A Theory of Greatness

[BenG]

I have a theory that I think can help to define exactly what constitutes the 'greatness' of music. To put it simply, it all depends on the number of times a piece of music can be heard without tiring the ear. For example, we all like Strauss waltzes, but if you listen to one of them, say...five times in a row, chances are you'd would be completely and utterly sick of it. It would take a long time for your sensibilities to bounce back and enjoy it again. That does not mean Strauss was not great...but his music is not AS great as compared with Beethoven, for example. We were talking about Ludwig's Emperor Concerto on another thread and I think it can be considered as an example of 'the greatest' music. I once listened to it about 10 times in a row and I never did get completely sick of it. This same principle holds true in the visual arts. The "Mona Lisa" would be a lot more tiresome if she had a big, beaming toothy grin. The small smile is more interesting, more mysterious and enigmatic. And less tiring. But back to music--and there are plenty of examples: Compare Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 2 with one of his later symphonies. The No. 2 is easily his weakest symphony because we get tired of it so quickly. He tried to base it on variations of a Russian folk theme and it just didn't work. Dvorak's Piano Concerto is the same way. I like it and it makes for very nice listening for two or three times, but then the constant repetition of the main theme in the first movement gets old. Compare that with his Cello Concerto and you'll know which work was greater.<P>My idea extends into all branches of music, including pop and jazz. Compare a work by Sydney Bichet with a rap song. Which could you stand the longest? I think a brilliant musician would win out over someone who is yelling foul words. Rap/hip hop is popular not because of any intrinsic greatness or appeal. It survives by peer pressure and the sheer number or volume of the work produced. It has the shelf life of a fruit fly. It's easy to crank out these 'songs' because little effort is needed to produce original melodies.<P>Lock someone who hates classical music but loves pop music into a room. Let him or her pick any current pop tune. Then pick out a great piece of classical music. Let the person listen to each over and over. I have a feeling they'd soon prefer to hear the classical piece. (Even a teenager!) This is probably too much of a 'Clockwork Orange' approach, but you get the idea. It is human nature to be judgmental and make comparisons despite PC admonishments, but perhaps it IS unfair to compare different musical genres. I DO think the Beatles came up with some great tunes, but they can't hold up against the classical masterpieces, something that John Lennon himself once admitted. <P>I'd like to read any opinions on this matter.<P>Yours in curmudgeonship,<P>BenG

[treebeau]

Howdy,<P>I own a CD of famous Strauss waltzes. I think it is great music, but I am not inclined to listen to it or any one piece over and over again until my ears are tired.<P>I love Beethoven's 3rd Symphony. I think it's great music, but again, I wouldn't listen to it repeatedly. Sometimes weeks go by before I'm in a mood to listen to it.<P>I can't STAND the Mona Lisa. I think it is an overrated portrait. Hanging in the same room in the Louvre are at least 3 other masterpieces of Leonardo Da Vinci, yet hardly anyone looks at them because they all HAVE to look at Mona (I believe many do this because they are TOLD that it's great, not because THEY think it's great).<P>I believe that there are pop music lovers or rap music lovers that COULD listen to the same song many times back to back and still think it's great.<P>Quote-<BR>Lock someone who hates classical music but loves pop music into a room.<BR>End Quote.<BR>Yes, and Henny Youngman would add the word "Please!" to that. ha ha.<P><BR>Bottom line is that I think that "what is great" is subjective. Every single person has his/her own opinion of what's great and what's not. What is nice is when "our" opinions mesh well with those of someone else, but there will always be someone to disagree.<P>Regards,<BR>Tim B.<BR>

[Luegwig]

It's interesting what you said about the "Emperor" Concerto. I don't know anyone who gets tired of this piece (but now that I've thrown down the gauntlet, surely someone will pick it up and say "I do"). I would say that repeatability is a trait of great music, but it is not what makes music great in one's mind.<P>Personally, I can't stand for J. Strauss' music to even be "peated", much less, repeated.<P>I think the best test for greatness is how long it stays in circulation. As enjoyable as popular music is these days, "these days" is the key. There is no timeless quality to it like Beethoven's music has for example. His music moves us the same way now that it did when he first wrote it--perhaps better considering the improvements in musical instruments, etc.<P>Another test for greatness is if it's written in E-flat. See Beethoven's Emperor Concerto and his Eroica Symphony (No. 3). <P>-Bill

[BenG]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by treebeau:<BR>..." they are TOLD that it's great, not because THEY think it's great."<P>Tim, good post--and what you said above is very true. I can't disagree with you that this whole matter is completely subjective, either. And there probably is some guy out there who enjoys being locked into his room and voluntarily listens to the same rap song over and over. >>shudder<<<BR>--B <BR>P.S. Beethoven's Eroica Symphony is also one of my all-time favorites and I've listened to it hundreds of times. It has a low 'tire-ability' factor.

[EJA_2]

BenG I think you are on to something there. I think that the, shall we say tirelessness, of a piece of music is one indication of its greatness. It's a subjective way of rating music, but musical appreciation is a subjective thing. <BR>Just to show how subjective it is I'll use the example of my brother. He <I>loves</I> to listen to the same piece of music over and over again. He's homeschooled, and I've known him to sit in his room with his CD player set to repeat Beethoven's Choral Fantasy for an entire day. What's more, he will go on doing that for weeks (and I'm not exaggerating). He does this with most pieces of music to which he listens. The Choral Fantasy is the longest-running I've heard so far, but there are some close runners-up. You know, I wasn't there the whole time, but I was mildly sick of the Choral Fantasy when he got done with it. He wasn't; he only switched because he had a new CD to try. So, I think personality enters into this litmus test a great deal. I am much different. This is going to sound like terrible laziness, but I absolutely hate getting a CD out and playing it. The main reason is that I get really diffident when confronted with a plethora of CDs. I can't make up my mind which I want to hear. Even if I do make up my mind, I usually regret my choice. The funny thing is I am quite content with almost anything someone else picks and plays for me. That's one of the reasons I like beethoven radio. In any case, I think it is a good test, but, like any test of art, it will vary greatly among individuals. Another test might be how universally a piece of music appeals to people, especially over time. <BR>BTW, the Choral Fantasy remains one of my favorite works by Beethoven. Probably I just have a lower tolerance for repetition than some others. <P> -- EJA<p>[This message has been edited by EJA (edited 03-28-2001).]

[BenG]

EJA,<P>I'm a bit like your brother in the sense that I will 'obsess' over a particular composer or work. But I'm also like you in that I like classical radio because of the 'surprise' element. The surprise element tends to balance out some of the tiresomeness. This phenomenon is a bit strange if you think about it. I own many old 'Star Trek' episodes on VHS and DVD, but if I see a rerun on TV (riddled with commercials) I'll go ahead and watch it anyway. The mind is an odd thing indeed.<P>-b<P>P.S. Luegwig--what is it exactly about J. Strauss that you find irritating? Too cloying?<p>[This message has been edited by BenG (edited 03-28-2001).]

[Luegwig]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><BR>Luegwig--what is it exactly about J. Strauss that you find irritating? Too cloying?<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Let me go to dictionary.com and find out what cloying means....<P>No, I don't find anything pleasant about it. It's just old dance music to me. I did like "Blue Danube" in the context of 2001: A Space Odyssey, or even Roxanne. But I would never just sit down and listen to it. You weren't supposed to for goodness sake. Strauss' music just doesn't move or inspire. I can't find any passion in it. <P>What do you like about it?<P>-Bill

[BenG]

Bill, I like his music; I just can't listen to it very often. Like you said, the waltzes weren't meant to be heard sitting down, but they do convey the carefree happiness that the composer must have felt while pursuing his wine, women and song. The music does lack depth, but that depth would've rendered it less effective as dance music. It's as effervescent as champagne bubbles on purpose...hence it has a high 'tire-ablility' factor. Nevertheless, I do like stuff like Tritsch Tratsch (sp?) Polka and Perpetual Motion once in a blue moon.

[Peter]

This is all very interesting stuff. Strauss? Blah. Beethoven's Emperor? I must say that in my thousands of posts to various internet forums over recent years, this work, overall, seems to rank no.1, esp. the adagio. It is impossible to grow tired of such a beautiful piece of art.

[serge urtizberea]

I enjoy that definition of "great" music. I think there is a lot of truth to it.<P>There must be a reason why only a select group of works by any one composer gets the limelight over and over. "Natural selection" has chosen over the decades what makes successful and truly enjoyable c.m. While there are hundreds of gems out there that get regrettably little exposure, I feel that 80-90% of what gets the most attention deserves it. I also like to notice how a far greater percentage of Ludwig's output gets favored attention compared to Mozart's (apologies to the offended!).<P>I also like to listen to a new piece that I really enjoy right off the bat over and over. I must have listened to Liszt's Hunnenschlacht (sp?) fifteen times the first week I found it.

[BenG]

I've never heard Liszt's Hunnenschlacht, but I'll look for it. I just bought a biography of Liszt (it comes in three parts!) but I haven't had a chance to start it yet. I know he was a fascinating character.<P>I'm intrigued by your comment of natural selection in the arts. Darwin's idea explains not only how the physical world works, but it also extends into the world of ideas and the fine arts. I've come across some great music that isn't often heard and I wonder why. Like you said, most masterpieces deserve the attention they get, but there is a lot more out there that doesn't get a listen. Why do some branches die out while some thrive? Certain music that was wildly popular a century earlier is now out of favor. I made reference in another thread to the fact that Tchaikovsky's suites were once far more popular than his symphonies. Now we almost never hear the suites. These evolutionary eddys are baffling, but interesting. There's got to be a reason for these fluctuations, but the greatest masterpieces, the 'créme de la créme' will always rise to the top.

[dkm32]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BenG:<BR><B>For example, we all like Strauss waltzes, but if you listen to one of them, say...five times in a row, chances are you'd would be completely and utterly sick of it. It would take a long time for your sensibilities to bounce back and enjoy it again. That does not mean Strauss was not great...but his music is not AS great as compared with Beethoven, for example. <BR>Yours in curmudgeonship,<P>BenG</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>OK. I'll admit that JOHANN Strauss was not a great as Beethoven. HOWEVER, I listen to Strauss waltzes much more that I do Beethoven's pieces. I do not get tired of them. I do not become "completely and utterly sick of it". They are uplifting and energetic. Admitted, I am a Strauss-nut. <P>NOTE, I emphasized Johann. Leaving Richard out of the discussion, and while I love all Strauss music, his brother Josef was the real genius and, if he had lived beyond his mere 42 years, I think he could have given old Beethoven a run for his money. We'll never know.<P>(Sir Stewart, you saw this reply coming, didn't you?)<P>Donna<BR>

[~Leslie]

Strauss is a completely different ball of wax than Beethoven, and I can't believe you guys would even BOTHER comparing the two.<P>I think Strauss is more party, dining and ballroom dancing music, than the meditation and waxing philosophical Beethoven. <P>Yours in the extreme crankiest curmudgeonship,<BR>~Les

[BenG]

Hey...hey...HEY...there's only room for ONE curmudgeon here! <P> <BR>Just kidding.<P>I didn't mean for this thread to turn into a Strauss vs. Beethoven debate and you'll get no anti-Strauss tirade from me. It's tough to compare anyone to Ludwig, that's for sure. Still, I think the 'tiring' principle still holds true and it can apply to many things...like food....novels....movies. A movie like 'Goodfellas' is so well-made that it remains compelling after many viewings. The 'Sound of Music' is another. One can compare them for 'tire-ability" even though the subject matter in the two are grossly incompatible.<P>At the risk of sullying my curmudgeonly status, I like the music of Strauss as well as fun, laughter, women and waltzing and wine. I like Richard Strauss a lot too, but that's another story. His Don Juan Overture is pretty darned cool.

[shostakovich]

While I am restraining my posts, I couldn't help joining Curmudgeon.com. Of the Strauss waltzes I'm most fond of Tales From the Vienna Woods. I can listen to that once in a row, any time. <BR>Shos

[ReedMan]

On the other side of the CD, as a performer, I enjoy practicing with a group. My musical training was in a 'sightreading environment' where we had access to a massive music library and played new pieces every day. <P>When it came time for concerts, we focused on our selections (the great ones) for 1-2 weeks. This resulted in minimal repetition and some incredibly fresh performances.<P>When exposed to an environment of repetitive practice sessions on a 'great' piece, what I observed was that the group reached a peak and then went stale - no additional improvement and indeed some regression.<P>Regarding the role of music listener, any piece becomes old after a certain number of consecutive plays. I agree that greatness can be associated with a piece if it endures over time. But what medium are we talking about ? Radio ? Live concerts ? Personal CD players ? And how do we measure it ?<P>Our local classical station has changed over the years and now tends to play lots of Baroque music. Does that mean other styles are not as great ?<P>Great is one of those words that is hard to define but you know it when you see it, only your tastes change and what you thought was great is not so great...

[Peter]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dkm32:<BR><B> OK. I'll admit that JOHANN Strauss was not a great as Beethoven. HOWEVER, I listen to Strauss waltzes much more that I do Beethoven's pieces. I do not get tired of them. I do not become "completely and utterly sick of it". They are uplifting and energetic. Admitted, I am a Strauss-nut. <BR>NOTE, I emphasized Johann. Leaving Richard out of the discussion, and while I love all Strauss music, his brother Josef was the real genius and, if he had lived beyond his mere 42 years, I think he could have given old Beethoven a run for his money. We'll never know.<BR>(Sir Stewart, you saw this reply coming, didn't you?)<BR>Donna</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Donna,<P>From looking at your profile, & reading the above, you are obviously a Josef Strauss fanatic! Nothing wrong with that, of course, but I am curious about it. He is the least known of the Strausses, & he wrote very little that is popular. So, what's the story, please?<P>PS. I also see that just like Leslie, you're a horsey person! Beethoven.com is a small world! <P>Peter

[BenG]

ReedMan--you're quite right, of course. Musical greatness can be felt, but can we scientifically slap a yardstick on it? Probably not.<P>Since I'm not a professional musician, I appreciate your insight into the performance process. I've often wondered how musicians can play the same thing over and over while at the same time making it sound 'fresh.' Obviously your professionalism helps you to keep it fresh even if you feel it has become stale. You're able to fake the freshness, and the audience would probably be hard pressed to notice the difference.<BR>Now that I think of it, I did notice the difference once: I own a cd containing an early performance of a Fletcher Henderson tune called "Sugar Foot Stomp," a hopped-up jazz tune. I listened to it many, many times. Then I came across a much later performance and it was ok--very polished and slick, but it didn't have the same 'spark' that the earlier version had. It sure sounded to me like they had more 'fun' doing the first version. I suspect his orchestra had to play it countless times and it had become rote to them.<P>I also suspect many orchestras also get tired of playing some of the old war horses over and over, but professionalism (and demanding conductors) probably keeps that from ever being heard.

[shostakovich]

After so much talk of Strauss, last night I whipped out my copy of The Waltz King, an old Disney movie. It ended with his turning to operetta. Maybe we tend to think of him as just a purveyor of pretty waltzes and other confections. If only that, he brought a lot of joy to a lot of people. On the other hand, he was unsurpassed as a writer of operetta, where the tunes are spread out and given some extra meaning within a story. I do admire him, and do hold Tales From the Vienna Woods as something special.<P>There's a story of Brahms visiting Strauss, and Johann's daughter asking him to autograph her fan (I believe). He took the fan and wrote the first few notes of the Blue Danube, and followed it with "Unfortunately, not by Johannes Brahms".<BR>Shos

[dkm32]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shostakovich:<BR><B><BR>There's a story of Brahms visiting Strauss, and Johann's daughter asking him to autograph her fan (I believe). He took the fan and wrote the first few notes of the Blue Danube, and followed it with "Unfortunately, not by Johannes Brahms".<BR>Shos</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Brahms and Johann were good friends for many years. Brahms, in fact, admired much of Johann's work.<P>Now, a correction, it was Johann's (third) wife, Adele, whose fan Brahms inscribed. (Johann had no children.) The fan was the dance card of the day.<P>Donna<BR>