Kurkikohtaus: As you may have gathered from my very short questions posed above, I was not going to make any conclusions until I had drawn out more information.

What I anticipated coming next was the suggestion that the quality of a musical work would be measured by its compliance with a set of attributes: A1, A2, A3…etc. Somehow, these would be combined together, and an overall set of ranks derived. However, the problems are in deciding: (i) what comprises the set of attributes, (ii) how to measure them (iii) how to combine them to produce an overall result. There's no guarantee, for example, the right criteria and weights would be selected.

All that can be done sensibly is to ask a simple question “what is your favourite music”, and aim to set up a measurement system that faithfully capture views of the majority without significant bias. I'm not saying this task is easy. It's not just based on what gets played on radio stations but involves wider aspects of "popularity" like concerts, CD/record sales, record stocks etc. Nor am I saying that snapshots in time are reliable, but instead needs to be assessed over a sensible time interval to make sure the results are robust.



Topaz

Topaz I have not set any criteria, I am mearly suggesting that this is some thing that we could look at
Saying that A is your favourite Piano Sonata is ok but to say A is the best Son and then not explain why is pointless, I am suggesting that we could try to put a bit of objectivity into something that is really subjective, as Kurkikohtaus says it may well be impossible but IMHO it would put a bit of meaning into what at the moment are statements made too easily.

let us say we wish to compare The 1st mov of Beethoven’s 3rd sym with the 1st mov of his 8th sym to determine which is best [by a vote] . The composers in our midst will have their own set of guide lines which influence the way they see the work as will the conductors, musicians of all the different instruments pro and amateur, listeners, critics, etc
Some criteria could be: Structure, Orchestration, Balance, Expressiveness, development, Technical demands made of musicians, Vitality and rhythm.
And of course overall sound and effect that it has.
There may be others that I have missed or those that I have mentioned may not work out, some way of putting all this into a simple tick box may not be possible, so some other way would need to be found, if when a person voted a comment relevant to their speciality was included it would be so interesting. I am of the opinion that we could all learn so much from seeing works through other peoples eyes, sorry ears.

Andante, I know you are using this only as an example, so I don't want to harp on this specific comparison too much, but maybe the issues that arise through it will serve to symbolize the general problem with an attempt at such comparisons.

In writing the 1st mvmts of these 2 symphonies, Beethoven had very different intentions. In the 3rd, he wanted to create something of monumental length, content and weight that would redefine the boundaries of not just the symphony, but perhaps of music as a whole. In the 1st mvmt of the 8th, he turns inwards and examines the juxtaposition of 2 seemingly disparate elements, ostinato and counterpoint, with goals of brevity and precision.

Therefore in my opinion, the issue begins and remains at a level of personal preference. The potential inclusion of some of the objective crieteria you list above carries with it a subjective and arbitrary value statement about the absolute and relative importance of said criteria. To say that the 1st mvmt of the 3rd has a more complex and yet unified thematic development process than the 1st mvmt of the 8th is a good argument which can be supported by a certain degree of "proof", but the problem is one step back, the value that the reviewer assigns thematic development in the first place. Who says thematic development is important? Furthermore, who says thematic development is more important than the technical demands of the piece but less important than overall expression? And so on and so on with the rest of the criteria.

To say "I like the 1st mvmt of the 3rd more than the first mvmt of the 8th because..." is perfectly fine and completely sufficient. To say the same sentance with the word "better" is taking us down a road that I fear will never be resolved.

__________________
The Sibelius Forum
My New Website
New ZSO Website

Andante: Why should we list various attributes of a piece of music, and try to score each attribute, when the market has done job for us in forming an overall assessment of the work in terms of its popularity? If it's any good it will be popular. If it isn't popular it won't be any good, except to a minority of customers. Why make things any more difficult by examining an arbitrary set of characteristics and weighting systems, and involving an arbitrary set of voters?

There's no point asking what's best in classical music by approaching Bach fans, the Wagner Society, the Mozarteum, Beethoven or Schubert fans, 14/15 year olds, piano teachers, Frank Zappa zealots, or any other self-selecting groups that come on Forums like this one. All you will get is potentially misleading, biased or uninformed opinion. Trust the market instead. See my previous post about the caveats required here to get reliable results.



Topaz

Topaz: I totally disagree. I've dozens of works by composers almost forgotten by the "market", which I consider worthdly: Magnard,Lazzari, Taktakishvili,Eduard Franck,Hubay,
Ropartz,Moszkowsky,Paderewsky,Miaskovsky,Gliere,Hu rum,Sergey and Alexander Taneyev,
Achron,Alkan,Volkmann,Wolf Ferrari,etc.etc. And I've dozens of works of very well known
composers that also have been forgoten by the "market", in particular chamber instrumental
pieces of Dvorak,Wolf,Bruch,Lalo,Bazzini,even Paganini. I don't trust and will never trust in
the "market".

Oisfetz: Thank you for clarifying that you will never trust markets (by which I meant majority opinion). They can throw up inconvenient results at times, especially for someone with minority interests.

Topaz, The Market forgot J S Bach, so obviously the market is right?
My Country was a testing ground for the ‘Market’ the result, a lot of rich people got a whole lot wealthier, Our infrastructure was sold very cheaply to large corporates and will take a long time to recover, the market only serves itself. But back to music.

My suggestion was simply a suggestion that I think would add more weight to claims that A is the best, or in the top 10 list. I am sure it would be educational to all, but hard to implement.
I do not know if you are a musician but do you not agree that a musician will see a piece music differently than a none musician, ?.

I just don't understand the "market." Does the majority really want umpteen thousand versions of Beethoven's 5th and Chopin's etudes?

I get an H&B direct catalog every month which lists the new releases from many CD labels. With the exception of Naxos and Hyperion, everyone is pumping out a new Aida, a new Mahler symphony, and another Mozart requiem just about every month. Don't people get sick of hearing the same repertoire all the time?

It is perhaps hard to believe, but yes they do. No orchestra in the world puts out a recording, which is expensive to make, just for posterity's sake. They release them either as part of a project for which they are being paid directly, or commercially where they know they will make a profit.

__________________
The Sibelius Forum
My New Website
New ZSO Website

Well, as I've said I care a d... thing for the "market", and I'll continue to looking for
unknown or little know composers,works or players I like.
The major part of the people who listen to classical music is of low level and rather
ignorant. They want to listen for the 100th time a work they know that take the challenge
to find a new one. The "market" is form by them. But we,here,are not low nor ignorants,and
we have our own market.

This is easily the STUPIDEST thing I have ever heard on this or any music forum.

You sir, are the ignorant one, or at the very least the very type of snob who turns many people away from classical music in the first place.

Anyone who has trouble understanding the concept or importance of "markets" might try looking around their everyday lives to see how important they are in determining the vast range of goods and services on offer, and the prices charged, from toothpaste to washing up liquid to gasoline to what is showing at the movies, etc. These offerings and prices do not happen by chance, except in banana republics and Stalinist regimes. They are determined by the interplay of impersonal market forces, involving suppliers and countless thousands or millions of customers.

Indeed, many customers of these products/services may be “low” or “ignorant” in terms of their knowledge of the technical composition of these products, as suggested in the post immediately above, but why discount their views? If I go into a record shop and cannot find some obscure work, I do not go up the manger and tell him his customers are “low and ignorant” for demanding other types of material. I just have to search around a bit harder, or make a special request for it. However, I have to accept it is not considered to be a “great” work in the eyes of the general classical music buying public.

As I thought I had clearly explained, I use the term “market” as a shorthand expression for popularity based on the preferences of all. I do not pretend it is easy to measure this, and I am not suggesting it should be based on any one statistic like CD sales, or CD stocks, concert or radio performances, or at a single point in time. To discount markets (read: overall popularity) is sheer arrogance. It is saying that the views of the majority are wrong and that only you know what is best. People are obviously entitled to their own view on what is best but in a democratic system, they have to accept that the majority may not agree.

I have seen people get into really awful muddles about ranking the quality of music. They set themselves spuriously accurate definitions of what constitutes the “best” music, but then the participants merely squabble endlessly about their own favourite pieces and composers. They squabble, that is, until an adjudicator cuts through the whole lot of waffle and imposes his own personal opinion! The whole thing often descends into a complete farce. Andante might like to reflect on this paragraph, in particular.

My main points are that:

(i) Working out what is the "best" classical music is very difficult, and there is no perfect measure, but popularity based on a wide range of measures, worked out over a reasonable period of time, is probably as good as can be obtained.

(ii) I am deeply cynical about the concept of “under-rated” anything, whether it is composers, brands of toothpaste, best movies, or brands of ketchup. In the context of “forgotten composers”, I fully accept it is possible there could be the odd slip-up now and then, and some genuine “old” talent may be discovered, but the notion that the present set of favourites based on popular opinion is bound to be wrong, and that there is an alternative set based on connoisseurs’ preferences of music, is nonsense. The latter group wouldn't agree anyway, so that shoots that argument in flames too.

(iii) Most of these so-called "forgotten composers" are forgotten because they just do not cut it. There are others who tower are above them. Moreover, often the musicians who choose to specialise in the works of forgotten composers are themselves not generally in the first ranks of musical talent, despite what their supporters may say. These musicians often find "forgotten composers" merely to find themselves a market (any market!).



Topaz

Thank you for your kind remark. Yes, I'm a snob, and I don't care at all of the average
classical listener. I even have a FM program in Buenos Aires called "rarezas" (rarities),for
other snobs like me, with my own material. I got 119 sundays until yesterday, and I think
I've presented several hundred works or versions in first radio auditions in the country. Long live the unknown,the forgotten and the rare!.

Topaz, I agree with everything you said except this:

For the most part, you're right. "Forgotten composers" just couldn't shine next to the giants of their time. With Mozart and Beethoven, who would bother with Hummel? With Chopin and Liszt, who cares about Alkan? Certain exceptions must be made for these fellows, though. Their music was not disseminated very well and they rarely promoted themselves. So the public for the most part never had a chance to hear their music, a tradition that would stay until the advent of LPs.

The specialization in these rarities doesn't mean the musician is incapable of playing the standard repertoire as good as Richter or Argerich. Strictly speaking on pianists, Marc-Andre Hamelin, probably one of the most technically perfect piano virtuoso we have today, records the demanding works from Busoni, Alkan, Godowsky, Sorabji, and many other neglected composers. And yet he also records a fine Schumann Fantasy, Carnaval and Fantasiestucke, a spectacular Brahms PC 2, all three piano quartets, and even some Mozart piano concerti. Stephen Hough, Piers Lane, and Michael Ponti are more examples. They record both rarities and the common fare. Keep in mind that these pianists are also touring and performing their own concerts which will usually always include the popular works from Chopin and Schumann. I have no doubts that these pianists could manage just as well as Pollini and Gilels with the typical repertoire of Rachmaninov, Beethoven, Chopin and Liszt.

Their focus in the obscure composers doesn't reflect a weaker talent and it's a pity if people think that.

Not need to go to unknown or forgotten composers. There are hundreds of works of famous
and very well known composers that are unknown for the 90% of the usual classical listeners:
From Liszt, nearly 85/90% of his piano works are unknown and never played live.
How many know Brahm's piano quartets?
About Bruch, all his chamber and symphonics, and his violin works except frist concerto and Scotissh are virtually unknown.
Who knows Lalo's violin concerto,his ballet Namouna or his chamber pieces?
Mendelssohn viola sonata, how many times did you hear it on radio or live?. And his cello and violin sonatas,or his string quintets?
Examples are dozens. And all that is NOT FOR SNOBS ONLY