Most Underrated, Forgotten, and Neglected Masterpieces

Oh dear, he's posted his 'big post.'

Hope he liked that boring game of football tonight.

I will get around to the 'big read,' honest.

I thought you were going to stay out of this? Actually I didn't, even though you said you would.

I think you mean, above, 'I did not' and I'm saying you did. You've always denied that subjectivity plays any role in a definition of greatness, ergo it has to be objective. And if it's objective it must be identifiable or definable - not necessarily measurable in the way we normally understand that term, but certainly definable in terms of objective criteria. You can't just say 'it's there', you have to be able to describe in objective terms why it's there.

I could continue but past experience tells me I'm wasting my time until your knight in shining armour gets back and if he enjoyed the game and result half as much as I did he's gone for the night.

Good morning Vic.  The posts are flying fast (too fast for me) on this so I should clarify here that I am replying to your post  No.11 on page 12 of this subject.

Chris:

 Are you seriously trying to suggest that in order to say that greatness can be objectively assessed we must be able to line up every work in a linear order of greatness?

Vic: Yes I am saying that if greatness can be objectively assessed we ought to be able to line them all up as you say.  It's a nonsense isn't it?  The reason why it's a ludicrous proposition and we can't is because greatness cannot be objectively assessed!  That's my argument!

Excuse me Vic, but it was you that demanded this specific challenge. You set up phantom targets and then you shoot them down. I specifically wrote that this was an irrelevant comparison.  However, I don't accept that the reason it is irrelevant is that greatness cannot be objectively assessed.I'll ignore your barbs about relativity etc. You missed my point completely so I'll repeat it here.  We continue to use theories that have been proven false simply because it is convenient (useful).  But I must again ask you once again: please the post, not the poster.

Chris: We are not engaging in science.  

Vic: Yes we are.  Your definition of "objective" is correct and locates this discussion in the realm of science.

Well, here is the crux of 'our' argument.

You define 'objective' as being in the realm of science (as above, and I refer others back to your post).

Subjective, I believe your definition is given in this quote (square brackets my insertion into your text): 'I suggest most would believe it [greatness in music] a matter of opinion and that that is enough for them, probably because they regard the opinions of their fellow men and women as due the respect they would want for their own.'
My problem is this.  The limiting of the discussion you would impose with these definitions seems to leave leave out the core of the discussion, the substantial part of what I (and I believe others) thought was the subject of the debate.  You ignore most of the points I made in my main post, and it's possible that on the terms you impose you may right to do so. (But I reserve judgement even on that).  It is not the main issue for me, nor I think between Parla and posters other than yourself. But, rather than you and I continuing arguing on this,  I would really like to hear the opinion of others on this point.  It really seems to me that you are trying to drive the discussion into a dead end. Let's see what others have to say, and if no-one is interested, then perhaps we should stop anyway.  In the meantime I must reply (separately) to Tagalie. We were delayed last night by a different shared interest. 

I couldn't possibly comment victor.

Well you could if you wanted to, my friend.  But then, if I were in your position, I wouldn't want to either. 

Vic.

Vic, that is the question I asked of others.  Is your definition of objective the same as the one we are all using in this debate?  I knew already that you think so and I suppose everyone else knows that too. You and they also know that I think differently.  Let's hear from others...?  As to your other comments about my interpretation of the argument, well, you are entitled to your beliefs.  Again though, I'd like others to enter into what will otherwise become a largely sterile debate.  That's not personal, but if it's only to be an argument between you and me, perhaps we'd be better for everyone's sake discussing something else.

Now I reply to Tagalie (his post no.8 on p12. Incidentally hasn't something happened to these numbers.  Am I mistaken or weren't they consecutive and continuous until recently).

Good morning anyway Tagalie.  A great match yes. It's good to see United taken down a peg from time to time.

You raise interesting points here, and for some reason, the way you posed them put a different thought into my mind, which may not be completely irrelevant.  We have concentrated on the perception of greatness by the listener. I still submit that we can define and gain an understanding of our initial subjective responses by examining the musical bases for our responses in the score.  You are right that some devices, to use your word, may seem original at first but pall on later hearing. But if we still admire the work, we will probe into the score to see why. And most works in the literature have been subjected to detailed analysis in numerous music journals and books, and the many distinguished authors of these have contributed significantly to 'objectifying' our subjective responses to the music. I chose the Schubert just because it was an example where we can pinpoint a single instance. [As an aside, if you are intersted in that song, you should seek out the performance that Britten accompanies (John-Shirley-Quirk is the singer). The way Britten picks up on the chord I mentioned is.... well, amazing... and it shows that he recognised this moment].

As I tried to emphasise, a central problem is that we are always dealing with a mixture of subjective and objective.  And this is compounded when we try to test 'objectivity' with absurd 'tests' like compare Bach B minor mass with Beethoven Missa Solemnis.  Interestingly, Hugh, in his tongue-in-cheek parody of my little subjectivity test, was sensible enough not to ask "which is better, Bach or Barcelona?"

Now, I wonder if some of the assumed difficulty in discussing whether we can objectively assess greatness arises because we unwittingly confuse the listening with the composing (and in music there is also the art of re-creating).

Can we rationally reconstruct the act of creation of a work?  And is this different from analysing what makes a work what it is?  Popper writes (about science, but he continues about other subjects too) "I shall distinguish sharply between the process of conceiving a new idea, and the methods and results of examining it logically."

What I had hoped to stimulate was a discussion of the latter.  I'm interested to hear your comments on this because, as I posted above, I think Vic's approach would remove the most interesting part of the discussion.

Finally, an complete irrelevance.  One other contributor to this forum, the ******1 who doesn't like anything I write, is also the one who might know which team I shall be supporting on Saturday.  

I'm taking a rest for now. Bye.