify murder just because Raskolnikov thought it was an acceptable action for the truly superior man. For the same reason one can't cite Hugo to advocate law and order over justice just because Javert made statements to that effect. Authors often create characters who express opinions they abhor. Consequently: *One can never assume the statements of fictional characters express the views of their creators. This principle is basic in reading any form of fiction!*


See my Post #479.


----------



## Radames

I like romantic music best, especially when it's Sturm und Drang That made me vote for Beethoven. If Mozart had lived long into the romantic era it probably would be a contest. Mozart's 50 Symphony with Chorus and Cannon!


----------



## Eusebius12

I think my feelings on Mozart are similar to Woodduck's, if I might be a little presumptuous to piggyback on his opinion. There is something about Mozart's music with which I don't relate. Some of his pieces obviously I relate to more than others. I am not wedded to opera as much as other genres, and in opera I consider Mozart to have the supreme place. Mozart's music is always skillfully constructed and full of good ideas. I don't relate well to galanterie, and there is no doubt that galanterie is a common feature (albeit far from a universal one) in his music. The blood and thunder of Beethoven, and ferocious intellectual rigour of Bach, are more appealing to my nature (and obviously the chimerical kaleidoscopicity of Schumann). But Mozart's oeuvre, appraised honestly, in terms of its real artistic virtues, stands comparison with anyone's.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> I think it helps to be concrete in discussing art, so I'll give an example. I'm not particularly a lover of Mozart, yet I have no doubt whatsoever, listening to his huge output of brilliantly composed music, that he is one of our greatest composers. His ability to create musical structures full of fresh, varied, memorable material that unfolds, develops and resolves with a sense of absolute ease and spontaneity simply amazes me, despite my lack of close identification with the Classical sensibility with respect to qualities I do and don't find in it. I never think in terms of any "consensus" of opinion, or of anything "trumping" anything else. I rely on my own artistic sensitivity and knowledge, I respond to Mozart on two planes simultaneously - which I'll call "appraisal" and "taste" - and the two don't set up any inner conflict in me, or suggest a need to set one kind of response against the other.
> 
> Anyone who would judge Mozart's work to be "poor" does indeed have a limitation on their cognition of music. Mozart is not a poor composer. Not in any way. His music may be poor in elements that a particular listener personally values, but that's a different meaning of "poor" and is inevitable among composers and listeners. We might have all sorts of reasons for liking or disliking things, but not all reasons are of equal value in exhibiting an understanding of what we're criticizing....


Thanks for this.

Without details of why you lack, 'close identification with the Classical sensibility,' it's difficult to respond further. I don't know if you would like to do so?



> Part of deepening our experience of art is learning to discriminate between actual artistic virtues/defects and our own subjective reactions and tastes. I don't think our ability to to do that is ever perfect, because, first, the spectrum of qualities art exhibits is virtually infinite in variety, breadth and subtlety; second, because art is experienced differently, however slightly, by each of us despite our common human nature; and third, because artistic values, though real and significant, don't exist on any precisely calibrated scale of best to worst. But then, worrying about what's "best" and "worst" is an idle game. Who cares?


I would emphasize this and say that it appears to contradict the objective stance and your initial paragraph. Yes, let's not worry about what's best and worst...because we are unable to do so objectively.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eusebius12 said:


> I think my feelings on Mozart are similar to Woodduck's, if I might be a little presumptuous to piggyback on his opinion. Mozart's music is always skillfully constructed and full of good ideas. I don't relate well to galanterie, and there is no doubt that galanterie is a common feature (albeit far from a universal one) in his music. The blood and thunder of Beethoven, and ferocious intellectual rigour of Bach, are more appealing to my nature (and obviously the chimerical kaleidoscopicity of Schumann).


By "galanterie", you mean the popular style of the late 18th century. But then all composers wrote a ton of music in the popular style of their own time. There aren't that many works in Schubert's 600+ lieder that I find interesting, for example. And I hear a different kind of passion and struggle (from Beethoven) in the Credo of Missa brevis in F major K192, or Confitebor tibi of Vesperae de dominica K321, for example. I feel that the depth of passion and struggle isn't any less, but a different kind, from Beethoven. 
As I said before, in the slow movement of Beethoven's 7th symphony: I feel that the tension and drama are mainly created through rhythm and dynamics. When it gets to the A major sections ( 2:56 , 6:27 ), things are just plainly calm in a Beethovenian manner. An excellent use of contrast by Beethoven, but not necessarily the kind I fully resonate with. I feel that Mozart searches unexplored regions of mood in Maurerische Trauermusik, ( 0:37 , 4:38 ) for example, where tension and drama are built through chromatic excursions of 'strangeness'. This might be the reason why Brahms said that Beethoven's 3rd piano concerto isn't quite up to level with Mozart's 24th. In fact, I find the image constantly attributed to Beethoven, "blood and thunder" a bit of a cliche now. I think a reasonably fine argument can be made that Beethoven is the greatest composer who ever lived in terms of emotion depth. What disturbs me is that the argument is often used by some people to imply other composers like Mozart lack a sense of passion and struggle. Perhaps Beethoven does have his own version of "Classical sensibility" (or whatever it is) in works like the 7th symphony but people just find it too sacrilegious to talk about it.
There are sublime moments in piano sonata Op.101 and string quartets Op.131, Op.132 that are absolutely praiseworthy, but there are also moments that come off as a little 'ridiculous', as in Op.106 or Op.135, that often put me off, and come off as a child 'bitching' cause he can't express himself. (Maybe Beethoven's deafness really did affect him to some degree. I don't know. I don't get this feeling with the ending of Mozart Fantasie K608, for example, where the chromaticism conveys a strong sense of operatic drama). Call them "blood and thunder" whatever you like. But don't expect other people to resonate with the music the same way as you all the time.

Quite a number of diehard Beethoven enthusiasts I have encountered have these ideas:
1. It's sacrilegious to dislike Beethoven's works like the 9th symphony finale for the "Beethovenian silliness" (or whatever it is). 
2. When people don't like other composers, they're just not liking the composers. But when they don't like Beethoven, they're not "understanding" Beethoven.



Eusebius12 said:


> I think the problem is more you than them.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> Without details of why you lack, 'close identification with the Classical sensibility,' it's difficult to respond further. I don't know if you would like to do so?
> 
> I would emphasize this and say that it appears to contradict the objective stance and your initial paragraph. Yes, let's not worry about what's best and worst...because we are unable to do so objectively.


The question is whether human beings are capable of distinguishing levels of excellence in art. If you think that an answer in the affirmative requires some sort of quantitative unit of measurement which can be applied to every aesthetic characteristic, you will not be persuaded. I think that such a requirement is an inappropriate limitation on what can be considered knowledge, and imposes a condition which invalidates all value judgments - in art, morality, and all other areas of life not describable in mechanistic, quantitative terms - and turns them into nothing but expressions of preference or inclination. It's a position which some people hold. I don't. I believe that excellence and, yes, greatness, is real, both in art and in life, and that the better developed we are in our various faculties, the more clearly we can perceive and understand how it manifests. That people lack perceptiveness and understanding of art is of no concern to me except when they tell me that my perceptions and understanding are as meaningless as a preference for chocolate over vanilla.

Distinctions between levels of quality in art do not have to be minutely detailed and precise to be meaningful. I don't see why that's even a controversial statement. Can you tell me exactly how much you love someone? Do you need to be able to measure love by some quantitative unit to distinguish degrees of affection and devotion, or to understand the reasons for your feelings and commitments toward others, or theirs toward you? Again, you're assuming that all knowledge needs to be held in terms of quantitative measurement appropriate to physical reality. I think that's a false standard, inapplicable to psychic (mental, emotional, moral, spiritual, aesthetic) phenomena.

I don't think about whether the musical genius Bach is "better" than the musical genius Mozart. I don't think about it because their work is very different, with a limited number of parameters on which their work can be compared, and also because I see no value in ranking them. I don't take part in the "ranking" games popular with many here - the assigning of composers to tiers or whatever - because it tells me absolutely nothing of value about music. Like most of us, I have my own hierarchies of favorites, which doesn't have to correspond to my judgments of quality, judgments I would make, if I felt a need to make them at all, by a variety of criteria. It can be fun to know what composers people like and don't like, but the conversation only gets interesting when people show that they actually understand something about the music.

As for why I'm not more fond of Mozart (or most of the music of his time), that is purely a matter of chocolate versus vanilla, and has nothing to do with my assessment of the quality of his work.


----------



## Kieran

Strange Magic said:


> Finally, in response to EdwardBast on the degree to which Hamlet can be considered Shakespeare himself speaking, I recommend Kenneth Clark's short take on Shakespeare on pp.163-165 in his book _Civilization_. Clark (I will use a Scholastic argument, summoning forth an Expert) believes so and would have us believe so also.


Now, I wouldn't dispute this, but I'd love to know how it works. For instance, how many characters in his plays can Shakespeare be? Ophelia also? Recently I read James Shapiro's excellent book on the year 1599, from how it affected Shakespeare's art. He states that Shakespeare (like Mozart) was essentially a gun for hire, churning out plays for consumption, and not in any real sense (that we can know of) expressing his inner life. Hamlet was the 4th major play he wrote that year (Henry V, Julius Caesar, As You Like it, Hamlet), so it was a busy one, what with him also being an investor in the theatre, and an actor.

I just don't see how anyone can say that a particular character in any of Shakespeare's plays is "him."

And by the way, to stay on topic, as I said, Mozart too was a working stiff (as Neal Zaslaw's has him, in his excellent essay, Mozart as a Working Stiff - you can find it online) and this affected what and how he would compose. His work was almost always composed for specific public performance, and not to exhume ghosts or dispel personal tragedy, and rarely can we say we peek a glimpse of the man directly, through his music...


----------



## Room2201974

William Shakespeare never believed any of the following as it contains nary a word he would have lived: 

Hamlet
"Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced
it to you, trippingly on the tongue; but if you mouth
it, as many of our players do, I had as lief the
town-crier spoke my lines. Nor do not saw the air
too much with your hand, thus, but use all gently;
for in the very torrent, tempest, and, as I may say,
whirlwind of your passion, you must acquire and
beget a temperance that may give it smoothness. O,
it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious,
periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very
rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who for the
most part are capable of nothing but inexplicable
dumb shows and noise. I would have such a fellow
whipped for o’erdoing Termagant. It out-Herods
Herod. Pray you, avoid it.

Player
I warrant your Honor.


Hamlet
Be not too tame neither, but let your own
discretion be your tutor. Suit the action to the
word, the word to the action, with this special
observance, that you o’erstep not the modesty of
nature. For anything so o’erdone is from the purpose
of playing, whose end, both at the first and
now, was and is to hold, as ’twere, the mirror up to
nature, to show virtue her own feature, scorn her
own image, and the very age and body of the time
his form and pressure. Now this overdone or come
tardy off, though it makes the unskillful laugh,
cannot but make the judicious grieve, the censure
of the which one must in your allowance o’erweigh
a whole theater of others. O, there be players that I
have seen play and heard others praise (and that
highly), not to speak it profanely, that, neither
having th’ accent of Christians nor the gait of
Christian, pagan, nor man, have so strutted and
bellowed that I have thought some of nature’s
journeymen had made men, and not made them
well, they imitated humanity so abominably.

Player
I hope we have reformed that indifferently
with us, sir.

Hamlet
O, reform it altogether. And let those that play
your clowns speak no more than is set down for
them, for there be of them that will themselves
laugh, to set on some quantity of barren spectators
to laugh too, though in the meantime some necessary
question of the play be then to be considered.
That’s villainous and shows a most pitiful ambition
in the fool that uses it. Go make you ready. "

Players exit.


----------



## Strange Magic

EdwardBast's *Never!* injunction regarding whether we can or should attempt to read the author's mind and character into *any* of said author's characters of course rings the death knell for much of the biography or even understanding of authors, and we surely don't want that! What would we make of Leo Tolstoy? Melville? But of course Sir Kenneth's opinion that Shakepeare himself spoke through Hamlet is based on a life of study of Art and artists. Here is some of Clark's observation: after noting the impression that Montaigne made on Shakespeare, Clark writes: "Pure Montaigne--with a difference. And Shakespeare must be the first and may be the last supremely great poet to have been without a religious belief, even without the humanist's belief in man." Clark then offers one of several quotes of _Hamlet_'s Hamlet, then goes on to say, "There have been great pessimists since his time--Leopardi, Baudelaire--but who else has felt so strongly the absolute meaninglessness of human life?" This is followed by another excerpt from the Prince of Denmark. Case closed (for me anyway).

Edit: Clark perhaps forgets Lucretius, himself a fabulous poet writing 1500 years earlier, and also without a trace of religious belief.


----------



## Luchesi

When you read this many posts you begin to see both sides of the argument, close to your own thinking, and you see how the arguments come mysteriously from individual experience and life path.

If you've been let down by subjectivity many times, you want something logical to pursue and digest.


----------



## Kieran

Strange Magic said:


> EdwardBast's *Never!* injunction regarding whether we can or should attempt to read the author's mind and character into *any* of said author's characters of course rings the death knell for much of the *biography *or even understanding of authors, and we surely don't want that! What would we make of Leo Tolstoy? Melville? But of course Sir Kenneth's *opinion *that Shakepeare himself spoke through Hamlet is based on a life of study of Art and artists. Here is some of Clark's observation: after noting the impression that Montaigne made on Shakespeare, Clark writes: "Pure Montaigne--with a difference. And Shakespeare must be the first and may be the last supremely great poet to have been without a religious belief, even without the humanist's belief in man." Clark then offers one of several quotes of _Hamlet_'s Hamlet, then goes on to say, "There have been great pessimists since his time--Leopardi, Baudelaire--but who else has felt so strongly the absolute meaninglessness of human life?" This is followed by another excerpt from the Prince of Denmark. Case closed (for me anyway).
> 
> Edit: Clark perhaps forgets Lucretius, himself a fabulous poet writing 1500 years earlier, and also without a trace of religious belief.


You see the highlighted words? We just don't know enough of Shakespeare's biography to to be able to assume too much about his motives. What we do know is that his plays differ wonderfully from each other, and though Hamlet maybe the "deepest", this isn't necessarily because Shakespeare was getting stuff off his chest. It's a lousy presumption on anyone's part to reduce art this way, to presume to know what a man as creative as Shakespeare was thinking. As for the influence of Montaigne, that's a given. It gave Shakespeare the tools to deepen the soliloquy, and therefore expose and express the character, and deepen the tragedy.

But nothing of it suggests that he was personally expressing himself through the character of Hamlet. I would echo EdwardBasts's *Never*, and further add that I think to presume to read the artists mind only shows a failing of imagination in the reader's mind, and maybe an actual lack of appreciation for the great writer, which defeats the critic's purpose. If that rings a death knell for our "understanding" of authors, then perhaps it's not a bad thing, if the "understanding" is based upon a false premise...


----------



## Strange Magic

Comedians talk about a Tough Room. I'll have to instruct any would-be biographers of authors: novelists, poets to veer away before they "assume too much" about motives, philosophy, etc. based on the biographers' perhaps lifetime study, love, and analyses of their chosen subjects. Better to have such remain a _tabula rasa_ than to fall off the cliff and into the abyss of Error that Kieran asserts lies before them. But I do like the part where we are told by K that the influence of Montaigne upon Shakespeare is "a given"--Clark will be relieved to hear that. Mind you, as K has informed us to our shock and dismay, Clark's notion is an opinion. But given the choice of Kieran/Bast versus keeping alive the enterprise of attempting to prise out the inner mental workings of authors through informed inspection of the characters in their works (among other evidence), I'll choose the latter. I found the post above quite remarkable in its dismissal of such attempts.


----------



## pianozach

Kieran said:


> You see the highlighted words? We just don't know enough of Shakespeare's biography to to be able to assume too much about his motives. What we do know is that his plays differ wonderfully from each other, and though Hamlet maybe the "deepest", this isn't necessarily because Shakespeare was getting stuff off his chest. It's a lousy presumption on anyone's part to reduce art this way, to presume to know what a man as creative as Shakespeare was thinking. As for the influence of Montaigne, that's a given. It gave Shakespeare the tools to deepen the soliloquy, and therefore expose and express the character, and deepen the tragedy.
> 
> But nothing of it suggests that he was personally expressing himself through the character of Hamlet. I would echo EdwardBasts's *Never*, and further add that I think to presume to read the artists mind only shows a failing of imagination in the reader's mind, and maybe an actual lack of appreciation for the great writer, which defeats the critic's purpose. If that rings a death knell for our "understanding" of authors, then perhaps it's not a bad thing, if the "understanding" is based upon a false premise...


Shakespeare had a superhuman sense of humanity.

So all of his characters are reflective of humans he encountered or extrapolated. However, there are elements of Shakespeare himself in *Prospero* as his farewell to theater. And also elements of Shakespeare's experiences in *Constance*'s grief and *King John*...
Perhaps Shakespeare was most like *Horatio* - the gentle, compassionate observer.

The depth of Shakespeare's understanding of humanity is what makes it complicated to say that Shakespeare was ever trying to say something specific with his plays. I think he gives each character such life that it is hard to say one is right and one is wrong. Although there are certainly evil characters but in essence they are often all evil characters in someway. Most of his major characters are studies in the juxtaposition of good and evil, smart and stupid, willful and subservient.

If anything? What Shakespeare was trying to show us was ourselves.

And also have lots of fun playing with words!


----------



## Kieran

Strange Magic said:


> Comedians talk about a Tough Room. I'll have to instruct any would-be biographers of authors: novelists, poets to veer away before they "assume too much" about motives, philosophy, etc. based on the biographers' perhaps lifetime study, love, and analyses of their chosen subjects. Better to have such remain a _tabula rasa_ than to fall off the cliff and into the abyss of Error that Kieran asserts lies before them. But I do like the part where we are told by K that the influence of Montaigne upon Shakespeare is "a given"--Clark will be relieved to hear that. Mind you, as K has informed us to our shock and dismay, Clark's notion is an opinion. But given the choice of Kieran/Bast versus keeping alive the enterprise of attempting to prise out the inner mental workings of authors through informed inspection of the characters in their works (among other evidence), I'll choose the latter. I found the post above quite remarkable in its dismissal of such attempts.


I don't dismiss such attempts, but I'd love to know what they're based on, given that Shakespeare himself (and all of his contemporaries) left no clues at all into his motives. My suspicion is that his motive was to pay the bills. Remember, he owned a stake in the Globe, he had bills to pay, he was often working off old plays as templates, and he was under the pressure of deadlines, but he was the most supremely gifted playwright, and so he was hugely successful. We have nothing to suggest that he was also interested in expressing his own inner life through his plays.

An example from music: we have Mozart's correspondence with his librettists for Idomeneo, that masterly breakthrough when he was in his mid-20's. Nothing in the correspondence suggests he was telling the librettist, "write some words about my previous heartaches, and place them into the lips of character so and so." We just have the most insightful musical theatre mind of his day issuing practical instructions into how the words might fit the music, for the music was to be the thing that entertains.

After his father's death, experts and biographers speculated about whether this work or that work reflected his mood after the father died, a ridiculous activity considering so many of the works he composed at this time were lightweights such as Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. We set ourselves up on a par with giants, when we presume to read their minds! I also wonder if this idea that great art explicitly addresses the inner life of the artists is a 19th century notion that perhaps needs re-examining?


----------



## Strange Magic

Nevertheless, the attempt to read the minds of authors (especially authors!) and other artists through examining whatever tea leaves and chicken entrails are available to us is both a compulsion of human beings and the source of delight and entertainment to those of us who enjoy reading same. Sometimes what is "revealed" or suspected is that some authors can be of two or more minds, like many of us, on many issues, depending on their age, companions, experience, etc. I say, Bring It On!


----------



## EdwardBast

Strange Magic said:


> EdwardBast's *Never! injunction regarding whether we can or should attempt to read the author's mind and character into any of said author's characters of course rings the death knell for much of the biography or even understanding of authors*, and we surely don't want that! What would we make of Leo Tolstoy? Melville? But of course Sir Kenneth's opinion that Shakepeare himself spoke through Hamlet is based on a life of study of Art and artists. Here is some of Clark's observation: after noting the impression that Montaigne made on Shakespeare, Clark writes: "Pure Montaigne--with a difference. And Shakespeare must be the first and may be the last supremely great poet to have been without a religious belief, even without the humanist's belief in man." Clark then offers one of several quotes of _Hamlet_'s Hamlet, then goes on to say, "There have been great pessimists since his time--Leopardi, Baudelaire--but who else has felt so strongly the absolute meaninglessness of human life?" This is followed by another excerpt from the Prince of Denmark. Case closed (for me anyway).
> 
> Edit: Clark perhaps forgets Lucretius, himself a fabulous poet writing 1500 years earlier, and also without a trace of religious belief.


Except I never said that. I said one can never _assume_ a fictional character reflects the beliefs of its author. One can, of course, prove it or support such an opinion with biographical or documentary evidence. Good luck doing this with Shakespeare.


----------



## Strange Magic

EdwardBast said:


> Except I never said that. I said one can never _assume_ a fictional character reflects the beliefs of its author. One can, of course, prove it or support such an opinion with biographical or documentary evidence. Good luck doing this with Shakespeare.


I think you need to bring this up with Kenneth Clark; you may persuade him of the error of his ways. Just to bring this wandering Over the Hills and Far Away topic back to our Yellow Brick Road, I note that this all began when I, following Clark's undocumented, unproven, wobbly supposition that Hamlet's speech was indicative of Shakespeare's own thinking, posted that Shakespeare Was Right. To smooth everyone's feathers back into place, I'll restate my assertion and say Hamlet Was Right!


----------



## DaveM

Whether the characters in Shakespeare’s works reflect his thoughts or imply a message to the people has been a subject of interest and discussion for centuries. In the 20th century there was particular interest in the premise that individuals other than Shakespeare wrote the plays. One of particular interest was Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford who was known to have issues with members of the nobility. It was postulated that he wrote the plays under cover of fiction to express his irritation with the nobility and its behavior through his characters’ voices. There is a great movie, Anonymous, on the subject.


----------



## Eusebius12

I do believe that, inevitably, biographical elements and personal views etc. bleed into the artworks of the great. Michelangelo's struggles with God, his view of God as grand and somewhat forbidding, and his attachment to the male form all come through in his work. And yes, Hamlet is surely Shakespeare's 'mouthpiece' at times. Hamlet describes exactly how Shakespeare felt a play should be performed and acted. Cannot we hear Will's 'voice' in this scene? We hear Hamlet the very witty, somewhat cynical, man about town (under extreme pressure). Surely Shakespeare himself was a very witty, punning individual in the right company. There is something very personal about the family relationships and even the name of the play (recalling the name of Will's own dead son, Hamnet). Prospero has also been mentioned, there is no doubt that Prospero is a metaphor for the great writer, and King Lear is all about self-revelation. I would never want to become so mechanically reductionist as to attribute some real world event or person to everything in WS' plays (even though such things have been known, but our biographical evidence is so scant) or any great art, but a certain amount of moderate to heavy speculation is inevitable with regard to the great and is hardly unhealthy.


----------



## Eusebius12

DaveM said:


> Whether the characters in Shakespeare's works reflect his thoughts or imply a message to the people has been a subject of interest and discussion for centuries. In the 20th century there was particular interest in the premise that individuals other than Shakespeare wrote the plays. One of particular interest was Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford who was known to have issues with members of the nobility. It was postulated that he wrote the plays under cover of fiction to express his irritation with the nobility and its behavior through his characters' voices. There is a great movie, Anonymous, on the subject.


We have all heard about this dreary fact free fiction, and how utterly preposterous it is. As is the ridiculous movie which is even less historical than Shakespeare in Love.


----------



## Eusebius12

Strange Magic said:


> I think you need to bring this up with Kenneth Clark; you may persuade him of the error of his ways.


A bit difficult now


----------



## Eusebius12

Your post, hammeredklavier, raises a number of interesting points. Note that I didn't claim that Mozart's 'galanterie' was a universal feature of his work. It would be idle to pretend that there was no depth to the works of Mozart. Even 'blood and thunder' at times. Take for example the dinner scene of Don Giovanni. No one has really exceeded the 'disturbia' of that scene (especially when performed with the right level of control and tension). Mozart opened harmonic paths which Beethoven explored. Sometimes he went further than Beethoven, such as in the Qui Tollis of the C Minor mass and in the opening of the 'Dissonance' quartet. I would argue that Beethoven was never as harmonically daring as Mozart in his freest moments. Note also in my initial post I admitted there is an element of subjectivity in personal preferences (a huge element, indeed). I think I recognize Mozart's awesome compositional abilities to a fair degree. I prefer the more grand, grandiloquent, and humane utterances of Beethoven. Mozart always had a certain sardonicism which mocked pretensions to grandeur. A flaw? Perhaps not. But from my listening perspective, a limitation. But in this case star differeth from star in its glory. 

Beethoven sometimes stretches good taste in a way that Mozart never could. You cite some examples, but perhaps a less successful example (On LvB's part) might be the sonata no.22 in F. This work seems tasteless although some great artists defend it. It is at best mysterious. Beethoven has more flaws than Mozart, no question. Mozart can seem a little complacent though in his acceptance of given forms and his perfect mastery of them. Beethoven remakes the forms, challenges them, and makes the form obey his thought. Beethoven is the more protean, the more heaven storming, the more primally emotional. Mozart is the more serene, the complete master of all of the musical materials which comprise the classical style, but for all that hardly complacent in terms of advancing his craft. In general terms 

As far as the comparison between the Beethoven 3rd and the Mozart 24th, LvB probably would admit the superiority of the earlier work. K491 is one of WAM's most glorious works, whereas LvB's c minor was transitional and relatively early. LvB commented on the last movement of k491 in one of his journals (very admiringly). I think I could illustrate (humbly) the reason for my general closer identification with Beethoven using this work. Compare the Emperor with k491, and you will see that the Emperor is a spiritual landscape, with strong extramusical implications, that seem to relate to the human condition and things of the spirit. K491 is much more abstract, faultless in construction and invention, but without any really closely identifiable philosophical content. There is more self parody, especially in the last movement, than anything to do with Humanitas. At least that is how I respond to it. This response is subjective, and this is my primary distinction between these giants, because I recognize that they are both incredibly great.

I do think it is pointless to denigrate Beethoven's artistic achievements (and similar really with Mozart. I have argued quite recently, as I've come to the view, that perhaps Mozart's achievements as a musician 'qua' musician are greater than Beethoven's. I still identify a little closer to LvB for the reasons above and no doubt others)


----------



## Eusebius12

The real question is, why not the 'big 4'

(Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert)


----------



## DaveM

Eusebius12 said:


> We have all heard about this dreary* fact free* fiction, and how utterly preposterous it is. As is the ridiculous movie which is even less historical than Shakespeare in Love.


So what. I read a number of books on the subject. You probably didn't since you say it's fact-free fiction. Well, my conclusion, along with the majority is that it is fiction, but not for a loss of a lot of interesting facts that at least made one wonder.

Nothing could be less historical than the movie Shakespeare in Love now on lists of movies least worthy of an Academy Award.

(And shame on EBast for liking your post.)


----------



## Ethereality

Eusebius12 said:


> The real question is, why not the 'big 4'
> 
> (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert)


Or the big 4. Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, and Schumann.


----------



## pianozach

Eusebius12 said:


> The real question is, why not the 'big 4'
> 
> (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert)


Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and John Williams


----------



## Ethereality

Who are your Big 3?


----------



## Strange Magic

Eusebius12 said:


> A bit difficult now


Noooo; as long as Kenneth Clark's books and that wonderful TV series live, he is still among us.


----------



## Eusebius12

DaveM said:


> So what. I read a number of books on the subject. You probably didn't since you say it's fact-free fiction. Well, my conclusion, along with the majority is that it is fiction, but not for a loss of a lot of interesting facts that at least made one wonder.
> 
> Nothing could be less historical than the movie Shakespeare in Love now on lists of movies least worthy of an Academy Award.
> 
> (And shame on EBast for liking your post.)


The movie that you referred to is a farrago of delusion. The Shakespeare is De Vere theory is effectively disproved. It is barely ahead of the Mozart is Lucheezy theory as to factual basis. I admit its notoriety.


----------



## Eusebius12

I like where you're going


----------



## Eusebius12

Ethereality said:


> Who are your Big 3?


Pamela Anderson is definitely one


----------



## Eusebius12

Kieran said:


> Now, I wouldn't dispute this, but I'd love to know how it works. For instance, how many characters in his plays can Shakespeare be? Ophelia also? Recently I read James Shapiro's excellent book on the year 1599, from how it affected Shakespeare's art. He states that Shakespeare (like Mozart) was essentially a gun for hire, churning out plays for consumption, and not in any real sense (that we can know of) expressing his inner life. Hamlet was the 4th major play he wrote that year (Henry V, Julius Caesar, As You Like it, Hamlet), so it was a busy one, what with him also being an investor in the theatre, and an actor.
> 
> I just don't see how anyone can say that a particular character in any of Shakespeare's plays is "him."


That is a very different assertion than to assert that at times Shakespeare likely speaks through his characters and reveals something of his philosophy in his art. Although his art is evidently subjective. Perhaps he's an early existentialist?


----------



## DaveM

Eusebius12 said:


> The movie that you referred to is a farrago of delusion. The Shakespeare is De Vere theory is effectively disproved. It is barely ahead of the Mozart is Lucheezy theory as to factual basis. I admit its notoriety.


You may have been the only one who took the movie to be anything but a fiction to anybody.


----------



## Ethereality

Those who vote Beethoven must be starting to go deaf.


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> Your post, hammeredklavier, raises a number of interesting points. Note that I didn't claim that Mozart's 'galanterie' was a universal feature of his work. It would be idle to pretend that there was no depth to the works of Mozart. Even 'blood and thunder' at times. Take for example the dinner scene of Don Giovanni. No one has really exceeded the 'disturbia' of that scene (especially when performed with the right level of control and tension). Mozart opened harmonic paths which Beethoven explored. Sometimes he went further than Beethoven, such as in the Qui Tollis of the C Minor mass and in the opening of the 'Dissonance' quartet. I would argue that Beethoven was never as harmonically daring as Mozart in his freest moments. Note also in my initial post I admitted there is an element of subjectivity in personal preferences (a huge element, indeed). I think I recognize Mozart's awesome compositional abilities to a fair degree. I prefer the more grand, grandiloquent, and humane utterances of Beethoven. Mozart always had a certain sardonicism which mocked pretensions to grandeur. A flaw? Perhaps not. But from my listening perspective, a limitation. But in this case star differeth from star in its glory.
> 
> Beethoven sometimes stretches good taste in a way that Mozart never could. You cite some examples, but perhaps a less successful example (On LvB's part) might be the sonata no.22 in F. This work seems tasteless although some great artists defend it. It is at best mysterious. Beethoven has more flaws than Mozart, no question. Mozart can seem a little complacent though in his acceptance of given forms and his perfect mastery of them. Beethoven remakes the forms, challenges them, and makes the form obey his thought. Beethoven is the more protean, the more heaven storming, the more primally emotional. Mozart is the more serene, the complete master of all of the musical materials which comprise the classical style, but for all that hardly complacent in terms of advancing his craft. In general terms
> 
> As far as the comparison between the Beethoven 3rd and the Mozart 24th, LvB probably would admit the superiority of the earlier work. K491 is one of WAM's most glorious works, whereas LvB's c minor was transitional and relatively early. LvB commented on the last movement of k491 in one of his journals (very admiringly). I think I could illustrate (humbly) the reason for my general closer identification with Beethoven using this work. Compare the Emperor with k491, and you will see that the Emperor is a spiritual landscape, with strong extramusical implications, that seem to relate to the human condition and things of the spirit. K491 is much more abstract, faultless in construction and invention, but without any really closely identifiable philosophical content. There is more self parody, especially in the last movement, than anything to do with Humanitas. At least that is how I respond to it. This response is subjective, and this is my primary distinction between these giants, because I recognize that they are both incredibly great.
> 
> I do think it is pointless to denigrate Beethoven's artistic achievements (and similar really with Mozart. I have argued quite recently, as I've come to the view, that perhaps Mozart's achievements as a musician 'qua' musician are greater than Beethoven's. I still identify a little closer to LvB for the reasons above and no doubt others)


Thanks. I need to go back again and again to try to grasp why k491 is so highly regarded. The Beethoven 3rd, 4th and 5th soar above it for my two cents. Of course LvB lived later in music history and the power and effectiveness had developed for more decades.

"I still identify a little closer to LvB for the reasons above and no doubt others"

I agree, it's close.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eusebius12 said:


> Mozart can seem a little complacent though in his acceptance of given forms and his perfect mastery of them. Beethoven remakes the forms, challenges them, and makes the form obey his thought.


You sound as if Mozart was just content to using old forms, whereas Beethoven invented new ones. But Fantasie & sonata K475 & 457 was something even Beethoven did not write, structure-wise. And this had immense influence on Liszt's B minor in terms of structural elements, in ways Beethoven's sonatas didn't: 
http://musicstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Popovic_JIMS_0932106.pdf (see pages 8~9)
http://www.cmpcp.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PSN2011_Chueke.pdf


----------



## hammeredklavier

------------------


----------



## hammeredklavier

---------------


----------



## Xisten267

Ethereality said:


> Those who vote Beethoven must be starting to go deaf.


I voted for Beethoven here and I can hear perfectly well, therefore the statement is false.


----------



## Ethereality

Allerius said:


> I voted for Beethoven here and I can hear perfectly well, therefore the statement is false.


Nobody gets my jokes... Try reading the above as a compliment.

(The deaf reference is extremely funny to me for some reason  I don't think it will never wear off. I think it's because society has mad respect for him, that's why it's funny.)


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> Thanks. I need to go back again and again to try to grasp why k491 is so highly regarded. The Beethoven 3rd, 4th and 5th soar above it for my two cents. Of course LvB lived later in music history and the power and effectiveness had developed for more decades.
> 
> "I still identify a little closer to LvB for the reasons above and no doubt others"
> 
> I agree, it's close.


I can see and hear a lot more musical ideas and general craftsmanship in k491 than in Beethoven3. But Beethoven3 seems to channel k491 and purify it's sardonic melancholia into a much more powerful statement. The themes are similar and even the shape (and codas) are reminiscent of each other. This is no accident. Beethoven was obviously enormously influenced by Mozart. Even if they at times sound very different. Beethoven goes further than Mozart, but then Mozart was already dead by the time Beethoven started producing masterpieces. As the cliche goes, he was standing on the shoulders of giants.


----------



## Eusebius12

hammeredklavier said:


> You sound as if Mozart was just content to using old forms, whereas Beethoven invented new ones. But Fantasie & sonata K475 & 457 was something even Beethoven did not write, structure-wise. And this had immense influence on Liszt's B minor in terms of structural elements, in ways Beethoven's sonatas didn't:
> http://musicstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Popovic_JIMS_0932106.pdf (see pages 8~9)
> http://www.cmpcp.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PSN2011_Chueke.pdf


Improvisation was nothing new. Even so, the fantasy was still based on established forms like the rondo. There is no way of pretending that Mozart was as formally innovative as Beethoven. Still, what Mozart did within those forms was often extraordinary. It is true that Mozart made opera more symphonic than it had ever been. He produces a feeling of continuity through key relationships and returning to the 'tonic', and is more consistent than any predecessors in the juxtaposition and 'procession' of scenes in terms of musical logic and the development of themes.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eusebius12 said:


> The themes are similar and even the shape (and codas) are reminiscent of each other.


I find that the finale of the Beethoven concerto is more thematically reminiscent of the from Mozart's serenade for winds K388 (or string quintet K406). I can understand why people find Mozart more "abstract", and Beethoven more "poetic". I think the pattern with these great artists, Bach-Mozart-Beethoven, is that things didn't necessarily "improve", but they "changed".
I just don't see the validity of the logic someone else uses every now and then: "simply because [something] came later, it's more powerful and effective than its predecessor". It just seems to me as illogical as saying "a politician is good-looking, so he must be competent," when there's so much more than what appears on the surface.



hammeredklavier said:


> Professor Craig Wright views Mozart as an innovator, in his 3 lectures:
> 14.1 - Piano Concerto in D minor
> "... Just as Haydn was more or less the inventor of the modern string quartet, so Mozart was the father of the piano concerto. He set out the structural framework of the piano concerto, one that lasted into the romantic era, here it is. Mozart developed a stereotypical approach to the first movement of the concerto. It goes by several names, concerto form, double exposition form are the two most common. Double exposition form is a good name for this form because there are as you can see, two expositions. We have one exposition as we had in sonata-allegro form development, recapitulation. But now we have another exposition added at the beginning. The first exposition allows the orchestra to present most of the themes by itself. The pianist will add a couple later on, and do so all in the tonic key.
> ...Well I hope you'll share with me my beliefs that this is an extraordinary movement, and how different from the ethos or the feeling of a Baroque concerto of the sort that we experienced with Bach and Vivaldi. Baroque concertos usually just have one mood for a movement. Mozart is full of many different moods. And that helps make these classical movements very exciting, very dramatic. And with its D minor sound, it's almost demonic. ..."
> 14.2 - Don Giovanni
> "... Now we're going to go on to a trio, a very short one, that's an excellent example of a vocal ensemble by Mozart. What's a vocal ensemble? Well, obviously, it's a group of singers. But in the case of Mozart, it's a very special kind of ensemble, three, four, five, even six soloists, each of whom has a different point of view. They don't speak their emotions in succession as they would in an older Baroque opera seria, but all together vocal counterpoint here. Using a vocal ensemble, Mozart can move the drama along faster. Mozart's kind of opera is more fluid, faster paced, and more realistic. Here's how this little vocal ensemble plays out. Don Giovanni is over top of him. Mozart wrote this exquisite little trio here. It goes by very quickly. No body ever noticed it, but it's some of the most beautiful music that he ever wrote. ..."


------



Eusebius12 said:


> Improvisation was nothing new. Even so, the fantasy was still based on established forms like the rondo.


As suggested in the articles I cited:
"1st movement - Adagio (Exposition)
2nd movement -Allegro (Development)
3rd movement - Andantino ("Recapitulation of the second subject")
4th movement - Piú allegro + Tempo primo ("Transition from the exposition"+
recapitulation of the first subject, and coda /entirely Tempo primo viewed as Coda of
the 4th movement and, at the same time, of this possible one-movement sonata cycle/)"

Improvisation was nothing new, but the Fantasie was structurally something new at the time. A great predecessor to Schubert Wanderer Fantasy and Liszt B minor sonata in this regard. Also the idea of not fully establishing on C minor till the end obviously influenced Schumann's C major.


----------



## Xisten267

Ethereality said:


> Nobody gets my jokes... Try reading the above as a compliment.
> 
> (The deaf reference is extremely funny to me for some reason  I don't think it will never wear off. I think it's because society has mad respect for him, that's why it's funny.)


It's the second joke at TC this week that I don't get (even now), so it's probably me.  I apologize if my answer sounded rude.


----------



## Eusebius12

hammeredklavier said:


> I find that the finale of the Beethoven concerto is more thematically reminiscent of the from Mozart's serenade for winds K388 (or string quintet K406). I can understand why people find Mozart more "abstract", and Beethoven more "poetic". I think the pattern with these great artists, Bach-Mozart-Beethoven, is that things didn't necessarily "improve", but they "changed".


Would it be ironic to you if I mentioned the fact that I voted for Bach? The first movement of LvB's c minor is obviously parallel to Mozart's in the same key, with virtually the same theme and a coda which consciously echoes Mozart's, but then subverts it by ending with a strong statement rather than Mozart's 'pathetic' ending. I grant you the comment about the last movement, and that theme has then influenced several others, including Schubert (last movt of the c minor piano sonata) and Brahms (last movt of the Bb concerto). Beethoven's c minor 'mood' is spoken of, as if it is a concrete thing, but quite a bit of the darkness and even the themes associated with that 'mood' we can see in part derive from Mozart.



> I just don't see the validity of the logic someone else uses every now and then: "simply because [something] came later, it's more powerful and effective than its predecessor". It just seems to me as illogical as saying "a politician is good-looking, so he must be competent," when there's so much more than what appears on the surface.


Good thing I'm not implying that or anything like that. It is idle to pretend that Mozart has the passion and downright aggression of Beethoven (although he has his moments. But Mozart knew his audience too well, and something about his nature no doubt found unrestrained passion distasteful). Beethoven goes further formally than Mozart, even if we can see the seeds of some of Beethoven's formal innovations in Mozart (such as Mozart's use of fugato specifically and denser counterpoint in general in the last 3 symphonies).

------



> As suggested in the articles I cited:
> "1st movement - Adagio (Exposition)
> 2nd movement -Allegro (Development)
> 3rd movement - Andantino ("Recapitulation of the second subject")
> 4th movement - Piú allegro + Tempo primo ("Transition from the exposition"+
> recapitulation of the first subject, and coda /entirely Tempo primo viewed as Coda of
> the 4th movement and, at the same time, of this possible one-movement sonata cycle/)"
> 
> Improvisation was nothing new, but the Fantasie was structurally something new at the time. A great predecessor to Schubert Wanderer Fantasy and Liszt B minor sonata in this regard. Also the idea of not fully establishing on C minor till the end obviously influenced Schumann's C major.


If you look within the Fantasy and its various movements, you can see a number of them follow the statement, development, secondary theme, and recapitulation type pattern (there is even a little minuet type movement). Then there is a weird intermezzo like introduction to the 'finale'. It would have struck its listeners as being bold, weird even.
You might argue that this was a very early stab at cyclic form. Pieces like this help to explain why Mozart was considered strange and difficult to contemporaries. I do believe that whatever formal rebelliousness Mozart may have harboured was constrained by the conservatism of his own audiences (and indeed his upbringing). The tonal ambiguity you refer to is relatively common in Haydn. Take for example his variations in f minor. 
The development of the piano concerto doesn't pass from the Baroque directly to Mozart. A lot of the transition was bridged by the sons of Bach, especially CPE and JC (the latter being the main model for Mozart's piano concertos).


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eusebius12 said:


> Would it be ironic to you if I mentioned the fact that I voted for Bach?


No. How does that relate to our discussion?



Eusebius12 said:


> The first movement of LvB's c minor is obviously parallel to Mozart's in the same key, with virtually the same theme and a coda which consciously echoes Mozart's, but then subverts it by ending with a strong statement rather than Mozart's 'pathetic' ending.


Listen to the ending of serenade in C minor K388 (or string quintet K406), the thematic/gestural similarity with the Beethoven concerto is unmistakable. Even the way to end jubilantly in the parallel major. By the way, Op.111 is another work in C minor that obviously alludes to Mozart (K426/K546) in its motifs and use of 3-note fragments. What do you mean, Mozart's way to end in the (home) minor key is 'pathetic'? None of Beethoven's extended orchestral works explore this sort of dark 'operatic drama'. Take a look at what Brahms said in 1896:

"I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant!
I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works."
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA134
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135








Eusebius12 said:


> Beethoven goes further formally than Mozart, even if we can see the seeds of some of Beethoven's formal innovations in Mozart (such as Mozart's use of fugato specifically and denser counterpoint in general in the last 3 symphonies).


Yes, Beethoven goes further formally than Mozart, but then we could make a similar argument for Beethoven vs. Berlioz or Wagner -This is just pointless. Every one of these great artists was a product of his own respective time. Consider the time Beethoven produced his most significant masterpieces, he's more "19th century" than "18th century". He was doing what was expected for a leading composer of the early 19th century. (like how Mozart was, of the late 18th century). You sound almost as if Beethoven was the only "innovator" of this time period. He wasn't.



Eusebius12 said:


> The development of the piano concerto doesn't pass from the Baroque directly to Mozart. A lot of the transition was bridged by the sons of Bach, especially CPE and JC (the latter being the main model for Mozart's piano concertos).


I know. And I listen to their best-known concertos (including CPE's flute concerto in D minor WQ22, and the 3 cello concertos, and many others that I like), but neither of them expanded form and expression in the way Mozart did in the D minor concerto K466. There just isn't this much expansive layout and use of contrast:
1st movement: 







2nd movement: 







3rd movement: 










hammeredklavier said:


> In missa longa K262 for example, the way he creates contrast and tension and then relieves them is masterful. At 10:48, there is this serene, lyrical section "Et incarnatus est", but at 11:41, the C minor "Crucifixus" hits like a thunderbolt, and then in going from the dominant to a new key in G major, 12:38 "Et resurrexit" (with somewhat "neo-Handelian" characteristics of effect) counteracts and relieves the tension. The use of strettos in "Et vitam venturi" 18:00 is just masterful as well.


Despite the image of "empfindsamer Stil" that CPE Bach is associated with, I find that Emmanuel is still heavily entrenched in the Baroque 'Doctrine of the Affections' in terms of form. (But yes, works like the D minor flute concerto WQ22 influenced Mozart heavily.) His major-key concertos have their slow movements in minor keys. There is the mindset "if there is a need to explore darker moods, start in a minor key as the home key." This is more "Baroque" way of doing things. The form is slightly expanded from the traditional baroque, but there still is a stylistic tendency to stick to "having only one feeling per movement", like the concerto style of his own father, Sebastian, and Vivaldi. I'm saying, there is a sense of contrast, but not as strong as Mozart's.
ex. 17th piano concerto 2nd movement: 










Eusebius12 said:


> You might argue that this was a very early stab at cyclic form.


I discussed the topic in detail in the thread: <Cyclic form in classical works>

Beethoven also expanded form with his 3rd, 5th, 6th, 9th symphonies. He was continuing his predecessors' tradition of form-expansion. (We must not forget, concertos and symphonies also "expanded" in the hands of Haydn and Mozart.) Beethoven wrote the first choral symphony, and the idea of having voices in a symphony was influential to Mendelssohn and Mahler, but not that influential to Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Brahms. Whereas Mozart wrote the first piano quartet. A dramatic one. You might say it's not that big of a deal compared to the invention of the choral symphony, but then the choral symphony is not really a separate genre on its own. Nobody groups choral symphonies separately from regular symphonies . Take Mahler's, for example.










It's also worth pointing out Beethoven wasn't the only guy writing piano music in the early-Romantic style in his time. Hummel wrote his F sharp minor sonata around the time Beethoven wrote his late piano sonatas and I once pointed out the similarities of their late piano writing. 
Being a contemporary of Beethoven, Hummel was massively influential to Romantic piano writing in ways Beethoven wasn't. (I'm saying Beethoven was indeed influential, but Hummel was also influential, in different ways) Unlike Hummel, Beethoven never explored the Etude genre. Hummel's piano concertos were heavily influential to Schumann, Chopin, Liszt; I doubt if Beethoven's are to the same extent Hummel's are. There is a whole article on this topic. https://www.earlymusicamerica.org/files/EMagSummer07Hummel.pdf

/
For example, 
A lot of passages in Liszt,
like these quick passages of alternating, overlapped hands:








are found in Hummel, but not in Beethoven (and also not in Chopin).




These passages of repeated figures "where one voice stays and the other voice either descends or ascends"




are also found in Hummel, but not in Beethoven (occasionally found in Chopin, such as Op.27 No.2)




/



Eusebius12 said:


> The tonal ambiguity you refer to is relatively common in Haydn. Take for example his variations in f minor.


Haydn wrote his variations in F minor and The Creation after Mozart's death. During Mozart's lifetime, the kind of 'tonal ambiguity' Haydn was writing was string quartet Op. 33 No. 1 in B minor: 



, and he was at the time baffled by Mozart's Dissonance quartet "if Mozart wrote it, he must have meant it." After Mozart's death, he modelled the opening of The Creation after Mozart's Dissonance quartet. 
I believe there is a good reason why Wagner, according to Cosima, considered Mozart 'a Grosser Chromatiker'. Take a look at my Post #292 and the thread: < Harmonic Similarities in Wagner and Mozart >


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> The question is whether human beings are capable of distinguishing levels of excellence in art. If you think that an answer in the affirmative requires some sort of quantitative unit of measurement which can be applied to every aesthetic characteristic, you will not be persuaded. I think that such a requirement is an inappropriate limitation on what can be considered knowledge, and imposes a condition which invalidates all value judgments - in art, morality, and all other areas of life not describable in mechanistic, quantitative terms - and turns them into nothing but expressions of preference or inclination. It's a position which some people hold. I don't. I believe that excellence and, yes, greatness, is real, both in art and in life, and that the better developed we are in our various faculties, the more clearly we can perceive and understand how it manifests. That people lack perceptiveness and understanding of art is of no concern to me except when they tell me that my perceptions and understanding are as meaningless as a preference for chocolate over vanilla.
> 
> Distinctions between levels of quality in art do not have to be minutely detailed and precise to be meaningful. I don't see why that's even a controversial statement. Can you tell me exactly how much you love someone? Do you need to be able to measure love by some quantitative unit to distinguish degrees of affection and devotion, or to understand the reasons for your feelings and commitments toward others, or theirs toward you? Again, you're assuming that all knowledge needs to be held in terms of quantitative measurement appropriate to physical reality. I think that's a false standard, inapplicable to psychic (mental, emotional, moral, spiritual, aesthetic) phenomena.
> 
> I don't think about whether the musical genius Bach is "better" than the musical genius Mozart. I don't think about it because their work is very different, with a limited number of parameters on which their work can be compared, and also because I see no value in ranking them. I don't take part in the "ranking" games popular with many here - the assigning of composers to tiers or whatever - because it tells me absolutely nothing of value about music. Like most of us, I have my own hierarchies of favorites, which doesn't have to correspond to my judgments of quality, judgments I would make, if I felt a need to make them at all, by a variety of criteria. It can be fun to know what composers people like and don't like, but the conversation only gets interesting when people show that they actually understand something about the music.
> 
> As for why I'm not more fond of Mozart (or most of the music of his time), that is purely a matter of chocolate versus vanilla, and has nothing to do with my assessment of the quality of his work.


I certainly understand the points you make but without a measurable set of criteria then 'big' has little real meaning other than popular (sorry to repeat myself). I personally doubt that my 'perceptiveness and understanding of art' is at a level where I might speak objectively.

Your 'love' analogy would surely only be applicable if comparisons could be made across the board? For example, someone would need to engage in romantic relations with all and sundry before a meaningful evaluation were possible.

I remain perplexed that your criticism of Mozart is non-specific - though of course I respect that that is your position.


----------



## Room2201974

All lies and jest
Still a man hears
What he's trained to hear
And disregards the rest
Doo, doo, doo!


----------



## Eusebius12

Look, this is probably getting to the lengths of a thesis so I don't think I will answer you in complete detail. Again, I agree with many of your points, I accept the similarity of the finale of LvB op.37 to the serenade you allude to (I think I admitted as much in my previous post). I don't find Mozart's contribution to the concerto idiom comparable in formal innovation to those of Beethoven, especially (as you seem to admit) the crucial contribution of the sons of Bach, especially CPE. I do not feel I am denigrating Mozart to accord to Van superior formal inventiveness. It is almost as if one has any reservations at all with 'flagbearers', one is committing some kind of heresy. I freely acknowledge Mozart's colossal greatness, but I do not ascribe to him absolute perfection or the final word on music. Berlioz is another stage in formal innovation on Beethoven (but not as great, in my view, for numerous reasons, without intending denigration). The use of the term 'pathetic' in relation to the finale of Mozart's k491 is in the 'pathetique' sense. I have always viewed k491 to be a superior musical work to Beethoven's c minor, even if as I said, Beethoven takes Mozart as a starting point and asserts something different, individual, more passionate and more violent. If it is not better it is certainly different and original. An achievement to assert one's individuality when starting from almost homage or even pastiche.

The point about pianistic pyrotechnics is somewhat moot (or even irrelevant). There is no doubt that virtuoso piano technique never really funnelled through Beethoven. You mention Hummel, you could just as well mention Dussek or even Woelfl. Really, Mozart wasn't at the forefront of the evolution of bravura either, at least not in most of his published works. Clementi is much more virtuosic. Although Mozart did teach Hummel (whose anti-legato style fortunately died out fairly quickly) who influenced Weber and Chopin (Chopin's concertos are clearly Hummelian) and Beethoven taught Czerny who taught Liszt. 

Respecting Haydn's tonal ambiguities, I could search through my books of Haydn sonatas to find examples (which I am sure exist) of Haydn's very free use of tonalities and modulations, much freer than Mozart ever was (Mozart's key choices are very restricted). I did allude to the 'dissonanz' in my previous post, you are right that Mozart was well ahead of his time (Bach is the exception here) in terms of dissonance. Chopin and Schumann continue where Mozart left off in this respect. 

Whereas Hummel is 'romantic', Beethoven is titanic. Hummel titillatingly tickled the ivories, but didn't storm the heavens. Perhaps that is one reason why his music sounds fairly dated nowadays. Weber's music (a bit unfairly neglected) is somewhat more passionate but you couldn't imagine 'blood on the keys' (not an uncommon thing with Beethoven) in Weber, although you might quite easily break a finger or two.


----------



## Jacck

I don't really have a favorite, but if I go by the amount of time I spent listening to each - Bach is the winner by far


----------



## Eusebius12

Although Hummel does resemble, superficially, Mozart (his teacher) and Beethoven (his great rival, and to some extent enemy) and Chopin (a great admirer) a deficiency in the thematic interest and emotional sincerity in his works leaves him rightly as an almost forgotten figure, although he is occasionally revived and certainly worthy of a look for pianists (good technical material)


----------



## millionrainbows

Room2201974 said:


> All lies and jest
> Still a man hears
> What he's trained to hear
> And disregards the rest
> Doo, doo, doo!


----------



## DaveM

janxharris said:


> I certainly understand the points you make but without a measurable set of criteria then 'big' has little real meaning other than popular (sorry to repeat myself). I personally doubt that my 'perceptiveness and understanding of art' is at a level where I might speak objectively..


Perhaps that's the problem.

In the second half of the 18th century and increasingly into the 19th century, why did the music of Mozart, Beethoven and a number of composers who followed become so popular?


----------



## Bulldog

Eusebius12 said:


> Although Hummel does resemble, superficially, Mozart (his teacher) and Beethoven (his great rival, and to some extent enemy) and Chopin (a great admirer) a deficiency in the thematic interest and emotional sincerity in his works leaves him rightly as an almost forgotten figure, although he is occasionally revived and certainly worthy of a look for pianists (good technical material)


Hummel is not almost forgotten. ArchivMusic lists 200 entries for the man's music, and I find him fully deserving.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> Listen to the ending of serenade in C minor K388 (or string quintet K406), the thematic/gestural similarity with the Beethoven concerto is unmistakable. Even the way to end jubilantly in the parallel major. *By the way, Op.111 is another work in C minor that obviously alludes to Mozart (K426/K546) in its motifs and use of 3-note fragments.* What do you mean, Mozart's way to end in the (home) minor key is 'pathetic'? None of Beethoven's extended orchestral works explore this sort of dark 'operatic drama'.


...in the first movement only. I don't see any particular connection with Mozart in the second, and arguably main, movement of that sonata.



hammeredklavier said:


> Take a look at what Brahms said in 1896:
> 
> "I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant!
> I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works."


There's a lot of great use of dissonance in Beethoven (notable examples in the _Eroica_, in the seventh and ninth symphonies, in the Grosse Fuge, in the 28th sonata etc.) and he could compose unconventional masterpieces by commission (example: Razumovsky quartets), so Brahms criticism in this quote is not being substantiantial at all.

Also, opinions about music and composers vary a lot, even between great musicians. Here is Berlioz also talking about Mozart and Beethoven (and Haydn):

As far as symphonies are concerned, Mozart wrote 17 of which 3 are beautiful and even then… The good Haydn produced a quantity of pretty things of that kind. Beethoven wrote seven masterpieces but Beethoven is not human. And when you are only a human being you should not pass judgement on the God. - Source here.



hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, Beethoven goes further formally than Mozart, but then we could make a similar argument for Beethoven vs. Berlioz or Wagner -This is just pointless. Every one of these great artists was a product of his own respective time. Consider the time Beethoven produced his most significant masterpieces, he's more "19th century" than "18th century". He was doing what was expected for a leading composer of the early 19th century. (like how Mozart was, of the late 18th century). You sound almost as if Beethoven was the only "innovator" of this time period. He wasn't.


You seem to want to imply here that Mozart and Beethoven are comparable in terms of innovation, but I don't think that this is true at all (influence and innovation aren't the same thing). Haydn and Gluck are contemporary to Mozart and arguably more innovative than him. Beethoven in the other hand is not the only innovator of his time, but it could be argued that he is the most important of his time. Berlioz and Wagner aren't really contemporary to him.



hammeredklavier said:


> Beethoven also expanded form with his 3rd, 5th, 6th, 9th symphonies. He was continuing his predecessors' tradition of form-expansion. (We must not forget, concertos and symphonies also "expanded" in the hands of Haydn and Mozart.) Beethoven wrote the first choral symphony, and the idea of having voices in a symphony was influential to Mendelssohn and Mahler, but not that influential to Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Brahms. Whereas Mozart wrote the first piano quartet. A dramatic one. You might say it's not that big of a deal compared to the invention of the choral symphony, but then the choral symphony is not really a separate genre on its own. Nobody groups choral symphonies separately from regular symphonies . Take Mahler's, for example.


When we talk about expansion of form in Beethoven it does not relate only to the lenght of his works, but also to the proportions of sectors in single movements and the weight that certain movements have. Mozart's development and coda sections overall arguably aren't nearly as sophisticated as in Beethoven, and the balance of movements from a dominating first (typical of the XVIII century classicism) towards other movements of equal or greater importance is a characteristic trait of the music of the composer of Bonn (not present in all his works though).

Writing the first vocal symphony was only one of many innovations by Beethoven.



hammeredklavier said:


> It's also worth pointing out Beethoven wasn't the only guy writing piano music in the early-Romantic style in his time. Hummel wrote his F sharp minor sonata around the time Beethoven wrote his late piano sonatas and *I once pointed out the similarities of their late piano writing.*


I'm interested in these alleged similarities, as I don't hear them and never saw them mentioned by any musicologist. According to wikipedia, actually "Hummel's music took a different direction from that of Beethoven", and the latter is not said to have been influenced by the first at all (althought Chopin and Schumann certainly were).


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> As far as symphonies are concerned, Mozart wrote 17 of which 3 are beautiful and even then… The good Haydn produced a quantity of pretty things of that kind. Beethoven wrote seven masterpieces but Beethoven is not human. And when you are only a human being you should not pass judgement on the God. - Source here.


Take a look at these articles:
View attachment 130858

"I have the strong impression that Berlioz envied Mozart's professional skill as a musician, and was conscious of his own inferiority. Despite the apologetic discourse of Barzun and other Berliozians, his shortcomings in harmony, counterpoint and formal organization are unmistakable even in his mature works. How could he, who grew up at La Côte-Saint-André isolated from any serious music-making until the age of 18, receiving only a rudimentary musical education in his childhood and youth, never mastering an instrument, not encouraged by his family at any stage to understake a musical career, compete with the child of Salzburg, son of a highly skilled musician who devoted his life to his son's musical upbringing and who took him from early childhood all around Europe to meet the greatest masters of his day? Berlioz must have felt this difference, and his often arrogant tone in discussing Mozart's music seems barely to mask a deep-rooted sense of insecurity about his musical abilities. No one more than Mozart could embody for Berlioz the ideal of professional musicianship, so far out of his reach, and thus he remains the ultimate reminder of his shortcomings, and thus a permanent source of irritation. It is this recognition of Mozart's superior mastery of compositional skills that lies behind Berlioz's choice of words: 'this unfailing beauty, always serene and self-assured'. Beethoven, of course, was a perfect musician too, but he had to work hard for it, while for Mozart, the myth had already taken root that his proficiency came with ease. This difference between the two was already evident to Berlioz's generation, and thus Beethoven was conceived as more 'human', and Berlioz could feel closer to him. Gluck, on the other hand, who like Berlioz reached artistic ripeness at a relatively advanced age and whose contrapuntal skills were compared by Handel to those of his cook, was much easier to identify with than the 'enfant prodige' who grew up to become the emblem of perfection."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/book...z-and-mozart/D120367758977FD742477965EAD04FB5
""J'adore Mozart" wrote Berlioz in 1856. Ten years later, at a time when he took pleasure in not going to operas any more, he attended eight performances of Don Giovanni at the Théâtre Lyrique, where he was seen to "cover his face and cry like a child." Yet neither Berlioz himself nor his biographers are ever inclined to include Mozart among the select pantheon of historical figures who inspired him most deeply, the names being more usually Shakespeare, Goethe, Virgil, and among musicians Gluck, Beethoven, sometimes Weber, sometimes Spontini. Mozart never displaced Gluck in Berlioz's mind as the greatest of eighteenth-century composers, a preference which very few would admit to in the present century when an admiration for Mozart has been a solid donné among professionals and amateurs alike. Where did Mozart stand in his critical perspectives, and what part did Mozart play in his work as conductor and composer? The matter was admirably summed up by Berlioz himself in chapter 17 of the Mémoires, which is devoted entirely to his regard for Mozart. Written probably in 1848, or soon after, it describes the fiery passions of his student years: "I have said that […] I was taken up exclusively with the study of great dramatic music. I should rather have said, of lyric tragedy; and it was for this reason that I regarded Mozart with a certain coolness." Gluck was performed in French at the Opéra while Mozart was sung in Italian at the Théâtre Italien, and that was sufficient to assign him to the enemy camp."



Allerius said:


> When we talk about expansion of form in Beethoven it does not relate only to the lenght of his works, but also to the proportions of sectors in single movements and the height that certain movements have. Mozart's development and coda sections overall arguably aren't nearly as sophisticated as in Beethoven,


It depends what work we're talking about, (sonata for four hands K497 has a development section {not including 'secondary development' or 'false recapitulation'} as extensive as typical Beethoven), and it depends on how you look at it (perception). I once talked about the series of dragged-out "beeping sounds" in Beethoven's 5th symphony 1st movement and Tempest piano sonata, and the "quasi-minimalist" figures of his 6th symphony 1st movement. There are also piano sonatas like the 19th, 20th, 25th, or 26th that contain developments that definitely aren't the best stuff Beethoven ever wrote. The development of Op.111 1st movement, with its trills in the bass and motivic working on the 3-note fragment, strikes me as an attempt by Beethoven to write something similar to Mozart K546.
I think the working of the dotted-rhythmic motif in the voice-leading structure of Confitibor tibi domine of Mozart Vesperae de dominica K321 or the chromaticism in the development of string quartet K421 1st movement or Fantasie K608 (where the initial fugue turns into an epic double fugue in the ending, creating a strong sense of 'operatic drama'), for example, have just as much 'substance', if not more, in terms of development, as the Beethoven works I cited above. There is an elaborate coda in string quintet K515 1st movement as well.



Allerius said:


> and the balance of movements from a dominating first (typical of the XVIII century classicism) towards other movements of equal or greater importance is a characteristic trait of the music of the composer of Bonn (not present in all his works though).


Have a look through these threads:
< Cyclic form in classical works >
< Unity of movements? >
I feel that some people exaggerate these things about Beethoven a little. I don't deny his mastery of structure (motivic working), but is it really something Beethoven mastered, while Mozart never did? For example, I feel that the last movement of the Eroica symphony is just not as worthy enough to stand beside the monumental first movement of the same symphony. I don't know why but Beethoven sometimes has obsession for uninteresting thematic material, and the last movement of the Eroica symphony, (which he keeps using in other works for some reason; Creatures of Prometheus, the Eroica variations, and a dance piece) is an example of that. He even "elongates" the duration of the notes in the movement, as if that will make it more interesting.
I don't feel this way towards Mozart's last two symphonies, for example. There are several Mozart concertos that I listen to just for the last movement, such as the 10th, 14th, 19th. Also Beethoven's slow movements (except the 4th, 5th) in his piano concertos just aren't as memorable as those of Mozart's 9th, 15th, 17th, 18th. And the fact remains Beethoven's Op.111 piano sonata doesn't have a finale. (Not that it's a bad thing). But you can believe whatever you want: "it's still fine as a multi-movement work". It's your choice anyway. You even refused to accept dizwell's fair criticism on Beethoven's vocal writing.



Allerius said:


> Writing the first vocal symphony was only one of many innovations by Beethoven.


Writing the first piano quartet wasn't the only "innovation" by Mozart either. Beethoven wrote a lot of fine piano sonata masterpieces such as Op.101, a masterful blend of early Romantic lied-like qualities and formal structure. But I still think he doesn't encompass every Classical style. None of Beethoven's piano music has moments like these:













https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._40_(Mozart)
"The first movement begins darkly, not with its first theme but with the accompaniment, played by the lower strings with divided violas. The technique of beginning a work with an accompaniment figure was later used by Mozart in his last piano concerto (KV. 595) and later became a favorite of the Romantics (examples include the openings of Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto and Sergei Rachmaninoff's Third Piano Concerto)." 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_Concerto_No._24_(Mozart)
"... Another departure from convention is that the solo exposition does not re-state the secondary theme from the orchestral exposition. Instead, a succession of new secondary thematic material appears. Musicologist Donald Tovey considered this introduction of new material to be "utterly subversive of the doctrine that the function of the opening tutti [the orchestral exposition] was to predict what the solo had to say. ..."
"... The pianist and musicologist Charles Rosen argues that Mozart thus created a "double exposition". Rosen also suggests that this explains why Mozart made substantial elongations to the orchestral exposition during the composition process; he needed a longer orchestral exposition to balance its "double" solo counterpart. ..."
"...The third movement features a theme in C minor followed by eight variations upon it. Hutchings considered it "both Mozart's finest essay in variation form and also his best concerto finale."... Variations II to VI are what Girdlestone and Hutchings independently describe as "double" variations. Within each variation, each of the eight-measure phrases from the theme is further varied upon its repeat ( AX-AY-BX-BY ). ...."



hammeredklavier said:


> In the second of his 1931 essays on 'National Music', Schoenberg acknowledged Bach and Mozart as his principal teachers and told his readers why.
> "My teachers were primarily Bach and Mozart, and secondarily Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner."


----------



## janxharris

DaveM said:


> Perhaps that's the problem.
> 
> In the second half of the 18th century and increasingly into the 19th century, why did the music of Mozart, Beethoven and a number of composers who followed become so popular?


Obviously they wrote music that managed to touch and move a significant number of people - but, of course, some remain unimpressed (it might be better to speak of particular works rather than a composer's entire output).


----------



## hammeredklavier

To me, [pointing out the innovations of the Bach Brothers, Gluck, and Haydn to suggest that Mozart is not innovative] is like [saying Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony is not innovative because Justin Heinrich Knecht had already written a pastoral symphony with the exact programmatic format and narrative layout decades before Beethoven wrote his own].






Le Portrait musical de la nature ou Grande Symphonie (1785)
Mov.I: Allegretto - Andante pastorale - Allegretto - Villanella grazioso, un poco adagio - Allegretto 00:00 
Mov.II: Tempo medemo (Allegretto) 09:39
Mov.III: Allegro molto 12:44
Mov.IV: Tempo medemo (Allegro molto) 18:39
Mov.V: L'inno con variazioni - Andantino - Coro: Allegro con brio - Andantino 20:59


----------



## mrdoc

*Who is your favorite of the big 3 composers?*

For me it has always been LvB as I am not into Opera all that much...


----------



## DaveM

janxharris said:


> Obviously they wrote music that managed to touch and move a significant number of people - but, of course, some remain unimpressed (it might be better to speak of particular works rather than a composer's entire output).


What was it about his music 'that managed to touch and move a significant number of people'?


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate

They are all very high on my list, so really this is splitting hairs. When I say that Beethoven is my favorite, it is only after really zeroing in on some pretty minor differences in terms of my preferences. I could die a happy man with any of the three.


----------



## janxharris

DaveM said:


> What was it about his music 'that managed to touch and move a significant number of people'?


I can only speak for myself.

Those that remain unimpressed may have valid reasons for their objections.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> Take a look at these articles:
> View attachment 130858
> 
> "I have the strong impression that Berlioz envied Mozart's professional skill as a musician, and was conscious of his own inferiority. Despite the apologetic discourse of Barzun and other Berliozians, his shortcomings in harmony, counterpoint and formal organization are unmistakable even in his mature works. How could he, who grew up at La Côte-Saint-André isolated from any serious music-making until the age of 18, receiving only a rudimentary musical education in his childhood and youth, never mastering an instrument, not encouraged by his family at any stage to understake a musical career, compete with the child of Salzburg, son of a highly skilled musician who devoted his life to his son's musical upbringing and who took him from early childhood all around Europe to meet the greatest masters of his day? Berlioz must have felt this difference, and his often arrogant tone in discussing Mozart's music seems barely to mask a deep-rooted sense of insecurity about his musical abilities. No one more than Mozart could embody for Berlioz the ideal of professional musicianship, so far out of his reach, and thus he remains the ultimate reminder of his shortcomings, and thus a permanent source of irritation. It is this recognition of Mozart's superior mastery of compositional skills that lies behind Berlioz's choice of words: 'this unfailing beauty, always serene and self-assured'. Beethoven, of course, was a perfect musician too, but he had to work hard for it, while for Mozart, the myth had already taken root that his proficiency came with ease. This difference between the two was already evident to Berlioz's generation, and thus Beethoven was conceived as more 'human', and Berlioz could feel closer to him. Gluck, on the other hand, who like Berlioz reached artistic ripeness at a relatively advanced age and whose contrapuntal skills were compared by Handel to those of his cook, was much easier to identify with than the 'enfant prodige' who grew up to become the emblem of perfection."
> https://www.cambridge.org/core/book...z-and-mozart/D120367758977FD742477965EAD04FB5
> ""J'adore Mozart" wrote Berlioz in 1856. Ten years later, at a time when he took pleasure in not going to operas any more, he attended eight performances of Don Giovanni at the Théâtre Lyrique, where he was seen to "cover his face and cry like a child." Yet neither Berlioz himself nor his biographers are ever inclined to include Mozart among the select pantheon of historical figures who inspired him most deeply, the names being more usually Shakespeare, Goethe, Virgil, and among musicians Gluck, Beethoven, sometimes Weber, sometimes Spontini. Mozart never displaced Gluck in Berlioz's mind as the greatest of eighteenth-century composers, a preference which very few would admit to in the present century when an admiration for Mozart has been a solid donné among professionals and amateurs alike. Where did Mozart stand in his critical perspectives, and what part did Mozart play in his work as conductor and composer? The matter was admirably summed up by Berlioz himself in chapter 17 of the Mémoires, which is devoted entirely to his regard for Mozart. Written probably in 1848, or soon after, it describes the fiery passions of his student years: "I have said that […] I was taken up exclusively with the study of great dramatic music. I should rather have said, of lyric tragedy; and it was for this reason that I regarded Mozart with a certain coolness." Gluck was performed in French at the Opéra while Mozart was sung in Italian at the Théâtre Italien, and that was sufficient to assign him to the enemy camp."


My point citing Berlioz was not to discuss why he said what he said nor if he's right or not, but to reiterate the idea that different great composers have distinct ways of valuing the music of other great composers, and that the Brahms quote present in your last post (that by now you have posted _ad nauseam_ in this forum over the years) has a viewpoint that is not either the only one nor the definitive.



hammeredklavier said:


> *It depends what work we're talking about*, (sonata for four hands K497 has a development section {not including 'secondary development' or 'false recapitulation'} as extensive as typical Beethoven), and it depends on how you look at it (perception).
> 
> (...)
> 
> I think the working of the dotted-rhythmic motif in the voice-leading structure of Confitibor tibi domine of Mozart Vesperae de dominica K321 or the chromaticism in the development of string quartet K421 1st movement or Fantasie K608 (where the initial fugue turns into an epic double fugue in the ending, creating a strong sense of 'operatic drama'), for example, have just as much 'substance', if not more, in terms of development, as the Beethoven works I cited above. There is an elaborate coda in string quintet K515 1st movement as well.


Not really because I was speaking generally. The keyword in my post, that you seem to have missed, is "overall". But if we have to talk about single works good luck finding one development section in Mozart as expansive as the one in the _Eroica_.



hammeredklavier said:


> I once talked about the series of dragged-out "beeping sounds" in Beethoven's 5th symphony 1st movement and Tempest piano sonata, and the "quasi-minimalist" figures of his 6th symphony 1st movement. There are also piano sonatas like the 19th, 20th, 25th, or 26th that contain developments that definitely aren't the best stuff Beethoven ever wrote. The development of Op.111 1st movement, with its trills in the bass and motivic working on the 3-note fragment, strikes me as an attempt by Beethoven to write something similar to Mozart K546.


I don't know what you mean by "beeping sounds" but since you seem to dislike Beethoven it's probably not good. In any case, I've never seem any musicologist using this term to describe the fifth symphony nor the _Tempest_ sonata, so I'm not really taking it seriously (perhaps you have some background to your criticism to expose here). The idea of the _Pastoral_ being an ancestor of minimalism can be seem as originality instead of weakness (as by now I'm convinced it's your view when you call something "proto-minimalist", "quasi-minimalist" etc. considering that you seem to hate Schubert and is always referring to his music using these terms). I agree that piano sonatas Nos. 19, 20 and 25 aren't "the best stuff Beethoven ever wrote", but I don't think that they're bad music either. Sonata No. 25 in particular I think that has an interesting first movement with it's rapid succession of modulations and dynamic contrasts, and let's not forget the 9/8 (unusual) time in the second. I think that the point of that sonata was to make very compact music that's still good, and for me Beethoven did it right.

Beethoven was studying scores by both Mozart (the Requiem mass if I'm not mistaken) and Haydn when composing Op. 111, so I don't doubt that he used some musical ideas by them on it. It remains a very original work though, even in it's first movement, as, differently from Mozart fugues, this one is integrated with sonata form. By the way, K. 546 is probably based on W.F. Bach's F. 65, although it's written in a more modern (for the time) language.



hammeredklavier said:


> Have a look through these threads:
> < Cyclic form in classical works >
> < Unity of movements? >
> I feel that some people exaggerate these things about Beethoven a little. I don't deny his mastery of structure (motivic working), but is it really something Beethoven mastered, while Mozart never did?


I understand that these discussions go beyond the scope of our talking here and I suggest you to write about them in their proper threads (that you mentioned). By the way, the idea that Mozart never mastered structure seems a bit absurd to me and I don't know who would defend this... perhaps you have misread someone else's comment?



hammeredklavier said:


> For example, I feel that the last movement of the Eroica symphony is just not as worthy enough to stand beside the monumental first movement of the same symphony.


This seems to have been defended by Bernstein aswell. I'm not with neither of you, as that finale with that sonata form incorporated in a theme and variations with lots of counterpoint always seemed appropriate to me (not to say thrilling, magistral and great).



hammeredklavier said:


> I don't know why but Beethoven sometimes has obsession for uninteresting thematic material, and the last movement of the Eroica symphony, (which he keeps using in other works for some reason; Creatures of Prometheus, the Eroica variations, and a dance piece) is an example of that. He even "elongates" the duration of the notes in the movement, as if that will make it more interesting.
> I don't feel this way towards Mozart's last two symphonies, for example. There are several Mozart concertos that I listen to just for the last movement, such as the 10th, 14th, 19th. Also Beethoven's slow movements (except the 4th, 5th) in his piano concertos just aren't as memorable as those of Mozart's 9th, 15th, 17th, 18th.


You don't like Beethoven. You like Mozart. Got it.



hammeredklavier said:


> *And the fact remains Beethoven's Op.111 piano sonata doesn't have a finale.* But you can believe whatever you want: "it's still fine as a multi-movement work". It's your choice anyway.


It doesn't if one's looking to it with the perspective of the Classical period and it's formulaic approach to music in mind, but in terms of it's emotional and dramatic content I would say that the ending of Op. 111 is up there with the best ever made.



hammeredklavier said:


> You even refused to accept dizwell's fair criticism on Beethoven's vocal writing.


I understand that his criticism was directed towards late Beethoven vocal works, particularly Op. 125. But if the Ninth's vocal writting is so bad, then why it's so relevant to so many critics and enthusiasts of music (and of course to the general public)? The work is currently in the very top both in the TC 150 Most Recommended Symphonies list and The Talk Classical community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommended Works. It occupies the third position in the 100 Greatest Classical Music Works list of the digitaldreamdoor website. It's the hymn of the European Union. It's one of the most performed complete works of classical music with voices every year. Not bad for an "awkwardly written" piece, huh?

Oh, Verdi didn't like it's finale? Well, Verdi didn't seem to enjoy some operas of Wagner either. So what?

"If it sounds good, it _is_ good", Duke Ellington. I share this view.



hammeredklavier said:


> Writing the first piano quartet wasn't the only "innovation" by Mozart either. Beethoven wrote a lot of fine piano sonata masterpieces such as Op.101, a masterful blend of early Romantic lied-like qualities and formal structure. But I still think he doesn't encompass every Classical style. None of Beethoven's piano music has moments like these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._40_(Mozart)


What makes you think that Beethoven would want to emulate every style of the Classical period when actually it seems that he was trying to find new, original and alternative creative solutions to them?



hammeredklavier said:


> "The first movement begins darkly, not with its first theme but with the accompaniment, played by the lower strings with divided violas. The technique of beginning a work with an accompaniment figure was later used by Mozart in his last piano concerto (KV. 595) and later became a favorite of the Romantics (examples include the openings of Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto and Sergei Rachmaninoff's Third Piano Concerto)."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_Concerto_No._24_(Mozart)
> "... Another departure from convention is that the solo exposition does not re-state the secondary theme from the orchestral exposition. Instead, a succession of new secondary thematic material appears. Musicologist Donald Tovey considered this introduction of new material to be "utterly subversive of the doctrine that the function of the opening tutti [the orchestral exposition] was to predict what the solo had to say. ..."
> "... The pianist and musicologist Charles Rosen argues that Mozart thus created a "double exposition". Rosen also suggests that this explains why Mozart made substantial elongations to the orchestral exposition during the composition process; he needed a longer orchestral exposition to balance its "double" solo counterpart. ..."
> "...The third movement features a theme in C minor followed by eight variations upon it. Hutchings considered it "both Mozart's finest essay in variation form and also his best concerto finale."... Variations II to VI are what Girdlestone and Hutchings independently describe as "double" variations. Within each variation, each of the eight-measure phrases from the theme is further varied upon its repeat ( AX-AY-BX-BY ). ...."


Mozart was a great composer. Period. I'm not saying that he wasn't. I only entered this discussion with you because you started to talk about Beethoven and, as usual, found some way to needle him and his music. Beethoven _matters_ to me and I won't give up defending him as I can.



hammeredklavier said:


> To me, [pointing out the innovations of the Bach Brothers, Gluck, and Haydn to suggest that Mozart is not innovative] is like [saying Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony is not innovative because Justin Heinrich Knecht had already written a pastoral symphony with the exact programmatic format and narrative layout decades before Beethoven wrote his own].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Le Portrait musical de la nature ou Grande Symphonie (1785)
> Mov.I: Allegretto - Andante pastorale - Allegretto - Villanella grazioso, un poco adagio - Allegretto 00:00
> Mov.II: Tempo medemo (Allegretto) 09:39
> Mov.III: Allegro molto 12:44
> Mov.IV: Tempo medemo (Allegro molto) 18:39
> Mov.V: L'inno con variazioni - Andantino - Coro: Allegro con brio - Andantino 20:59


The _Pastoral_ symphony is far from being the first programmatic intrumental music or composition with a pastoral idea, and it's not the first programmatic symphony (although it is the first by a famous composer), but the idea of evocating feelings in a programmatic symphony instead of just making a pictorial description is very original. In terms of form the music is also innovative, although there is a precedent to the storm movement in Mozart's G minor quintet (but that work ends with a typical, lightweight finale).

I didn't say that Mozart wasn't innovative, but I don't think that his works brought so many important new features to the music of his time as those of Haydn or Gluck (invention and development of the string quartet, development of the symphony, invention of the _Sturm und Drang_ in music, change of form in operas from the predictable aria/recitative pattern to that of a continuous flux - these are very important, generic and influential innovations in my view).


----------



## SixFootScowl

Bach and Mozart combined only exceed Beethoven by 12 percent.


----------



## hammeredklavier

---------------------------------------------


----------



## BachIsBest

janxharris said:


> I can only speak for myself.
> 
> Those that remain unimpressed may have valid reasons for their objections.


I could be wrong, and I hate to point this out, but when you said:



janxharris said:


> Obviously they wrote music that managed to touch and move a significant number of people - but, of course, some remain unimpressed (it might be better to speak of particular works rather than a composer's entire output).


you appeared to be speaking about other's as well.


----------



## Ethereality

In recognizing the perfection that exists within Mozart, there still yields enough complaints about the aesthetic sensibilities of Mozart because of his time-period I think I read from Woodduck and others... I'd sooner complain about the aesthetic time-period of Schubert or Wagner, than I would Mozart, personally speaking. Mozart always stirs excitement, while the immediate generations seem to drag on a bit more anticipatingly and boringly. There's a lot of great music however from these generations/composers that carries on a similar exciting harmonic flow of ideas. TC voted the Contemporary period their favorite of all the periods--there's more quantity of valuable composers after Early Romanticism.

So much for the idea that composers have a consistent personality and quality throughout their works. Later music doesn't demonstrate it, at least in my own experience, so it doesn't hinder it from being a clear favorite.

Part of the widespread appeal of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven is that people seem to like very different works from their oeuvre.


----------



## DaddyGeorge

Although I think it is undecidable I did myself a sort of genres rating. Voted for Mozart, but maybe Bach seems to be the best (from this narrow point of view)

*Orchestral works*

Symphonies, Divertimenti, Overtures, Serenades, Suites, etc.:
1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Bach

Works for Violin & Orchestra:
1. Bach
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven

Works for Piano & Orchestra:
1. Mozart
2. Beethoven
3. Bach

Other Solo Instruments & Orchestra (Including double/triple Concertos, etc.):
1. Mozart
2. Bach
3. Beethoven

Secular Vocal works (including Operas):
1. Mozart
2. Bach
3. Beethoven

Sacred Vocal works:
1. Bach
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven

*Chamber and Solo works (including piano accompaniment)*

Solo piano works:
1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Mozart

Works for Violin:
1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Mozart

Works for Violoncello:
1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Mozart

Chamber works (Trios, Quartets, Quintets, etc.):
1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Bach

Other solo Instruments works:
1. Bach
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven

Vocal works:
1. Mozart
2. Bach
3. Beethoven


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> It is not definitive. Music is subjective, and so the Brahms quote does not prove anything objective. But do you think it's fair people criticize Mozart by making up terms like "Classical sensibility" (about how much his music is about being "nice and polite", aka. 'music for the aristocrats'), while never daring to criticize something like Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony, which contains pages and pages of early 19th-century Landler-like music with no accidentals (aside from the typical Beethovenian Banging in the middle) - simply because Beethoven has some 'pictorial obsession on landscapes and stuff'? I already mentioned many times of such countless unfair comparisons people had made on this forum over the decade 2008~2018. They're still hilarious to read.


Criticism for the sake of criticism is a bit pointless, isn't it? So you have been criticizing Beethoven and other composers in this forum almost every day over the last two or more years (including Schubert, Chopin, Debussy, Scriabin, Sibelius, Rachmaninoff and others) just to compensate the criticism that Mozart suffered years ago? Don't you think that this is a bit... _odd_? What's the point?

The _Pastoral_ is a great symphony and I take it that your criticisms aren't really valid at all except for you and the (relatively few) other people who also detest Beethoven.



hammeredklavier said:


> Beethoven did copy down Mozart K546 for study. (the two-piano version, K426, actually). Beethoven's copy is catalogued as *Hess 37*. Know your Beethoven.


I didn't say he didn't. Know the text you read.



hammeredklavier said:


> The Mozart almost anticipates the fugue style of Shostakovich. I don't find W.F. Bach's F. 65 similar to Mozart's work other than the fact it is an adagio and a fugue and uses a string orchestra (in addition to the flutes). I think you're ignoring the elephant in the room again.


The point is that they are similar in form, and so that in this particular sense F. 65 could be seen as a precursor to K. 546, not that they are identical. I don't think that Beethoven's Op. 111 has that much of Mozart at all, a citation here and there in the first movement and that's it, but I don't pretend that there wasn't any influence. I suppose that the elephant escaped by the window, as I really can't see it.



hammeredklavier said:


> About the term I used, 'quasi-minimalism'; I know Beethoven isn't a proto-minimalist, but there are sections in his work I can't find another term to describe. For example, I can appreciate the final 2~3 minutes of the boogie-woogie movement from Op.111, but the way he builds up to that point seems a little lengthy and contrived in terms of figurations. I don't know how else I should put it. tdc describes it as 'chatty'.


Suggestion: If you hate a composer, don't feel any obligation to hear his music. I don't think that the point of listening to music is to inspire hatred nor lengthy and contrived criticisms at all. There's enough music in the world for an entire lifetime (Mozart alone has about 200 hours of music). Why waste your time on what you wholeheartedly dislike?



hammeredklavier said:


> No. It's not a typical lightweight finale. It contains "happy sadness or sad happiness" that anticipates Mendelssohn.


According to this wikipedia article based in the books _Guide to Chamber Music_ and _The Classical Style_, it seems that perhaps some people could disagree with you. I'm not aware of this "happy sadness or sad happiness" connection between this particular movement and Mendelssohn, but I know that the latter was influenced by Mozart, so I ask you to elaborate on your thinking here.

"Critics have often questioned how such an insouciant and carefree finale could follow after three-plus movements of intense pathos, even though it conforms perfectly to the Classical understanding of a finale as resolving everything that preceded it." - This comes from the article I've cited.



hammeredklavier said:


> I think we talked about all this before. (including the fact about Beethoven's Hess 37). There were 'symphonies' (ones by CPE Bach) before Haydn.


Exactly, and that's why I didn't say that Haydn created the genre (read my last post again and you'll see that I wrote "development", not "invention"). I'm aware of symphonies by the likes of Sammartini and Stamitz before those of Haydn.



hammeredklavier said:


> I know Gluck is also a great composer, born more than 40 years before Mozart.


...and contemporary to him: Gluck died in 1787, only four years before Mozart.



hammeredklavier said:


> 'Sturm und Drang' is a vague concept. It seems scholars haven't even settled on the true definition and the consensus on how many works before and after the 1760~1770 period should be categorized as being the kind. And I remember you once pretended like stormy, dramatic music in the classical era started with the invention of "Sturm und Drang". (And you seem to be doing it again here). It didn't. There's are traditions of dramatic effect that don't have much to do with "Sturm und Drang" stylistically.


Not entering here in the merit of what is or isn't _Sturm und Drang_ in music, or if the use of the term should be accepted or not, I must say though that it's usually accepted that it was born with Gluck's ballet "Don Juan" and some early works by Haydn.

The link you provided directs to a discussion involving Wagner (?) and I don't see how it could relate to our talk here.


----------



## DaveM

janxharris said:


> I can only speak for myself.


I was expecting you to speak for yourself and offer an opinion. Are you purposely avoiding my question?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> Criticism for the sake of criticism is a bit pointless, isn't it? So you have been criticizing Beethoven and other composers in this forum almost every day over the last two or more years (including Schubert, Chopin, Debussy, Scriabin, Sibelius, Rachmaninoff and others) just to compensate the criticism that Mozart suffered years ago? Don't you think that this is a bit... _odd_? What's the point?


When did I criticize Rachmaninoff? I think I said I didn't like Scriabin like three times, and Sibelius only once (in the 1400+ posts I wrote). About the other composers such as Chopin, I don't exactly "hate" them. (I have had my own experience dealing with people in other communities like TwosetViolin's, where there is a massive bunch of casual piano players and mad fans who just can't accept Chopin being rated low in composer rankings. But this is a topic for another day).

And I don't usually go around saying 'Perhaps [X] is overrated' without substantive backing. Please don't pretend like you're different, Mr. Allerius. lol. You also have shown your own iconoclastic attitude, plenty of times already. And I don't criticize for the sake of criticizing. I'm only posing these questions: "if there exists concepts like "Classical sensibilities", is it really fair to conclude Beethoven has none of them?" "Isn't it just a term people made up to brand negative images about Beethoven's predecessors, glorifying Beethoven in the process?" "Is Beethoven really that "innovative" to the extend people today make him out to be, compared with Mozart?" Do you find it these questions really that offensive? I'm NOT hating Beethoven. And I actually praised Beethoven many times in this thread.



Allerius said:


> I didn't say he didn't. Know the text you read.


But why would you mention the requiem? It's obviously not the Mozart piece Beethoven had in mind when he composed the first movement of Op.111. Why don't you just say it if you know it already; "Hess 37". Are you intentionally avoiding? Why do you find it so inconvenient? I have absolutely no problem talking about Michael Haydn's or Handel's influence on Mozart's requiem. I think I know why - The Beethoven fandom is so obsessed with the idea Beethoven is so different and individual from his predecessors that they can't stand the idea that "Beethoven wrote something resembling his predecessors even in his late period".



Allerius said:


> The point is that they are similar in form, and so that in this particular sense F. 65 could be seen as a precursor to K. 546, not that they are identical.


Yes. They're similar in form, but by that kind of logic, we could cite Sebastian's fugues to claim that they're also similar with WF Bach F. 65 and Mozart K. 546.



Allerius said:


> I don't think that Beethoven's Op. 111 has that much of Mozart at all, a citation here and there in the first movement and that's it, but I don't pretend that there wasn't any influence. I suppose that the elephant escaped by the window, as I really can't see it.


I find the gestures (the dramatic dotted-rhythmic introductions / the slow 'stepping' towards the main section / the use of the 3-note fragment {ending on leading tone in minor, in both cases} in the subjects / trills in the bass / the fact that they're both contrapuntal, and set in the key of C minor / the Classical use of dramatic effect, etc) unmistakably similar. You've shown your bias when you refused to accept dizwell's fair criticism on Beethoven's vocal writing. How can I expect you to accept other things about Beethoven. I don't. Let's just leave it at that.



Allerius said:


> Suggestion: If you hate a composer, don't feel any obligation to hear his music. I don't think that the point of listening to music is to inspire hatred nor lengthy and contrived criticisms at all. There's enough music in the world for an entire lifetime (Mozart alone has about 200 hours of music). Why waste your time on what you wholeheartedly dislike?


Again, I don't hate Beethoven. Please don't get me wrong. People are entitled to their opinions, but I feel that there's still "injustice" constantly happening in the general classical music community regarding the topic of Mozart and Beethoven. I even sense some kind of "propaganda" going on, -for example, the topic of "Classical sensibilities", have been discussed over and over, for so long, and is still discussed to this day to the point of ad nauseam, but for what purpose? 
There are common themes in the way the general Beethoven fandom talks:
Even Beethoven's kind of "light music" is so much different. Even in cases where Beethoven is not "influential", he's still "innovative". When someone dislikes Beethoven, they're just lacking "understanding" about his music. etc.

I just don't think one composer should get this sort of 'special treatment'. I can accept people deeming Beethoven as the greatest composer who ever lived. But the way they do it seems a little unfair.



Allerius said:


> According to this wikipedia article based in the books _Guide to Chamber Music_ and _The Classical Style_, it seems that perhaps some people could disagree with you.I'm not aware of this "happy sadness or sad happiness" connection between this particular movement and Mendelssohn, but I know that the latter was influenced by Mozart, so I ask you to elaborate on your thinking here.


Lots of people make weird claims about Beethoven too. I hear people saying here and elsewhere every now and then "Beethoven is more influential (than Mozart) to Schoenberg", for example, when the fact is that Schoenberg himself considered Mozart a more important teacher to him than Beethoven.
About the Mozart K516 finale.- Yes, it is a good example of innovation in Classical contrast, but at the same time, I feel that it is not just a typical "happy" moment of Mozart. (The way the movement is oriented in the context of the whole quintet might be one reason why.) Other moments in Mozart I feel this way are the first movement of K595 or the finale of K334, (another work I have praised for the contrasting sections of chromaticism)

"The final Rondo is very different from the one in K247, though its key-plan and sequence of events are quite similar. Instead of the short repeated sections of the earlier movement, repeats here are written out and varied. And instead of the sharply contrasting characters of each succeeding episode, the impression here is broader, with a spacious pastoral character. Along with the six-eight metre, this suggests a parallel with the finale of Mozart's last instrumental work, the Clarinet Concerto. Even if we see Mozart's final works as moving towards a new, more romantic style, it is fascinating to realize how many aspects of his later achievements are already present in the period of his early maturity." (Duncan Druce, 2003)

I guess different people perceive things differently. Stravinsky (whose quote on Grosse Fuge you cite quite often) considered the choral finale to Beethoven's 9th a 'hopelessly banal tune'. (But I don't necessarily agree with this assessment.)
"Stravinsky was never moved by the choral finale to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, which he thought a hopelessly banal tune affixed to Schiller's mighty ode of liberation and brotherhood." (Stravinsky: The Music Box and the Nightingale By Daniel Albright page 3)



Allerius said:


> Exactly, and that's why I didn't say that Haydn created the genre (read my last post again and you'll see that I wrote "development", not "invention"). I'm aware of symphonies by the likes of Sammartini and Stamitz before those of Haydn.[/URL]


What real difference does that make? You still put "development of the symphony" next to Haydn in that sentence, - implying that, by contrast, Mozart didn't really add to the symphonic genre. You seem to just like to play on words, - obscuring your true meaning, just to create a 'safety net' for yourself to make 'excuses' later, - not expressing your point directly and clearly. Just to refute my points for the sake of refuting them.



Allerius said:


> ...and contemporary to him: Gluck died in 1787, only four years before Mozart.


Yes, and again, it reminds me of the section from that article I cited. "... Gluck, on the other hand, who like Berlioz reached artistic ripeness at a relatively advanced age and whose contrapuntal skills were compared by Handel to those of his cook, ..." (
View attachment 130858
) Have you had a look at it yet?



Allerius said:


> The link you provided directs to a discussion involving Wagner (?) and I don't see how it could relate to our talk here.


You can go to the post I linked and listen to the stuff I posted there; they contain dramatic effects that have little to do with typical Classical Sturm und Drang. They all come from the Salzburg liturgical tradition ( passed down from the likes of J. E. Eberlin ), with added elements of contrast and expansion of form by Mozart.


----------



## janxharris

BachIsBest said:


> I could be wrong, and I hate to point this out, but when you said:
> 
> you appeared to be speaking about other's as well.


I was asked for the particulars:


DaveM said:


> What was it about his music 'that managed to touch and move a significant number of people'?


...so of course I can't speak for others.

I was merely stating the obvious when I said that people have been moved by popular composers as such LVB and WAM etc.


----------



## janxharris

DaveM said:


> I was expecting you to speak for yourself and offer an opinion. Are you purposely avoiding my question?


I wasn't clear exactly what you were asking - so, no, I'm not avoiding.

I like original sounding harmony/melody (at least if the harmony isn't entirely original then the melody should be) with a strong narrative (as opposed to absolute music - though, of course, there is some crossover). Contrast is also very important and not too much repetition. Generally, works that are organic where there is strong motivic development appeal.

Mozart and the 18th century as a whole rarely works for me. The whole period to my ears is a harmonic pastiche - with repeated undisguised cadences dominating. Yes, this was the MO of the time but for me it's a disaster.

Beethoven fares much better - once he started to speak with his own voice and shook off the negative influences (ie see above) of the past - with works like Symphonies 3, 5 , 6, 9, the Violin Concerto (1st movement),and Grosse Fuge.

Sibelius (4th symphony onwards), as I have often posted before now, represents the apotheosis of what I look for.

I don't know if this is the response you were looking for.

(I cited LVB and WAM because you did).


----------



## EdwardBast

Allerius said:


> Criticism for the sake of criticism is a bit pointless, isn't it? So you have been criticizing Beethoven and other composers in this forum almost every day over the last two or more years (including Schubert, Chopin, Debussy, Scriabin, Sibelius, Rachmaninoff and others) just to compensate the criticism that Mozart suffered years ago? Don't you think that this is a bit... _odd_? *What's the point?*


The point is too many of us are violating the first commandment: _Mozart is the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before him._ Repent lest his prophet call down upon thy head a great flood of words and random musical examples to wash away these false idols, these Beethovens and Chopins and Scriabins. Repent blasphemers, the end times are upon us!


----------



## Ethereality




----------



## Room2201974

If nothing else, there is huge entertainment value in the endless my-favorite-great-composer-can-out-compose-your-favorite-great-composer-with-one-quilled-hand-tied-behind-his-back arguments here!

Netflix ain't got nothing on you guys.....I'm popping some popcorn.


----------



## Bluecrab

EdwardBast said:


> ...wash away these false idols, these Beethovens and Chopins and Scriabins...


You forgot Schubert. :lol:


----------



## Flamme




----------



## Strange Magic

Room2201974 said:


> If nothing else, there is huge entertainment value in the endless my-favorite-great-composer-can-out-compose-your-favorite-great-composer-with-one-quilled-hand-tied-behind-his-back arguments here!
> 
> Netflix ain't got nothing on you guys.....I'm popping some popcorn.


Surely there is objective evidence that demonstrates, nay, proves the inherent, intrinsic superiority of one composer over all others.


----------



## Luchesi

Rogerx said:


> You can repeat that in every thread .


if you agree with that, then where's the development in music, the progress, the achievements using the fundamental elements of music (which come from our natural history)? The composers knew where they were in the development of music. It wasn't a matter of subjective ups and downs. If the logical progression is ignored or merely overlooked then we only have what's temporarily fashionable - and the tyranny of taste.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> *But why would you mention the requiem? It's obviously not the Mozart piece Beethoven had in mind when he composed the first movement of Op.111.* Why don't you just say it if you know it already; "Hess 37". Are you intentionally avoiding? Why do you find it so inconvenient? I have absolutely no problem talking about Michael Haydn's or Handel's influence on Mozart's requiem. I think I know why - The Beethoven fandom is so obsessed with the idea Beethoven is so different and individual from his predecessors that they can't stand the idea that "Beethoven wrote something resembling his predecessors even in his late period".


Because in Jan Swafford's _Beethoven: Anguish and Triumph_ it's written in the chapter discussing Op. 111 (Chapter 29 if you have the book) that the composer copied fugal themes from Mozart's _Requiem_ and from Haydn's _String Quartet in F minor_ in one of the sketch pages for the first movement of his last sonata. And there is no mention to either Hess 37 or to Mozart's K. 546 in the three pages of discussion at all.



hammeredklavier said:


> Yes. They're similar in form, but by that kind of logic, we could cite Sebastian's fugues to claim that they're also similar with WF Bach F. 65 and Mozart K. 546.


Swafford describes the first movement of Beethoven's Op. 111 as "in baroque terms (...) a sort of prelude leading to a sort of fugue". Considering this, and if we may agree that Mozart's K. 546 can be described similarly, then, yes, I think that it could be said that both works have a precedent in the preludes and fugues of the baroque, including those of J.S. Bach.



hammeredklavier said:


> *Again, I don't hate Beethoven. Please don't get me wrong.* People are entitled to their opinions, but I feel that there's still "injustice" constantly happening in the general classical music community regarding the topic of Mozart and Beethoven. I even sense some kind of "propaganda" going on, -for example, the topic of "Classical sensibilities", have been discussed over and over, for so long, and is still discussed to this day to the point of ad nauseam, but for what purpose?





hammeredklavier said:


> I have a vague idea what Brahms meant cause the way Beethoven uses dissonance in moments like Grave, ma non troppo of Op.135 for example is ridiculously funny :lol:.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Beethoven was _actually_ struggling to overcome his deafness :lol:
> In the Grosse Fuge's bangy dotted homorhythms, he's seems to be saying "I can't hear anything! Dammit!" :lol: (Don't get me wrong, I do like the piece)
> Beethoven tried to do stuff like the beginning of Mozart K465 in the beginning of Op.59 No.3, but he didn't really achieve it. His attempts ended up being "bang! bang!", "bam! bam!"





hammeredklavier said:


> I can say that the first movement of Op.111 is the best movement in Beethoven's late piano sonatas --- Because it reminds me of Mozart K475, K426/K546
> 
> You can have the rest. :lol: All that boogie woogie and minimalism with tremolos and trills
> Please God, have we have SOME dissonance!!!!!!! :lol:


It's not what your own words in other threads seem to indicate. I don't think that you or anybody else has to like Beethoven or any other artist, but showing a little respect for the great masters of the past would do you no harm.



hammeredklavier said:


> I guess different people perceive things differently. Stravinsky (whose quote on Grosse Fuge you cite quite often) considered the choral finale to Beethoven's 9th a 'hopelessly banal tune'. (But I don't necessarily agree with this assessment.)
> "Stravinsky was never moved by the choral finale to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, which he thought a hopelessly banal tune affixed to Schiller's mighty ode of liberation and brotherhood." (Stravinsky: The Music Box and the Nightingale By Daniel Albright page 3)


Early in his career Stravinsky disliked Beethoven, but he changed his mind later. This is better discussed in this TC thread.

"In his _Chronicle_ Stravinsky describes how in his youth he felt smothered by being overexposed to Beethoven's works and revolted by the sentimental talk surrounding them. His dislike for Beethoven was intensified during WWI, perhaps for non-musical reasons. A few years later, however, when he was planning the composition of his Piano Sonata Stravinsky replayed a number of Beethoven's sonatas to see how the great man had solved certain 'problems of form'. Stravinsky then agreed that Beethoven 'must be recognised as one of the world's greatest musical geniuses' and 'the indisputable monarch of the instrument'. Thirteen years after rebuffing Proust he now sided firmly with the angels against 'the stupidity and drivel of fools who think it up to date to giggle as they amuse themselves by running [Beethoven] down'."



hammeredklavier said:


> What real difference does that make? You still put "development of the symphony" next to Haydn in that sentence, - implying that, by contrast, Mozart didn't really add to the symphonic genre. You seem to just like to play on words, - obscuring your true meaning, just to create a 'safety net' for yourself to make 'excuses' later, - not expressing your point directly and clearly. Just to refute my points for the sake of refuting them.


Pardon, but let's not forget that the epithet "Father of Symphony" goes to Haydn, not to Mozart. The older composer didn't create the genre, but was a pioneer in it's early development in ways that Amadeus wasn't, and his contribution to it in number of works and hours of music is also much greater. Personally I prefer Mozart's late symphonies over any I know from Haydn, but I don't ignore the latter's merit in developing the genre (but I'm also not saying that Mozart didn't add to it).


----------



## Room2201974

Strange Magic said:


> Surely there is objective evidence that demonstrates, nay, proves the inherent, intrinsic superiority of one composer over all others.


Of course *Strange*, right here in the pages of this thread. We'll use whatever method they come up with to slice and dice greatness into the correct levels. It's the Internet's version of _ Gradus ad Parnassum_, let's take notes. 

On my second bag of popcorn. I'll have to go light for dinner.


----------



## 1000YearsOfMusic

Woodduck said:


> This is simply not true. Values are not merely opinions, and not exclusive to humans. "This is good" is a statement of relationship. It implies the question, "Good for what?" Food is good for animals. A moist climate is good for redwoods. Heat and pressure are good for creating diamonds. "Goodness" depends upon some condition being fulfilled, and depending on the degree of fulfillment we recognize things as good, better, bad, or worse. Those conditions are fulfilled whether or not humans exist to see and acknowledge them.


Actually, I agree with all your points above. What you're talking about is the usage of „good" as a synonym for useful or, better yet, necessary. But let's not lose sight of the most important characteristic of your examples: their universality. Food is „good for" all living things for their survival, without exception and regardless anyone's opinion. If an animal doesn't get food for a long time then it dies, whether anyone thinks it will die or not. So, universality is the key here; that's what makes the usefulness or indispensability of your examples - their „goodness" if you like - objective. But this is simply not true for „good" meaning „of high quality" or „superior to the average". While Beethoven's music may well be „good for" something for many people - I don't know, they might feel better when listening to it, or it makes them behave more „nobly" or embrace all of humanity, or whatever, - this simply isn't true for everybody. Actually, it isn't true for the vast majority of all people on Earth. Lots of them downright hate Beethoven's music, if not classical music in its entirety. So no, Beethoven's - or any composer's of any style - music being objectively „good" (for something), that is, useful or necessary, is simply not true. For a piece of music, any kind of music, being objectively good would require that it be „good for" something for everyone, just like food is „good for" everyone's survival.

More later.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> Because in Jan Swafford's _Beethoven: Anguish and Triumph_ it's written in the chapter discussing Op. 111 (Chapter 29 if you have the book) that the composer copied fugal themes from Mozart's _Requiem_ and from Haydn's _String Quartet in F minor_ in one of the sketch pages for the first movement of his last sonata. And there is no mention to either Hess 37 or to Mozart's K. 546 in the three pages of discussion at all.


"One of Mozart's most fascinating works for two pianists is his Fugue in C minor for Two Pianos, K. 426, from December 1783. This work was written at the height of Mozart's period of enthusiastic assimilation of J. S. Bach's contrapuntal style, when he arranged various fugues of the Leipzig master for trio or quartet performances at the musical gatherings held at Baron van Swieten's house in Vienna. Mozart later arranged this fugue for strings as well, adding the introductory Adagio, K. 546. The traditional Baroque idiom that is developed in this fugue for two pianos lays great stress on dissonant chromatic semitones and appoggiaturas. The intensity of the fugal writing is startling, foreshadowing the fugal textures in some of Beethoven's later works, such as the first movement of the Piano Sonata in C Minor, op.111, which exploits a variant of the same idiom. Beethoven was so taken by this piece, in fact, that he copied out the entire fugue in score." ( Mozart's Piano Music, By William Kinderman, Page 46 )

By the way, in certain ways I feel that the finale of Mozart K516 is reminiscent in feel of one of the moments from an earlier movement in the same piece. Hopefully this might give you an idea how I perceive it.



Allerius said:


> It's not what your own words in other threads seem to indicate. I don't think that you or anybody else has to like Beethoven or any other artist, but showing a little respect for the great masters of the past would do you no harm.


I admit the "trolling" tone in those posts of mine was extreme. Whenever I see comments like the ones by Christabel below, for example, I just can't help but get carried away. - literally die from laughing and go into the "troll" mode. I apologize if you found my posts offensive though. 
I can understand the preferences of people who find the "powdered wig" unappealing. Even so, I find a vast number of threads and posts by people on this forum from the past "unreasonable". If you look through the Mozart Composer Guestbook, for example, you'll see it's a load of "mess", (with all that ad nauseam series of unfair comparisons; 'Mozart vs Beethoven', or 'Mozart vs Romanticism'.). I keep asking this question, _"are they really being fair?"_. It's probably the reason why I'm sort of "preachy" on this matter -to not let that kind of "mess" happen again. And you should know I'm not always critical about Beethoven.


Christabel said:


> Disagree that these two are the greatest composers in history. I would rank Beethoven there along with Bach, but not Mozart.





Christabel said:


> A harmonic cliche? Da-da, da-da; da-da-da-da-da-da on the final cadence. 5 to 1. A large number of times in some of the symphonies, the piano concertos and in the piano sonatas. Zzzzzz. One of the main reasons I grew monumentally bored - but not limited to that. OK, the operas: excellent. String quartets excellent. Gran Partita very good. Symphonies 36 to 41 very good. You can have the rest. Please God, have we have SOME dissonance!!!!!!!


LOL. cute.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> ............
> 
> 
> 
> Christabel said:
> 
> 
> 
> A harmonic cliche? Da-da, da-da; da-da-da-da-da-da on the final cadence. 5 to 1. A large number of times in some of the symphonies, the piano concertos and in the piano sonatas.
> 
> Zzzzzz. One of the main reasons I grew monumentally bored - but not limited to that.
> 
> OK, the operas: excellent. String quartets excellent. Gran Partita very good. Symphonies 36 to 41 very good. You can have the rest. Please God, have we have SOME dissonance!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. cute.
Click to expand...

You don't accept that a high degree of harmonic / melodic originality is a fundamental of music aesthetics and is to be generally applauded when it is used in combination with other such key elements - an aim of all composers?


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> You don't accept that a high degree of harmonic / melodic originality is a fundamental of music aesthetics and is to be generally applauded when it is used in combination with other such key elements - an aim of all composers?






^just like what this video says. There is a degree of predictability in the style, but I see merit in the philosophy: _"No premium for innovation for its own sake."_ In this style, things need to have clearly defined phrases, forms, (even in moments of 'contrapuntal harmony', there's clarity), it feels like to me "there's nowhere to hide" for the composer and performer. For example, there are a lot of "stock phrases" in Mozart, but I also find that he has extraordinary sense to alter and place them in the right context every time. The "D-C#-D-E-F", which Mozart uses quite often and some moments of his liturgical works, and especially his requiem, for example. In the end, I think all idioms have their own advantages.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> ^just like what this video says. There is a degree of predictability in the style, but I see merit in the philosophy: _"No premium for innovation for its own sake."_ In this style, things need to have clearly defined phrases, forms, (even in moments of 'contrapuntal harmony', there's clarity), it feels like to me "there's nowhere to hide" for the composer and performer. For example, there are a lot of "stock phrases" in Mozart, but I also find that he has extraordinary sense to alter and place them in the right context every time. The "D-C#-D-E-F", which Mozart uses quite often and some moments of his liturgical works, and especially his requiem, for example. In the end, I think all idioms have their own advantages.


I agree that there is 'no premium for innovation for its own sake,' which is why I qualified my statement. If we admit that composers from this era were repeatedly regurgitating elements found already in countless other works then it seems to me to be a compromise. Of course, I respect that you don't agree.

How could anyone expect to speak objectively on such an issue?


----------



## Kieran

Without getting into the technical stuff that's being argued, because that's far above my paygrade, I feel I have to comment on the finale to Mozart's great g-minor quintet, K515, which has been dismissed as "typically lightweight", which seems an extraordinary suggestion, even to a non-technically gifted member like me. I recommend David Cairns excellent book, *Mozart and his Operas*, as an example of one of the many the defenses which can be used against this charge:



> That finale, subsequently, raised many eyebrows. How, following the tensions and poignant ironies of the slow movement, could the darkness of the even more sombre fourth-movement adagio suddenly give way, after more than thirty uncompromisingly tragic bars, to light and to a bounding rondo in 6/8 time and in an almost unclouded G major (whose chromaticisms, one might add, are now an expression of vitality, of endless possibility)? The answer, to us, is obvious: because Mozart was not a Victorian moralist; because, in music, above all in music as ambiguous as his, animal spirits do not have to be justified; because his instinct, as a human being and as a dramatist, is for reconciliation and renewal. The finale does not negate the suffering of the previous movements: they become a springboard to fresh life, like the psalmist's "Who, going through the vale of misery, use it for a well."


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Kieran said:


> Without getting into the technical stuff that's being argued, because that's far above my paygrade, I feel I have to comment on the finale to Mozart's great g-minor quintet, K515, which has been dismissed as "typically lightweight", which seems an extraordinary suggestion, even to a non-technically gifted member like me. I recommend David Cairns excellent book, *Mozart and his Operas*, as an example of one of the many the defenses which can be used against this charge:


That just might be my favorite Mozart instrumental work. Heck, maybe my favorite work from the Classical Period. "Sublime" doesn't quite do it justice. And, take note of this, hammeredklavier...I prefer it by a country mile to the Schubert Quintet (even as a huge Schubert fan, I've never understood why his lovely but vastly overrated IMO quintet always seems to reign supreme over the Mozart G minor).


----------



## Phil loves classical

I've started wondering what it means when I see it written (not just here) that Mozart's music has *perfection* (presumably relative to other composers). I felt that before, when I liked his music more than any other composer (it spoke to me when I started out). I read his music combines the intellect and emotion, and yes I felt that. But now I wonder if any other balance is really not less 'perfect'. A composer that combines intellect and emotion to me now, with a more modern spin is Ravel. Other than being more prolific, I don't see Mozart being any more perfect than Ravel.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kieran said:


> Without getting into the technical stuff that's being argued, because that's far above my paygrade, I feel I have to comment on the finale to Mozart's great g-minor quintet, K515, which has been dismissed as "typically lightweight", which seems an extraordinary suggestion, even to a non-technically gifted member like me. I recommend David Cairns excellent book, *Mozart and his Operas*, as an example of one of the many the defenses which can be used against this charge:


I also mentioned the G major finale bares some resemblance to the G major trio of the minuet in feel. I don't think it's totally "unjustified". In the context of the kind of "Mozartian irony" this quintet has (ex. 2nd theme of the first movement being in the tonic minor key, etc), I can't imagine a better way to bring the entire thing to a close, at least in the idiom he worked with.


----------



## Kieran

hammeredklavier said:


> I also mentioned the G major finale bares some resemblance to the G major trio of the minuet in feel. I don't think it's totally "unjustified". In the context of the kind of "Mozartian irony" this quintet has (ex. 2nd theme of the first movement being in the tonic minor key, etc), I can't imagine a better way to bring the entire thing to a close, at least in the idiom he worked with.


That's right, and played with the right spirit, it has the intensity of a manic release from the tragedy of the earlier movements...

EDIT: Just watched the video - it's brilliant, and very helpful for me...


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> The real question is, why not the 'big 4'
> 
> (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert)


Brahms? Haydn? Orlando Gibbons?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> I've started wondering what it means when I see it written (not just here) that Mozart's music has perfection (presumably relative to other composers). I felt that before, when I liked his music more than any other composer (it spoke to me when I started out). I read his music combines the intellect and emotion, and yes I felt that. But now I wonder if any other balance is really not less 'perfect'. A composer that combines intellect and emotion to me now, with a more modern spin is Ravel. Other than being more prolific, I don't see Mozart being any more perfect than Ravel.


I don't think "perfection" in this case is synonymous with the conventional usage of the word "best" or 'greatest'. I think it's one of those "unexplained phenomena" in art. (Like how Beethoven isn't quite impressive in vocal writing or melody in the academic sense but his music still moves people deeply.) People don't know how to describe things exactly, so they use vague terms with vague concepts. One of my English teachers told me once, human language is just not adequate for communicating human thoughts and feelings fully. I agree with him.

_"Maybe "XXX" isn't exactly the right term, but how else would you describe it?"_

"Mozart was revered above all other composers: the clarity, perfection of workmanship, and the purity of his lyricism, not to mention his prodigious output, struck Ravel as virtually superhuman. He also saw in Mozart's work a striking balance between classical symmetry and the element of surprise, of the unexpected, and this union of symmetry and surprise was to remain a key aspect of his artistic aspirations. Ravel once observed that his own music was ''quite simple, nothing but Mozart,'' a statement which contains a goodly element of truth." (Ravel: Man and Musician, By Arbie Orenstein, Page 123)


----------



## Xisten267

Allegro Con Brio said:


> That just might be my favorite Mozart instrumental work. Heck, maybe my favorite work from the Classical Period. "Sublime" doesn't quite do it justice. And, take note of this, hammeredklavier...I prefer it by a country mile to the Schubert Quintet (even as a huge Schubert fan, I've never understood why his lovely but vastly overrated IMO quintet always seems to reign supreme over the Mozart G minor).


I really like the first movement of the G minor quintet (I can agree with the adjective "perfection" being applied to it's exposition/recapitulation), but I'm not so impressed by the other movements. The Schubert quintet I love on the whole. Maybe it's the performance? I have the Mozart quintets played by the Kuijken string quartet plus Terakado and by the string quintet lead by Accardo. I usually listen to the former, that I overall prefer. My fave Schubert quintet is played by the Melos SQ.

What's your reference performance for the Mozart?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Allerius said:


> I really like the first movement of the G minor (I can agree with the adjective "perfection" being applied to it's exposition/recapitulation), but I'm not so impressed by the others. The Schubert quintet I love on the whole. Maybe it's the performance? I have the Mozart quintets played by the Kuijken string quartet plus Terakado and by the string quintet lead by Accardo. I usually listen to the former, that I overall prefer. My fave Schubert is played by the Melos SQ.
> 
> What's your favorite performance for the Mozart?


The Grumiaux Trio/Gerecz/Lesueur album with all the quintets is probably my current favorite, even though I haven't heard many other performances, though the Talich is also great and very well-recorded. It is one of a choice handful of Mozart works (including the Clarinet Quintet and Concerto, Great Mass, and Symphonies 40 and 41) that affect me most and which I consider towering masterpieces. I'm honestly really frustrated that I can't get into the Schubert quintet - I've tried several recordings, including the famous one with Casals and Stern from the early '50's, and the lauded Emerson and ABQ recordings, and I fail to see anything really special in it (besides the scherzo movement, that is gorgeous). Come to say it I'm not much of a fan of the Death and the Maiden quartet either. I much prefer Franz's Trout quintet, piano trios, lieder, and solo piano works.

Do you know a good performance of the Schubert quintet that has the best Adagio? That's the movement where it always loses me.


----------



## Xisten267

Allegro Con Brio said:


> The Grumiaux Trio/Gerecz/Lesueur album with all the quintets is probably my current favorite, even though I haven't heard many other performances, though the Talich is also great and very well-recorded. It is one of a choice handful of Mozart works (including the Clarinet Quintet and Concerto, Great Mass, and Symphonies 40 and 41) that affect me most and which I consider towering masterpieces. I'm honestly really frustrated that I can't get into the Schubert quintet - I've tried several recordings, including the famous one with Casals and Stern from the early '50's, and the lauded Emerson and ABQ recordings, and I fail to see anything really special in it (besides the scherzo movement, that is gorgeous). Come to say it I'm not much of a fan of the Death and the Maiden quartet either. I much prefer Franz's Trout quintet, piano trios, lieder, and solo piano works.
> 
> Do you know a good performance of the Schubert quintet that has the best Adagio? That's the movement where it always loses me.


I think I can understand you. I find the Tchaikovsky description of the slow movement of the Mozart G minor quintet amazing, and am frustated that I can't enjoy that movement that much. Overall, my favorite Mozart quintet is the C major. I also really like the E-flat major.

I'm no expert in performances, but my two current references for the Schubert quintet are the Emerson that you already know and the Melos SQ with Rostropovich. I'm particularly enthusiast of this latter. The Adagio is performed a bit slowly than in other versions, but I find it heavenly. The performance overall is top notch IMO, and it seems that I'm not alone as it has got 4,5 out of 5 stars in amazon.com. I also recommend the Melos for his late string quartets.


----------



## pianozach

Strange Magic said:


> Surely there is objective evidence that demonstrates, nay, proves the inherent, intrinsic superiority of one composer over all others.





Room2201974 said:


> Of course *Strange*, right here in the pages of this thread. We'll use whatever method they come up with to slice and dice greatness into the correct levels. It's the Internet's version of _ Gradus ad Parnassum_, let's take notes.


Ain't that the truth?

Obviously the rating of music is subjective.

Each of these composers lived in different times, wrote differently for different reasons, were limited by the musical technology for their times, etc.

Even if everyone could agree on the best one composition for each composer, could you really compare those three compositions to each other? Even attempting a Top 5 to help choose a 'best' is practically and subjectively impossible. OK, I'll try. Pardon me while I leave out your favorites.

*Bach*

The Well Tempered Klavier
Brandenburg Concertos
Toccata and Fugues in D Minor
Mass in B Minor
Goldberg Variations

*Mozart*

The Marriage of Figaro
Requiem
Symphony No. 41 "Jupiter"
Clarinet Concerto
The Magic Flute

*Beethoven*

Symphony No. 3 "Eroica"
Fidelio
Symphony No. 9 "Choral"
Violin Concerto
Symphony No. 5

Based on the three composer's Top 5 works, could you say which composer is the 'best'?

Would it be better to compare the volume of great works by each?


----------



## Strange Magic

Yes. I voted for Bach, but, to coin a phrase: "That's Just Me!" (Copyright 2020)


----------



## consuono

Bach: just about everything. The scope and consistent excellence of his entire body of work is unprecedented and nothing since has come close. The cantatas alone are the greatest single body of work in the history of music, imo. 

Mozart: the last 8 or so piano concertos, the last 7 symphonies, "Great" Mass in C minor, Figaro. The Requiem is sketchy.

Beethoven: the late quartets and piano sonatas, symphonies 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 (5 has been done to death); Missa solemnis above everything else.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> I agree that there is 'no premium for innovation for its own sake,' which is why I qualified my statement. If we admit that composers from this era were repeatedly regurgitating elements found already in countless other works then it seems to me to be a compromise. Of course, I respect that you don't agree. How could anyone expect to speak objectively on such an issue?





janxharris said:


> Mozart and the 18th century as a whole rarely works for me. The whole period to my ears is a harmonic pastiche - with repeated undisguised cadences dominating. Yes, this was the MO of the time but for me it's a disaster.
> Beethoven fares much better - once he started to speak with his own voice and shook off the negative influences (ie see above) of the past - with works like Symphonies 3, 5 , 6, 9, the Violin Concerto (1st movement),and Grosse Fuge.
> Sibelius (4th symphony onwards), as I have often posted before now, represents the apotheosis of what I look for.


If you would allow me to say something more to advocate the 18th-century idiom:
I accept your argument that Mozart has a certain craftsman-like quality (a.k.a. "powdered wig"), that makes him sound more "predictable" in use of certain phrases and cadences than the later composers you mentioned, but I think the advantage with his way of writing is that you can at least sense when things will end. There are no continual figurations that keep going on and on indefinitely without promising the audience when they'll end. (The worst example of this would be minimalism). 
While Sibelius has his own novel harmonic ideas to induce the kind of late-Romantic feel he has in his orchestral works like Finlandia and Tapiola, I don't quite feel he has a sense of balance like Mozart does. 
Rossini said something to the effect nobody combined Italian melody and Germany harmony like Mozart did. I feel that richness and fluidity of voice-leading is the kind of harmonic appeal you should look for in Mozart. If stuff like 'V7-I' is all you hear in Mozart, (you sound like you do) I think you're "missing the forest for the trees".
Again, you don't have to agree with me, but this is something I value highly in Mozart.

Dixit dominus (3:28 to the end of the movement.)




Dixit dominus (3:28 to the end of the movement.)
Magnificat anima (24:51 to the end of the movement.)





This is also masterful:
Credo (12:33 to the end of the movement) 
look at the sense of control with all those 'Fp' markings around 12:53, and the canonic ending that follows


----------



## Room2201974

pianozach said:


> Ain't that the truth?
> 
> Obviously the rating of music is subjective.
> 
> Each of these composers lived in different times, wrote differently for different reasons, were limited by the musical technology for their times, etc.
> 
> Even if everyone could agree on the best one composition for each composer, could you really compare those three compositions to each other? Even attempting a Top 5 to help choose a 'best' is practically and subjectively impossible. OK, I'll try. Pardon me while I leave out your favorites.
> 
> *Bach*
> 
> The Well Tempered Klavier
> Brandenburg Concertos
> Toccata and Fugues in D Minor
> Mass in B Minor
> Goldberg Variations
> 
> *Mozart*
> 
> The Marriage of Figaro
> Requiem
> Symphony No. 41 "Jupiter"
> Clarinet Concerto
> The Magic Flute
> 
> *Beethoven*
> 
> Symphony No. 3 "Eroica"
> Fidelio
> Symphony No. 9 "Choral"
> Violin Concerto
> Symphony No. 5
> 
> Based on the three composer's Top 5 works, could you say which composer is the 'best'?
> 
> Would it be better to compare the volume of great works by each?


*pianozach*, I couldn't even begin to answer your first question. So I fed all those scores into a Daystrom M5 Greatness Computer®. When I asked the question who was "best" the circuit board blew up. 

As to your second question, ah, no, let's not add to the labors of Sisyphus!


----------



## consuono

The more I've learned about Haydn's work, the more I'm beginning to think that "the Big Three" should be Bach, Beethoven and Haydn. Mozart would probably have been speechless without Haydn (and J. C. Bach). And let's face it, Mozart's death at a tragically young age enhanced his status. Handel should probably be somewhere in that uppermost tier as well. He may have been the most influential composer ever.


----------



## Art Rock

pianozach said:


> *Bach*
> 
> The Well Tempered Klavier
> Brandenburg Concertos
> Toccata and Fugues in D Minor
> Mass in B Minor
> Goldberg Variations
> 
> *Mozart*
> 
> The Marriage of Figaro
> Requiem
> Symphony No. 41 "Jupiter"
> Clarinet Concerto
> The Magic Flute
> 
> *Beethoven*
> 
> Symphony No. 3 "Eroica"
> Fidelio
> Symphony No. 9 "Choral"
> Violin Concerto
> Symphony No. 5
> 
> Based on the three composer's Top 5 works, could you say which composer is the 'best'?


These would not be my picks for their best works, but I'll give it a shot. On a scale of 6 stars:

5 The Well Tempered Klavier
4 Brandenburg Concertos
5 Toccata and Fugues in D Minor
4 Mass in B Minor
5 Goldberg Variations
Total:23

2 The Marriage of Figaro
6 Requiem
4 Symphony No. 41 "Jupiter"
6 Clarinet Concerto
2 The Magic Flute
Total: 20

4 Symphony No. 3 "Eroica"
2 Fidelio
1 Symphony No. 9 "Choral"
6 Violin Concerto
5 Symphony No. 5
Total: 18

Well, that corresponds with the way I rank them. Mind you, you did not choose any of my favourite Bach pieces (St Matthew Passion, St John Passion, Cantata Ich habe genug, Cello suites).


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

pianozach said:


> Ain't that the truth?
> 
> Obviously the rating of music is subjective.
> 
> Each of these composers lived in different times, wrote differently for different reasons, were limited by the musical technology for their times, etc.
> 
> Even if everyone could agree on the best one composition for each composer, could you really compare those three compositions to each other? Even attempting a Top 5 to help choose a 'best' is practically and subjectively impossible. OK, I'll try. Pardon me while I leave out your favorites.
> 
> *Bach*
> 
> The Well Tempered Klavier
> Brandenburg Concertos
> Toccata and Fugues in D Minor
> Mass in B Minor
> Goldberg Variations
> 
> *Mozart*
> 
> The Marriage of Figaro
> Requiem
> Symphony No. 41 "Jupiter"
> Clarinet Concerto
> The Magic Flute
> 
> *Beethoven*
> 
> Symphony No. 3 "Eroica"
> Fidelio
> Symphony No. 9 "Choral"
> Violin Concerto
> Symphony No. 5
> 
> Based on the three composer's Top 5 works, could you say which composer is the 'best'?
> 
> Would it be better to compare the volume of great works by each?


These are not at all what I believe are their greatest works (regardless of whether they're my favorites or not), but following Art Rock's system above:

Bach

The Well Tempered Klavier - 5
Brandenburg Concertos - 4
Toccata and Fugue in D Minor - 2
Mass in B Minor - 5
Goldberg Variations - 5
*Total - 21*

Mozart

The Marriage of Figaro - 2
Requiem - 3
Symphony No. 41 "Jupiter" - 4
Clarinet Concerto - 5
The Magic Flute - 3
*Total - 17*

Beethoven

Symphony No. 3 "Eroica" - 4
Fidelio - haven't heard it
Symphony No. 9 "Choral" - 4
Violin Concerto - 3
Symphony No. 5 - 3
*Total - 14*, greatly influenced by my unfamiliarity with Fidelio

Here's what I believe are their five greatest and most influential works.

*Bach*
Well-Tempered Clavier
St. Matthew Passion 
Mass in B Minor
Goldberg Variations
Art of Fugue

*Mozart*
Don Giovanni
Great Mass in C Minor
Symphony 41
Clarinet Concerto
Piano Concerto 24

*Beethoven*
Symphony 9
Symphony 3
Diabelli Variations
Piano Sonata 29
String Quartet 13 and Grosse Fuge


----------



## Jacck

Why to even make such a poll? There are 5 tiers of composers.
Bach alone sits on the first tier, the second tier is empty, Mozart and Beethoven are on the third tier. All other composers are on the remaining tiers.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> let's *face it*, Mozart's death at a tragically young age enhanced his status.


LOL. Maybe you're the one not facing the facts:
https://www.talkclassical.com/65192-favorite-big-three-poll-29.html#post1806027
https://www.talkclassical.com/64978-defining-big-three-6.html#post1785644
https://www.talkclassical.com/65192-favorite-big-three-poll-36.html#post1811230
https://www.talkclassical.com/65192-favorite-big-three-poll-36.html#post1810681
https://www.talkclassical.com/65192-favorite-big-three-poll-14.html#post1797218


----------



## Room2201974

Now the race is on and here comes Brahms up the Bachstretch
Beethoven's going to the inside
Wagner Fans are holding back
They're trying not to fall
Moe's Heart's out of the running
Mahler's scratched for the lack of votes
Well the race is on and it looks like headaches
Cause there's greatness in 'em all*


*Appologies to George Jones!

Bored silly, lockdown day 37!


----------



## Luchesi

Jacck said:


> Why to even make such a poll? There are 5 tiers of composers.
> Bach alone sits on the first tier, the second tier is empty, Mozart and Beethoven are on the third tier. All other composers are on the remaining tiers.


I don't think Herr Bach would agree with that.


----------



## Ethereality

Well, as long as a composer agrees they're the best, we have a winner.


----------



## mmsbls

This is a tough crowd. My ratings for the 5 works suggested for the 3 composers would be much higher. Actually rather than give my ratings I used the TC Top Recommended Lists . Works in the top 10 of the appropriate category receive a 6. Works in the top 30 of the appropriate category receive a 5. Works in the top 100 receive a 4.

I made one change substituting St Matthew's Passion for Toccata and Fugue in D Minor.

Bach

The Well Tempered Klavier - 6
Brandenburg Concertos - 6
St Matthew Passion - 6
Mass in B Minor - 6
Goldberg Variations - 6
Total - 30

Mozart

The Marriage of Figaro - 6
Requiem - 6
Symphony No. 41 "Jupiter" - 6
Clarinet Concerto - 6
The Magic Flute - 6
Total - 30

Beethoven

Symphony No. 3 "Eroica" - 6
Fidelio - 4
Symphony No. 9 "Choral" - 6
Violin Concerto - 6
Symphony No. 5 - 6
Total - 28

Personally I would not differentiate between a score of 28 or 30. One could substitute Beethoven's Piano Concerto No. 5 or No. 4, string quartet 13 with Grosse Fuge, or Piano Sonata No. 29 and 32 to bring Beethoven up to 30. They are all such wonderful composers who have written such an astounding amount of glorious, interesting, and moving works.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> This is a tough crowd. My ratings for the 5 works suggested for the 3 composers would be much higher. Actually rather than give my ratings I used the TC Top Recommended Lists . Works in the top 10 of the appropriate category receive a 6. Works in the top 30 of the appropriate category receive a 5. Works in the top 100 receive a 4.
> 
> I made one change substituting St Matthew's Passion for Toccata and Fugue in D Minor.
> 
> Bach
> 
> The Well Tempered Klavier - 6
> Brandenburg Concertos - 6
> St Matthew Passion - 6
> Mass in B Minor - 6
> Goldberg Variations - 6
> Total - 30
> 
> Mozart
> 
> The Marriage of Figaro - 6
> Requiem - 6
> Symphony No. 41 "Jupiter" - 6
> Clarinet Concerto - 6
> The Magic Flute - 6
> Total - 30
> 
> Beethoven
> 
> Symphony No. 3 "Eroica" - 6
> Fidelio - 4
> Symphony No. 9 "Choral" - 6
> Violin Concerto - 6
> Symphony No. 5 - 6
> Total - 28
> 
> Personally I would not differentiate between a score of 28 or 30. One could substitute Beethoven's Piano Concerto No. 5 or No. 4, string quartet 13 with Grosse Fuge, or Piano Sonata No. 29 and 32 to bring Beethoven up to 30. They are all such wonderful composers who have written such an astounding amount of glorious, interesting, and moving works.


If for instance, Bach was composing today and composed his works today, what would we think of him?


----------



## mmsbls

Luchesi said:


> If for instance, Bach was composing today and composed his works today, what would we think of him?


If you mean that he wrote today the same works he actually wrote over 250 years ago, I would imagine people would find him an amazing composer and wonder why he writes in a Baroque style.


----------



## BachIsBest

Luchesi said:


> If for instance, Bach was composing today and composed his works today, what would we think of him?


I would imagine a lot of people would deride him as being derivative and pastiche. I would also imagine there would be a lot of praise but it seems incredible to me today that the line "in the Romantic style" is seen as a negative review of a modern composer when, at least in my opinion, it should be an entirely neutral statement.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> If you mean that he wrote today the same works he actually wrote over 250 years ago, I would imagine people would find him an amazing composer and wonder why he writes in a Baroque style.


The point is, for his time, he developed the music of old masters he had heard and some of his contemporaries. He achieved great things in the old forms. That's the context. He was a shining star in THAT firmament, but today? Let's not fantasize. We could still appreciate his works objectively for their craftsmanship, yes, amazing, but it would be a fairer comparison than looking back I think.


----------



## Luchesi

BachIsBest said:


> I would imagine a lot of people would deride him as being derivative and pastiche. I would also imagine there would be a lot of praise but it seems incredible to me today that the line "in the Romantic style" is seen as a negative review of a modern composer when, at least in my opinion, it should be an entirely neutral statement.


The Romantic style (in the last 100 years) means sugary sweet and palatable?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> The point is, for his time, he developed the music of old masters he had heard and some of his contemporaries. He achieved great things in the old forms. That's the context. He was a shining star in THAT firmament, but today? Let's not fantasize. We could still appreciate his works objectively for their craftsmanship, yes, amazing, but it would be a fairer comparison than looking back I think.


There were lots of composers "working with old forms" back then but they still did not consistently inspire for centuries like Bach did. That's what sets Bach apart from the "mediocrities". 
1. Why do you assume Bach would write exactly the same way he did hundreds of years ago, if he came back today? 
2. Perhaps the "modernists" failed to inspire to the same extent great composers of the past did, and so classical music today stopped "improving" or "advancing". (see my Post #169) If Bach came back today, he would give us fresh new vision of inspiration that would last for a century to come, show us glimpse of the future music should head towards.
3. People today have tried to write with REAL quality and inspiration like Bach, (not just 'neo-Bachian pastiche') but failed. If Bach himself came back today, he would create a whole school of composition with people wanting to be his disciples, resulting in a big cultural phenomenon.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> The point is, for his time, he developed the music of old masters he had heard and some of his contemporaries. He achieved great things in the old forms. That's the context. He was a shining star in THAT firmament, but today? Let's not fantasize. We could still appreciate his works objectively for their craftsmanship, yes, amazing, but it would be a fairer comparison than looking back I think.





Luchesi said:


> If for instance, Bach was composing today and composed his works today, what would we think of him?


But you would you say the same for Chopin? _"for his time, Chopin developed the music of old masters he had heard and some of his contemporaries. Chopin achieved great things in the old forms."_ 
Remember, I showed that Chopin's major works such as etudes (op.25 no.1), concertos, ballade (op.52), fantasy impromptu are products of his own time as much as Bach's music is of Bach's own time, -derivative of the works of the fore-running masters, Moscheles, Hummel, Field, J. C. Kessler (the one Chopin dedicated his Op.28 preludes to), etc.

You're not trying to imply that "People today would want to hear neo-Chopinesque music, rather than neo-Bachian music. Artists today achieve way more public success by "ripping off" Chopin than Bach. So Chopin is more relevant to our age than Bach. Bach is too outdated in comparison." Are you? (I'm just asking, because you have a history of saying things like these.) 
How much do you think Yuhki Kuramoto and Yiruma have succeeded in "replicating" Chopin?
Btw, Yuhki Kuramoto didn't officially study at a conservatory, but he can still orchestrate (without other people's help).


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> LOL. Maybe you're the one not facing the facts:


Like mine, opinion...not "fact".



hammeredklavier said:


> There were lots of composers "working with old forms" back then but they still did not consistently inspire for centuries like Bach did. That's what sets Bach apart from the "mediocrities".
> 1. Why do you assume Bach would write exactly the same way he did hundreds of years ago, if he came back today?
> 2. Perhaps the "modernists" failed to inspire to the same extent great composers of the past did, and so classical music today stopped "improving" or "advancing". If Bach came back today, he would give us fresh new vision of inspiration that would last for a century to come, show us glimpse of the future music should head towards.
> 3. People today have tried to write with REAL quality and inspiration like Bach, (not just 'neo-Bachian pastiche') but failed. If Bach himself came back today, he would create a whole school of composition with people wanting to be his disciples, resulting in a big cultural phenomenon.


I don't think so. Bach, who saw the production of music as an act of worship, would be totally alien to today's postmodernist-heavy mindset with its hyper-relativism and denigration of intrinsic value. I think the reason that Bach's music is so great is because fundamentally it is Bach's dialogue with God. The whole of it is essentially a prayer, and almost totally devoid of the *cynicism* which is today's hallmark. The adulation given his work today is the tribute of vice to virtue. Bach would be derided as a Bible-thumping reactionary, the point being that without that Bible-thumping the works of Bach wouldn't have been the same.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> There were lots of composers "working with old forms" back then but they still did not consistently inspire for centuries like Bach did. That's what sets Bach apart from the "mediocrities".
> 1. Why do you assume Bach would write exactly the same way he did hundreds of years ago, if he came back today?
> 2. Perhaps the "modernists" failed to inspire to the same extent great composers of the past did, and so classical music today stopped "improving" or "advancing". (see my Post #169) If Bach came back today, he would give us fresh new vision of inspiration that would last for a century to come, show us glimpse of the future music should head towards.
> 3. People today have tried to write with REAL quality and inspiration like Bach, (not just 'neo-Bachian pastiche') but failed. If Bach himself came back today, he would create a whole school of composition with people wanting to be his disciples, resulting in a big cultural phenomenon.


You're fantasizing, but it's fun.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> But you would you say the same for Chopin? _"for his time, Chopin developed the music of old masters he had heard and some of his contemporaries. Chopin achieved great things in the old forms."_
> Remember, I showed that Chopin's major works such as etudes (op.25 no.1), concertos, ballade (op.52), fantasy impromptu are products of his own time as much as Bach's music is of Bach's own time, -derivative of the works of the fore-running masters, Moscheles, Hummel, Field, J. C. Kessler (the one Chopin dedicated his Op.28 preludes to), etc.
> 
> You're not trying to imply that "People today would want to hear neo-Chopinesque music, rather than neo-Bachian music. Artists today achieve way more public success by "ripping off" Chopin than Bach. So Chopin is more relevant to our age than Bach. Bach is too outdated in comparison." Are you? (I'm just asking, because you have a history of saying things like these.)
> How much do you think Yuhki Kuramoto and Yiruma have succeeded in "replicating" Chopin?
> Btw, Yuhki Kuramoto didn't officially study at a conservatory, but he can still orchestrate (without other people's help).


Chopin's orchestrations are adequate for his youthful orchestral piano works. Perhaps he estimated that a more 'interesting' orchestration would detract from the piano's voice.

I told you I can sound like Yiruma using his bag of pleasing overtones. In fact I enjoy doing it - it's automatic playing. What does that say about that 'style'?


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> If you would allow me to say something more to advocate the 18th-century idiom:
> I accept your argument that Mozart has a certain craftsman-like quality (a.k.a. "powdered wig"), that makes him sound more "predictable" in use of certain phrases and cadences than the later composers you mentioned, but I think the advantage with his way of writing is that you can at least sense when things will end. There are no continual figurations that keep going on and on indefinitely without promising the audience when they'll end. (The worst example of this would be minimalism).
> While Sibelius has his own novel harmonic ideas to induce the kind of late-Romantic feel he has in his orchestral works like Finlandia and Tapiola, I don't quite feel he has a sense of balance like Mozart does.
> Rossini said something to the effect nobody combined Italian melody and Germany harmony like Mozart did. I feel that richness and fluidity of voice-leading is the kind of harmonic appeal you should look for in Mozart. If stuff like 'V7-I' is all you hear in Mozart, (you sound like you do) I think you're "missing the forest for the trees".
> Again, you don't have to agree with me, but this is something I value highly in Mozart.


A demonstration of Mozartian balance and lack of it from Sibleius would be interesting (whatever you mean by it). You often mention voice leading - but though step-wise movement of the parts makes sense - it does not necessarily lead to great works.

I'm not clear how anyone needs a 'sense of when things are going to end' and how predictability has any advantages.

BTW - I wouldn't defend Finlandia.


----------



## annaw

hammeredklavier said:


> There were lots of composers "working with old forms" back then but they still did not consistently inspire for centuries like Bach did. That's what sets Bach apart from the "mediocrities".
> 1. *Why do you assume Bach would write exactly the same way he did hundreds of years ago, if he came back today? *
> 2. Perhaps the "modernists" failed to inspire to the same extent great composers of the past did, and so classical music today stopped "improving" or "advancing". (see my Post #169) If Bach came back today, he would give us fresh new vision of inspiration that would last for a century to come, show us glimpse of the future music should head towards.
> 3. People today have tried to write with REAL quality and inspiration like Bach, (not just 'neo-Bachian pastiche') but failed. If Bach himself came back today, he would create a whole school of composition with people wanting to be his disciples, resulting in a big cultural phenomenon.


Imagine, an atonal Bach is the thing we've been missing all along.


----------



## Jacck

annaw said:


> Imagine, an atonal Bach is the thing we've been missing all along.


Hindemith. I do not know if he is atonal or not, but he was inspired by Bach. For example Ludus Tonalis is full of Bachian counterpoint


----------



## annaw

Jacck said:


> Hindemith. I do not know if he is atonal or not, but he was inspired by Bach. For example Ludus Tonalis is full of Bachian counterpoint


Hmm, that's interesting! I should definitely check it out.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> I'm not clear how anyone needs a 'sense of when things are going to end' and how predictability has any advantages.


I don't know about anyone else, but I do. I tend to appreciate aesthetic idioms where there's actually a solid sense of "proper planning", rather than "I feel like writing a piece right now, I'm not quite sure where I'm going, but I'll just keep moving to where my feeling leads to". I'm not sure if this is a good analogy, but here's a video that discusses the good things about classical art (visual) and I think the same reasoning can apply to music.
In the 18th century idiom, there is a sense of varying rhythm and keeping proportion by limiting number of bars of 'repeated figures' to a minimum every time (which adds a sense of contrast to the fluid voice leading). A critical element in creating "works of art" in my view. For example, I feel this is so "right" with jam-packed ideas of contrast/transition/development:

4:34 Patrem omnipotentem 
5:39 Et incarnatus est
6:45 Et resurrexit
7:31 Et in spiritum sanctum 
7:51 Et unam sanctam
8:20 Et vitam venturi


----------



## hammeredklavier

annaw said:


> Imagine, an atonal Bach is the thing we've been missing all along.


I'm thinking more along the lines of:


----------



## EdwardBast

consuono said:


> Like mine, opinion...not "fact".
> 
> I don't think so. Bach, who saw the production of music as an act of worship, would be totally alien to today's postmodernist-heavy mindset with its hyper-relativism and denigration of intrinsic value. I think the reason that Bach's music is so great is because fundamentally it is Bach's dialogue with God. The whole of it is essentially a prayer, and almost totally devoid of the *cynicism* which is today's hallmark. The adulation given his work today is the tribute of vice to virtue. Bach would be derided as a Bible-thumping reactionary, the point being that without that Bible-thumping the works of Bach wouldn't have been the same.


Oh geez. If it were a more lucrative and stable gig, Bach would gladly have composed sonatas, concertos, fugues and other secular works rather than cantatas, just as he did at Cöthen.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

annaw said:


> Imagine, an atonal Bach is the thing we've been missing all along.


This never fails to astonish me.


----------



## Room2201974

annaw said:


> Imagine, an atonal Bach is the thing we've been missing all along.


I pointed out earlier in this thread that if any of the Big Three were serialists there wouldn't be enough listeners of their music, hence they would not be elevated to such lofty heights.

My comp prof's little joke decades ago.....

"Do you know what the most important timing for a composer is?"

"Historical!"


----------



## hammeredklavier

Room2201974 said:


> I pointed out earlier in this thread that if any of the Big Three were serialists there wouldn't be enough listeners of their music, hence they would not be elevated to such lofty heights.
> My comp prof's little joke decades ago.....
> "Do you know what the most important timing for a composer is?"
> "Historical!"


This might have more to do with the question " The hen or the egg; which came first?" -The golden age of classical composition (except film scores and stuff) ended because there aren't great composers any more? Or there aren't great composers any more because the golden age of classical music composition ended?
I sometimes listen to Leopold Mozart's catholic music; I find certain moments quite impressive for an obscure composer. If Wolfgang grew up in a different environment, or had a less competent father, he might have become a different composer from the one we know. Is talent natural or learned? How much does it play in artistic activity? Nobody knows for sure.






I read that there were "serialist techniques" in the 18th century, by Bach and Mozart (not necessarily "atonal". The B minor fugue from WTC I, or piano concerto K491 1st movement). _"Hans Keller claims that Schoenberg was aware of this serial practice in the classical period and that "Schoenberg repressed his knowledge of classical serialism because it would have injured his narcissism.""_
I like to think think that a lot of modern composers wanted to be "radical" in hopes they would go down in history like the past masters, (and the modern society pushes them to be that way), but they didn't have the genius of Beethoven, for example. This resulted in the reckless avant-gardism of the 20th century. (I still think a lot of Stockhausen is only suitable as music for horror film.)
Today, not just classical music, but in all fields of art in general; there seems to be a certain lack of inspiration.


----------



## pianozach

mmsbls said:


> This is a tough crowd. My ratings for the 5 works suggested for the 3 composers would be much higher. Actually rather than give my ratings I used the TC Top Recommended Lists . Works in the top 10 of the appropriate category receive a 6. Works in the top 30 of the appropriate category receive a 5. Works in the top 100 receive a 4.
> 
> I made one change substituting St Matthew's Passion for Toccata and Fugue in D Minor.
> 
> Bach
> 
> The Well Tempered Klavier - 6
> Brandenburg Concertos - 6
> St Matthew Passion - 6
> Mass in B Minor - 6
> Goldberg Variations - 6
> Total - 30
> 
> Mozart
> 
> The Marriage of Figaro - 6
> Requiem - 6
> Symphony No. 41 "Jupiter" - 6
> Clarinet Concerto - 6
> The Magic Flute - 6
> Total - 30
> 
> Beethoven
> 
> Symphony No. 3 "Eroica" - 6
> Fidelio - 4
> Symphony No. 9 "Choral" - 6
> Violin Concerto - 6
> Symphony No. 5 - 6
> Total - 28
> 
> Personally I would not differentiate between a score of 28 or 30. One could substitute Beethoven's Piano Concerto No. 5 or No. 4, string quartet 13 with Grosse Fuge, or Piano Sonata No. 29 and 32 to bring Beethoven up to 30. They are all such wonderful composers who have written such an astounding amount of glorious, interesting, and moving works.


Exactly.

Frankly, I didn't imagine my post of Best 5 of the Big Three would get any traction at all.

I spent a moderate amount of time trying to find a consensus (on the internet) of the Best of the Best, and my final list was inherently subjective. Actually, I had started by trying to simply list the ONE Top Work from each of the three, and found that to be impossible.

And I could have easily have made a TOP TEN for each. There are so many great works by these guys.

So, yeah, I could have swapped out several on my list for other equally worthy works.

I am surprised that these works, generally considered to be, by many, on the list of "Must Hear" works by these Masters, are getting runner-up status by many here.

For those that think these are not their best works, feel free to make a list of Five Better Works by these three


----------



## BachIsBest

janxharris said:


> A demonstration of Mozartian balance and lack of it from Sibleius would be interesting (whatever you mean by it). You often mention voice leading - but though step-wise movement of the parts makes sense - it does not necessarily lead to great works.
> 
> I'm not clear how anyone needs a 'sense of when things are going to end' and how predictability has any advantages.
> 
> BTW - I wouldn't defend Finlandia.


Of course, predictability has advantages. I've never heard anyone who likes listening to notes that are totally randomly placed.


----------



## consuono

EdwardBast said:


> Oh geez. If it were a more lucrative and stable gig, Bach would gladly have composed sonatas, concertos, fugues and other secular works rather than cantatas, just as he did at Cöthen.


Recommended reading:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/arts/music/bach-religion-music.html


annaw said:


> Imagine, an atonal Bach is the thing we've been missing all along.


In that direction:


----------



## Ethereality

hammeredklavier said:


>


It's from the frustration that we made great works but they were treated in the shadow of classic composers.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

consuono said:


> In that direction:


This may be my favorite fugue in the whole WTC. Absolutely stunning.


----------



## consuono

Allegro Con Brio said:


> This may be my favorite fugue in the whole WTC. Absolutely stunning.


 It certainly is. It's *one* of my favorites, but I think no. 9 in E major from Book II is just unearthly.


----------



## janxharris

BachIsBest said:


> Of course, predictability has advantages. I've never heard anyone who likes listening to notes that are totally randomly placed.


Aleatory music is used by some composers but I can only imagine it would work in small doses. Regarding 18th century predictability - this is quite an extreme example. It seems most aren't bothered by it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> Aleatory music is used by some composers but I can only imagine it would work in small doses. Regarding 18th century predictability - this is quite an extreme example. It seems most aren't bothered by it.










Again, that's the craftsman-like quality of the 18th century masters, some people find it unappealing or restrictive, but I don't really. Because the wig-wearers still show high levels of craftsmanship; and they still achieve so much within the restraints of form. 
Saint-Saens: "'What gives Sebastian Bach and Mozart a place apart is that these two great expressive composers never sacrificed form to expression. As high as their expresson may soar, their musical form remains supreme and all-sufficient."
I once discussed Mozart's extroardinary sense in putting "stock phrases" in the proper context, in individual movements of his Requiem: <Cyclic form in classical works>
Credo of Missa brevis in F major K192 is entirely different music built on the same old "K551 symphony motif" C-D-F-E, and the "requiem luthern hymn motif" D-C#-D-E-F (which had been used by Mozart's predecessors).

[ 8:03 ]





Since you asked me how Sibelius lacks the sense of balance and clarity of Mozart - Look how Sibelius has "proto-minimalist" figures such as 



. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I can see that Sibelius is exploring "exotic late-Romantic expressions" (or whatever you want to call them) in this passage. Chopin, for example, would often pound the same bass rhythm constantly from start to finish in a piece (which I personally don't find appealing) - Prelude Op.28 No.24 and Berceuse Op.57 or a movement made up entirely of parallel octaves such as the finale of Op.35. 
But stuff like these leaves me cold. I'm far less bothered by the proportioned "stock-phrase-like" passages of the 18th century masters frequently ending with 'V7-I'. They strike me as having a clearer, stronger sense of direction and purpose - like a public speaker who says things concisely and clearly rather than what I perceive as 'rambling'. But I also respect your preference in preferring later music over the 18th century.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> In that direction:


It is speculated this might be the reason Mozart wrote 




as homage to the Leipzig master during his visit to the city in 1789.


----------



## DenizOzaydin

I voted for Bach, who is the creator of pure music.


----------



## Xisten267

DenizOzaydin said:


> I voted for Bach, who is the creator of pure music.


Hi there, welcome to the forums! :tiphat:

What do you mean by "pure music"?


----------



## flamencosketches

hammeredklavier said:


> "proto-minimalist"


This is your favorite phrase. It seems you don't know what either of these words means.


----------



## BachIsBest

janxharris said:


> Aleatory music is used by some composers but I can only imagine it would work in small doses. Regarding 18th century predictability - this is quite an extreme example. It seems most aren't bothered by it.


If you're agreeing that total unpredictability is, in general, not desirable, then why are did you claim predictability is always undesirable?

All composers must strike a balance between meeting standards and defying them. If they choose not to adhere to any standards then the music ceases to have any structure or interest.


----------



## janxharris

BachIsBest said:


> If you're agreeing that total unpredictability is, in general, not desirable, then why are did you claim predictability is always undesirable?
> 
> All composers must strike a balance between meeting standards and defying them. If they choose not to adhere to any standards then the music ceases to have any structure or interest.


I was referring specifically to the 18th century kind where, for me, composers partook of an almost identical harmonic flavour.


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> I was referring specifically to the 18th century kind where, for me, composers partook of an almost identical harmonic flavour.


The "harmonic flavor" of Handel's Chaconne and 62 Variations is almost identical to the "harmonic flavor" of Bach's Goldberg Variations. Those are two very different works.

Maybe you just prefer modern music. There's no arguing with tastes.


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> The "harmonic flavor" of Handel's Chaconne and 62 Variations is almost identical to the "harmonic flavor" of Bach's Goldberg Variations. Those are two very different works.
> 
> Maybe you just prefer modern music. There's no arguing with tastes.


Yes - no arguing with taste. I wasn't rubbishing all 18th Century music as my earlier comments made clear.


----------



## hammeredklavier

flamencosketches said:


> This is your favorite phrase. It seems you don't know what either of these words means.


I don't see what's wrong with the expression in this case. I thought Sibelius was a de-facto proto-minimalist.

"Haunting modal melodies in obsessively reiterative patterns (adumbrating minimalist and post-minimalist techniques of the 1970s and 80s) are threaded through intense, dark textures and uneasy, jolting rhythmic arrangements, creating within just a few seconds a sound-world unmistakably Finnish and Sibelian." { The case for the music of Jean Sibelius }


----------



## hammeredklavier

*[ 0:01 ~ 2:38 ]*





*[ 4:48 ~ 6:52 ]*


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't see what's wrong with the expression in this case. I thought Sibelius was a de-facto proto-minimalist.
> 
> "Haunting modal melodies in obsessively reiterative patterns (adumbrating minimalist and post-minimalist techniques of the 1970s and 80s) are threaded through intense, dark textures and uneasy, jolting rhythmic arrangements, creating within just a few seconds a sound-world unmistakably Finnish and Sibelian." { The case for the music of Jean Sibelius }


Minimalism doesn't just refer to repeated rhythmic patterns - Sibelius's harmony is far from minimal.

Have you tried the 7th symphony? - Sibelius himself described it in classical terms:

"The entire seventh symphony has very much in common with antiquity, especially Greece. The trombones are handled like the musical instruments of antiquity."

Perhaps you aren't aware of how organic his later works are?


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> Minimalism doesn't just refer to repeated rhythmic patterns - Sibelius's harmony is far from minimal.


I can see that Sibelius also has his strength in use of harmony. (It's not like Philip Glass, I can see that).



janxharris said:


> I was referring specifically to the 18th century kind where, for me, composers partook of an almost identical harmonic flavour.


Refer back to my post about Bach's use of harmony (post #610).
And since Mozart's quintet K516 was discussed recently in this thread, I'll point to one section in the finale where there is an expressive use of dissonance. Look right where the cello plays strong beat on B and the 2nd viola also hammers B and is marked mezzoforte (30:04). I think the build-up of dissonance in a cluster of "minor and major seconds" with the upper voices ( A , C ) to that point, and the resolution are masterful.
*[ 30:04 ~ 30:10 ]*




If you look in depth, you'll see that these masters of 'common practice' also have their individuality in use of harmony, like Sibelius, Chopin.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> I can see that Sibelius also has his strength in use of harmony. (It's not like Philip Glass, I can see that).
> 
> Refer back to my post about Bach's use of harmony (post #610).
> And since Mozart's quintet K516 was discussed recently in this thread, I'll point to one section in the finale where there is an expressive use of dissonance. Look right where the cello plays strong beat on B and the 2nd viola also hammers B and is marked mezzoforte (30:04). I think the build-up of dissonance in a cluster of "minor and major seconds" with the upper voices ( A , C ) to that point, and the resolution are masterful.
> *[ 30:04 ~ 30:10 ]*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you look in depth, you'll see that these masters of 'common practice' also have their individuality in use of harmony, like Sibelius, Chopin.


I'll have a look at the Bach but your Mozart minor and major seconds are passing notes - what's so interesting?


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> I'll have a look at the Bach but your Mozart minor and major seconds are passing notes - what's so interesting?


I find a lot of expressive creativity in stuff like them. (It's fine if you don't like them)

*3:00 ~ 3:24
5:39 ~ 6:41
7:30 ~ 7:50
13:13 ~ 15:27*


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> Refer back to my post about Bach's use of harmony.


I've always liked 'Wur setzen uns mit Tränen nieder' and the double violin concerto.


----------



## Euler

janxharris said:


> I'll have a look at the Bach but your Mozart minor and major seconds are passing notes - what's so interesting?


Here's a less subtle example of Mozart's colourful language, what do you think?


----------



## sstucky

Bach by a mile. I don’t even put the other two in place 2 and 3.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Neoclassicism
"...showed an affinity for the key of C major. Many pages of neoclassic music were prime examples of the term "white music" coined during this period. The composers of the Neoclassic period focused their attention on elegance of style and purity of taste. In *exalting the how over the what*, they were led to the classical virtues of order, discipline, balance, and proportion. ..."

I like the expression: *"exalting the how over the what"*. I think it perfectly describes what's happening in this build-up of tension (7:18 ~ 10:04). It always ends up in the "same" cadences, the tonic-dominant relationships (the "what"), but the way it's done (the "how") is what makes the stuff interesting.
*[ 7:18 ~ 10:04 ]*




Neoclassical music doesn't use the same archaic devices, but it essentially involves the same philosophy.


----------



## janxharris

Euler said:


> Here's a less subtle example of Mozart's colourful language, what do you think?


Thanks Euler - it's not for me.


----------



## mrdoc

LvB is the undisputed winner, and no arguments,,,


----------



## EdwardBast

mrdoc said:


> LvB is the undisputed winner, and no arguments,,,


… of a popularity contest. So what?


----------



## Strange Magic

EdwardBast said:


> … of a popularity contest. So what?


Actually, that was the initial question: Who is your favorite? (of the three composers offered)?


----------



## EdwardBast

Strange Magic said:


> Actually, that was the initial question: Who is your favorite? (of the three composers offered)?


My point is that gloating about ones favorite winning a popularity contest is weird.


----------



## mrdoc

EdwardBast said:


> My point is that gloating about ones favorite winning a popularity contest is weird.


Strange Magic made the point very concisely so enough said.


----------



## Luchesi

EdwardBast said:


> My point is that gloating about ones favorite winning a popularity contest is weird.


It's not fair to say Glenn Gould gloated that Orlando Gibbons was his 'favorite' (for composing with a specific intention, since forever lost?).


----------



## janxharris

Any more voters out there?


----------



## ORigel

Beethoven for his late works
Bach
.
.
Mozart for his top works


----------



## DeckHand

There is Mozart ...
and everybody else.


----------



## Bulldog

EdwardBast said:


> My point is that gloating about ones favorite winning a popularity contest is weird.


I think it's weird that you consider it weird.


----------



## Xisten267

Nice to see Beethoven winning. I voted for him anyway, even if it was a difficult choice as Mozart and Bach are also awesome composers.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Beethoven without a doubt. I have very little time for Bach or Mozart.


----------



## BachIsBest

Neo Romanza said:


> Beethoven without a doubt. I have very little time for Bach or Mozart.


You must be a man very short on time!


----------



## Bruckner Anton

Bach Period......


----------



## Animal the Drummer

DeckHand said:


> There is Mozart ...
> and everybody else.


This for me. Love the others but could do without them if I absolutely had to. Without Mozart I'd get withdrawal symptoms.


----------



## Nedeslusire

Beethoven here, the daemon composer. He has all the traits of Romanticism that I adore.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Beethoven





......


----------



## Phil loves classical

It's between what I see their strengths. Mozart's is the only vocal music I'd ever listen to. Beethoven's solo piano music. With Bach I can pick and choose movements (I think I'll make my own compilation today), which each can stand on its own.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Neo Romanza said:


> Beethoven without a doubt. I have very little time for Bach or Mozart.


Beethoven is my man and that may be largely because he was pushing the envelope past the classical period. Bach didn't have any symphonies or operas. Mozart's operas don't appeal to me, nor did their subject matter appeal to Beethoven for the most part. So i basically don't spend time with Mozart or Bach. Rather I move out from Beethoven to Mendelssohn, Schubert, and Saint-Saens for more symphonic works. For opera I am all over the place, including Beethoven's Fidelio, though it is not my favorite opera.


----------



## Forster

Captainnumber36 said:


> As it is generally accepted, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, are the big three. Of the three, who do you love most?


"Love" is such an emotive term (now there's a surprise!)

I have more Beethoven in my (comparatively modest) collection than any other classical composer, so it would be fair to say that I am quite fond of his works.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

I keep a record of my favourite pieces, pieces that I think are the greatest pieces (I also have a tier 2 list). In my "Greatest pieces" list there are only 10 pieces. 10 pieces from 4 composers.

4 from Mozart
3 from Wagner
2 from Bach 
1 from Beethoven

so that would be my order of the big three but obviously Wagner makes it a big 4.


----------



## Botschaft

Of the big three Brahms is my favorite.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Botschaft said:


> Of the big three Brahms is my favorite.


what are your 5 favourite pieces form Brahms? we can see if they can compare with the best of the big 3.


----------



## Botschaft

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> what are your 5 favourite pieces form Brahms? we can see if they can compare with the best of the big 3.


Symphony no. 4
Symphony no. 3
A German Requiem
Song of Destiny
String Sextet no. 2


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Botschaft said:


> Symphony no. 4
> Symphony no. 3
> A German Requiem
> Song of Destiny
> String Sextet no. 2


what do you think? Better then what the big 3 wrote?

Brahms symphonies better than Beethoven's?
Brahms requiem better then Mozart's?
Brahms string sextet no.2 better than Beethoven's quartets?
Song of destiny better than Bach's cantatas?


----------



## Art Rock

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> what do you think? Better then what the big 3 wrote?
> 
> Brahms symphonies better than Beethoven's?
> Brahms requiem better then Mozart's?
> Brahms string sextet no.2 better than Beethoven's quartets?
> Song of destiny better than Bach's cantatas?


I'm not Botschaft, but for me: yes, yes, yes, no.


----------



## Botschaft

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> what do you think? Better then what the big 3 wrote?


Let's see:



> Brahms symphonies better than Beethoven's?


I think all of Beethoven's symphonies are great, but I have come to somewhat prefer Brahms'.



> Brahms requiem better then Mozart's?


As a complete whole I think yes.



> Brahms string sextet no.2 better than Beethoven's quartets?


Better than some, inferior to none.



> Song of destiny better than Bach's cantatas?


As above.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

what do you think? Better then what the big 3 wrote?

Brahms symphonies better than Beethoven's?
No composer wrote better symphonies than Beethoven. Brahms and Sibelius are in the same tier, though
Brahms requiem better then Mozart's?
No
Brahms string sextet no.2 better than Beethoven's quartets?
Better than all of them? Not even close.
Song of destiny better than Bach's cantatas?
I don't care for either.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Beethoven is my favourite of the big three with Bach a close second. Mozart is in my top 15.


----------



## Luchesi

For me, the Brahms First Piano Concerto is better than any other. I never expected to come to that conclusion. IMO it's more spiritual than Chopin's or Mozart's (but it's a close call). It's weightier than theirs and Beethoven's too (and somewhat somber). It's atmospheric in places which gives it more of a universal weightiness. I used to think these opinions were just linked to the mood I was in, but no longer. When I hear it on the radio or online, I stop and listen again. It's something about his ambition and his youthful zeal, a serious young man. He had his faults, but different from the faults of Mozart or LvB or Chopin.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> what do you think? Better then what the big 3 wrote?
> 
> Brahms symphonies better than Beethoven's?
> Brahms requiem better then Mozart's?
> Brahms string sextet no.2 better than Beethoven's quartets?
> Song of destiny better than Bach's cantatas?


Brahms symphonies better than Beethoven's?

No, objectively, but subjectively, yes. I'll always prefer Brahms to Beethoven.

Brahms requiem better than Mozart's?

Absolutely! This may be an unpopular opinion, but I don't care.

Brahms string sextet no.2 better than Beethoven's quartets?

No. The later Beethoven SQs in particular are sublime.

Song of destiny better than Bach's cantatas?

For me, yes, but this is only because I have never been interested in Bach's cantatas.


----------



## Bulldog

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> what do you think? Better then what the big 3 wrote?
> 
> Brahms symphonies better than Beethoven's?
> Brahms requiem better then Mozart's?
> Brahms string sextet no.2 better than Beethoven's quartets?
> Song of destiny better than Bach's cantatas?


No - No - No - Huge No.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Of these three, Mozart's music gives me the most enjoyment.


----------



## SanAntone

I always thought the Big Three were Bach, Beethoven and Brahms.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> I always thought the Big Three were Bach, Beethoven and Brahms.


No, those were the Big Bees!


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Luchesi said:


> For me, the Brahms First Piano Concerto is better than any other


No offence but I find this statement completely perplexing


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

SanAntone said:


> I always thought the Big Three were Bach, Beethoven and Brahms.


only if by big you mean their weight


----------



## Kreisler jr

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> only if by big you mean their weight


By weight Handel wins easily, then probably Reger or Domenico Scarlatti. Milhaud and Villa Lobos also look portly but I don't know how tall they were. Brahms was getting fat later on, but not tall, so the weight overall would not have been so large.

And Brahms d minor is a candidate for the most weighty piano concerto, unless you go beyond standard repertoire to Reger or Busoni.


----------



## 59540

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> ...
> Song of destiny better than Bach's cantatas?


There's nothing better than Bach's cantatas.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I pick Monstera deliciosa


----------



## Luchesi

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> No offence but I find this statement completely perplexing


Which one's better when you consider all the aspects? Brahms could survey the field with the advantages of perspective. I think he studied older works more than Mozart or LvB. Chopin was very young when he completed his two.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> No offence but I find this statement completely perplexing


You'll eventually get used to Luchesi's way of talking


----------



## JohnP

Schnabel said, “Mozart is a garden, Schubert is a forest in light and shade, but Beethoven is a mountain range.” I'd add that Bach is the world. But I voted for Beethoven simply because I listen to him most often. I enjoy Bach in smaller doses, since I can seldom get my head around him for long periods. I admire Mozart for his songful grace and his purity. (I'm not a great opera fan, so I'm talking about his concerted works, chamber music, etc. I do appreciate that his love of vocal music is to be heard in most of his output.)


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> You'll eventually get used to Luchesi's way of talking


Yes, I promised myself that I wouldn't get preachy in my later years, but it's happened anyway. So I think it's unavoidable as you age. Some issue arises that you thought about 30 or 40 years ago and you're so shocked that you have to say something...


----------



## Musicaterina

I can't decide between Bach and Beethoven.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Luchesi said:


> Which one's better when you consider all the aspects? Brahms could survey the field with the advantages of perspective. I think he studied older works more than Mozart or LvB. Chopin was very young when he completed his two.


If were rating PC's it goes Mozart then Beethoven. Brahms is somewhere down the list.


----------



## janxharris

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> If were rating PC's it goes Mozart then Beethoven. Brahms is somewhere down the list.


If _you_ are rating.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

janxharris said:


> If _you_ are rating.


...........and you?


----------



## janxharris

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> ...........and you?


I'm not keen on any of Mozart or Beethoven's Piano Concerto's with the exception of the slow movement of the 23rd and bits of the Emporer. I do like Brahms' 2nd and Liszt's 1st.


----------



## Luchesi

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> If were rating PC's it goes Mozart then Beethoven. Brahms is somewhere down the list.


20 years ago I would have agreed with that and it would've been so obvious to me that I wouldn't even have expanded upon it in a reply. I wonder if my brain is changing that much? Does that happen?

The Brahms is better. He had the decades of time since Mozart. If it wasn't better for our modern ears why would he have expended all the effort? I don't think he was clueless about what's better. I mean, the orchestra, the harmonies, the flexible form, the needs (constrained ambiguity) of his well-informed audience members, and on into the future.

At times, wouldn't I rather listen to a heavenly Mozart concerto or a stirring Beethoven concerto? Of course.


----------



## SixFootScowl

janxharris said:


> I'm not keen on any of Mozart or Beethoven's Piano Concerto's with the exception of the slow movement of the 23rd and bits of the Emporer. I do like Brahms' 2nd and Liszt's 1st.


Maybe I have not given Beethoven's concertos a chance but I really like Rachmaninoff's concertos.


----------



## Bulldog

SixFootScowl said:


> Maybe I have not given Beethoven's concertos a chance but I really like Rachmaninoff's concertos.


I'm a big fan of Rachmaninov's 3rd piano concerto, but I can live without the others.


----------



## janxharris

SixFootScowl said:


> Maybe I have not given Beethoven's concertos a chance but I really like Rachmaninoff's concertos.


There's some great harmony and melody in his work but I do personally find it overly sentimental (though I know not everyone perceives it that way).


----------



## Haydn70

The Three B's--Bach, Beethoven and Brahms--were mentioned.

Bugs Bunny dug them too:


----------



## Xisten267

My taste today: Beethoven comes first, followed very, very closely by J.S. Bach (and Wagner). Then Mozart.


----------



## haziz

You got the personnel of the big three wrong!

The big three are Beethoven, Tchaikovsky and Dvořák.


----------



## perempe

Voted for Mozart because of his Symphony No. 40's opening melody.


----------



## Nipper

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Bach


----------



## EvaBaron

haziz said:


> You got the personnel of the big three wrong!
> 
> The big three are Beethoven, Tchaikovsky and Dvořák.


Those are also great composers but we're talking about general consensus


----------



## SanAntone

My favorite Big Three are *Haydn*, *Mozart*, and *Beethoven*. Really it's my Big Four with *Schubert*. I wonder if there is another 75 year period (1760-1830) with four such luminaries, all centered around the same city - Vienna?


----------



## Judas Priest Fan

Bach does nothing for me; I like Mozart a lot, but I like Beethoven even more


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> My favorite Big Three are *Haydn*, *Mozart*, and *Beethoven*. Really it's my Big Four with *Schubert*. I wonder if there is another 75 year period (1760-1830) with four such luminaries, all centered around the same city - Vienna?





Judas Priest Fan said:


> Bach does nothing for me; I like Mozart a lot, but I like Beethoven even more


No JSB? He didn't leave us much drama-filled music. Many people seek such feelings from CM, but they came after Bach?
Bach would have said it was vulgar (crass). I think I read an opinion like that somewhere.


----------



## Red Terror

Bach for me, but I also love the other two … and Brahms.


----------



## Rogerx

Although this is another one almost un answerable I voted Mozart in the end.


----------



## hoodjem

Tough choice between Beethoven and Bach. They are one and two in my life.
I voted for Beethoven.


Mozart is not even close. Indeed, I change the station if they play his music.
Listening to Mozart's music is like watching a high school performance attempting a ballet of limping, injured fairies in gauzy powder-puff tutus.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hoodjem said:


> Mozart is not even close. Indeed, I change the station if they play his music. Listening to Mozart's music is like watching a high school performance attempting a ballet of limping, injured fairies in gauzy powder-puff tutus.


So simultaneously, you revived two Bach-Mozart-Beethoven poll threads in order to continue on with your daily rants on Mozart. Hahaha.


hoodjem said:


> Not Mozart. Too facile, twee, and simpering. Too lovely in a shallow, affected way.


talkclassical.com/threads/so-i-dont-like-the-brahms-symphonies.12373/page-6#post-2333418


----------



## EvaBaron

I’d have to go with Beethoven. His violin concerto, violin sonatas, symphonies, piano concertos, piano sonatas remain almost unmatched except for maybe Mozart with the piano concertos


----------



## Luchesi

Years apart in our minds?

I think Beethoven was only 16 when Mozart's Cm K491 was first performed. 

Mozart (at age 26) said CPE Bach is the father and we are the children.


----------



## mollig

The older I get the more I appreciate Bach's music, but my love of his work is primarily restricted to the keyboard masterpieces (Goldbergs, WTC) and the cello suites. I know the masses are masterpieces too, but I need a very special mood to get past the religious crap and just enjoy the music. And he also has a lot of stuff that can sound like complex but slightly tedious musical exercises that go on and on and on. In a word, when he's great he's perhaps unbeatable, but lots of stuff is (for me) far from great.

So I'm with the majority: Beethoven is number 1. I don't like the symphonies as much as I used to, but the piano sonatas and some of the string quartets have filled that gap. As much spiritual depth as Bach but with more drama and human emotion.

As for Mozart, I'm another who just doesn't get it. Tinkly, saccharine, pretty but superficial music for stuffy aristocrats in wigs. I'm sure the fault lies with me, but basically apart from the Requiem I connect with none of it.


----------



## Yabetz

My "Big Three" are Bach, Beethoven and Wagner. While Bach reigns supreme, I wouldn't want to do without any.


----------



## Xisten267

Yabetz said:


> My "Big Three" are Bach, Beethoven and Wagner. While Bach reigns supreme, I wouldn't want to do without any.


They are my "Big Three" as well, closely followed by Mozart and Brahms. I slightly prefer Beethoven over the others, but I too wouldn't want to do without any of them.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Lately I've been most affected by Beethoven's music, then Bach. Sadly Mozart rarely gets me involved anymore, even though he was my first musical love.


----------



## Xisten267

I firmly hold the opinion that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are the greatest composers ever, together with Wagner and Brahms. I don't think that any of the three is underrated in classical music circles, but I wish that more people outside of said circles were enthusiastic of their music.


----------



## premont

Judas Priest Fan said:


> Bach does nothing for me; I like Mozart a lot, but I like Beethoven even more


Mozart does nothing for me (or at least very little); I like Beethoven a lot, but I like Bach even more.

Well, personal preferences are difficult to argue against.


----------

