@Topaz: How should we rank music? By the number of people who like it or by how much, how deep the "likance" of each person is? I think a masterpiece doesn't have to be known. You can hear a forgotten piece and name it a masterpiece stating that you think that if the piece would get some representation it could become famous. A masterpiece represents a certain style at its peak, a perfection, those who don't know what that style tries to accomplish, can't judge what perfection in that style is.

I am a little tired of all this, especially with the badly drafted way arguments are put to me. Here's my final answer.

First some definitions of "masterpiece" from various library souces:

1. An extremely skilful piece of work, especially the greatest work of an artist or writer.
   
2. The most outstanding work of a creative artist or craftsman.
   
3. Something superlative of its kind.
   
4. A supreme intellectual or artistic achievement.

How is such a masterpiece to be recognised? There are several main possibilities:

1. the originator himself can decide
2. an independent non-expert or panel of non-experts can decide
3. an indepedent expert or panel of experts can decide
4. the market as a whole can decide

NOW:

1. Is flawed because it may not be a true masteriece in the normal sense; it may be his best work but it could be worthless.

2. is flawed because non-experts may not recognise quality, or know how to value it.

3. is flawed because experts can only give an estimate of what a market would assess its value to be; they may be wrong or disagree among themselves on its merits.

4. is the best answer because only the relevant people are involved in assessing the value, and by their collective actions should arrive at the most appropriate value given all factors of relevance (quality, scarcity).

Finally, as I have stressed before this is elementary economics. I can't add any more, as there is clearly an understanding problem with some of you here.


Topaz

OK,Topaz. You stay with the market. Listen only those pieces that have been recorded dozens, or better hundreds of times, That means that the market had decided, and should
be masterpieces. And never ever listen to any work that doesen't had dozens or hundreds of recordings through the years. For example, there's as far as I know, only Heifetz's recording of Louis Greunberg v.c. So,it must be despicable crap,doesn't it?

The Market as you are discussing here has influences that are not even remotely concerned with promoting the best, and the number of sales that say a CD achieves are more related to promotion, than to the artistic merit of a particular piece of music or any thing else for that matter. However if over the past 100years a large majority of those buying, performing and creating music agree that a certain piece has proved to be more popular, then that is exactly what it is.

I am not following you at all.

Could you possibly explain your point by saying how you would rate two pieces of music on your criteria. Perhaps you could illustrate it by first listing the various criteria you think are relevant, and secondly say how you would score each piece under each criteria. Take any two pieces you like which are at least fairly well known, but perhaps separated by popularity.

To make it more interesting it would be useful if you choose two pieces where you think the less popular one is far better. Let's see how far we can get with this approach. Thanks.

Excluding the criteria you wanted for ascertaining masterpieces, I'll make one example for you regarding popular vs better (don't take it too seriously; it's pretty obvious)

J. Strauss - Blue Danube Waltz
Beethoven - Missa Solemnis

I think it's safe to say (especially in Vienna) that Strauss' waltz is the most popular of the two above... The Missa Solemnis, though, is not popular by a long shot. Recordings are rare and I never see it performed. But the work itself is arguably Beethoven's greatest composition and is obvioulsy superior to the waltz.

But I confess: I'm just taking a mocking jab at this whole "popular" and "better" thing with my example above. I know it would be more difficult when we place two widely popular pieces together like Beethoven's 5th and 9th. Which is better? I could argue for both...

Oisfetz, you're naming composers that go beyond simple "neglect." Composers like Hubay and Saint-Saens' have VCs that I would consider "neglected." The many composers you've mentioned, though, in your various posts are just too obscure. I'm not being negative here. Rather, I'm being practical that most classical music fans will simply never get to "Greunberg." And that may be a tragedy. Who knows, Greunberg may be a talented composer and no one will ever know because they aren't giving him a chance. Someone who loves Brahms and Tchaikovsky just may never get around to him; that's all. This same situation applies to many composers. Chopin and Liszt fans might not ever venture into Alkan. Mendelssohn and Schumann fans may never get around to Weber. Mozart and Beethoven fans will probably pass on experimenting with Hummel. And that's their loss. But that's the way it mostly works.

As Topaz said elsewhere, there is just too much classical music out there with many pieces that have been established over the years as "good" or "popular." One could content themselves with all of the recommendations from NPR's guide to building a classical music collection and never care to look for anything else. That doesn't mean NPR picked the best and the greatest music; they've actually ignored a lot of amazing recordings. But most classical music listeners are contented with these prominent and illustrious composers and their famous masterworks. What can possibly entice them to leave their comfortable sanctuary and explore the darker and unknown caverns of Moszkowski, Liapunov, Wolff, Scharwenka and Czerny?

I try to. As I've said,in my program I've presented several hundred of unknown and/or
forgotten works, and historical versions almost nobody had ever listened. I hope I've
turned somebody to unfamiliar music, and let they know unplayed works of very famous composers.How many know Chopin's piano trio or Rimsky-Korsakoff string sextet?.

I think we have to keep a sense of proportion here. There is no point comparing Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis with Strauss’s Blue Danube Waltz, as if classical music is some kind of completely amorphous product. I have never suggested anything like that.

Of course, there are very distinct sub-markets in classical music. You cannot make a quality comparison of pieces drawn from completely separate genres. You can only take each distinct sub-market – defined as comprising works which a typical listener would regard as being reasonably close substitutes – and then make comparisons among the works within each genre. Otherwise it would be like comparing a piece of, say, Rap music with a piece of Irish folk music. People are obviously entitled to say they do not like a particular genre, whether it is opera or sacred music or whatever, and instead prefer something else like baroque or contemporary, but that is another matter.

In my question at post 65 above, what I have in mind is taking two pieces from the same genre, one popular and another which is far less so, and asking someone to justify their preference of the less popular, not just by saying they like it better but by (i) itemising the various quality indicators they deem relevant, and then (ii) scoring each piece, on each criterion, according to their assessment of each work. This invitation was specifically made to anyone one who has clear views on such matters. I would like to repeat that invitation so that we examine the analysis in more detail, as possibly learn something valuable from the experience. I await with interest any relevant response.



Topaz

I'm not a musician and so can't made the comparative analysis you ask for, but I'll try
all the same: Borodin's second SQ is very popular (so much so that has been used for several stupid american songs). But IMHO the first one is better. No so marvellous melodies,
but much elaborated in harmony and development. But for avery hundred that know
the second, maybe 5 know the first.

The top 4 for me (in no particular order) are:

Serenade for Strings
Symphony no. 6
Piano Concerto no. 1
Violin Concerto

...what I have in mind is taking two pieces from the same genre, one popular and another which is far less so, and asking someone to justify their preference of the less popular, not just by saying they like it better but by (i) itemising the various quality indicators they deem relevant, and then (ii) scoring each piece, on each criterion, according to their assessment of each work. This invitation was specifically made to anyone one who has clear views on such matters. I would like to repeat that invitation so that we examine the analysis in more detail, as possibly learn something valuable from the experience. I await with interest any relevant response.

Topaz... Interesting question. As a classical music lover, but certainly not an expert in music I could never think to offer such an analysis. Then again... while I might be able to do such in my own field of expertise (visual art) I'm uncertain that a logical justification of why I prefer this or that artist more than any other is any more valid than just a gut response. For example, I might take two artists who were near contemporaries: Vincent Van Gogh and Perre Bonnard. Van Gogh is unquestionably the most "famous"... and from my knowledge of the development of Western painting I must admit that he is also the more influential... more "important"... better(?) of the two. Of course Bonnard is no slouch; he has long been seen as something of "a painter's painter"... an artist who is far more respected among the rank of other painters than among the general public or even the critics. I could probably spell out a list of things that I love about Bonnard's paintings, but I don't believe that this would "justify" my preference to someone of a different mind any more than I might be able to "justify" why I prefer Richard Strauss, Puccini, Rachmaninov and Prokofiev to the far more innovative Stravinsky. If the question was why are certain works, even among the field of classical music (which is far from having the mass audience of popular music) more popular than should be their due... I might suggest that within my own field (again) I have always thought that the works which survive and thrive over time do so in response to the opinions of three groups: the "experts", the artists, and the public. For example, Schönberg, Stravinsky, Berg, James Joyce, Picasso, Motherwell, etc... are far more respected and lauded by the "experts" (critics, scholars, historians, collectors, etc...) and by other artists in their field than they will ever be by the general public... or by that portion of the public interested enough in classical music, painting, literature, etc... Conversely, Puccini, Rachmaninov, Orff's Planets, to some extent Dickens, certainly Dumas' Three Musketeers , Salvador Dali, and Andrew Wyeth owe far more to the art lovers... the public... than to the opinions of the critics and fellow artists. While the immediate, short-term tastes of the masses (Britney Spears, American Idol, Survivor, etc...) may leave something to be desired... considering Puccini, Rachmaninov, and even Andrew Wyeth I cannot help but think that sometimes the "experts" have it all wrong.

I am trying to elicit a response to the following:

1. Suppose work A is far more popular than work B (same genre e.g. chamber music, or tone poem, or piano concerto). N.B. By popularity I mean this in a general conceptual sense relating to the current generation of music lovers (not this week or year, but over a reasonably longer period in order to get a fix on the underlying position).
   
2. Someone disagrees with this popularity rating and thinks B is a better work than A. They think that B can be shown to be better objectively, based on criteria X, Y, Z etc, specifying these criteria exactly and saying how important each one is relative to the others.
   
3. A and B are then assessed in terms of X, Y, Z separately to show why it gives the result that B is better than A. This analysis has to be transparent, and that it gives a demonstrable result as stated.

My aim is to see investigate the notion that popularity alone is misconceived as a suitable basis for measuring greatness or best, and that a better way exists of ranking works based on wider or other criteria. I want to know what these other criteria are, and how the procedure works in practice relative to popularity alone.

Anyone prepared to offer any suggestions? Nil returns need not answer.


Topaz

Topaz Re your post #65
Qt Topaz
I am not following you at all.
Topaz, I really do not understand why you say you cant follow my post, I thought it was simple and obvious. What are you having difficulty with?

Qt Topaz
Could you possibly explain your point by saying how you would rate two pieces of music on your criteria.
Now I am confused! I have not mentioned criteria?

Qt Topaz
Perhaps you could illustrate it by first listing the various criteria you think are relevant, and secondly say how you would score each piece under each criteria. Take any two pieces you like which are at least fairly well known, but perhaps separated by popularity.
Hexamoran has provided one
Qt Topaz
To make it more interesting it would be useful if you choose two pieces where you think the less popular one is far better. Let's see how far we can get with this approach. Thank.
All of this has been discussed see my post # 54 and, I thought laid to rest, I see no point in repeating it,
If you consider my remarks concerning the “Market” are wrong, please explain why!

I wasn't being serious. Please don't take those two pieces I listed as a prime example of what Topaz was talking about. I merely wanted to mock the absurdity of the position that popular music has over superior music. There are many souls in Vienna who would burn the original manuscript of Beethoven's MS just to save that awful Blue Danube waltz.