Joined
·
16,725 Posts
The objective fact that across decades, even centuries, these same composers have been performed by professional orchestras for audiences, i.e. they paid to hear their music.
The Myth of Greatness
101 - 120 of 137 Posts
Joined
·
8,510 Posts
So? How each of us interprets such a phenomenon is subjective.
Last time I checked, you think Tchaikovsky is comparable to candy. (Am I right?)
It's been brought up before but what I like to see is composers who truly left a mark on musical history. There are certain composers who have works that stand tall enough that one could divide musical history into the period before, and after their works. Haydn, Beethoven, Wagner, Schoenberg, John Cage, even Reich - these are composers who were at the forefront of profound changes in the way music was created and examined.
Now if there's a "myth" here, it's that in quite a few cases, these developments are sometimes improperly attributed to a single individual when the forces which led to these changes are more complicated than the actions and art of a solitary figure, but that's more a question for the historians and theorists.
Now if there's a "myth" here, it's that in quite a few cases, these developments are sometimes improperly attributed to a single individual when the forces which led to these changes are more complicated than the actions and art of a solitary figure, but that's more a question for the historians and theorists.
Joined
·
3,608 Posts
Yup. Statistical analysis of that sort is really all you can do. But that particular statistical analysis isn't especially valid for this purpose. All that really measures is the popularity of certain music with the audiences of the symphony orchestras that contribute to that database, and even that is measured only indirectly, as you acknowledge. And those orchestras may exist for the purpose of catering to a small minority niche audience that doesn't reflect the tastes of society as a whole.
Looking at the broader picture, even those with little interest in most classical music may be big fans of the Star Wars and Harry Potter guy (a/k/a John Williams) and not even know who Schubert is (was). And the music for Star Wars and Harry Potter may or may not be classified as classical music, which is the subject of another lengthy thread here.
Joined
·
16,725 Posts
I don't equate my own taste with what composers have been judged great.
I recognize that Tchaikovsky's music has stood the test of time and he is widely considered among the greatest composers. But his music does not interest me.
In fact, I can say that the idea of greatness, for me, is completely irrelevant as to which composers interest me. But I am not ignorant of the fact that there has come down to us a group of "great" composers.
Joined
·
6,251 Posts
Why is it that you make the same dogmatic statement of subjectivity and/or raise questions using totally irrelevant analogies whenever this subject comes up? Not to mention that you have made countless posts about the (allegedly) unfair lack of acknowledgment of the greatness of one Michael Haydn. If your argument is that this is all subjective, then there is no point in trying to argue the greatness of any particular composer.
Joined
·
8,510 Posts
How? We can discuss it and at the same time acknowledge it's subjective.
"End of story". -You mean this isn't dogmatic?
Joined
·
6,251 Posts
No. If your position is that it’s all subjective and thereby reject that there are objective reasons why some people are great in what they have accomplished, then why should I waste my time dealing with the ambivalence or hypocrisy (whichever it might be) of your arguments that Michael Haydn is great.
It‘s common sense.
Joined
·
8,510 Posts
There's no hypocrisy. I was merely using Haydn as an example in those posts to prove my points—
[ unfairly ignored? I didn't say that. I just said he's ignored, and I used the phenomenon as an example to explain my views of people's conception of greatness or profundity. It makes us question what is inherent in Mozart's music that objectively sets him apart from Haydn.
Of course I myself will always root for Mozart, but I'm not the kind to indulge in "blind idolatry" so I can't help but thinking - what if people were taught from youth to think subjectively that—
"-In terms of dissonance, chromaticism, and vocal-writing, Mozart isn't really that special.
-Haydn's requiem of 1771 isn't sketchy like Mozart's (which gets disappointing with its jubilant Sanctus and all the parts "not sounding like Mozart"), the structure of Haydn's Dies irae, which incorporates the Confutatis and Lacrimosa, is dramatic in a way Mozart's is not.
-At least Haydn didn't write "fluff" like Cosi fan tutte, and "potboiler" concert pieces of Alberti bass.
-Mozart's early works can't match Haydn's in terms of harmony and counterpoint,
-In his mature symphonies (most of them composed in solid 3-movement structure), Haydn writes minuets only when he must, and when he does write one, it consists of a coda and colorful harmonies, which can be seen as an "advantage" over Mozart's K425, K.543, for example,
etc." ]
[ how can we simply assume, for instance, 'Mozart has greater objective worth than Haydn (M)' without giving both equal amounts of chance? (See "I didn't see the merits of X's music...) What if Haydn's music isn't widely known today because he didn't have his music printed? How well do we know his music to pass judgement objectively?-
Schubert, one of few figures in history who knew both intimately (while Weber and Bruckner didn't comment) said that he wanted to be like Haydn, not Mozart. Haydn's instrumental music is stylistically different from Mozart's, with greater emphasis on melodies in the bassoon in symphonies, harmonies imo having a nostalgic effect as if to say "once upon a time..", writings for the contrabass giving a "weighty feel" in chamber music, etc. His singspiels portray the rural side of Germany in a way Mozart's does not. (I'm still waiting for the release of his later works, such as Die Ährenleserin, in recording.) How does Mozart compare to him in oratorios, German songs, etc? His work can be subjectively viewed as simply "different" from (and not "inferior" to) Mozart's. ]
Joined
·
8,510 Posts
But look at how "the masses" have been educated. For instance,
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yZ4vtpxQXw&t=56s (Video <What Makes Debussy Sound French?> by Inside the Score)—
It says "In the 1700s, Johann Sebastian Bach, had defined the system of Western classical tonality", (of course guys like www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFV8avEufEw (Missa Omnium Sanctorum, ZWV 21) all learned everything from Bach, didn't they) and then goes onto discuss Beethoven, and then jumps to Wagner - as if Weber and Spohr never existed in the history of Romantic harmonic practice.
It's how they always talk - it's always about what Bach or Mozart did, (and spotlighting them as some sort of "heroes"). How can we say it was a "fair game" for all the composers from the start?
Also btw, someone has pointed out that Mozart only got popular a few decades ago— "check the number of newspaper mentions per period for this purpose via the site "newspapers.com". Browse Newspapers - Newspapers.com Mozart is mentioned often since the 1980s. Before that composers of the romantic period are dominating compared to those of the classical and earlier periods. For example Richard Wagner. "Richard Wagner" has 18,222 mentions in the 1910s, while "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" has 224. Wagner has 30,323 mentions in the 1950s, while Mozart has 2,739. Wagner has 28,540 mentions in the 1990s while Mozart has 22,409."
I'm not sure you are using objective correctly here. The reason for hammeredklavier's tastes are just as objective as the reason for common considered greatness. Why you would prefer discussing one over another is a mystery to all of us, as both are equally interesting case studies. As well as equally complex cases (common perceptions of greatness can be philosophically boiled down to one abstract psychology.) I actually disagree that the latter is more complex though, as hammeredklavier is provenly more invested in music than the average person, his case is indubitably more interesting than the historical one, even though intuition of 'quantity' tells you personally otherwise. I would invest more time in many of these, unusually different critical perspectives (alive in many musical genres too.) If one is 'objectively' correct, the probability of it being your convenience sample one is unknowable, even let's warrant, yours is more probable, it still leaves thousands of other probabilities. We can both proceed loosely agreeing that in English the term greatness refers the critically average within one field, although we agree loosely, as I never admitted this one field's opinions have been proven objective.
Joined
·
6,251 Posts
I would be surprised if those who have read HK’s numerous posts in numerous threads containing superlatives of Michael Haydn’s works and comparisons to the works of Mozart and other contemporaries interpreted them as anything but a promotion that Michael Haydn was an unappreciated great composer. It would not make sense for someone to do that if they didn’t feel strongly that there were objective reasons to support the position.
Were you selected in some poll or election to speak for everyone?
I hope by all intents and purposes, you're actually aware of those not sharing your group's view of greatness, ie. the vast majority of people on earth, and feel strongly about that, as I feel strongly about a minority imposing 'truth' over individuals with no objective evidence and no ounce of power to do so over us, hah. Please keep at this though, reading these posts is only funny.
Joined
·
6,251 Posts
So now you‘re speaking for ‘the vast majority of people on earth‘. I am truly humbled.
Joined
·
6,251 Posts
The majority of people on earth believe in some concept of God and presumably their view of God is that of greatness and they feel strongly about that so my group wins.
My group . Your pagan trinity is not familiar to us.
. Your pagan trinity is not familiar to us.
Joined
·
52 Posts
While true, we also live in cynical times.
Regardless, as this thread continued, the OP seemed to change the discussion's theme due to a vague, carless first post. I am not sure what is so offensive about the idea of 'greatness' with regards to music especially (plus, the added joke of OP's username, haha). It seems there is a problem with the overuse of the word more-so than the idea of 'greatness'. But maybe I'm wrong. @BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist, care to elaborate more on what you mean or how your thoughts have developed since starting this thread? Even 'favorite' is on your chopping block!
Joined
·
8,510 Posts
You misunderstand me. My point is that, these composers had "objective traits" that can be "evaluated subjectively" in terms of aesthetics. Depending on context and perspective, they can be thought to be either desirable or undesirable. For instance, Paisiello was a more successful opera composer than Mozart for a reason. Listen to, for instance,
The majority of the opera listeners of the 18th century had their own reasons for valuing Paisiello over Mozart, and they weren't "objectively incorrect" in their aesthetic preference/evaluation.
"At the beginning of the nineteenth century, before Berlioz's time, some influential critics - for instance, Julien-Louis Geoffroy - rejected Mozart as a foreigner, considering his music 'scholastic', stressing his use of harmony over melody, and the dominance of the orchestra over singing in the operas - all these were considered negative features of 'Germanic' music."
Joined
·
16,725 Posts
This thread is about "greatness" not popularity. Mozart's greatness was recognized during his lifetime and by at least one composer now thought of as great. But we know that Mozart and Beethoven, and Bach, as well as many other "great" composers, were considered great by their contemporaries.
Haydn eulogized Mozart, saying: “Posterity will not see such a talent again in 100 years.” To Mozart's father, Leopold, Haydn declared, “Sir, your son is the greatest composer known to me, either personally or by reputation.”
Previously I offered as one data point for considering greatness those composers whose music has been consistently programmed by professional orchestras (presumably with more musical knowledge and the most at stake if they are wrong). This is not simply "popularity" but a sense that these composers are worth the time and training of these conductors and musicians to keep performing.
Joined
·
8,510 Posts
I sometimes talk with various people including @Woodduck about the abundance of secco recitatives and "phrase repeat patterns" (See "Cadential Phrase Repeats" in 18th Century... if you're curious what I mean by the term) in Mozart's operas. For perfectly justifiable reasons, he considers them "undesirable" and I don't think it's objectively wrong to think that way.
With that in mind, I sometimes wonder what if we were taught from youth these doctrines—
"-the F minor organ Fantasie K.608 is an epitome of pedantism/scholastism in late 18th century music and the scene of "two armored men" from Die Zauberflöte is just the same pedantism placed in a different context. Ultimately, it was Mozart who always saw himself as an entertainer (by saying things like "my music is designed in such a way even the dumbest people can enjoy") and always sought to achieve the success of Paisiello (to pay off his own debts), but apparently did not have what it takes to. He resorted to the pedantism of harmony and counterpoint every time, thinking that's the best way. Everytime he tries things like Paisiello, he ends up sounding merely graceful.
-Mozart's operas were not composed with the greatest artistic integrity of his time. He didn't achieve the sense of continuity like Reichardt's, whose numbers and accompagnatos in Erwin und Elmire are all through-composed, connected in terms of transitions and modulations (It's devoid of the Buffa style of "phrase repeat patterns" and is almost contemporaneous with Mozart since Mozart died in Demember 1791 and the "quasi-liederspiel" was premiered in early 1793)."
The modulations in the free fantasy section (C major -> F minor -> A flat major (-> A flat minor, borrowed) -> A minor -> C minor); something Mozart didn't do in opera-
Mit vollen Athemzügen saug' ich, natur aus dir
about the stuff (except a few select hits like Eine Kleine Nachtmusik) for a reason.
Does anyone care about this now?— "... Among those who could have influenced Mozart are Gluck and Johann Friedrich Reichardt. In two melodramas from the 1770s, Reichardt developed an incipient form of leitmotiv, devising musical expressions of moods and ideas that recurred whenever justified by the drama rather than according to considerations of musical form. Long before Wagner, he described the process in his widely circulated Musikalisches Kunstmagazin (1782). The Greek tragedies Prokris und Cephalus and Ino initially appealed to him as subjects for melodramas because they allowed him to create an individual musical theme "for each passion, for each shading of passion," and in so doing, "to bring more unity to the whole." Both in practice and in theory, Reichardt was an important precedent for Wagner, who also credited his motivic technique for fostering a musical unity ..." ("Motives for Allusion: Context and Content in Nineteenth-century Music" by Christopher Alan Reynolds, P. 46)
With that in mind, I sometimes wonder what if we were taught from youth these doctrines—
"-the F minor organ Fantasie K.608 is an epitome of pedantism/scholastism in late 18th century music and the scene of "two armored men" from Die Zauberflöte is just the same pedantism placed in a different context. Ultimately, it was Mozart who always saw himself as an entertainer (by saying things like "my music is designed in such a way even the dumbest people can enjoy") and always sought to achieve the success of Paisiello (to pay off his own debts), but apparently did not have what it takes to. He resorted to the pedantism of harmony and counterpoint every time, thinking that's the best way. Everytime he tries things like Paisiello, he ends up sounding merely graceful.
-Mozart's operas were not composed with the greatest artistic integrity of his time. He didn't achieve the sense of continuity like Reichardt's, whose numbers and accompagnatos in Erwin und Elmire are all through-composed, connected in terms of transitions and modulations (It's devoid of the Buffa style of "phrase repeat patterns" and is almost contemporaneous with Mozart since Mozart died in Demember 1791 and the "quasi-liederspiel" was premiered in early 1793)."
The modulations in the free fantasy section (C major -> F minor -> A flat major (-> A flat minor, borrowed) -> A minor -> C minor); something Mozart didn't do in opera-
How much of Reichardt's music do we know, to deem him objectively inferior to Mozart in artistry? Mendelssohn considered him a greater composer of lieder than Schubert (according to Page 143 from "Beyond Fingal's Cave: Ossian in the Musical Imagination" by James Porter) —do we have to care about this fact now? The same reasoning applies to the composers of the past who are now famous today. 99.99% of people in the world today don't give a
about the stuff (except a few select hits like Eine Kleine Nachtmusik) for a reason.Does anyone care about this now?— "... Among those who could have influenced Mozart are Gluck and Johann Friedrich Reichardt. In two melodramas from the 1770s, Reichardt developed an incipient form of leitmotiv, devising musical expressions of moods and ideas that recurred whenever justified by the drama rather than according to considerations of musical form. Long before Wagner, he described the process in his widely circulated Musikalisches Kunstmagazin (1782). The Greek tragedies Prokris und Cephalus and Ino initially appealed to him as subjects for melodramas because they allowed him to create an individual musical theme "for each passion, for each shading of passion," and in so doing, "to bring more unity to the whole." Both in practice and in theory, Reichardt was an important precedent for Wagner, who also credited his motivic technique for fostering a musical unity ..." ("Motives for Allusion: Context and Content in Nineteenth-century Music" by Christopher Alan Reynolds, P. 46)
101 - 120 of 137 Posts
