Continuation of issues arising from most forgotten thread...

Oh, VIc boy! You really trivialise any clues and help I try to provide. I asked you : "When Beethoven finished his Fifth, which we know tortured him a lot till he found its final form, after enormous efforts and numerous rejected sketches, did he know that his composition was the one he could approve as the best possible outcome?" If the obvious answer is "yes", can this be translated to the simplistic : Beethoven's Fifth is great, because Beethoven compose it? In a way, it is true. However, this question/answer shows who and when made the critical judgement for the work we are faced with.

This procedure was followed for "every work" by "every composer", but to different degrees, based on the knowledge, dedication, expertise they allocated to the whole procedure. The fact that Beethoven Bagatelles as well, it means that this was his scope for the composition and the greatness of it lies in the perfect materialisation of the original outline of it. By all means, the Bagatelles cannot provide the structure, complexity and a variety of features that a work like Missa Solemnis or the Ninth may provide. Therefore, their importance is lower, despite as compositions are brilliant works too, in their form.

In the same vein, Biber contributed to Music only with a much smaller volume of works a significant narrow scope as for the works he composed, most of them dedicated to the virtuosity of violin writing. So, is it clear enough why, objectively, Biber is a much smaller composer than Bach? Hummel, likewise, wrote some wonderful works, but without contributing to a considerable extent to the advancement of any form or to the development of exisitng ones or the establishment of new ones. His contribution to Music was not even close to his contemporaries Beethoven and Schubert.

I have answered Mark's point in my post #2 on 30/5. In any case, I don't establish the "criteria" you are asking for. "Music is Bach". So, Bach established the criteria, the methods the goals of a great composition. We learn music from him and his works. We have the reference, which cannot be contested by anyone of us, who only in small or bigger fractions can structurally and technically follow his works. The structure of his Chaconne is an objective reference standard. The orchestration of Schubert's "Unfinished" likewise. The unfailing Harmony in Haydn's "Creation" is a fact to observe and follow. Accordingly, a Galuppi's conventional Piano Sonata betrays a lesser developed work, albeit delightful, as for the structure, scope, etc. Paganini's virtuosity works look a bit "empty" when we deal with their form, harmonic language, etc.

Parla.

P.S.: In a way, yes, I enjoy "this", but, I doubt whether we have the same object as for our enjoyment.

What other conclusion can be drawn from "this question/answer shows who and when made the critical judgment" than Beethoven's fifth is great because Beethoven composed it - and thought so?

Those "different degrees" have to be evaluated.  They are not objective facts independent of judgment, are they?

Evaluation required here too.

Are less volume and narrower scope objective factors for greatness? 

No you haven't.   In the above post: "His [Bach's] position was, is and will be where he deserves to be" is not an answer to Mark's point.  What objective criteria separate one composer from another in the "list" of descending "greatness"?

Parla, can you give us some indication that you understand what I mean by the following from my last post?

"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. "

Similarly, you pointedly avoid the question of how you establish Biber's "lesser extent" without using your "personal judgment/opinion/evaluation".   Surely you can see that this is a vital point that supports or refutes your claim for factors of greatness independent of judgment?

I believe your inability or unwillingness to address these points is proof that you are unable to do so.   Can you prove that I am wrong by addressing them?

Vic.

Parla, For a different view from Vic's oft-repeated one, I thought your last post (no.3, p6), one of the best you have written on this aspect.

Vic's favourite trick is to trivialise something one writes and then criticise his trivialised version. Cheap but effective. It'd because I've seen through it that I no longer engage in discussion with him.

Time he had some ideas of his own.

Chris, I fully comprehend your frustration in debating, in a futile stagnant discussion, with Vic, but, whenever I tried to indicate to him that, for the sake of the forum, we may declare a draw, since we both insist on our views without having a sign to converge to one or the other direction, he is ready to declare his victory, interpreting my stance as conceding defeat.

So, the never-ending story will go on, till we see how Vic may decide to finish it.

Thanks a lot for comprehending my post(s).

Parla

The "black is white" comment sums up my feelings but worse in that he, obviously, recognises he is in the wrong and then tries to wriggle out of it.

The nearest anyone has got with him is to have him offer a "draw" but even then he has absolutely got to have the last word.

Not participating in a street party over the weekend, then, to celebrate...oh, what was it now?

Bollocks, was my original reply - before I realised that I could expand on that. As far as I can see I can't currently contribute to this forum without quoting somebody else and then only by filling in the daft-letter control panel.
Anyway the initial "Bollocks" was directed against a Parla post Why is anybody still arguing with him? -most of his posts are clearly bollocks, as one or two forumites have already rumbled. So, Vic and others, why are you still arguing with him - not to mention the other chap(s) - . when, unlike them, you clearly have something positive to contribute? I'd look for other classical music sites if I were you. They do exist.

Yes Parla.  That is the very thing you are being asked for.  You are the one saying these objective criteria exist.  What are those "references", those "standards", those objective criteria?  Name them!   And in naming them, omit evaluation-qualifiers like "better", "more sophisticated", etc., all of which will be subjective. (I trust in the example of Bach and Biber it's more than an opus count?)

We don't need another 800 words Parla.  A simple list of the objective criteria that prove one composer "greater" than another will suffice. 

Vic.