Most Underrated, Forgotten, and Neglected Masterpieces

Going through the exchanges of the past couple of days there may be a pattern emerging and it takes us back to the origins of this debate, way back. If I recall correctly Parla set it off with a comment to the effect that classical music is ‘greater’ than any other because of the elements contained therein, objective elements that are necessary and sufficient for greatness. I’ve already argued they may be contributory but they’re not sufficient. Let’s keep going.

Those elements dominate in the stricter, more formalist area of classical music and to support the objective side, C hris (can I drop the hiatus from here on?), you’ve naturally veered towards two prime sources – Bach and the Second Viennese school. Arguably you can’t successfully write their kinds of music without adhering to certain forms and rules. ‘Greatness’ within their worlds hinges to a large extent on the ability of those composers to operate within those rules and still communicate by producing something that appeals to the ear as well as the intellect. Many would argue that in the case of Webern and much of Schoenberg in particular, the concern with objectivities resulted in sterility, a disengagement from the ear and the heart. Perhaps that was what Stravinsky was referring to when he called Webern’s music ‘synthetic, in the best sense’. I know synthetic means but I’m not sure what he meant by ‘in the best sense’. To me it mostly sounds contrived.

When you turn to Mozart there’s a looser attitude to form and rules, a love of innovation, a greater willingness to engage the heart. I would say, Chris, that analysis of Mozart has if anything moved in the opposite direction to the one you described in the following:

You cannot fail to notice the shift in emphasis from eloquent subjective flowing prose in praise of the music at hand to drier (and ultimately almost entirely objective) analysis of the music.

Girdlestone’s brilliant 1948 analysis of the piano concertos is choc-a-bloc with objective analysis and score references, David Cairns more recent analysis of the operas more sparing of score quotations, more apt to focus on the relationship of the music to the man himself and the people who listen to it (including a photo of a Maquiritare Indian listening to Mozart recordings. Ouijah boards, anyone?) Attribution of subjective elements to Mozart’s music is a relatively recent phenomenon. He was considered to be all fiddly bits, nice tunes and format when I was a youngster. Today, anybody who can’t recognize the emotion in, say, the G minor string quintet is considered both tone deaf and emotionally atrophied.

Going much further along the scale you’ve got a world I alluded to yesterday, that of Nina Simone and onwards (downwards, Parla?). Totally different, different criteria or no criteria. What do we make of Mingus berating his band for not playing with enough soul? “More flattened chords, some palindromes boys!” What are the objective criteria for soul? Yet anyone who knows Mingus or Coltrane knows there’s something special happening in there that defies analysis.

So back to where the discussion started, before your time Chris. Is there an objective definition of greatness? Depending on what music you’re talking about, there can be more or fewer objective elements in that definition, and they’re never the total story. Applying the criteria of one kind of music to another doesn’t work. There’s no such thing as the ‘ideal’ mix, invalidating music that doesn’t comply with it. Also there’s the listener. Some people get most of their satisfaction from the objective elements of music, others from the subjective. For most of us it’s a bit of both and we’re not concerned with the balance between them. It’s the claim that only one or the other counts that gets me, and I think a few others, riled up. If Son Of Parla ever comes on here and states that ‘Heartbreak Hotel’ is the best piece of music ever written he’s going to get the same reaction as Parla did months back, taking the stance that such music is inherently inferior. Elvis, as everybody knows, rocks. As do Beethoven and Mozart, but in different ways.

Tagalie, thanks again for a very thoughtful and thorough post, with which you bring us a bit closer, so that we may bridge the gap of objective versus subjective in music. Despite I may no sound as conciliatory as you, allow me to address some points of your posts with these comments:

What I said about the "greatness of Classical Music" is not that it is "greater" because of the "elements" contained therein, but rather that the "elements" are used in accordance with the rules of music and in a thorough, brilliant way. What make the Classical Music objectively better is the structure, the harmony, the modulations used, the orchestration etc. These features rather than elements are sufficient (and not contributory) to the musical or technical part of the greatness of the work in question. These features are contributory to the general appreciation of the work, which includes also the popularity, or how the work of music can touche the audiences. I always claimed the objective superiority of the musical or technical aspect of the classical musical work, not the total value, which is based also on the emotional effect it can have to the listener.

So, these features "dominate" not only in the "stricter, more formalist area of classical music", but, practically, in all the works of Classical Music, since the essence of it is at least the structure, the efficient and rather generous use of modulations, the orchestration, and the harmony. Mozart, by the way, was not at all "loose" on that. His structural ability is a marvel, the use of modulations of the most effective nature, the orchestration (for his era) perfect, along with an abundance of additional ones, such as incredible use of the tonalities, amazing ease in sustaining gorgeous melodies or melodic lines (even the Bass line is absolutely singable), harmonic perfection, etc. As for the g minor String Quintet is definitely an emotional powerhouse, but, also, a huge work of artistic value, one of the very few in the musical literature. However, it's one of the least popular work (along with his other five superb String Quintets).

Nina, Ella, Mingus or Coltrane are definitely great performers of Jazz music. They are not composers and, practically, there is no composition to talk about (virtually, there is no score). So, the above criteria, features, elements are not applicable here. However, these artists might be the no.1 in this kind of music (which I love and appreciate for the performers' sometimes enormous skills), but it's another league (to use Hugh's funny terminology). And they belong to another league, because the main (if not the only) element we have is the performer's presentation, almost always in the form of improvisation (no score and, therefore, no possibility to repeat the same thing we listen once, except for what it has been recorded, but, even in this case, it cannot be repeated by other or even the same performers, since there is no score).

So, to summarize, I (and those who study Music) was taught that there is the technical, musical, literature value of the musical work and the emotional one. Both constitute the total value. However, the former is quite important to guide us in Music, since most of the technically or musically great works are less or not popular and, in quite a few cases, almost completely unknown. So, the objective quality of the works in Classical Music may guide us to pursue the compositions of our interest, e.g. a violinist has to search for Bach's Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin, Mozart or Beethoven's Violin Sonatas, Biber's Passaqcaglia, etc.

I hope maybe this time...but, as it is commonly said in this forum, I should not hold my breath.

Best wishes to all,

Parla

I guess anything played by the BBCSO is a Sunday morning womens' reserve team.

Fair enough Vic but then I cannot begin to understand your absolute rejection of any objective component contributing to your enjoyment of music.  Reading the recent posts Parla, Tagalie and I share considerable common ground and are discussing fascinating differences of opinion within a common view. I suppose we have to accept that you and I are so far apart that we will probably never get to that point.  That doesn't mean that we can't have many interesting discussions on other topics.

You cannot understand because your utterly false presumption of my position, which even if true would have nothing whatsoever to do with the matter under discussion.  Sorry, but you seem completely out of your depth with this matter Chris.

Vic.

Vic, I think we have to be realistic.

If we cannot even agree on whether we have objective proof that Chris is not Parla, how can we hope to discuss the topic in hand.  Nothing I or Parla or Tagalie (who you continue to ignore) will convince you, and vice versa. I don't see how we can go further. Isn't the gap just too wide. This is not written with malice, but if you think we could proceed from here, how do you think it could be done. Perhaps, if you want to, you might like to restate exactly what is your position.

One thing I'm absolutely not willing to do is engage in a slanging match over our relative competence or incompetence to discuss the issues.

But we'll carry on anyway.