Most Underrated, Forgotten, and Neglected Masterpieces

It is not an extremely unconventional work. In the spirt of the times it is an totally conventional work. However it is not a work of musical value. It is a work of self promotion, a work of the times. A work that belongs under avant garde showmanship but not under music. However I'm sure we can all list composers who should have written entirely silent works, Beethoven is not one of them.

I think you mean "rules".   Logic is not rules, although rules, like everything, have to follow logic.  But that is not the point.  You (and only you now that Chris has given up apparently), you have claimed greatness in music is a fact.  Facts need to be proved.  Following rules is not in itself proof of greatness.  How well those rules have been followed is a matter of judgment.  That is a subjective process.   This does not support your claim.

You don't mean "define" do you?  Define = definition.  You are in effect saying: "Structure, orchestration and harmonic language define greatness."  No they do not.   Something can be defined by its structure etc, but the value of it, its "greatness" cannot be defined by elements of it.   The definition of greatness cannot be proved by the quality of its elements.   So this doesn't support your claim either.

What is "greatness", Parla?   Give us a definition that does not involve judgment, evaluation. 

Vic.

Yes we can prove gravity, Brodsky.  Let me give you an example.  If you drink too much, after you have posted a couple of vile and offensive posts that get withdrawn, you fall down.  You don't fall up, do you?

Vic.

Hi Parla! Sounds like a fabulous weekend. And thanks for the gastronomic advice! Pasta al limone sounds good.

Back to business as it were:

At long last Parla we have a list from you which starts to attempt a definition of greatness in music:

a) structure
b) orchestration
c) harmonic language

Those are some of the elements that constitute a good or great piece of music, but they don't provide objective proof that the piece is great, since the same elements can be applied universally and to other genres of music, not just serious or classical.

What about an artist's vision? A phrase we hear often. Beethoven had an optimistic vision of mankind so it goes, Britten was a man 'at odds with the world' (from a documentary I one watched on him - and anyone who can make a short Missa Brevis for boys' voices and organ sound a bit disturbing was a genius in my book, but I can't objectively prove it). Penderecki writes some dark and troubled music: The Threnody to the victims of Hiroshima is only a starting point. Shostakovitch used a 4 note cell to represent 'evil powers' so it is claimed by writers. Etc...etc...

An artist's vision is something which is there, present in the work. We can get a feeling or flavour for it. We can analyse it. We can't objectively define it, we can subjectively define it, and yet it possibly/probably constitues greatness in a lot of cases. A unique vision sets an artist apart from his contemporaries as doing or saying something different or in a different way. Obvious stuff I know, but it is significant when we talk about greatness.

If it's there, a vision is unquantifiable. It's the artist's view which pervades his work. It rises above mere elements.

Vic said: and I agree

Something can be defined by its structure etc, but the value of it, its "greatness" cannot be defined by elements of it.   The definition of greatness cannot be proved by the quality of its elements.  

Mark

Victor, alcohol does not prove gravity. If any thing it counteracts gravity. After the Ode to Joy on saturday evening I was actually floating above the ground for several hours, alcohol is the antidote to gravity, the room was rocking from side to side and the birdies were tweeting around my head. These are objective facts Vic, dismiss them if you like. We can show the effect of gravity and we can predict it's actions but we cannot prove gravity. When Doggers rose like a dragonfly to head the ball, did gravity hold him down - NO. When the ball hit the back off the net like Thor's hammer sent from Asgard to vanquish the demons did the power not come from a magical dimension. You trust in physics too much mortal.

Three interesting posts, from Tagalie, Parla and Mark. Rather unfairly I’m starting with Mark’s first!  (No.9 on p36)

As usual, Mark, an interesting post and plenty of food for thought and discussion.

Let’s start with your conclusion, Vic’s proposition:

Something can be defined by its structure etc, but the value of it, its "greatness" cannot be defined by elements of it.   

This is just a statement, not a proof.  It needs supporting and in support of this proposition you argued as follows: 

“An artist's vision is something which is there, present in the work. We can get a feeling or flavour for it. We can analyse it. We can't objectively define it, we can subjectively define it, and yet it possibly/probably constitutes greatness in a lot of cases. A unique vision sets an artist apart from his contemporaries as doing or saying something different or in a different way. Obvious stuff I know, but it is significant when we talk about greatness.

"If it's there, a vision is unquantifiable. It's the artist's view which pervades his work. It rises above mere elements.”

This is one viewpoint.  Many may share it. I would put the same thing a different way.  As a result I would disagree with Vic’s statement.

This is my viewpoint:

I agree with what you say about an artist’s vision, but not that we cannot find it in the score.

First, there must be many musicians who have great ideas, great visions, but who cannot or do not put it down on paper.  What is not on paper (or some other matrix) we will never know about (see note 1).

Second, once it is down on paper, we have the evidence of the work: everything of which it is comprised is in the score. We have only this with which to reconstruct the work. The same for a sculpture or a painting, except that in the case of music the question of performance also enters the equation. What secrets were behind whatever went into the score, we will never know. And even if we could it probably would not help, subjectively or objectively. (As to what I mean by ‘objective’ please see note 2).

So now to the score. My first and frequent response to music I hear is subjective. Once a piece of music has attracted me subjectively, I am ready to listen again with the score and to try to probe more objectively into what it is that makes the music ‘work’ for me. The effect of such study is almost invariably to increase my (subjective?) love of the music, which in turn often sends me back to the score for more. My understanding of the greatness of a piece of music is based on an interaction of these two processes. Furthermore the more I understand the music objectively, the more easily I can understand the decisions taken by performers struggling to reach the heart of the music. This greatly enhances my pleasure in hearing performances live and recorded. This continuous interaction between subjective and objective has given me years of pleasure and nothing I have read on this discussion comes near to talking me out of it. It works for me.

For me, each performance, however subjective, highlights aspects of the score including some that I may not have noticed before. In other words, even (and perhaps particularly) a more subjective performance opens up new vistas that are present in the score but previously unnoticed by me.  For me as listener (and score reader) there is an ongoing interaction between the score and performances, which continually enrich my love and understanding of the music."  Through this approach I believe I come closer to an objective understanding of the greatness of  a piece of music, without in any way compromising my subjective love of the work. 

That’s my viewpoint, and it works for me. Hence I reject Vic’s statement.

Neither of us can prove that our viewpoint is correct.

______

Note 1.  This description has to be amended with the arrival of recording and alternative methods of storing music. But that is not the issue here.

Note 2.  In the narrow logical sense of the word we do not have objective knowledge about anything based on sensible experience. (Hugh has discussed this with Vic in posts above). I am not using ‘objective’ in this sense, but in the everyday sense. If you think it is subjective of me to assume that when I smell coffee there is coffee around somewhere, and that unless I can verify it by seeing the coffee and proving that the smell comes from the beans I should not make the connection, you are probably logically correct, but it makes for very difficult conversation ... and as Hugh says it quickly leads to madness. But if this is the definition of objective you wish to apply, then you can’t pick and choose.  You’ll have to select your words very carefully in describing your everyday experiences!

Sorry: too long!!

Parla claimed that the proof of greatness in music is found in the structural elements of that music, that those structural elements define the greatness.  

For him this is the proof that greatness in some music is a fact.

You wrote at 9.23 this morning that you agreed that objective greatness in music cannot be proven.

No one is arguing with you about your "objective understanding" of music.  So that just leaves the question about the objective proof of greatness which you have stated is indeed incapable of being proven.

So just what are you arguing about?   It reads like argument for argument's sake to me.

Vic.