# Some consequences of greatness



## Guest (Dec 19, 2012)

A common consequence is a plethora of "greatest" threads. The greatest symphonies. The greatest works of the twentieth century. And the question threads, "Who's the twenty-first century's Beethoven?" "Where are the great composers of the present day?"--attempts by novices to get the large world of "classical" whittled down to a managable size or attempts to denigrate more recent musics by showing how much better older music is.

What these all have in common is exclusion. Only the best need apply. And who decides what's "best?" Abstractions like "time" or like "consensus," which come to the same thing, really. A number of people agreeing on the worth of a given piece.

Not everyone agrees. "Why do people consider Beethoven's 9th Symphony one of the greatest compositions ever?" is the title of a recent thread. But the notion of greatness is left intact. In the OP is this assertion: "There are plenty of better works out there." The notion of greatness encourages a kind of mentality more appropriate for popularity contests, with a handful of famous works pitted against each other, often from different eras--never mind that Stockhausen's _Klavierstücke X_ is attempting very different things from Beethoven's opus 111.

Greatness encourages simplification. "95% of all art in any era is crap." All the complexity and variety of the real world collapsed into the dichotomy "great" and "crap." And out of that simplicity comes pointless antagonism: "Beethoven's ninth is the greatest symphony." "No, it isn't."

And if greatness means "consensus," then a recent work, which cannot have garnered as much consensus as an older work, can be invalidated simply for being new. The challenge I've seen over and over again, to point to a recent work that's as great as Bach's _B Minor Mass_ or Mozart's _Marriage of Figaro_ or Wagner's _Parsifal,_ for instance, is simply nonsense. The playing field is anything but level.

And, come to think of it, even comparing any of those three to each other is pretty good nonsense as well. They are different. They attempt different things. And different listeners can have good, bad, or indifferent responses to any of them. Greatness pretends that differences are not important, that individual responses are not as valid as group responses. Worst of all, greatness encourages ranking, as if listening to a piece of music for itself is not as valid an activity as comparing pieces to each other and judging them as more or less valuable.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Nonetheless, it gives newcomers a better chance to enjoy the music that is popular. Playing the percentages.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

OK, but let´s try the other way round:

1) what is the greatest work - Mozart´s Minuet K1 for piano, 



- or his "Magic Flute" ?

2) Alternatively, comparing music in the same name category, what is the greatest work: 
a Sammartini Symphony 



- versus Mahler´s 9th ?

3) Or music from the same age within the same category:
Kalkbrenner: Sonate Brilliante 



versus Liszt´s piano sonata ?

So would any of these questions - or even the attempt to define values - be irrelevant ?


----------



## Donizetti (Dec 3, 2012)

some guy said:


> And if greatness means "consensus," then a recent work, which cannot have garnered as much consensus as an older work, can be invalidated simply for being new.


If the work is sufficiently 'great' the consensus will be instantaneous; the audience at the first night of the Ninth in May 1824 knew they were listening to something special.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

It's interesting that many of the posts assailing voting games and "greatest" discussions come from fans of more modern music. They're right, of course, that these are merely popularity contests and have no significance beyond exploring what people involved in them like. But I suspect they'd be happier with the games and the discussions if they were happier with the outcomes.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Nonetheless, it gives newcomers a better chance to enjoy the music that is popular. Playing the percentages.


Who gives a crap what is popular o3o listen to stuff _you_ enjoy, whether it is popular or not.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Who gives a crap what is popular o3o listen to stuff _you_ enjoy, whether it is popular or not.


But people don't know what they'll enjoy until they've heard it, and it's not practical to listen to everything. So the lists give them starting points.

Also, it's fun to argue about preferences (up to a point).


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> Who gives a crap what is popular o3o listen to stuff _you_ enjoy, whether it is popular or not.


Sure. And when you run out of works by Pizzarella that you ain't heard too many times, you can just go to bed and stay there. You gotta listen to a lot of different stuff, some of which you ain't going to like the first time you hear it - or maybe the _nth_ time either, you don't know... .

[Simulation of _other guy_.]


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> It's interesting that many of the posts assailing voting games and "greatest" discussions come from fans of more modern music. They're right, of course, that these are merely popularity contests and have no significance beyond exploring what people involved in them like. But I suspect they'd be happier with the games and the discussions if they were happier with the outcomes.


Well, you didn't speak for me there  Those more interested in contemporary anything have to become conscious of how to discern / how they discern what is 'good' or 'interesting.' There is no stamp of general approval, the contemporary not having yet been 'sorted out' by consensus. So, the individual has to be happy with their own faculties -- faculties they have had to become first conscious of and then thought about -- in order to sort for themselves from what is current.

That means a person has to be particularly unconcerned about 'what others think they think.' All they have to be concerned with is how they think, and how to think of the music under evaluation.

[Like bravery, I don't know if making up your own mind requires 'just guts' or involves instead a complete lack of caring about where the herd is grazing.]

I think you are far off the mark that those modern fans would be, "happier with the games and the discussions if they were happier with the outcomes." I'd be much happier if people were less concerned about 'being part of the group who agree upon the consensus' and learned to discern for themselves. I don't want games: I do like discussion. (I find it a very lame excuse for the existence of polls that they 'promote discussion.' A well-stated post promotes discussion, not a poll.)

I do think all those 'best / bestest' pursuits as spoken of in the OP are mind-dulling and only lead the participant believer to a state of desensitization -- it focuses upon one to three 'big works' of a composer and ignores the majority of that composer's body of works. I find the presence of those polls on this forum and other fora , and the '_____ greatest?' quests, makes the site dull, is / are dulling. They desensitize the reader to finding other items of far greater interest on the site -- like very loud and prominent trees obscuring the otherwise interesting forest.

It is a rather futile game, 'best.' The worst part is how the game can completely avert the attention of those who play it from the more important matter of the actual music.

"The best" becomes a glittery icon, a trophy, diverts people from actually listening to music, including 'the best' music. (Grieg's Piano Concerto is not the "best of Grieg.")

Without the polls, and 'the best / bestest' posts, people might just have to come up with more specific skills in talking about music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Nonetheless, it gives newcomers a better chance to enjoy the music that is popular. Playing the percentages.


There are plenty of books with more than adequate lists of such works, all the work already done. There is no need for more from polls or the collective compilation of a sites membership -- those are exercises in an ersatz illusion of 'participation that can make a difference.' Yes, one should learn to discern, there is quality and lesser quality, a harsh reality, but "Bah" on both 'the greatest' and polls compiling lists of same, and "Up with" an individual cultivating their own sense of discernment.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Well, you didn't speak for me there  Those more interested in contemporary anything have to become conscious of how to discern / how they discern what is 'good' or 'interesting.' There is no stamp of general approval, the contemporary not having yet been 'sorted out' by consensus. So, the individual has to be happy with their own faculties -- faculties they have had to become first conscious of and then thought about -- in order to sort for themselves from what is current.
> 
> That means a person has to be particularly unconcerned about 'what others think they think.' All they have to be concerned with is how they think, and how to think of the music under evaluation.
> 
> ...


From what I understand of the post, people who enjoy the games and discussions in question are dull herdlike animals with limited intelligence and perception, content to chew mindlessly on the desiccated vegetation of what they already know.

OTOH, those who do not are more alert, adventurous, and brave. We can probably assume that they are larger, better looking, and smarter as well.

Do I have that right?


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

some guy said:


> A common consequence is a plethora of "greatest" threads. The greatest symphonies. The greatest works of the twentieth century. And the question threads, "Who's the twenty-first century's Beethoven?" "Where are the great composers of the present day?"--attempts by novices to get the large world of "classical" whittled down to a managable size or attempts to denigrate more recent musics by showing how much better older music is.
> 
> What these all have in common is exclusion. Only the best need apply. And who decides what's "best?" Abstractions like "time" or like "consensus," which come to the same thing, really. A number of people agreeing on the worth of a given piece.
> 
> ...


Concensus can work on older pieces but concensus does not work on a newly composed piece today by Boulez, for example. Nothing is as black or white in art, it is very largely or entirely subjective but I do not also believe that all art cannot be assessed to some extent - this is the key, that there is only some extent that every single art can be assessed but it cannot be entirely assessed for greatness objectively.

But I don't think human activities such as ranking, such as exclusion/inclusion of those who share a preference and or those who don't, such as naive politicalisation of art that is "evil" or "good", will ever disappear. This is human behaviour and really nothing much to do with the art itself.


----------



## lukecubed (Nov 27, 2011)

I guess I don't see a problem here. It's not a noob's fault that the modernists haven't been able to craft a coherent narrative about what matters post-1950. The modernists did that to themselves by doing away with all the rules and forms--which are no measure of greatness or anything else, but at least offered a vaguely consistent-seeming yardstick.

I like some modern music btw so I'm not attacking it. But I think modernists sometimes hate how the sandbox they created doesn't really lend itself to the discussions many people want to have about art. This isn't limited to music and can be found in discussions of virtually all artforms. Modernism and postmodernism in all their forms were often about blowing up the conventional rules and either rewriting them or insisting there weren't any to begin with. That's fine, but rules and forms help people to understand what they're dealing with, especially when they're first learning about it. Opinions about art are never really "provable," but it's alot easier to demonstrate why you might think Beethoven is a superior composer to, say, Weber than it is to demonstrate why Xenakis is so much better than Boulez (if that's what you believe).

I guess I'd agree with BurningDesire but add that this is what fans of modern music--ANY modern music, not just classical, not just "art" music--have to content themselves with. People are interested in greatness whether you like it or not, but the more recent something is, the harder it is to point to anything other than your reaction/interpretation. With older stuff you have, as you've noted, consensus, history of influence, anticipation of future (but now past) trends, and on and on and on. None of which guarantees "greatness" either, but it's something to get a handle on and talk about. I don't think you're arguing for total relativity, but, honestly, if you can't explain to me why this or that skronky experimental 21st century atonal artist is more worth my time than a thousand others, then you're wasting my time and convincing me you have fuzzy ideas and no filter. Give me a narrative, convince me it matters and is worth filling my ears with, or I'm not going to bother.

What's so bad about exclusion? There's more art out there than I can possibly properly appreciate in my lifetime. Filtering is important, even if there's no perfect way to do it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Donizetti said:


> If the work is sufficiently 'great' the consensus will be instantaneous; the audience at the first night of the Ninth in May 1824 knew they were listening to something special.


That's why all of Bach lay dormant to all but a few of the cognoscenti for about seventy-five years, right?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> From what I understand of the post, people who enjoy the games and discussions in question are dull herdlike animals with limited intelligence and perception, content to chew mindlessly on the desiccated vegetation of what they already know.
> 
> OTOH, those who do not are more alert, adventurous, and brave. We can probably assume that they are larger, better looking, and smarter as well.
> 
> Do I have that right?


Nope, you are utterly mistaken. (Inverse snobbery remains snobbery, BTW


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Sure. And when you run out of works by Pizzarella that you ain't heard too many times, you can just go to bed and stay there. You gotta listen to a lot of different stuff, some of which you ain't going to like the first time you hear it - or maybe the _nth_ time either, you don't know... .
> 
> [Simulation of _other guy_.]


Is Pizzarella the half-brother of Cinderella?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

PetrB said:


> There are plenty of books with more than adequate lists of such works, all the work already done.
> ...


I agree with that in terms of my own experience. When I really got into classical, there was no internet. So I read books, and I still have some of those books. They are still useful, and of course there's more recent stuff that's good too.



> ...There is no need for more from polls or the collective compilation of a sites membership -- those are exercises in an ersatz illusion of 'participation that can make a difference.' Yes, one should learn to discern, there is quality and lesser quality, a harsh reality, but "Bah" on both 'the greatest' and polls compiling lists of same, and "Up with" an individual cultivating their own sense of discernment.


However a big BUT to what I said in agreement with you above is that times have changed. The web, with sites like this where members can interact and basically self-publish are now reality. I myself do not participate on the list-based threads on this forum, for various reasons. But they are obviously still of use to some people here, maybe a good many people, and people like making these lists.

What I would add is that the younger generation see things differently to those of us who where around before the web came in.

Another thing is that it there are some good online resources like googlebooks that are useful tools for research on music.

But my main concern with greatness is if its used in the service of some ideology or agenda, particularly of the extreme kind. I've ranted on here about this so many times now its cliche. The two extremes being:
- Music after/younger than the pyramids is all noise or rubbish, etc.
- Music older than the pyramids is all old hat or rubbish, etc.

These are caricatures of course but I think its not hard to read between the lines of what I'm saying. The might of the canon is one battering ram - and a very conservative canon at that - and another battering ram is Modernist ideology (a lot of it actually going back to Marxism - which is like over 150 years old - new isn't it?...NOT)...


----------



## Guest (Dec 20, 2012)

lukecubed said:


> I don't think you're arguing for total relativity, but, honestly, if you can't explain to me why this or that skronky experimental 21st century atonal artist is more worth my time than a thousand others, then you're wasting my time and convincing me you have fuzzy ideas and no filter. Give me a narrative, convince me it matters and is worth filling my ears with, or I'm not going to bother.


1) I would argue for personal responsibility.

2) Since you've already decided that something you don't know is "skronky," then I'd be wasting my time trying to convince you of anything.

3) You get to decide what matters to you, not me. (See "1)" above.)



lukecubed said:


> What's so bad about exclusion? There's more art out there than I can possibly properly appreciate in my lifetime. Filtering is important, even if there's no perfect way to do it.


Everything. As for proper appreciation, this is where I always feel (perhaps wrongly) that all this art stuff is such a great burden for people. So much work! Let someone else do the work for me, wrap everything up, give me "the greats," and don't expect anything from me.

Seems a totally false picture of the whole situation. Engaging with art is exhilarating not burdensome. I started my own journey when I was about nine, fifty-one years ago. I don't remember ever thinking "Wow, this is so much work; I'll never know all of it." Of course I'll never know all of it, but I'll die trying, I know that. What an adventure all this is. And if I'm aware of anything, it's simply that there's not enough time to know everything. It's not that there's too much art; it's that there's too little time.

If you feel you need filters, you're welcome to them. I think there are too many filters, myself. Before I'm able even to be aware of things, someone else has already been making decisions. Record labels and concert programmers have already largely decided what I get to hear. Thank God for little indie labels and for concert programmers who thrive on taking risks.


----------



## lukecubed (Nov 27, 2011)

Ha. I like plenty of stuff I consider skronky. It wasn't a negative.

Personal responsibility was exactly what I was arguing for anyway. As in--listeners of contemporary music have to accept that their rubric for whatever they enjoy is theirs alone, may not be shared by others (even others who enjoy contemporary music), and has no certitude of being validated by posterity or anything else. So they shouldn't whine that no one is listening to the things they think others should be paying attention to. Take responsibility for your own taste, articulate your reasons for thinking something is worth someone else's time, and stop bemoaning the listening habits of others. Just be OK with liking what you like without the need for validation.

My point was that there's alot of art competing for my attention--if you think I should listen to something, then you should at least try to articulate a good reason. Because I have lots of great reasons to listen to and check out lots of other things already. And if you don't think I should listen to something in particular and don't care what I or anyone else listens to at all, then I don't understand the point of this thread. I never claimed anything was a burden. You, me, and everyone else are always going to have to filter--it's the 21st century and there's more art to consume than can possibly be appreciated in a lifetime. If some people want to define their filter as the perception of greatness, more power to them. You want to deny that you're selective about what you listen to and appreciate, OK, but I call B-S. Everyone discriminates.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

some guy said:


> Greatness encourages simplification. "95% of all art in any era is crap." All the complexity and variety of the real world collapsed into the dichotomy "great" and "crap." And out of that simplicity comes pointless antagonism: "Beethoven's ninth is the greatest symphony." "No, it isn't."


Maybe this happens, between other things, because the issue of 'Greatness' is taken under the view of life and existence as a merchandise.

But going further, 'greatness' is non sense because music listening -as many other things- is about a relationship and not as something given.

Being a relationship -a sort of living entity- this relationship evolves, changes, shifts, expands, matures, shrinks and dies.

For example, there was a time when Beethoven was great... a long time ago... in my early youth... nowadays his music has lost its meaning for me.

This has nothing to do with 'Greatness' but with a relationship that has changed in time.

P.S: Really, I don't think that 'greatness' polls -here- are taken seriously, or are they?


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

I think the polls are mostly done for fun , the ones about ranking pieces, composers etc.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ondine said:


> Really, I don't think that 'greatness' polls -here- are taken seriously, or are they?





Rapide said:


> I think the polls are mostly done for fun, the ones about ranking pieces, composers etc.


Obviously some people take them very seriously indeed -- thus this thread. A psychological question: Why?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Ondine said:


> Maybe this happens, between other things, because the issue of 'Greatness' is taken under the view of life and existence as a merchandise.
> 
> But going further, 'greatness' is non sense because music listening -as many other things- is about a relationship and not as something given.
> 
> ...


And some Composers are just better at creating relationships than others. Thus why these polls are helpful.


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

It is the sheer volume of these "greatest" threads that make reading here a chore. I need to learn about classical music rather than read endless silly posts about whether x is better than y. Having said that, I enjoy the forum immensely when I do pop back here.


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

Beethoven's 9th and Missa Solemnis and Mozart's 41st have that "Wow factor" that i can't just stay calm in my seat. My mind goes up and down, it starts to grow something in me and i feel i can take the whole world. It takes the world by storm. Also i come always with the same questions: "How the hell can someone do this?", "Is it humanly possible?", "Were these composers humans?", etc.

And that to me is great. I don't know if it is greatness, but sure it is great for the humankind to have such fortune.

Same goes for others, e.g., Bach's Bm Mass, Wagner's Tristan, lots of Verdi's, Montverdi's, etc.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Is Pizzarella the half-brother of Cinderella?


Cinderella's antecedents are a closely held secret. The Pizzarellas are, however, related to the Pizzacatos on the distaff side. Both families have produced composers, all of which have been accused of 'composing the same piece 400 times' - merely making arrangements for various instruments.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

One problem with the "greatest works" mentality is that it causes people to concentrate on those great works, magnificent as they are , and to remain ignorant of the many wonderful lesser-known works which
exist . 
Everybody talks about the "three great B's- Bach, Beethoven and Brahms . But there are other wonderful composers in the "B' " category , such as Franz Berwald, Mily Balakirev, Arnold Bax, Havergal Brian, 
Arthur Bliss, for example . Not to mention the towering Anton Bruckner, who though fairly wel known, is not quite the same household name to the general public which doesn't know much about classical music but is familiar with a handful of big names .
There is a certain canon of great cocmposers beginnoing with Bach, Handel, Mozart,Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms,Dvorak Tchaikovsky , Sibelius etc . 
But what about Franz Schmidt, Alexander von Zemlinsky., Albert Roussel, Bohuslav Martinu, 
Carl Nielsen , Hans Pfitzner, Alberic Magnard, Karol Szymanowski, Sergei Taneyev, Nikolai Myaskovsky,
Gheorghe Enescu,Feruccio Busoni, Frank martin, Ernst Toch, etc? All composers of genuisne stature who should not be missed by anyone hwo loves classical music .


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

superhorn said:


> One problem with the "greatest works" mentality is that it causes people to concentrate on those great works, magnificent as they are , and to remain ignorant of the many wonderful lesser-known works which exist .


I don't disagree with this, but there's no reason you can't make a thread called "Greatest lesser known works" (I'm sure it's been done).

The argument over ranking/voting is separate from the argument about the canon. I'm generally pro-silly lists/votes, but anti-canon.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

superhorn said:


> One problem with the "greatest works" mentality is that it causes people to concentrate on those great works, magnificent as they are, and to remain ignorant of the many wonderful lesser-known works whichexist.


Are you saying that people who enjoy musical popularity contests are ignorant of less-known works and composers? That doesn't logically follow and is, in fact, demonstrably untrue.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I'm not saying that people who love the most famous masterpieces are necessarily ignorant of lesser known works. But there are many people who may dabble in listening to classical music but aren't very knowledgable 
about it who are simply unaware of how much wonderful music outside the standard repertoire exists .
It's not their fault , just the "greatestr works" mentality .
If you ask people on the street if they've heard of Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Tchaikovsky and a few other famous composers, they'll probably say yes, but if you ask them if they've ever heard of say, Carl Nielsen, they'll say "Carl who"?


----------

