Continuation of issues arising from most forgotten thread...

Of course, not, Mark. The "Great Composers" were great, not equally great. However, maybe your book may guide you to who was greater than the others. Is Cavalli's offer to music equal to Bach's contribution? Is Ibert's opus close to Debussy's or Pfitzer's to Wagner? It's not "our" subjective evaluation that it's going to give Bach any additional or less accolade. His position was, is and will be where he deserves to be.

As for the "vision" thing, I don't have strong feelings about it. I just said "vision" is not a music notation matter. So, it cannot be proven like a modulation. If you see or feel or discover it, it's an additional element beyond the score, but, maybe within the scope of it, at least in some major works.

Parla

Parla, your capacity for self-delusion is only matched by your endless and obsessive self-justification.  You seem to work on the assumption that the patently obvious exposure of your various claims can be buried by your next batch of nonsense, and forgotten.

The "drivel" refers to the quoted paragraph above, by the way, despite my being spoiled for choice in this area. 

The first, or any "musical value" of any particular piece of music is not in question here, as everyone - even you - knows.   You can twist and turn, divert and evade, repeat your claim for ever, but you cannot get around the fact that no piece of art can be great in the absence of human perception.

You have made the claim that the greatness exists independent of judgment or opinion.  Your continued defence of it is as vacuous as the other two claims mentioned elsewhere - your "borrowing" of others' opinions and your "evidence" of self-destructing re-issued CDs.

Only "unparliamentary language" could adequately describe your patently untenable position, a position you are obviously incapable of facing up to.

Vic.

Uber Alice got it right, in a way. The "judgement" has already been done, as I tried to help you out. The question is whether there is room for further judgement, for example, different than the original one or we, inevitably, repeat, accept, reproduce the existing one (of the wise). If we simply do that, (what else can we do with a work like Missa Solemnis, for example?), then, we have the objective truth, the fact of Music, something impartial, beyond opinions and prejudices.

Besides, even the incomplete definition of Chambers on Music is guiding us to identify the great music vis a vis the rest. However, you have to know a bit more about the "Art of making sounds", which, apparently, is not the case always and with any member of this forum.

Parla

You can always expect a reply from me, Vic, and you can always hope for a potential convergence of our views. However, we are not yet there. You cannot "interpret" my clues at all. Everything is a "face value" issue. So, even if we will procrastinate progress, here is my response:

The clue about the original judgement, given by Hugh and me, had to do with the question whether the composer (not only Beethoven) knew that his work was technically "great", when he finished it. The answer is "yes". Otherwise, he would never have got to the trouble of composing it. Besides, knowing everything available at their time concerning music, the composers (each one to his extent) develop the "Art of making (musical) sounds (what we call notes)". One of my professor used to tell us :"Music is Bach. Study him, his works, his technic, his fugues and you'll find almost everything before him and after him". Of course, Haydn contributed to the art of certain forms (Piano Trio, String Quartet, Symphony, Sonata form). Mozart and Beethoven expanded this Art and so on.

So, you may start comprehending why not a but the judgement, made by the composer when he conceived and materialised his work, is "more" valid than any "subsequent judgement" (is there, actually, any "subsequent" one, except of the acceptance of what we found after we identified it in the works/scores of the composers?). So, you may understand whether there is "room for" further judgement. I will be more than glad, if you or anybody else can come with a musical/technical judgement that is going to give us a different value for Bach's opus.

You don't need mathematics, Einstein or Aristotle to prove why greatness in Music (and in Art) is beyond personal judgement/opinions/evaluation. The definition in Chambers clearly says "objective" is not depending or influenced by "personal opinons and prejudices", namely something "impartial". Is Bach's greatness based on any opinion and prejudice? Is the least performed and barely beloved Grosse Fugue by Beethoven great based on any other judgement except for the one of its creator?

Besides, the not so perfect or complete definition of Chambers on Music gives most of the clues to identify why every composer cannot be "equally great":

"The Art of making sounds in a rhythmically organised, harmonious form..." To complete a bit the definition, when it says "sounds", it means the sounds from "musical notes". This is verified later in the definition, when it refers to "either sung or produced with (musical) instruments".

So, to deliver a judgement, one needs to have full knowledge of this "Art of making sounds". The further part of "rhythmically organised, harmonious form" refers to the various rules, forms, structure, etc. that contribute to the definition of this "Art".So, Bach created, consolidated, developed to perfection most of the forms of this Art, with an enormous volume of incontestable works. Biber contributed to a much lesser extent and with much fewer works. Beethoven expanded the various forms to a much greater extent, leaving his indelible mark. Hummel, not exactly. And the list can go on.

Therefore, we may realise that, based on the average knowledge of the occasional listener, only a small fraction of the work and much more of the composer can be perceived. So, any opinion/judgement/evaluation either cannot be achieved or it will refer only to this small originally perceived fraction, e.g. "nice melody (without any technical explanation why ) or "nice rhythm", etc.

As for the Mark's "spot on" point, I have already responded to him and, definitely, is being answered with this post, even in a more subtle way.

Over to you again with always great expectations,

Parla

So, in summary: Beethoven's music is great because Beethoven composed it; Bach's music is great because Bach composed it.  So it must follow that, together with the criteria you have supplied earlier (the score, the rules, the chosen form), given these, every composer's music is great because each of them composed it?   There are no "non-great" classical composers?

For every work by every composer?

So on what basis have you yourself claimed some composers and some works to be greater or less great than others?  On what factual, non-subjective criteria, Parla?

Because "greatness" has no reality beyond our desire to attach it to something, how can it be "beyond personal judgment/opinion/evaluation"?   You are claiming an objectivity (like the earth's orbit around to sun) to a concept of mind whose purpose is the attachment of value.   Your failure to see this must be the only reason you can maintain this fallacy.  

Parla, if you can, explain Biber's "lesser extent" without using your "personal judgment/opinion/evaluation".   If you can you will have identified those "objective", "factual" criteria that you say proves "greatness".   If you can't, your argument fails, doesn't it?

No, you haven't.  When you have identified those criteria that separate the great from the non-great in that descending list you mentioned, with Beethoven and Bach at the top, Biber somewhat lower, etc., down to where greatness gives way to non-greatness, then you will have dealt with it.  In identifying the objective criteria you will have proved your point.  Fail to do so and you either can't or won't admit that you can't.

Vic.

[PS: I trust you are enjoying this as much as I am?]