Below are some of comments received on David Wright's Article. I tried to
obtain the permission of each writer to re-publish here. If I failed in your
case I apologize and will remove your contribution if you wish. Most have
been posted to David and he will no doubt add further comments of his own.
I thank you all for entering a spirited debate!
Len Mullenger
Oct 15th 2001
With all due respect i think this your article is quite ridiculous.
Objectivity can only go so far and I think it denies music's very essence
and heart to construct such strict arguments and critiques as to its "greatness".
You take space of your article to call Bach a composer who is famous but
not great.
Take the third orchestral suite in D. Take even the 18 measure Air. Is it
not important that the so simple melody can communicate and make one feel
incredible passions in ways that nothing else in life can even attempt to?
Is this not why we are musicians and not scientists? That throught the course
of just 18 measures he is able to bring about and synthesize all that is right
and beautiful about the world, about all that is right and beautiful about
ourselves, and yet show us something we have never known but effortlessly
understand. Is the piece then not great because you claim it not to be original?
Take the Beethoven chorale symphony. Whatever faults you and many other musicoligists
have found in the finale does that negate the fact that it is possibly the
single most moving experiance one could ever have. Does the fact that your
intellect tells you that one theme may have been stated or extended one too
many times superceed the point that our souls may just need that one more
hearing? Beethoven wasnt concerned with how your intellect judged his work.
The title of the last movement is not the ode to critique but the ode to joy.
We are musicians hopefully because we have found something in music that
is not as simple and anatomical as everyday life is frequently reduced to.
It communicates something to us that nothing else in life has, and hopefully
that is why we spend so many hours studying it, creating it and experiancing
it. While i do not deny the importance of the intellect, I strongly feel that
to reduce music to a set of logical crituiques completely defies its very
nature of being and defeats its purpose.
Thank You,
Micah Brashear
Response from David Wright 17-9-99
Comments on specific replies are interpolated below
1) This essay was not meant to be definitive but, rather
a probing to invite responses which could be used in a later revision. In
fact, I omitted to add the postscript that helpful comments would be welcome.
My opening sentance indicates that this issue is probably an unanswerable
question.
2) It is a pity that some of the replies are unnecessary,
hostile and vitriolic and some have read into my essay things that I have
not said and consequently made false judgements.
3) My article could not tackle every composer, of
course.
From: vertigo <vertigo@ms22.hinet.net>
I make the following comments on your essay only to
be helpful.
> The question is not addressed in terms of a famous composer.
> Famous means known to very many; it does not imply
> greatness; indeed greatness and fame are not synonymous.
True, but enduring fame is fairly commensurate with
"greatness," since that which pleases many for long must please them for
reasons inherent in the work itself, and not merely external to it (celebrity,
notoriety, associations, class, etc.).
> I would suggest that a great piece of music contains the
> following attributes, some of which will overlap:
>
> 1. Originality. A great piece of music must not be
> imitative but first-hand, new in character and
> design. It will be inventive, creative and not a
> copy of anything that has gone before. Neither
> will it be plagiarism. It will be innovative and
> neither superficial nor academic.
The trouble here is that the words you use are all
so vague. What do you mean by "inventive," or "creative"? That's precisely
the problem with aesthetics, namely defining these terms, definitions that
have eluded us for quite some time!
And then, in assuming your definitions, you must be
careful to avoid circular definitions, in the manner of finding any music
you like "innovative," etc. To avoid this pitfall, you must first carefully
define "innovative," etc. We might say that, for example, the Eroica was
fairly innovative; as was the Choral Symphony. But Philip Glass is probably
even more innovative; so was Arnie. Does that factor into their final
reputations?
Conversely, what about works that were fairly conservative,
such as Elgar's symphonies, rather oddly out of place in the 20th century,
yet honorably esteemed nonetheless? Are Elgar's symphonies, despite their
lack of innovation inferior to Scriabin's tone poems, riddled with originality?
Or can we define innovation as any kind of aesthetic impact, even borrowing
old forms, since the borrowing of old forms is itself fairly original!
> It also follows that a composer's œuvre is
> progressive - that is to say constantly
> developing. If his work shows little or no change
> throughout his creative span his music will become
> merely predictable and lack originality.
Again, how do you definite evolution here? Do you mean
the artist avoids becoming stale? Well, certainly, this is necessary, but
not necessarily evolution in your terms! Bach didn't evolve that much. Brahms
evolved somewhat near the end (clarinet works), but I don't think by much
(some would argue the 4th here, but I think that's exaggerated). What about
Chopin? I don't hear much evolution there. Or the great Stephen Foster, by
any standard a great composer, though his forms were brief. There's no evolution
in Foster at all. But with a gifted melodist like him, why change the magic?
Stravinsky almost certainly evolved more than Bach, but . . . well, you get
the idea.
> 2. Worthiness. The music must have purpose,
> substance and subsequent emotive or intellectual
> appeal. It will have a value and give a rewarding
> return possessing obvious merit deserving respect
> and, hopefully, receiving it. By contrast,
> worthless music has neither purpose nor value; it
> will be substandard or merely 'average' or
> pleasant.
All words here. You're arguing what are essentially
subjective ideas! Gregorian chant, I'd say, clearly has more purpose than
a Liszt piano concerto, aesthetic and moral. What purpose does Bach's C-major
prelude have? But its parsimonious sublimity never ceases to amaze me!
> A great work has substance which speaks of its
> value; it will be deep and penetrating with a
> depth of feeling and character. It will be
> superlative and not superficial.
No offense, but again, you're not defining these words.
As Thomas Hobbes remarked in Leviathan, all disputes are ultimately logomachias,
or disputes about words. What do you mean by substance? Depth of feeling?
Character? Value? Penetrating? Deep?
> 3. Emotive and Intellectual. The originality and
> worthiness of the piece will bring about an
> emotive and/or an intellectual response.
This is promising, which suggests that aesthetic response
should take place on two levels at the same time, both emotive and
intellective.
> Bland, boring, sentimental and predictable music
> will produce responses such as tedium or
> frustration.
Susan Sontag suggested that boredom was another species
of frustration. Many people are frustrated when they listen to Berg or Schoenberg
or Philip Glass or, if you're young enough, even Rachmaninov. We need a
phenomenological "reduction" here; we need not the psychological ego, but
the transcendental or purified ego, before we can judge art.
> 4. Inspiration. A great composition must,
> therefore, inspire and continue to do so.
Okay, fine. This is the pragmatic approach, in terms
of audience response.
> 5. Craftsmanship and Technique. A composer must
> know how to compose and achieve what he wants to
> write. Composition is an occupation demanding the
> highest levels of skill. The work must be
> competent, structurally logical, harmonically
> interesting and polished. It must be written well
> for the medium yet if it is merely academic (by
> which is meant regimented to archaic text books or
> theoretical correctness) it cannot be great music.
Some more words here; moreover what is clearly defined
here can be applied to all works, not merely what you call "great" works.
Twinkle Twinkle Little Star is competent, structurally logical, and polished.
True, it lacks harmonic interest, but I deliberately selected the simplest
example. Clearly, any composition beyond this, such as any piano piece by
Chopin or Schubert or Debussy or Rachmaninov would qualify in your
terms.
> 6. Durability. A great piece will last and not
> wear out with repeated hearings and will continue
> to give the profound satisfaction its greatness
> proves and also continuing to reveal more of its
> detail.
This is reasonably acceptable, I think.
> 7. Coherence. The work must make sense having
> direction, form and, of course, something definite
> and worthwhile to say. It must connect logically
> and not ramble. In other words it will not 'stop
> and start'. It will not be episodic suffering from
> such stutterings.
The problem here is that we need criteria to define,
for example, "stuttering," etc. Mahler's music was considered to be stuttering,
incoherent, etc. Ever listen to the 3rd? The 9th? Sometimes the apparently
incoherent passages in an artist's work turns out, on further familiarity,
to be the key passages in that work.
> That would relegate the music to being merely
> incidental and of little moment. If, for example,
> a movement is marked allegro it is to be fast and
> lively, full of life and energy, vigorous and
> cheerful, full of action. If it is not, the music
> is hardly coherent. If a movement is called a
> scherzo one expects the music to be humorous.
I don't follow you here. First, why would an artist
perversely ignore titles to his or her works? And second, if so, there must
be a purpose, since the artist is ALWAYS right, assuming it is art. If Brahms
calls his Mass A German Requieum, he has his reasons. But, anyway, believe
me, if the first movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony was called a Largo,
it would not alter the splendor of the movement one bit, would it? One of
my favorite remarks of the Greek scholar Kitto, defending Sophocles is, something
to the effect that, "if you think of a better ending to his plays, you can
be sure he thought of it first and discarded it as inadequate!" If Arthur
Miller calls a play about a salesman, a "low man," a tragedy, you can be
certain, as an artist, he knew what he was doing. We simply have to keep
up with the artist, not the other way around. If Beethoven included voices
in a symphony, then we've got to redefine what a symphony is. As Seneca observed,
"Whom will not follow the gods, are dragged."
> 8. Contrast. All great music has contrast within
> it. By contrast I do not mean changes of tempo
> within a movement, but a variety of tone and
> colour and/or diverse themes clearly stated and
> musically argued. A long piece of slow, uneventful
> music will be tedious because of a lack of
> contrast.
Here again, how does one define contrast? A great Blues
may SEEM like it has no contrast, but actually has in microtonal ways. Is
one of Bruckner's sublime slow movements without contrast? If you hate B's
music, yes; if you love it, the slower the better. What about the final adagio
from Mahler's 9th? I survived my teenage years on that movement alone! What
about "Good Golly, Miss Molly" by Little Richard? One of the sublimities
of the 20th century. But no contrast at all! What about "Boo hoo hoo hoo"?
Another Little Richard classic.
> 9. Length. Music that is too long will lose its
> effectiveness, if it has any, as will music that
> is too repetitious, over-blown, overstated or
> long-winded. It will be irksome and, therefore,
> not great music. Long-winded is defined as of
> tedious length; overstated refers to exaggeration;
> over-blown indicates 'too open' or 'too much'
> being overdone, excessive and consequently
> tiresome.
A little of Poe here, gist for disputatious rejoinders.
First, try not to mix value categories; and, clearly, something too long
in length (quantity) has no relationship to something too overblown (quality).
Again, what about Mahler? Bruckner? Paradise Lost? Is "Annabel Lee" a greater
poem? Or does length here actually add stature to a work? (Compare Milhaud's
symphonies to Beethoven's or Bruckner's.)
> 10. Content. Great music must have memorable
> content but that does not necessarily mean a
> melody or tune instantly recalled to mind; it may
> be moments of magical orchestration, unexpected
> and effective modulations or an overall impression
> even though specific detail may not be remembered.
This is fairly acceptable, I think. It looked, at the
beginning, that you were not going to define your terms, but you do so &
by contradiction too ("does not necessarily mean a melody or tune instantly
recalled"). And your positive definition is both logical and persuasive.
> It follows that popular and well-loved music is not
> necessarily great music. Some may enjoy Johann Strauss's
> Blue Danube Waltz but it is not great music.
If the Blue Danube Waltz is not great music, then I
prefer to listen to famous music!
> By contrast Stravinsky's Rite of Spring fulfils all our
> stated qualities of greatness yet there are those who do not
> appreciate this masterpiece.
Does it have to be "either/or"? Can't both these pieces
be great?
> Personal taste is not the criterion for greatness. Much as I enjoy
the music of Haydn, it will have to be admitted that some of his music is
predictable and not strikingly original.
A lot of composers wrote predictable and not strikingly
original music; they also wrote otherwise. So what? There's a lot of Haydn
that is strikingly beautiful, original (based on reasonably shared criteria
of originality), profoundly affecting, and communicative.
> Take another work in B minor namely Schubert's Unfinished Symphony.
What is original about it? Is its content too repetitive or derivative? Is
it coherent?
Everything is original about it. And coherent.
> Pass on the Beethoven's Piano Concerto No 4 in G. Its opening was original
for its day but, at times, is the work predictable? Does it occasionally
lose its way?
Which way? Yours or Beethoven's?
> Whether a piece is great or not should not lead its devotees to
feel put down if someone cannot agree with their appreciation. And if it
is proved that a favourite piece is poor, lovers of that work should not
become bellicose.
Can we laugh instead?
> Ponder the case of Chopin. To some he is considered a great composer
yet I would suggest that he is a famous composer and that fame is based
exclusively on his piano works. When it came to orchestration he was sadly
lacking.>
So was Shakespeare. But we don't read Shakespeare for
his orchestration; at least, I don't.
> That is not intended to castigate Chopin; there are some fine moments
in his work including the slow movement of his Piano Concerto No 2 in F minor
but it is a pity about the orchestral parts. Famous yes; a great composer?
Hardly.
You're beginning to sound like George Sand in
Majorca!
> Of all the composers with whom I spoke most of them say that whilst
Bach was very able he was also very able to bore!
Again, to refer to Sontag, boredom is another species
of frustration. Many people are bored by a Tchaikovsky symphony or a collection
of Blues. But that's not an aesthetic response, one way or another.
> If we compare Bach with Stravinsky it has to be said that Stravinsky
was both far more original and versatile. For example, Bach wrote no opera.
Stravinsky did.
Stravinsky didn't father 20 children, Bach
did.
More soberly, Stravinsky didn't write a Passion, Bach
wrote many. What are you getting at? Whatever it is, it has no relation to
aesthetics as I understand the word.
> Pleasant music it may be but his extended works are probably too long
and the
"Probably" says it all!
> material is too derivative to sustain freshness. This is the majority
verdict among senior professional musicians.
How senior are these musicians? Does their seniority
go into dotage?
> A famous composer or a national figure is not necessarily a great composer.
Consider Grieg. He is Norway's most famous composer. But what of his works
are genuinely great and possess all the attributes we have set out? Peer
Gynt is enjoyable and the Piano Concerto is deservedly popular. Yet it is
not original as it is clearly modelled on the Schumann Concerto from 23 years
earlier.
Hamlet is modeled on any number of revenge plays; so
what? The Aeniad is modeled on Homer, so what? So is Dante's Commedia (at
least through Vergil); so what? So is Joyce's famous novel. What do you mean
by modeled on, anyway? All art is modeled; that's the difference between
a skill and a craft. How can anyone write a novel if other novels didn't
exist? How can you make a western without using other westerns as
models?
> Greig's fame is due to his contribution to his nationalistic idiom which
was the first major Norwegian voice. Occasionally the emotive quality of
his music is superlative as in the Elegiac Melodies Op 34. His greatness
is historical.
You're correct that it's historical. But not in the
sense you mean. His greatness is historical because it will live on! I'm
sorry, but the remainder of your essay stretches credulity in its contentious
subjectivism. Just one major point: how can you discuss Beethoven's symphonies
without even mentioning the Fifth, a paradigm of coherence, intellect, emotion,
economy, content, contrast, & all the other qualities that apparently
mean so much to you?
From: Schwartz, Steven
sschwa@lsumc.edu
Date: 05 September 1999
Subject: What makes a composer great?
The article is the standard rubbish, depending on buzzwords
like "original" and "substantive" rather than on real analysis. It comes
down to, among other things, "good music is good and bad music is bad" or,
more accurately, "good music is music I like and bad music is music I don't."
The article also comes down to somebody's opinion, despite the author's attempt
to separate "great" from "popular." For example, I think Belshazzar's Feast
a real bore - "predictable," "uninspired," and all the negative words the
writer uses. So many composers, according to me, wrote better than this,
including Walton. So I haven't really said what makes the work great or not.
More details - including score analysis - would merely support an opinion,
rather than say anything about musical greatness. In other words, I've simply
vented, just as David Wright has merely rhapsodized.
Second, some of the criteria - in addition to their
dependence on what I ate for dinner last night - seem a little odd as
"universals." To me, they reflect a specific, post-Romantic sensibility.
"Originality" is one that set off warnings. I don't find Mozart, for example,
particularly original and Brahms less so as he got older, and yet I definitely
think them great. I doubt whether anyone could tell the difference in a "drop
the needle" test among Ockeghem, Josquin, Isaac, or Obrecht.
Third, there's the genre bias, reflected in the comment
on Strauss waltzes and on Grieg. Wright simply doesn't understand how difficult
it is to write a great melody. Most composers considered great don't write
wonderful melodies; they make interesting music from rather weak materials.
In its own way, Grieg's is a far more astonishing concerto than Schumann's
(in my opinion, of course), and the Schumann is pretty wonderful. However,
its themes aren't nearly as good and there's more standard, who-cares development
than in the Grieg, which mostly dispenses with this stuff. Grieg's is a more
daring (because it depends mainly on the strength of its basic material)
and more honest (because it doesn't spackle over the holes) piece of
work.
Fourth, I suspect the very notion of greatness in art
- at least as people seem to invoke it. Greatness implies a ranking. I rank
as well. But I differ from most. I don't believe that my ranking implies
anything about the ontological greatness of a piece. That would imply, among
other things, that I had near-perfect taste. However, I change my mind all
the time about one work or another. The piece doesn't change. What does that
say about my apparatus? Near-perfect taste is not something I would admit
to in public, despite what I may *really* think. Furthermore, it would never
occur to me, for example, to rank the Grieg over the Schumann. What's the
point? What's the practical consequence? Do I stop listening to the Grieg
because the Schumann is better or vice versa? Do I pat one or the other composer
on the head and award him Miss Congeniality? Seems presumptuous. It doesn't
tell me anything about *how* either's music works on me, which is I believe
the point of criticism. In the end, "greatness" is just another way of saying
"I like this a lot." As a result, I can't imagine a less interesting exercise
than ranking the x greatest ys of all time. I'm supposedly an aesthete, not
a race-track tout. The criteria that accompany the ranking give the false
appearance of a measure of objectivity, but this of course is mere hand-waving.
The criteria haven't been objectively selected (in fact, they are probably
the reflection of an historical period), and they can't be objectively applied.
They exist solely to delude the ranker into feeling his ranking isn't
whim.
Rather than worry about what makes a piece great, I
think we would do ourselves more good (morally and aesthetically) to figure
out why we like or dislike a piece, or what this composer's music does for
us, as opposed to that composer's. We're doing what we normally do anyway,
but without the inflated claims.
Steve Schwartz
Gavin Steyn
The definition of greatness here is so bizarre as to
be not worth commenting on-- he applies a 20th century rationale (originality)
to 18th century composers, and finds them wanting (surprise!)
Eliminating Bach from greatness because he didn't compose
any operas tells me more about David Wright than about Bach. (The same goes
for his comments on Haydn and Chopin).
From: Franneke <frankv@dds.nl
Date: 05 September 1999 15:22
Subject: Re: What makes a composer 'Great'?
IMO it is a lot of nonsense per square inch. The best
thing it proves is that greatness is not definable, and, what the writer
says himself, "to even attempt it may be folly."
He comes with a lot of criteria like originality,
durability, and so on. I wonder why he took these criteria. I don't like
to give any criteria at all, but I would like to point to the fact that what
is considered as great music is often dependent of the period in history
in which it is judged.
Monteverdi, for example, is now judged as a great composer,
but he wasn't hundred years ago, except by a few connaisseurs. There is a
verdict in the article of Haydn's music: lot of it is not very original.
Well, the same can be said about Mozart, and lots of other composers. Why
doesn't the author do that?
He is in doubt whether Beethoven's 4th pianoconcerto
is a masterpiece, and he calls Bach boring. He says that Monteverdi does
not have enough contrast. Schubert he calls pleasant music, and some of his
works too long. What need I say more? I feel that the author doesn't understand
the music that he comments on.
My main objection, however, is that it isn't important
at all to define great music. On the contrary, better leave it to personal
taste.
Frank
From: David Lamb
<dlamb@OZ.NET>
It may be that people are disdaining David Wright's
silly essay on great composers and refusing to get involved in discussion.
This is no doubt wise. Not having such self-discipline myself, I can't resist
making at least a brief comment.
Anybody with time on his hands can construct a set
of criteria to justify his own prejudices, but in the end, such a construct
is a house of cards. The cards fall apart when, for example, Stravinsky is
held up as a greater composer than Bach. It is not necessary to cite other
examples --- there are so many, but none so revealing.
Surely Mr. Wright can find something better to do with
his free time.
David Lamb in Seattle
From: Richard Brooks
<KDBANGLIA@AOL.COM>
Why on earth should "a consensus on the subject" constitute
an element of greatness? The internal coherence of a piece of music doesn't
change because fourteen people and not three appreciate it. The entire opening-up
of the market for less well-known composers over the past twenty years has
occurred because people -- individuals -- did not wait for the agreement
of others before promoting music that often very few indeed believed it.
A consensus won't change without disagreement by individuals at some points
in the process, and that disagreement keeps classical music alive.
We are all pulled in by this thread which could almost
be one of those "almost troll" threads as in "photography (and now 3D CGI)...but
is it art?"
If a work was appreciated by all would it become great
or not? Who gives a damn!
Calling a composer 'great' is about as useful as learning
to juggle and as compatible as one football team being thought of as being
better than another.
I agree that a majority could decide that a certain
composer is great whether or not there is an 'internal coherence of a piece
of music' or not. It could be possible that the majority decide that 'Musique
Concrete' was really the only true music and so what?
All that we know is that people will write about music,
produce music and others will listen and decide if they like that music or
not.
Music? It's nice isn't it!
Richard.
From: James Tobin
<RJT@gml.lib.uwm.edu>
There are two very fundamental objections I would make
to the central claims of David Wright's interesting and provocative essay.
First, by attempting to define greatness in terms of ten necessary conditions,
he excludes, from the category of greatness, composers of, let us say, towering
genius, whose strengths develop in different directions from those stipulated
by the definition. The definition is too a priori, and it "hems in" greatness,
or judgments of greatness, which is preposterous. Second, and this is an
instance of greatness excluded, any definition which does not work for a
very paradigm of greatness, such as Bach (and I would say Schubert too),
simply doesn't work as a definition, so there has to be something wrong with
that definition.
To say that Walton is great but Bach isn't, is less
than convincing, to say the least.
Jim Tobin
From: Clements, Robert
<Robert.Clements@DVA.GOV.AU>
We can agree to disagree here; but - assuming (&
this is a crucial assumption) that certain technical bars have been met;
& the composer is actually competant (i can probably make an argument
for the idea that a work can be great & technically poor; though this
would be rather perverse even by my standards) - it appears to me that just
about everything else involved in the process of ascertaining greatness is
a matter of interpretation (or spin; if you're a more profound Diogensian...
or more superficial pollster); with the most obvious question for interpretation
being of the weighting of the varying components of greatness (which Dr Wright
spelt out fairly accurately). There can no objectivity to this weighting
(being historically & technically informed, yes; but that isn't the same
thing as being objective) - we aren't playing cricket after all; & we
don't have a specific target of 30 runs in the last two overs to achieve
(if we did: all we'd have to do to achieve greatness is employ Lance Kluesner
as a our designated muse ... US-American listers may be able to adapt this
image to: baseball; 1 run; 9th innings; & Sammy Sosa, respectively)...
so how can we possibly define ideal length, say, objectively? - so the measure
of greatness must by definition be through a kind of mutual decision making
process... concensus, in other words; between the thinkers, doers & admirers
of the process. If you accept this position, it's hard not to believe that
we are being arrogant in the extreme if we consider our current concensus
on greatness to be the ultimate judgement on the matter... (As implied above,
however; Iaccept that there can be objective standards for bad art - mostly
technical, admittedly - & to a lesser extent also to good art... i'm
a relativistic; but like airflight too much to be a complete French
intellectual...)
All the best,
Robert Clements
<Robert.Clements@dva.gov.au>
From: Chris Bonds
<cbonds@willy.wsc.edu>
Greatness can be established by consensus, but those
outside the consensus don't think that composer great. Are they wrong, because
they refuse to join the consensus? And is the consensus just on which composers
are great, or is it on a set of criteria for determining greatness, which
these composers fulfill all or most of? Which is "greater," Galuppi's sonata
as played by Benedetti-Michelangeli or Beethoven's 9th performed by Furtwaengler?
There's no way to compare them. In one case (you can choose your own favorite
examples if you like) one has a perfectly executed yet ultimately
non-heaven-storming little miniature, and in the other a titanic but perhaps
flawed attempt to embrace the cosmos musically. Yet both contain a glimpse
of the infinite. Don't ask me how, or how I know. They just do. And don't
ask me what a glimpse of the infinite looks like. I haven't the faintest
idea.
I don't think I listen to the music of X BECAUSE X
is great (although I may think that), I listen to it because it does something
for me, changes me, somehow. So I suppose in the end there isn't really anything
to be gained by knowing or believing that X is a great composer, except that
it might pique an interest in his or her music.
Chris Bonds
From: Felix Delbrueck
<fdelbrueck@paradise.net.nz>
Regarding David Wright's points:
I don't necessarily disagree with the criteria he sets up (although I feel
some of them strongly overlap and should have been split into sub-headings),
but he is very inconsistent and wilful in their application.
For instance, Wright seems unwilling to recognise meta-musical, ie emotional,
as well as mere compositional-technical originality in the case of Schubert
or Bach; but Mozart has 'an originality of charm and spontaneity seen in
his best work coupled with a unique, mercurial elegance' which gives him
the edge over Haydn and Bach. Haydn is demoted to 'famous' because 'some
of his music is predictable and not strikingly original' but Mozart is judged
great in the light of 'his best work' (now this would rightly be cannon-fodder
for Bob Draper). W. is another one of those who claims to scrutinize
'famous names' afresh, but to my mind many of his criticisms are, quite frankly,
old hat (Bach straight-jacketed by theory, Chopin only a pianist-composer,
Schubert only 'pleasant' and really only worthwhile in his songs, which have
a 'gem-like perfection'). And surprise surprise, 2 British composers (Walton
and Vaughan Williams) are 'great', but Sibelius isn't - and here one ludicrous
example is given:
>Some movements in a Sibelius symphony are designated 'allegro' but aren't
lively and cheerful enough to justify that description - that's one mark
already on Beckmesser's slate.
We all have criteria by which we try to rank artists in our own minds in
the course of our listening experience, and as I said, I don't even think
W's criteria are too bad in themselves - but his article exposes that
fundamentally our views on art are nakedly subjective, and this sort of pompous
claim to objectivity and reason is in my view dishonest, not to mention bloody
irritating.
Felix Delbruck
fdelbrueck@paradise.net.nz
From: Bernard Chasan
<bribern@earthlink.net>
Concerning David Wright's views, Felix Delbrueck
writes:
>>his article exposes that fundamentally our views on art are nakedly
subjective, and this sort of pompous claim to objectivity and reason is in
my view dishonest, not to mention bloody irritating.
Felix is on target. Just to take one small example,
to characterize Schubert's Wintereise song cycle as gem-like is so nutty
that it is hard to respond to. Does this guy really LIKE music? And why this
new fashion of spending time and energy knocking great composers off their
pedestals? I am much more interested in what my fellow listers and others
LIKE - or LOVE.
Bernard Chasan
From: Paul Andrews
<pandrews01@SURFAID.ORG>
I have just spent a very entertaining few moments reading
David Wright's piece on greatness in music. It is very tempting to dismiss
this as so much useless (not to say, pompous) verbiage (and I may do so)
but whilst reading I have also been listening to a CD of music by William
Byrd, sung by The Cardinall's Musick (ASV CDGAU 178), and I am just given
to wonder whether I can now continue to regard Byrd as a great composer,
considered in the light of Dr Wright's stringent criteria. Is he, for example,
original or is his music derivative? Well he wrote within the stylistic
constraints of his time so his music is not really innovative except in the
sense that he put down combinations of notes that no-one else had previously
thought of. But then so did Bach, and I note that this is not enough to impress
Dr Wright. It could be said that he was one of a few composers (Palestrina
was another, very different, example) who perfected the a cappella style
of the high renaissance, but then Bach did something very similar for the
high baroque and... etc etc. However, in basing some of his music on plainsong
melodies, Byrd must stand accused of being derivative so there's a black
mark! All the composers of that era did it, but that's no excuse. (By the
way very few of Shakespeare's plots are original so...this doesn't bear thinking
about - can any artist be truly great according to the Wright
principles?)
I think we can pass on 'worthiness' (horrible term!).
Byrd was expressing a deeply devout Catholicism at a time when it was very
un-pc to do so. No hint of hypocrisy there.
Emotive/Intellectual: Question - If your ideal of emotion
in music is to be blitzed by the Rite of Spring, is your emotional apparatus
subtle enough to appreciate the height of emotion in the Agnus Dei of the
Mass for Four Voices? And to know why? I do hope so. As for the intellectual
side (taking in craftmanship as well), I don't need to be convinced (and
I also speak as a professional musicologist). However, if intellectual coherence
is the benchmark then Ebenzer Prout and Johann Fux can vie for the title
of world's greatest composer.
Inspiration: Well. we've already established that Byrd
was derivative and rarely deviated from the stylistic norms of his day, so
his muse must have been a very rare visitor indeed. Did he know his craft
and did he have any technique? Moreover did his music 'develop'? I believe
that it did, but I'd be interested to know if Dr Wright's ears are finely
tuned enough to establish which period of Byrd's life any given piece may
date from. However, in the matter of orchestration I am with David all the
way. Byrd was useless at it, rarely straying from the safe combination of
organ and viols.
The music is durable (it's lasted four hundred years)
and, I submit, coherent, though I digress to disagree about the necessity
of making the music match the chosen performance markings. Surely it's part
of the measure of greatness that composers transcend such technical
considerations and has he never heard of irony? As for writing well for the
instruments - did Beethoven do that, or has not rather instrumental technique
developed to accomodate the quite unreasonable demands he made on it (cf
Michael Tippett).
I could go on but I'm getting bored with this - and
if you've read this far then in all probability so are you. Dr Wright's is
the Harvard Business School approach to greatness. Every human activity can
be reducible to its component constituents which can then be analysed, learned
and imitated by any third rate student. Not so - all genius is maverick and
in a real sense indefinable. To suggest otherwise is baloney, and who cares
anyway?
By the way - William Byrd is unquestionably great.
Open your ears and listen.
Paul
I am a sucker for provocative articles and I totally agree with David Wright
that one should not feel inclined to view a piece of music as "great" just
because of conventional wisdom. For example, Mozart is a closed book
to me but I am well aware that I am probably in a minority of one in this
matter. Bruckner, on the other hand, is my favourite composer and I simply
cannot understand those poor souls who fail to recognize this mightiest of
musical geniuses.
The perception of greatness is always a question of individual personality
and preference of musical expression. After all, one man's meat .........
Let's have more stimulating and unstuffy essays like Mr Wright's!
Gerry Robello
Linda Karen Dowson, Musician and psychologist April 2002
I have just read the comments posted on this website from various correspondents
concerning Dr David Wright's courageous essay What makes a great composer?
I have known David for 25 years and he has been seriously mispresented in
this debate. I feel that I should answer some of the points made.
Micah Brashear calls the article quite ridiculous. He is quite wrong, of course.
It is not David's fault that the term great has been used to describe some
music. It is a pity that this gentlemen did not read the article. David did
not say that Bach is not a great composer. He posed the rhetorical question
is he famous ( yes, he is ) but is his music great or is some of it great?
If your correspondent had read some of David's CD reviews he would have read
of David's glowing appreciation of many of Bach's great works and his enthusiasm
of some of the organ works. See, for example, his recent review of Hilary
Hahn's solo violin Bach recital, for example. David also made the point quite
clear as to the importance of the emotional content of music and actually
highlighted this. Music is not just to be cerebral intellectualism but an
universal language that can be very beautiful. I think your correspondent
is a little OTT about the finale of Beethoven's Choral Symphony. It is a work
that David simply adores but it is flawed. Indeed, one wants to hear a good
theme more than once ( the opening of Tschaikovsky's Piano Concerto no. 1)
but the Beethoven work is stop and start music and does not flow and when
you consider that Beethoven was the master of form and structure, this is,
to say the least, disappointing. David would agree that some music conveys
something ultra special which words cannot adequately define. I have seen
him conduct Bach's B minor Mass with a personal response that proves his adoration
of it.
The second correspondent Vertigo is more fair. But it must be realised fame
is not always commensurate with greatness. The fact that I love a piece does
not mean it is great just because I admire it. That is the point that Dr Wright
is making. The correspondent asks two facile questions in saying what is meant
by inventive and creative. Inventive means something new or an improvement
which is original. Creative means the ability to do this. Arnold Schoenberg
fits the bill as your correspondent rightly suggests. 'Conservative' music,
which may sound like belonging to the past, can be rightly esteemed for some
measure of innovation. But the question would have to be asked. For example,
what is original in either of the Elgar symphonies? What does he do , and
do well, that was not done before? What evidence can be produced to support
any originality? This is the question posed. The evolution or development
of music is important or else it can all sound very much the same. Vertigo
says that Chopin did not evolve and David would endorse the views about Stephen
Foster. Music must have worth. I would have thought that that was so obvious
as to invite no further comment. I would also suggest that David's use of
words such as substance, depth of feeling, character, value etc all speak
for themselves. To quote an extreme case do these qualities exist in John
Cage's 4'33''? Is there any real substance in the Blue Danube waltz? It may
be a fun piece and very enjoyable..hugely entertaining but is it great music.?
Does it compare, for example, with Bach's B minor Mass?
Can you look at the score of Blue Danube and say, "My, that's clever,
innovative, original, a stroke of genius...." yet you look at a score
of Beethoven and find these attributes.
Stop and start music David explained. If a composer is to write an allegro
then, by definition and choice the music is to be merry, lively and quick.
Boult uses to define it as energetic. If a composer wants to stop and start
he should define it some other way. If a film was advertised as a murder mystery
and there was no murder in it, or even implied or metaphoricalised in the
movie it would be wrongly defined. It is simply not true to say that an artist
is always right. The first movement of Beethoven 5 is an allegro and a good
one at that. If it were played slowly as a largo the character and impact
would dissipate. It would hardly work. Titles and definitions are important.
If David, as a conductor, and a good one too, saw a piece marked adagio (
slow and solemn) and performed it very fast and light heartedly it would not
be an adagio.
Contrast is important in music. A great blues does have contrast as your correpondent
says. David has just reminded me of the slow movement of Bruckner's 8th which
he admires greatly . Slow it is but what tremendous contrasts within its spacious
design. The contrast in colour is extraordinary. As to music being too long
this is often linked to the other problem that of repetition. In Schubert's
A flat Impromptu of about 11 minutes the same theme comes 19 times. Lack of
contrast! Didn't Schubert know how to do anything but write a melody?
Vertigio says, Can't the Blue Danube Waltz be as great as Stravinsky's Rite
of Spring? Forgive me but that is an absurd question. He further says that
everything about Schubert Unfinished Symphony is original. That is a far more
controversial statement that anything that Dr Wright has said and it needs
proof. The reference to Shakespeare and orchestration is absurd. Shakespeare
was not a composer. I could continue.
Steven Schwartz is also insulting by calling this article rubbish. I don't
know what a buzzword is either! He has not read the article properly either.
David does not say that only the music he likes is good music. He does know
how difficult it is to write a melody. See his articles on the website on
the subject! Consult his article on Valen as well.
The area where David will not find friends is that he always has sound musical
reasons for the music he dislikes . I heard him lecture and prove from the
scores how badly Britten's music is orchestrated at times. An evening of remarkable
and substantiated revelation! He did the same with Elgar and with irrefutable
evidence, and then went on to show from Richard Strauss and Berlioz examples
of faultless, and therefore great orchestration. Incidentally, he does not
like Berlioz but honestly admits that he was a fine composer! The music he
dislikes are for sound musical reasons.
Gavin Steyn is also unfair. This article is not bizarre. It is a thought-provoking
challenge to our stereotyped ways and prejudices. And David does not eliminate
Bach from greatness.
Franneke also misses the point. David does not say the criteria that he uses
is definitive and he agrees with the premise that music must be considered
to be great, or not, within its historical context. He actually said that!
He does not say that Bach is boring. He says that some people will find it
so.
David Lamb moans but without any substance. That Dr Wright has spent time
to challenge us is a brave and commendable exercise. Stravinsky is not a better
composer than Bach. David did not say that. He said that Stravinsky wrote
opera and that Bach did not.
We simply do not understand Richard Brooks comments.
James Tobin has some interesting things to say but also needs to express them
in clearer terms for clarity's sake. I cannot see his point that David's starting
point of attributes eliminates composers of towering genius. We would have
thought that such geniuses had these qualities as well as more. Mr Tobin is
honest when he says that these ten attributes exclude Schubert from being
a great composer and goes on to say that the attributes are therefore unsuitable.
So the tail wags the dog does it? That Schubert disqualifies from these general
and fair definitions of greatness may prove that Schubert was not a great
composer.
Robert Clements is balanced.
Chris Bonds poses the questions that if a composer does not met this criteria
do we have to agree that he is not a great composer? More to the point is
that if he were a great composer would he not exemplify these criteria? We
all listen to music that is not great and enjoy some of it. There's is nothing
wrong in that. David adores some pieces which are pretty awful as he would
say!
Poor Felix Delbrueck. Did he read the article? David is certainly not wilful
or inconsistent. And he does evaluate the emotional content of music and says
so! Why don't people read what he writes? Never does he say that Sibelius
is not great. Come on Felix, read what David writes on the website about Sibelius
and if you do, you will see how you misrepresent David. The comments about
allegros has been dealt with earlier.
Bernard Chasan is absurd. David loves music and he is not trying to knock
composers off their pedestals. False accusations are always full of falsehoods.
What he is challenging us to do is to see for ourselves as to whether Joe
Bloggs is really a great composer or whether it is just public opinion or
inverted prejudice. Even if 99% might say that Schubert is a great composer
this not proof that he is, although the music public is not so naive as to
reach that percentage.
Paul Andrews is unclear as well. But he writes about William Byrd and concludes
that he is not a great composer! David did not say that Byrd was not a great
composer. He is leaving the open minded to work it out for themselves!
Gerry Robello supports David's points as do over 80% of those who have written
to him over the year.....people like Bliss and Copland, for example.
It might be a good idea to publish on the
website the revised views of other senior
musical professionals where they thank David
for the challange he has so ably presented.
The main concensus is that people say that Handel ( for example) is a great
composer because people has always said so. But is he? And if so, why is he
a great composer? Those who have no answer say it does not matter. But it
does!
Surely the criteria is the quality of the music
And the objections from your correpondents are clearly because their likes
and prejudices are now being challenged.
Let your correspondents define, clearly and simply, greatness and then prove
conclusively that Joe Bloggs is a great composer. It is all very well condemning
David's article but no one has been constructive and made the definition of
greatness in music. I guarantee that most of them will say it is not possible
which will be an excuse and will make bare their hidden agendas and indicate
that they will have to admit that their musical heroes are not great after
all. And pride will not allow them to do that! people do not like to have
proved to them that their favourite composers are not great. This shows shallowness!
David has a favourite composer who is not a great composer but he does not
worry about that! He still enjoys her music!
The honest musicians and music lovers have written to David thanking him for
showing that revered composers like Schubert are not so great after all and
that Reger, for example, deserves more consideration.
Linda Karen Dowson.
|
