A Consensus Question

[JohnGavin]

If you’re so inclined, give an opinion on the following:

Lesser known works of music generally deserve their obscurity.

Decades ago I would have strongly challenged this theory (which I heard from a highly accomplished virtuoso). Now I’ve moved closer to it - somewhat. Since many here listen to a wide range of music, your opinions will be interesting.

[drh8h]

Post by JohnGavin
Lesser known works of music generally deserve their obscurity.
Decades ago I would have strongly challenged this theory (which I heard from a highly accomplished virtuoso). Now I’ve moved closer to it - somewhat. Since many here listen to a wide range of music, your opinions will be interesting.

A tough but good question. I don't consider myself qualified to answer, but I will make one observation: in my lifetime, I cannot recall any previously "unknown piece" by an acknowledged major composer being found that was really of much interest except to scholars and completists. Could there be a completely "unknown" genius out there whose work has never been discovered? Maybe. There might be intelligent life circling a nearby star. But not much chance, and we probably won't ever know it.

So, I am with you on this.

DH

[Bozo]

I likewise am not qualified to answer, but wonder to what extent past marquee appeal and the economics of the music business has dictated, and continues to insure, " obscure " works become even more obscure as time passes. Are the Liszt PC's heard ,whereas Stavenhagen's are not, for qualitative reasons or name recognition ? Are there qualitative reasons the Medtner pianos sonatas are not heard with the frequency of Rachmaninoff's and Prokofieff's ?

Recently listened first time at YT to Anton Rubinstein's 2nd Symphony, "The Oceans ", 73 minutes but seemed longer, for me more perspiration than inspiration , deserving of its obscurity , but the work has some adherents, its length one issue at least ? His Violin Concerto at YT, also my first hearing , for me as interesting as Bruch's "Scottish Fantasy " , Bruch benefitting from the popularity of his 1st VC and the Fantasy's briefness relative to the Rubinstein VC ?

[drh8h]

Post by Bozo
I likewise am not qualified to answer, but wonder to what extent past marquee appeal and the economics of the music business has dictated, and continues to insure, " obscure " works become even more obscure as time passes. Are the Liszt PC's heard ,whereas Stavenhagen's are not, for qualitative reasons or name recognition ? Are there qualitative reasons the Medtner pianos sonatas are not heard with the frequency of Rachmaninoff's and Prokofieff's ?
Recently listened first time at YT to Anton Rubinstein's 2nd Symphony, "The Oceans ", 73 minutes but seemed longer, for me more perspiration than inspiration , deserving of its obscurity , but the work has some adherents, its length one issue at least ? His Violin Concerto at YT, also my first hearing , for me as interesting as Bruch's "Scottish Fantasy " , Bruch benefitting from the popularity of his 1st VC and the Fantasy's briefness relative to the Rubinstein VC ?

I had no idea the Rubinstein symphony was so long. No wonder Bernard Shaw detested it.

[Bozo]

Post by drh8h
I had no idea the Rubinstein symphony was so long. No wonder Bernard Shaw detested it.

The original 1850's was apparently 4 movs. ; Rubinstein added a total of 3 more movs. later , by 1880 ; the Naxos cd I heard at YT was the expanded version :

http://americansymphony.org/symphony-no-2-in-c-major-op-42-ocean/

Based on them longer version I heard , the shorter would probably seem about as long.I dont know which Shaw heard, probably the longer ?

[drh8h]

Post by Bozo

Post by drh8h
I had no idea the Rubinstein symphony was so long. No wonder Bernard Shaw detested it.

http://americansymphony.org/symphony-no-2-in-c-major-op-42-ocean/
Based on them longer version I heard , the shorter would probably seem about as long.I dont know which Shaw heard, probably the longer ?

After Shaw reached about the fifth year of his life as full-time critic, one notices the references to napping become frequent. I suspect he got some needed shut eye during this one, so he probably wasn't sure or cared which version he somewhat heard. We have to remember how long concerts were then.

DH

[Herman]

Post by Bozo
Are the Liszt PC's heard ,whereas Stavenhagen's are not, for qualitative reasons or name recognition ?

The Liszt piano concertos have by and large disappeared from concert programs, too, as far as I can tell.

[JohnGavin]

If televised live concerts on YouTube are an indicator, both Liszt PCs are doing just fine. Argerich, Trifanov, Wang, Zimerman and many others can be seen from 2000 - the present time.

[drh8h]

Post by Bozo
I likewise am not qualified to answer, but wonder to what extent past marquee appeal and the economics of the music business has dictated, and continues to insure, " obscure " works become even more obscure as time passes. Are the Liszt PC's heard ,whereas Stavenhagen's are not, for qualitative reasons or name recognition ? Are there qualitative reasons the Medtner pianos sonatas are not heard with the frequency of Rachmaninoff's and Prokofieff's ?
Recently listened first time at YT to Anton Rubinstein's 2nd Symphony, "The Oceans ", 73 minutes but seemed longer, for me more perspiration than inspiration , deserving of its obscurity , but the work has some adherents, its length one issue at least ? His Violin Concerto at YT, also my first hearing , for me as interesting as Bruch's "Scottish Fantasy " , Bruch benefitting from the popularity of his 1st VC and the Fantasy's briefness relative to the Rubinstein VC ?

I think the comparison of Rachmaninov (however one spells him) and Medtner might have a clue. I contend that even the greatest and most profound composers have a certain talent for creating "ear worms." One or two hearings of their best and their most popular works--not always the same of course, and something about them sticks to your ribs, to mix up metaphors. I don't care if it is the Monteverdi's Orfeo, B Minor Mass, WTC, "Haydn" Quartets, Op. 111, La Mer, "Classical" Symphony, Wozzeck, Rubinstein's Melody or Danse Macabre. And it keeps you coming back. That's where Rachmaninov and Medtner come in. I have heard the latter's music, mostly in his own recordings and while it has good qualities, nothing sticks to the mind. I suspect this is true whether you hear it one or fifteen times. I bet almost everyone had the opposite experience with the Rach 3. Something brought them back. And it keeps bringing us back. Whereas the others, however well made, just leave a vague feeling of something being missing.

DH

[JohnGavin]

. That's where Rachmaninov and Medtner come in. I have heard the latter's music, mostly in his own recordings and while it has good qualities, nothing sticks to the mind. I suspect this is true whether you hear it one or fifteen times. I bet almost everyone had the opposite experience with the Rach 3. Something brought them back. And it keeps bringing us back. Whereas the others, however well made, just leave a vague feeling of something being missing.

DH

My own experience is different. True, Medtner doesn’t have the immediate appeal of Rachmaninov’s music, Medtner’s music slowly grows on the listener with repeated hearings, at least for me. In fact, I must confess, I became a sort of Medtner fanatic about 20 years ago. I came to feel that he was as great a composer as Rachmaninov. I wasn’t surprised to read that Rachmaninov said that there were 2 musicians that he would travel anywhere to hear in concert - Chaliapin and Medtner.

[drh8h]

Post by drh8h
. That's where Rachmaninov and Medtner come in. I have heard the latter's music, mostly in his own recordings and while it has good qualities, nothing sticks to the mind. I suspect this is true whether you hear it one or fifteen times. I bet almost everyone had the opposite experience with the Rach 3. Something brought them back. And it keeps bringing us back. Whereas the others, however well made, just leave a vague feeling of something being missing.
DH
My own experience is different. True, Medtner doesn’t have the immediate appeal of Rachmaninov’s music, Medtner’s music slowly grows on the listener with repeated hearings, at least for me. In fact, I must confess, I became a sort of Medtner fanatic about 20 years ago. I came to feel that he was as great a composer as Rachmaninov. I wasn’t surprised to read that Rachmaninov said that there were 2 musicians that he would travel anywhere to hear in concert - Chaliapin and Medtner.

You may be right, but with all of the music in the world and the short time we are in it, music that grows on one will always be left to niche audiences who find something special in it. Casals claimed that very quality for Roentgen, Moor and Tovey. Sixty+ years later and despite his advocacy, when do you ever hear their music unless deliberately seeking out an obscure recording? Not a reflection of quality; there is so much competing for our time and attention.

DH

[JohnGavin]

You may be right, but with all of the music in the world and the short time we are in it, music that grows on one will always be left to niche audiences who find something special in it. Casals claimed that very quality for Roentgen, Moor and Tovey. Sixty+ years later and despite his advocacy, when do you ever hear their music unless deliberately seeking out an obscure recording? Not a reflection of quality; there is so much competing for our time and attention.

DH

True - I think another consideration is that some repertoire is so time consuming to learn and maintain that many or most concert performers are unwilling to devote the time. Add to that the thumbs down by their managers. Case in point - the least complex of the 14 Medtner Piano Sonatas, the Reminicenza, is the one that gets by far the most recordings and performances by big name pianists. And of course certain composers are more frequently performed in their native countries.

[Frank Berger]

Post by drh8h
You may be right, but with all of the music in the world and the short time we are in it, music that grows on one will always be left to niche audiences who find something special in it. Casals claimed that very quality for Roentgen, Moor and Tovey. Sixty+ years later and despite his advocacy, when do you ever hear their music unless deliberately seeking out an obscure recording? Not a reflection of quality; there is so much competing for our time and attention.
DH
True - I think another consideration is that some repertoire is so time consuming to learn and maintain that many or most concert performers are unwilling to devote the time. Add to that the thumbs down by their managers. Case in point - the least complex of the 14 Medtner Piano Sonatas, the Reminicenza, is the one that gets by far the most recordings and performances by big name pianists. And of course certain composers are more frequently performed in their native countries.

I think some of you are continuing to ignore the conceptual difference
between what is marketable (i.e. appeals to a mass market so that it
pays someone to invest in performing or recording) and what has some
sort of innate quality that either appeals to a knowledgeable cultured
few or takes time to learn to appreciate.

[drh8h]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by drh8h
You may be right, but with all of the music in the world and the short time we are in it, music that grows on one will always be left to niche audiences who find something special in it. Casals claimed that very quality for Roentgen, Moor and Tovey. Sixty+ years later and despite his advocacy, when do you ever hear their music unless deliberately seeking out an obscure recording? Not a reflection of quality; there is so much competing for our time and attention.
DH
True - I think another consideration is that some repertoire is so time consuming to learn and maintain that many or most concert performers are unwilling to devote the time. Add to that the thumbs down by their managers. Case in point - the least complex of the 14 Medtner Piano Sonatas, the Reminicenza, is the one that gets by far the most recordings and performances by big name pianists. And of course certain composers are more frequently performed in their native countries.

I think some of you are continuing to ignore the conceptual difference
between what is marketable (i.e. appeals to a mass market so that it
pays someone to invest in performing or recording) and what has some
sort of innate quality that either appeals to a knowledgeable cultured
few or takes time to learn to appreciate.

It's usually the medium. If somehow Beethoven's Fifth had been a string quartet and Op. 135 a symphony, I think the quartet would be the piece for specialists and the symphony would be getting played in commercials.

DH

[Herman]

Post by drh8h
It's usually the medium. If somehow Beethoven's Fifth had been a string quartet and Op. 135 a symphony, I think the quartet would be the piece for specialists and the symphony would be getting played in commercials.
DH

But by the time Beethoven was composing it didn't work that way. He didn't have a tune in his head and thought Can I market this as a symphony or as a string quartet. Op. 135 was conceived as a string quartet. It wouldn't have worked as a symphony. That's why the string orchestra version of 131 is such a tasteless venture.

[drh8h]

Post by Herman

Post by drh8h
It's usually the medium. If somehow Beethoven's Fifth had been a string quartet and Op. 135 a symphony, I think the quartet would be the piece for specialists and the symphony would be getting played in commercials.
DH

But by the time Beethoven was composing it didn't work that way. He didn't have a tune in his head and thought Can I market this as a symphony or as a string quartet. Op. 135 was conceived as a string quartet. It wouldn't have worked as a symphony. That's why the string orchestra version of 131 is such a tasteless venture.

Of course neither would have been exactly the same piece if they had been conceived for different forces. But many of the same musical ideas could have been used. I can imagine an orchestral reworking of the last movement of Op. 135 or a string quartet take on the 2nd movement of the Fifth. Even movement one. An orchestral version of the opening of Op. 95 would have much the same effect as the Fifth.

And no, I don't think Busch, Klemperer, Furtwangler, Toscanini, Mitropoulos, Previn, Dohnanyi, etc. were tasteless performing quartets or movements with full complements.

[John Hood]

Post by drh8h
It's usually the medium. If somehow Beethoven's Fifth had been a string quartet and Op. 135 a symphony, I think the quartet would be the piece for specialists and the symphony would be getting played in commercials.
DH

I'm not trying to be rude but I really don't get what you mean by this
analogy :)

JH

[drh8h]

Post by John Hood

Post by drh8h
It's usually the medium. If somehow Beethoven's Fifth had been a string quartet and Op. 135 a symphony, I think the quartet would be the piece for specialists and the symphony would be getting played in commercials.
DH

I'm not trying to be rude but I really don't get what you mean by this
analogy :)
JH

We have veered off the real two-part question. What is good music, deserving of performance and attention, and how do we know it when we encounter it? Skillful construction is part of it but much music and art is well-made but just empty style, even from the greatest composers. I don't think anyone has a clue.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by drh8h
You may be right, but with all of the music in the world and the short time we are in it, music that grows on one will always be left to niche audiences who find something special in it. Casals claimed that very quality for Roentgen, Moor and Tovey. Sixty+ years later and despite his advocacy, when do you ever hear their music unless deliberately seeking out an obscure recording? Not a reflection of quality; there is so much competing for our time and attention.
DH
True - I think another consideration is that some repertoire is so time consuming to learn and maintain that many or most concert performers are unwilling to devote the time. Add to that the thumbs down by their managers. Case in point - the least complex of the 14 Medtner Piano Sonatas, the Reminicenza, is the one that gets by far the most recordings and performances by big name pianists. And of course certain composers are more frequently performed in their native countries.

I think some of you are continuing to ignore the conceptual difference
between what is marketable (i.e. appeals to a mass market so that it
pays someone to invest in performing or recording) and what has some
sort of innate quality that either appeals to a knowledgeable cultured
few or takes time to learn to appreciate.

- If it is art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not art.

Arnold Schoenberg

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by drh8h
You may be right, but with all of the music in the world and the short time we are in it, music that grows on one will always be left to niche audiences who find something special in it. Casals claimed that very quality for Roentgen, Moor and Tovey. Sixty+ years later and despite his advocacy, when do you ever hear their music unless deliberately seeking out an obscure recording? Not a reflection of quality; there is so much competing for our time and attention.
DH
True - I think another consideration is that some repertoire is so time consuming to learn and maintain that many or most concert performers are unwilling to devote the time. Add to that the thumbs down by their managers. Case in point - the least complex of the 14 Medtner Piano Sonatas, the Reminicenza, is the one that gets by far the most recordings and performances by big name pianists. And of course certain composers are more frequently performed in their native countries.

I think some of you are continuing to ignore the conceptual difference
between what is marketable (i.e. appeals to a mass market so that it
pays someone to invest in performing or recording) and what has some
sort of innate quality that either appeals to a knowledgeable cultured
few or takes time to learn to appreciate.

- Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value. ... Unqualified judgment can at most claim to decide the market-value - a value that can be in inverse proportion to the intrinsic value.

Arnold Schoenberg

[dk]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Frank Berger

Post by drh8h
You may be right, but with all of the music in the world and the short time we are in it, music that grows on one will always be left to niche audiences who find something special in it. Casals claimed that very quality for Roentgen, Moor and Tovey. Sixty+ years later and despite his advocacy, when do you ever hear their music unless deliberately seeking out an obscure recording? Not a reflection of quality; there is so much competing for our time and attention.
DH
True - I think another consideration is that some repertoire is so time consuming to learn and maintain that many or most concert performers are unwilling to devote the time. Add to that the thumbs down by their managers. Case in point - the least complex of the 14 Medtner Piano Sonatas, the Reminicenza, is the one that gets by far the most recordings and performances by big name pianists. And of course certain composers are more frequently performed in their native countries.

I think some of you are continuing to ignore the conceptual difference
between what is marketable (i.e. appeals to a mass market so that it
pays someone to invest in performing or recording) and what has some
sort of innate quality that either appeals to a knowledgeable cultured
few or takes time to learn to appreciate.

- Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value. ... Unqualified judgment can at most claim to decide the market-value - a value that can be in inverse proportion to the intrinsic value.

How does one determine/measure "intrinsic value"?
seems like Arnold talked about music as circularly
and self-referentially as he "composed".

dk

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by dk

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Frank Berger

Post by drh8h
You may be right, but with all of the music in the world and the short time we are in it, music that grows on one will always be left to niche audiences who find something special in it. Casals claimed that very quality for Roentgen, Moor and Tovey. Sixty+ years later and despite his advocacy, when do you ever hear their music unless deliberately seeking out an obscure recording? Not a reflection of quality; there is so much competing for our time and attention.
DH
True - I think another consideration is that some repertoire is so time consuming to learn and maintain that many or most concert performers are unwilling to devote the time. Add to that the thumbs down by their managers. Case in point - the least complex of the 14 Medtner Piano Sonatas, the Reminicenza, is the one that gets by far the most recordings and performances by big name pianists. And of course certain composers are more frequently performed in their native countries.

I think some of you are continuing to ignore the conceptual difference
between what is marketable (i.e. appeals to a mass market so that it
pays someone to invest in performing or recording) and what has some
sort of innate quality that either appeals to a knowledgeable cultured
few or takes time to learn to appreciate.

- Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value. ... Unqualified judgment can at most claim to decide the market-value - a value that can be in inverse proportion to the intrinsic value.

How does one determine/measure "intrinsic value"?
seems like Arnold talked about music as circularly
and self-referentially as he "composed".
dk

As far as I am concerned, market value is anything audiophiles can't stop praising and go after.

Intrinsic value are things that audiophiles couldn't be bothered with (e.g., great mono recordings).

[n***@gmail.com]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by dk

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Frank Berger

Post by drh8h
You may be right, but with all of the music in the world and the short time we are in it, music that grows on one will always be left to niche audiences who find something special in it. Casals claimed that very quality for Roentgen, Moor and Tovey. Sixty+ years later and despite his advocacy, when do you ever hear their music unless deliberately seeking out an obscure recording? Not a reflection of quality; there is so much competing for our time and attention.
DH
True - I think another consideration is that some repertoire is so time consuming to learn and maintain that many or most concert performers are unwilling to devote the time. Add to that the thumbs down by their managers. Case in point - the least complex of the 14 Medtner Piano Sonatas, the Reminicenza, is the one that gets by far the most recordings and performances by big name pianists. And of course certain composers are more frequently performed in their native countries.

I think some of you are continuing to ignore the conceptual difference
between what is marketable (i.e. appeals to a mass market so that it
pays someone to invest in performing or recording) and what has some
sort of innate quality that either appeals to a knowledgeable cultured
few or takes time to learn to appreciate.

- Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value. ... Unqualified judgment can at most claim to decide the market-value - a value that can be in inverse proportion to the intrinsic value.

How does one determine/measure "intrinsic value"?
seems like Arnold talked about music as circularly
and self-referentially as he "composed".
dk

As far as I am concerned, market value is anything audiophiles can't stop praising and go after.
Intrinsic value are things that audiophiles couldn't be bothered with (e.g., great mono recordings).

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by dk

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Frank Berger

Post by drh8h
You may be right, but with all of the music in the world and the short time we are in it, music that grows on one will always be left to niche audiences who find something special in it. Casals claimed that very quality for Roentgen, Moor and Tovey. Sixty+ years later and despite his advocacy, when do you ever hear their music unless deliberately seeking out an obscure recording? Not a reflection of quality; there is so much competing for our time and attention.
DH
True - I think another consideration is that some repertoire is so time consuming to learn and maintain that many or most concert performers are unwilling to devote the time. Add to that the thumbs down by their managers. Case in point - the least complex of the 14 Medtner Piano Sonatas, the Reminicenza, is the one that gets by far the most recordings and performances by big name pianists. And of course certain composers are more frequently performed in their native countries.

I think some of you are continuing to ignore the conceptual difference
between what is marketable (i.e. appeals to a mass market so that it
pays someone to invest in performing or recording) and what has some
sort of innate quality that either appeals to a knowledgeable cultured
few or takes time to learn to appreciate.

- Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value. ... Unqualified judgment can at most claim to decide the market-value - a value that can be in inverse proportion to the intrinsic value.

How does one determine/measure "intrinsic value"?
seems like Arnold talked about music as circularly
and self-referentially as he "composed".
dk

- Good art weathers the ages because once in so often a man of intelligence commands the mass to adore it.

Ezra Pound (1930, Imaginary Letters)

- Man is made to adore and to obey: but if you will not command him, if you give him nothing to worship, he will fashion his own divinities, and find a chieftain in his own passions.

Benjamin Disraeli

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by dk

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Frank Berger

Post by drh8h
You may be right, but with all of the music in the world and the short time we are in it, music that grows on one will always be left to niche audiences who find something special in it. Casals claimed that very quality for Roentgen, Moor and Tovey. Sixty+ years later and despite his advocacy, when do you ever hear their music unless deliberately seeking out an obscure recording? Not a reflection of quality; there is so much competing for our time and attention.
DH
True - I think another consideration is that some repertoire is so time consuming to learn and maintain that many or most concert performers are unwilling to devote the time. Add to that the thumbs down by their managers. Case in point - the least complex of the 14 Medtner Piano Sonatas, the Reminicenza, is the one that gets by far the most recordings and performances by big name pianists. And of course certain composers are more frequently performed in their native countries.

I think some of you are continuing to ignore the conceptual difference
between what is marketable (i.e. appeals to a mass market so that it
pays someone to invest in performing or recording) and what has some
sort of innate quality that either appeals to a knowledgeable cultured
few or takes time to learn to appreciate.

- Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value. ... Unqualified judgment can at most claim to decide the market-value - a value that can be in inverse proportion to the intrinsic value.

How does one determine/measure "intrinsic value"?
seems like Arnold talked about music as circularly
and self-referentially as he "composed".
dk

The following article concludes:

- ...Ovid’s Metamorphoses testifies to the fact that great art is not necessarily created to please.

https://theconversation.com/guide-to-the-classics-ovids-metamorphoses-and-reading-rape-65316

[Frank Berger]

Post by dk

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Frank Berger

Post by drh8h
You may be right, but with all of the music in the world and the short time we are in it, music that grows on one will always be left to niche audiences who find something special in it. Casals claimed that very quality for Roentgen, Moor and Tovey. Sixty+ years later and despite his advocacy, when do you ever hear their music unless deliberately seeking out an obscure recording? Not a reflection of quality; there is so much competing for our time and attention.
DH
True - I think another consideration is that some repertoire is so time consuming to learn and maintain that many or most concert performers are unwilling to devote the time. Add to that the thumbs down by their managers. Case in point - the least complex of the 14 Medtner Piano Sonatas, the Reminicenza, is the one that gets by far the most recordings and performances by big name pianists. And of course certain composers are more frequently performed in their native countries.

I think some of you are continuing to ignore the conceptual difference
between what is marketable (i.e. appeals to a mass market so that it
pays someone to invest in performing or recording) and what has some
sort of innate quality that either appeals to a knowledgeable cultured
few or takes time to learn to appreciate.

- Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value. ... Unqualified judgment can at most claim to decide the market-value - a value that can be in inverse proportion to the intrinsic value.

How does one determine/measure "intrinsic value"?
seems like Arnold talked about music as circularly
and self-referentially as he "composed".
dk

If I understand correctly ggggggg, in attempting to disagree with my
statement, or at least add his own comment, basically repeated what I said.

I have shared here before how my "Philosphy of the Arts" professor
answered your question, Dan: "Good art is art that satisfies certain,
not necessarily specified, criteria about what constitutes good art.I
guess that mean you judge a work of art according to various recognized
criteria. In painting that could be balance, form, use of color.....I
don't know. In music you would know better than I. I suppose different
genres could have different criteria. You wouldn't judge black and white
photography for its use of color. All this implies that there are
"experts" more qualified to judge ïnherent quality, to use ggggggg's
term, than amateur. I suppose the market value of art is determined
partly by inherent quality and partly by popularity. It seems quite
complex. I don't know if economists have modeled it. Some consumers
art simply buy what they like. Others buy what they think other people
like. Others buy what they think is inherently good, and still others
buy what recognized experts think is good. Then, of course the supply
side factors in - it being much harder to produce something experts
recognize as good, than what the rabble think is good. Bottom line:
can you measure inherent quality? Probably not, but we know it when we
see it in museums or hear it in concert halls, don't we?

[HT]

Post by Frank Berger
"Good art is art that satisfies certain,
not necessarily specified, criteria about what constitutes good art" I
guess that mean you judge a work of art according to various recognized
criteria.

Somehow Frank's professor reminds me of the bureaucracy in the EU. The Mona Lisa is for him as cucumbers are for the EU. 'Goodness' is the condition wherein Leonardo's picture meets all criteria.

Henk

[Frank Berger]

Post by HT

Post by Frank Berger
"Good art is art that satisfies certain,
not necessarily specified, criteria about what constitutes good art" I
guess that mean you judge a work of art according to various recognized
criteria.

Somehow Frank's professor reminds me of the bureaucracy in the EU. The Mona Lisa is for him as cucumbers are for the EU. 'Goodness' is the condition wherein Leonardo's picture meets all criteria.
Henk

Actually, I wasn't clear. As I recall "good" art doesn't have to
satisfy all of the (not necessarily specified) criteria. I guess if you
had a painting that was only a solid red canvas, but many art critics
labeled it great, then for them it would be great. Not necessarily that
they liked it, but that it was great. There is, of course, room for
critic (experts) to disagree about greatness.

The whole idea is the assertion that there is a distinction between what
one likes and what one thinks is great. This not conceptually
difficult. I recognize that Citizen Kane is a great movie, often cited
as the greatest. I find it boring. I don't like it. There are many
movies I love, will watch at every opportunity, but wouldn't argue are
great. I can think of "13 Going on 30" with Jennifer Garner and "Drop
Dead Gorgeous" and "Galaxy Quest" with Tim Allen. OTOH, since I happen
to have excellent taste, most of the movies I like ARE great.

I missed what this has to do with the EU.

[Gerard]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by HT

Post by Frank Berger
"Good art is art that satisfies certain,
not necessarily specified, criteria about what constitutes good art" I
guess that mean you judge a work of art according to various recognized
criteria.

Somehow Frank's professor reminds me of the bureaucracy in the EU. The Mona Lisa is for him as cucumbers are for the EU. 'Goodness' is the condition wherein Leonardo's picture meets all criteria.
Henk

Actually, I wasn't clear. As I recall "good" art doesn't have to
satisfy all of the (not necessarily specified) criteria. I guess if you
had a painting that was only a solid red canvas, but many art critics
labeled it great, then for them it would be great. Not necessarily that
they liked it, but that it was great. There is, of course, room for
critic (experts) to disagree about greatness.
The whole idea is the assertion that there is a distinction between what
one likes and what one thinks is great. This not conceptually
difficult. I recognize that Citizen Kane is a great movie, often cited
as the greatest. I find it boring. I don't like it. There are many
movies I love, will watch at every opportunity, but wouldn't argue are
great. I can think of "13 Going on 30" with Jennifer Garner and "Drop
Dead Gorgeous" and "Galaxy Quest" with Tim Allen. OTOH, since I happen
to have excellent taste, most of the movies I like ARE great.
I missed what this has to do with the EU.

Nobody said that the EU has something to do with your "excellent taste".

[Frank Berger]

Post by Gerard

Post by Frank Berger

Post by HT

Post by Frank Berger
"Good art is art that satisfies certain,
not necessarily specified, criteria about what constitutes good art" I
guess that mean you judge a work of art according to various recognized
criteria.

Somehow Frank's professor reminds me of the bureaucracy in the EU. The Mona Lisa is for him as cucumbers are for the EU. 'Goodness' is the condition wherein Leonardo's picture meets all criteria.
Henk

Actually, I wasn't clear. As I recall "good" art doesn't have to
satisfy all of the (not necessarily specified) criteria. I guess if you
had a painting that was only a solid red canvas, but many art critics
labeled it great, then for them it would be great. Not necessarily that
they liked it, but that it was great. There is, of course, room for
critic (experts) to disagree about greatness.
The whole idea is the assertion that there is a distinction between what
one likes and what one thinks is great. This not conceptually
difficult. I recognize that Citizen Kane is a great movie, often cited
as the greatest. I find it boring. I don't like it. There are many
movies I love, will watch at every opportunity, but wouldn't argue are
great. I can think of "13 Going on 30" with Jennifer Garner and "Drop
Dead Gorgeous" and "Galaxy Quest" with Tim Allen. OTOH, since I happen
to have excellent taste, most of the movies I like ARE great.
I missed what this has to do with the EU.

Nobody said that the EU has something to do with your "excellent taste".

Nor did I say it did. I should have said "any of this." Then you
wouldn't have assumed that "this" was a narrow "this" referring only to
the immediately preceding idea and not a broad "this" referring to the
whole discussion. I'm sorry I made it difficult for you and will try to
do better in the future.

[Gerard]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Gerard

Post by Frank Berger

Post by HT

Post by Frank Berger
"Good art is art that satisfies certain,
not necessarily specified, criteria about what constitutes good art" I
guess that mean you judge a work of art according to various recognized
criteria.

Somehow Frank's professor reminds me of the bureaucracy in the EU. The Mona Lisa is for him as cucumbers are for the EU. 'Goodness' is the condition wherein Leonardo's picture meets all criteria.
Henk

Actually, I wasn't clear. As I recall "good" art doesn't have to
satisfy all of the (not necessarily specified) criteria. I guess if you
had a painting that was only a solid red canvas, but many art critics
labeled it great, then for them it would be great. Not necessarily that
they liked it, but that it was great. There is, of course, room for
critic (experts) to disagree about greatness.
The whole idea is the assertion that there is a distinction between what
one likes and what one thinks is great. This not conceptually
difficult. I recognize that Citizen Kane is a great movie, often cited
as the greatest. I find it boring. I don't like it. There are many
movies I love, will watch at every opportunity, but wouldn't argue are
great. I can think of "13 Going on 30" with Jennifer Garner and "Drop
Dead Gorgeous" and "Galaxy Quest" with Tim Allen. OTOH, since I happen
to have excellent taste, most of the movies I like ARE great.
I missed what this has to do with the EU.

Nobody said that the EU has something to do with your "excellent taste".

Nor did I say it did. I should have said "any of this." Then you
wouldn't have assumed that "this" was a narrow "this" referring only to
the immediately preceding idea and not a broad "this" referring to the
whole discussion. I'm sorry I made it difficult for you and will try to
do better in the future.

A most typical Berger post is always: saying that someone did not say something.

[HT]

Post by Frank Berger
Actually, I wasn't clear. As I recall "good" art doesn't have to
satisfy all of the (not necessarily specified) criteria. I guess if you
had a painting that was only a solid red canvas, but many art critics
labeled it great, then for them it would be great.

I see. 'Not necessarily specified criteria' means: ad autoritatem, AND 'good' means: great, AND 'great" means: whatever critics call great.

If I understand you correctly:

1. What's called great by critics needn't be good.

Post by Frank Berger
The whole idea is the assertion that there is a distinction between what
one likes and what one thinks is great.

2. It needn't be good nor do you need to like it.

Post by Frank Berger
OTOH, since I happen
to have excellent taste, most of the movies I like ARE great.

3. You too are an authority deciding for all of us what is great and what isn't - based on not necessarily specified criteria i.e. your likes and dislikes.

Your art professor would be proud of you. <g>

Post by Frank Berger
I missed what this has to do with the EU.

You couldn't help missing it. Since it turns out that you only deal in unspecified criteria and great instead of good 'cucumnbers'.

Henk

[Frank Berger]

Post by HT

Post by Frank Berger
Actually, I wasn't clear. As I recall "good" art doesn't have to
satisfy all of the (not necessarily specified) criteria. I guess if you
had a painting that was only a solid red canvas, but many art critics
labeled it great, then for them it would be great.

I see. 'Not necessarily specified criteria' means: ad autoritatem, AND 'good' means: great, AND 'great" means: whatever critics call great.
1. What's called great by critics needn't be good.

Post by Frank Berger
The whole idea is the assertion that there is a distinction between what
one likes and what one thinks is great.

2. It needn't be good nor do you need to like it.

Post by Frank Berger
OTOH, since I happen
to have excellent taste, most of the movies I like ARE great.

3. You too are an authority deciding for all of us what is great and what isn't - based on not necessarily specified criteria i.e. your likes and dislikes.
Your art professor would be proud of you. <g>

Post by Frank Berger
I missed what this has to do with the EU.

You couldn't help missing it. Since it turns out that you only deal in unspecified criteria and great instead of good 'cucumnbers'.
Henk

I don't know what you are talking about. You seem to be trying to
twist this concept into something it isn't. Good vs Great? That has
nothing to do with anything I was talking about. For the sake of the
"argument" consider them synonyms. Do you think there is a conceptual
difference between what one likes and what one things is good? Do
"experts" have knowledge that better enables them to judge quality than
novices?

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by HT

Post by Frank Berger
Actually, I wasn't clear. As I recall "good" art doesn't have to
satisfy all of the (not necessarily specified) criteria. I guess if you
had a painting that was only a solid red canvas, but many art critics
labeled it great, then for them it would be great.

I see. 'Not necessarily specified criteria' means: ad autoritatem, AND 'good' means: great, AND 'great" means: whatever critics call great.
1. What's called great by critics needn't be good.

Post by Frank Berger
The whole idea is the assertion that there is a distinction between what
one likes and what one thinks is great.

2. It needn't be good nor do you need to like it.

Post by Frank Berger
OTOH, since I happen
to have excellent taste, most of the movies I like ARE great.

3. You too are an authority deciding for all of us what is great and what isn't - based on not necessarily specified criteria i.e. your likes and dislikes.
Your art professor would be proud of you. <g>

Post by Frank Berger
I missed what this has to do with the EU.

You couldn't help missing it. Since it turns out that you only deal in unspecified criteria and great instead of good 'cucumnbers'.
Henk

I don't know what you are talking about. You seem to be trying to
twist this concept into something it isn't. Good vs Great? That has
nothing to do with anything I was talking about. For the sake of the
"argument" consider them synonyms. Do you think there is a conceptual
difference between what one likes and what one things is good? Do
"experts" have knowledge that better enables them to judge quality than
novices?

Isn't that like asking?:

- Do people with higher standards know better?

I would only think so:

- Good art weathers the ages because once in so often a man of intelligence commands the mass to adore it.

Ezra Pound (1930, Imaginary Letters)

- Man is made to adore and to obey: but if you will not command him, if you give him nothing to worship, he will fashion his own divinities, and find a chieftain in his own passions.

Benjamin Disraeli

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Frank Berger

Post by HT

Post by Frank Berger
Actually, I wasn't clear. As I recall "good" art doesn't have to
satisfy all of the (not necessarily specified) criteria. I guess if you
had a painting that was only a solid red canvas, but many art critics
labeled it great, then for them it would be great.

I see. 'Not necessarily specified criteria' means: ad autoritatem, AND 'good' means: great, AND 'great" means: whatever critics call great.
1. What's called great by critics needn't be good.

Post by Frank Berger
The whole idea is the assertion that there is a distinction between what
one likes and what one thinks is great.

2. It needn't be good nor do you need to like it.

Post by Frank Berger
OTOH, since I happen
to have excellent taste, most of the movies I like ARE great.

3. You too are an authority deciding for all of us what is great and what isn't - based on not necessarily specified criteria i.e. your likes and dislikes.
Your art professor would be proud of you. <g>

Post by Frank Berger
I missed what this has to do with the EU.

You couldn't help missing it. Since it turns out that you only deal in unspecified criteria and great instead of good 'cucumnbers'.
Henk

I don't know what you are talking about. You seem to be trying to
twist this concept into something it isn't. Good vs Great? That has
nothing to do with anything I was talking about. For the sake of the
"argument" consider them synonyms. Do you think there is a conceptual
difference between what one likes and what one things is good? Do
"experts" have knowledge that better enables them to judge quality than
novices?

- Do people with higher standards know better?

- To love rightly is to love what is orderly and beautiful in an educated and disciplined way.

Plato

[HT]

Post by Frank Berger
Good vs Great? That has
nothing to do with anything I was talking about. For the sake of the
"argument" consider them synonyms.

Good = meeting all the criteria. Great = what is called great by experts (a white square, for example). If I consider them synonyms what is called great by experts = what meets al the criteria. In other words: experts are the criterion.

Post by Frank Berger
Do you think there is a conceptual
difference between what one likes and what one things is good?

If good and great are synonyms there can be a vast difference between what's good and what I like. Shostakovich is said by experts to be a great composer. Rothko is said to be a great painter. Dylan is said to be a great poet.

Post by Frank Berger
Do "experts" have knowledge that better enables them to judge quality than novices?

I don't understand 'knowledge', 'judge' and 'quality' when great and good are synonyms. According to you (but you will probably correct me again), experts use unsepecified criteria (a euphemism for no objective criteria, i.e. no criteria). If they have no criteria what do they know, how can they judge and what is quality?

The EU has criteria. It knows what a cucumber is, how long and thick it should be, how fresh it should look, how it should be packed and transported, etc. etc. A cucumber's quality or goodness depends on meeting all these criteria.

Nevertheless, yours is an interesting approach to art, Frank. The whole setup with the initiated versus non-initiated, the hermetic criteria, knowledge, judgments, quality. All this interest in what is external to art, as if a Chopin Mazurka were a thing like a EU-cucumber.

Have you never been 'touched' by a piece of music, a painting or poem, Frank? Is there no reciprocity? The more you put into it the more it has to offer you, and vice versa?

Just to rile our gggg...:

Pour qu’une chose soit intéressante, il suffit de la regarder longtemps. Flaubert

Henk

[Frank Berger]

Post by HT

Post by Frank Berger
Good vs Great? That has
nothing to do with anything I was talking about. For the sake of the
"argument" consider them synonyms.

Good = meeting all the criteria. Great = what is called great by experts (a white square, for example). If I consider them synonyms what is called great by experts = what meets al the criteria. In other words: experts are the criterion.

I already said art doesn't have to meet ALL the criteria to be good.
Perhaps the more criteria that are met the greater the art is. I don't
know.

Post by HT

Post by Frank Berger
Do you think there is a conceptual
difference between what one likes and what one things is good?

If good and great are synonyms

This is unnecessay to the idea. They don't have t be the same. I was
sloppily using them as synonyms. A simplification if you will.

there can be a vast difference between what's good and what I like.
Shostakovich is said by experts to be a great composer. Rothko is said
to be a great painter. Dylan is said to be a great poet.
That's the whole idea.

Post by HT

Post by Frank Berger
Do "experts" have knowledge that better enables them to judge quality than novices?

I don't understand 'knowledge', 'judge' and 'quality' when great and good are synonyms. According to you (but you will probably correct me again), experts use unsepecified criteria (a euphemism for no objective criteria, i.e. no criteria). If they have no criteria what do they know, how can they judge and what is quality?

An interesting idea, not explorer in the class, IIRC it whether it is
the case that as one becomes more "expert", that is learns ABOUT art,
that is, learns the criteria and how to tell whether a work of art
satisfies them, that what they like starts to conform to what they think
is good (or great or whatever).

Post by HT
The EU has criteria. It knows what a cucumber is, how long and thick it should be, how fresh it should look, how it should be packed and transported, etc. etc. A cucumber's quality or goodness depends on meeting all these criteria.
Nevertheless, yours is an interesting approach to art, Frank. The whole setup with the initiated versus non-initiated, the hermetic criteria, knowledge, judgments, quality. All this interest in what is external to art, as if a Chopin Mazurka were a thing like a EU-cucumber.

It's not mine. It's what is (was) taught in a course at the University
of Wisconsin in 1968 called "Philosophy of the Arts." I can't imagine
it was unique to that school or that professor or that it was in any way
new in 1968.

Post by HT
Have you never been 'touched' by a piece of music, a painting or poem, Frank? Is there no reciprocity? The more you put into it the more it has to offer you, and vice versa?

If course. I don't know what that has to do with anything.

Post by HT
Pour qu’une chose soit intéressante, il suffit de la regarder longtemps. Flaubert

Does this mean the more you listen to Shostakovich the more you will
like him? Or maybe just appreciate him?

Post by HT
Henk

[HT]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by HT
Have you never been 'touched' by a piece of music, a painting or poem, Frank? Is there no reciprocity?
The more you put into it the more it has to offer you, and vice versa?

If course. I don't know what that has to do with anything.

<g> Just an indication that there might be another approach to music?

Post by Frank Berger

Post by HT
Pour qu’une chose soit intéressante, il suffit de la regarder longtemps. Flaubert

Does this mean the more you listen to Shostakovich the more you will
like him? Or maybe just appreciate him?

Just to rile gggg....

I listened to all S.'s symphonies, quartets, etc. for almost a year. The music became more interesting. In matteras of art interesting isn't enough.

There is also John Gavin's question. According to Flaubert the lesser known is overlooked.

Henk

[Frank Berger]

Post by HT

Post by Frank Berger

Post by HT
Have you never been 'touched' by a piece of music, a painting or poem, Frank? Is there no reciprocity?
The more you put into it the more it has to offer you, and vice versa?

If course. I don't know what that has to do with anything.

<g> Just an indication that there might be another approach to music?

Analyzing doesn't mean you don't enjoy. Probably quite the opposite.
I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

Post by HT

Post by Frank Berger

Post by HT
Pour qu’une chose soit intéressante, il suffit de la regarder longtemps. Flaubert

Does this mean the more you listen to Shostakovich the more you will
like him? Or maybe just appreciate him?

Just to rile gggg....
I listened to all S.'s symphonies, quartets, etc. for almost a year. The music became more interesting. In matteras of art interesting isn't enough.
There is also John Gavin's question. According to Flaubert the lesser known is overlooked.
Henk

[JohnGavin]

Here’s an observation that might have some validity, knowing full well that greatness is in the ear and consciousness of the beholder.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Art is great in proportion to how well it connects to the universal and the eternal.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

I hesitate to put this out there, because as soon as this is discussed, analyzed or thought ab

[Frank Berger]

Post by JohnGavin
Here’s an observation that might have some validity, knowing full well that greatness is in the ear and consciousness of the beholder.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Art is great in proportion to how well it connects to the universal and the eternal.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
I hesitate to put this out there, because as soon as this is discussed, analyzed or thought about too much, its meaning evaporates.

To make it meaningful, you have to define "connects." Not an easy task.

[Bozo]

Post by Frank Berger
To make it meaningful, you have to define "connects." Not an easy task.

3 who tried :

Great art is an instant arrested in eternity. James Huneker

Art is the collaboration between God and the artist, and the less the artist does the better. Andre Gide

There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls. George Carlin

[dk]

Post by Bozo

Post by Frank Berger
To make it meaningful, you have to define "connects." Not an easy task.

Great art is an instant arrested in eternity. James Huneker
Art is the collaboration between God and the artist,
and the less the artist does the better. Andre Gide
There are nights when the wolves are silent and only
the moon howls. George Carlin

Great art is art that makes me
pause eating my ice cream! This
is an extremely high bar that is
seldom reached! ;-)

dk

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by dk

Post by Bozo

Post by Frank Berger
To make it meaningful, you have to define "connects." Not an easy task.

Great art is an instant arrested in eternity. James Huneker
Art is the collaboration between God and the artist,
and the less the artist does the better. Andre Gide
There are nights when the wolves are silent and only
the moon howls. George Carlin

Great art is art that makes me
pause eating my ice cream! This
is an extremely high bar that is
seldom reached! ;-)
dk

- Highly illogical.

Mr. Spock

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by JohnGavin
Here’s an observation that might have some validity, knowing full well that greatness is in the ear and consciousness of the beholder.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Art is great in proportion to how well it connects to the universal and the eternal.

I would say that great art gives us a clearer view of reality--not only of the external, but also of the internal:

- The unexamined life i

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by JohnGavin
Here’s an observation that might have some validity, knowing full well that greatness is in the ear and consciousness of the beholder.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Art is great in proportion to how well it connects to the universal and the eternal.

- The unexamined life is not worth living.
Socrates

However, great art should not oversimplify and try to make rational that which in human experience remains paradoxical:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/ronald-reagan-cold-war-naval-strategy-john-lehman-book/

[HT]

Art = science?

Henk

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by HT
Art = science?
Henk

Science is about knowledge--the accumulation of more and more facts.

That increasing amount of knowledge can blind us to the need for the wisdom of art which reminds us of truths that we tend to forget or disregard in our pursuit of more and more facts/knowledge.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by HT
Art = science?
Henk

Science is about knowledge--the accumulation of more and more facts.

That increasing amount of knowledge can begin blind us to the need for the wisdom of art which reminds us of truths that we tend to forget or disregard in our pursuit of more and more facts/knowledge.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by HT
Art = science?
Henk

Science is about knowledge--the accumulation of more and more facts.
That increasing amount of knowledge can begin blind us to the need for the wisdom of art which reminds us of truths that we tend to forget or disregard in our pursuit of more and more facts/knowledge.

- That is never too often repeated, which is never sufficiently learned.

Seneca

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by HT
Art = science?
Henk

Science is about knowledge--the accumulation of more and more facts.
That increasing amount of knowledge can begin blind us to the need for the wisdom of art which reminds us of truths that we tend to forget or disregard in our pursuit of more and more facts/knowledge.

(Let me edit that):

Science is about knowledge--the accumulation of more and more facts.

That increasing amount of knowledge can cause us to lose sight of the need for the wisdom of art which reminds us of truths that we tend to forget or disregard in our white hot pursuit of more and more facts/knowledge.

[Herman]

Just go right ahead and kill any conversation with your quotes.

[HT]

That increasing amount of knowledge can begin blind us ...

Science is about "making rational". I don't see how "great art" could ever do that - as your earlier post implied.

to the need for the wisdom of art

The Parthenon of Athens has no wisdom. Nor has Bach's Godlberg variations. Probably because they don't have an awareness or consciousness.

which reminds us of truths that we tend to forget or disregard i

The concept of a hidden truth that can manifest itself in a work of art is widely accepted. However, the revealed truth is not a Platonic world of ideas, but daily life. The Parthenon was the centre of a polis and the Goldberg variants had to help Goldberg fall asleep. It is the relevance of everyday life that is hidden and revealed in art in an unconventional way.

Henk







n our pursuit of more and more facts/knowledge.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by JohnGavin
Here’s an observation that might have some validity, knowing full well that greatness is in the ear and consciousness of the beholder.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Art is great in proportion to how well it connects to the universal and the eternal.

I would say that great art can be universal (the values and emotions expressed in the plays of Shakespeare), but it can also be unique (exposure to the art of other cultures which can broaden our view of the human experience).

And great art can be eternal (reminding us that human nature really doesn't change over time) or it could be ephemeral like the performing arts which reminds us of the transience of much of huma

[HT]

Post by JohnGavin
Art is great in proportion to how well it connects to the universal and the eternal.

It places art out of the reach of everyday life, I suppose.

And that in times when a Lohengrin can no longer be a Lohengrin, in which songwriters receive the Nobel Prize for poetry, and in which an awkward jazz pianist plays all Chopin's ballads in the Concertgebouw.

Even Tolstoi's 'War and Peace' is no longer just world literature. According to the School of Life, literature (for example 'War and Peace') saves us time, makes us a more enjoyable person, is a cure for loneliness, and prepares us for the moment we fail.

Against this background, the observation probably also implicitely observes that great art no longer exists.

Some of us may regret that. But that does not answer the question of why great art should still exist. Whether it still has a right to exist. If there is still a need for something that is connected to the universal and eternal. And above all, if we need something that requires more money than today's more earthly art forms.

Henk

[HT]

Post by Frank Berger
Analyzing doesn't mean you don't enjoy. Probably quite the opposite.

Good to hear that some enjoy analyzing or enjoy something else while analyzing or just enjoy themselves and analyze.

Post by Frank Berger
I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

Hmmm. I wasn't. My fault! I shouldn't have expected you to be able to tell the difference.

Henk

[Frank Berger]

Post by HT

Post by Frank Berger
Analyzing doesn't mean you don't enjoy. Probably quite the opposite.

Good to hear that some enjoy analyzing or enjoy something else while analyzing or just enjoy themselves and analyze.

Post by Frank Berger
I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

Hmmm. I wasn't. My fault! I shouldn't have expected you to be able to tell the difference.
Henk

Insult ends the conversation.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by HT

Post by Frank Berger

Post by HT
Have you never been 'touched' by a piece of music, a painting or poem, Frank? Is there no reciprocity?
The more you put into it the more it has to offer you, and vice versa?

If course. I don't know what that has to do with anything.

<g> Just an indication that there might be another approach to music?

Analyzing doesn't mean you don't enjoy...

Analyzing and articulating (engaging in discussions with others) can often reveal personal biases and prejudices that one was not aware of (or may even have been in denial about).

The more you are aware of your own subjectivity, the more your judgement will improve because it will become fairer and more objective.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by HT

Post by Frank Berger
Good vs Great? That has
nothing to do with anything I was talking about. For the sake of the
"argument" consider them synonyms.

Good = meeting all the criteria. Great = what is called great by experts (a white square, for example). If I consider them synonyms what is called great by experts = what meets al the criteria. In other words: experts are the criterion.

The criteria should be explicit and justified.

Those who agree with the criteria could be considered the consensus.

But as clear as the criteria should be, there could be questions about it or disagreement among the consensus.

That's where the experts come in to clarify the criteria and pronounce judgements as to why one thing is better than another.

Post by Frank Berger
I already said art doesn't have to meet ALL the criteria to be good.
Perhaps the more criteria that are met the greater the art is...

I would that the more criteria, the greater the artform is.

For instance, the criteria for popular music is simply sales.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Frank Berger
Good vs Great? That has
nothing to do with anything I was talking about. For the sake of the
"argument" consider them synonyms.

Good = meeting all the criteria. Great = what is called great by experts (a white square, for example). If I consider them synonyms what is called great by experts = what meets al the criteria. In other words: experts are the criterion...

The criteria should be explicit and justified.

Those who agree with the criteria could be considered the consensus.

But as clear as the criteria should be, there could be questions about it or disagreement among the consensus.

That's where the experts come in to clarify the criteria and pronounce judgements as to why one thing is better than another.

Post by Frank Berger
I already said art doesn't have to meet ALL the criteria to be good.
Perhaps the more criteria that are met the greater the art is...

I would say that the more criteria, the greater the artform is.

For instance, the criteria for popular music is simply sales.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by HT

Post by Frank Berger
Good vs Great? That has
nothing to do with anything I was talking about. For the sake of the
"argument" consider them synonyms.

Good = meeting all the criteria. Great = what is called great by experts (a white square, for example). If I consider them synonyms what is called great by experts = what meets al the criteria. In other words: experts are the criterion.

The criteria should be explicit and justified.

Those who agree with the criteria could be considered the consensus.

But as clear as the criteria should be, there could be questions about it or disagreement among the consensus as to how it applies to a specific piece of music/art.

That's where the experts come in to clarify the criteria and pronounce judgements as to why one thing is better than another.

Post by Frank Berger
I already said art doesn't have to meet ALL the criteria to be good.
Perhaps the more criteria that are met the greater the art is...

I would say that the more criteria, the greater the artform is.

For instance, the criteria for popular music is simply sales.

[AB]

Post by drh8h

Post by drh8h
. That's where Rachmaninov and Medtner come in. I have heard the latter's music, mostly in his own recordings and while it has good qualities, nothing sticks to the mind. I suspect this is true whether you hear it one or fifteen times. I bet almost everyone had the opposite experience with the Rach 3. Something brought them back. And it keeps bringing us back. Whereas the others, however well made, just leave a vague feeling of something being missing.
DH
My own experience is different. True, Medtner doesn’t have the immediate appeal of Rachmaninov’s music, Medtner’s music slowly grows on the listener with repeated hearings, at least for me. In fact, I must confess, I became a sort of Medtner fanatic about 20 years ago. I came to feel that he was as great a composer as Rachmaninov. I wasn’t surprised to read that Rachmaninov said that there were 2 musicians that he would travel anywhere to hear in concert - Chaliapin and Medtner.

You may be right, but with all of the music in the world and the short time we are in it, music that grows on one will always be left to niche audiences who find something special in it. Casals claimed that very quality for Roentgen, Moor and Tovey. Sixty+ years later and despite his advocacy, when do you ever hear their music unless deliberately seeking out an obscure recording? Not a reflection of quality; there is so much competing for our time and attention.
DH

Roentgen wrote some very nice music for winds.

AB

[Andy Evans]

This seems to me one of those fabricated statements which have so many exceptions and which are so subjective anyway that there doesn't seem much point in making the statement in the first place. A foot dangling exercise for wet evenings....

[Frank Berger]

Post by drh8h
. That's where Rachmaninov and Medtner come in. I have heard the latter's music, mostly in his own recordings and while it has good qualities, nothing sticks to the mind. I suspect this is true whether you hear it one or fifteen times. I bet almost everyone had the opposite experience with the Rach 3. Something brought them back. And it keeps bringing us back. Whereas the others, however well made, just leave a vague feeling of something being missing.
DH
My own experience is different. True, Medtner doesn’t have the immediate appeal of Rachmaninov’s music,

Simply not having the "immediate appeal" (tunes you can hum?) is
enough to relegate Medtner to have less popular appeal than Rachmaninov.
Popular appeal and innate quality are different things.


Medtner’s music slowly grows on the listener with repeated hearings,
at least for me. In fact, I must confess, I became a sort of Medtner
fanatic about 20 years ago. I came to feel that he was as great a
composer as Rachmaninov. I wasn’t surprised to read that Rachmaninov
said that there were 2 musicians that he would travel anywhere to hear
in concert - Chaliapin and Medtner.

[drh8h]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by drh8h
. That's where Rachmaninov and Medtner come in. I have heard the latter's music, mostly in his own recordings and while it has good qualities, nothing sticks to the mind. I suspect this is true whether you hear it one or fifteen times. I bet almost everyone had the opposite experience with the Rach 3. Something brought them back. And it keeps bringing us back. Whereas the others, however well made, just leave a vague feeling of something being missing.
DH
My own experience is different. True, Medtner doesn’t have the immediate appeal of Rachmaninov’s music,

Simply not having the "immediate appeal" (tunes you can hum?) is
enough to relegate Medtner to have less popular appeal than Rachmaninov.
Popular appeal and innate quality are different things.
Medtner’s music slowly grows on the listener with repeated hearings,
at least for me. In fact, I must confess, I became a sort of Medtner
fanatic about 20 years ago. I came to feel that he was as great a
composer as Rachmaninov. I wasn’t surprised to read that Rachmaninov
said that there were 2 musicians that he would travel anywhere to hear
in concert - Chaliapin and Medtner.

Some composers have it and some don't. Schoenberg survives because he had it long enough to write "Transfigured Night" and "Pelleas and Melisande." Stravinsky had it until he started wanting to be Schoenberg. Saint-Saens had it even though a good part of his music is tawdry, however well made. But Machaut, Dowland and Bach had it too. Sweet mystery of life!

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by drh8h
. That's where Rachmaninov and Medtner come in. I have heard the latter's music, mostly in his own recordings and while it has good qualities, nothing sticks to the mind. I suspect this is true whether you hear it one or fifteen times. I bet almost everyone had the opposite experience with the Rach 3. Something brought them back. And it keeps bringing us back. Whereas the others, however well made, just leave a vague feeling of something being missing.
DH
My own experience is different. True, Medtner doesn’t have the immediate appeal of Rachmaninov’s music,

Simply not having the "immediate appeal" (tunes you can hum?) is
enough to relegate Medtner to have less popular appeal than Rachmaninov.
Popular appeal and innate quality are different things.

The following concludes:

- ...Ovid’s Metamorphoses testifies to the fact that great art is not
necessarily created to please.

https://theconversation.com/guide-to-the-classics-ovids-metamorphoses-and-reading-rape-65316

[Herman]

Post by drh8h
I don't care if it is the Monteverdi's Orfeo, B Minor Mass, WTC, "Haydn" Quartets, Op. 111, La Mer, "Classical" Symphony, Wozzeck, Rubinstein's Melody or Danse Macabre. And it keeps you coming back. That's where Rachmaninov and Medtner come in. I have heard the latter's music, mostly in his own recordings and while it has good qualities, nothing sticks to the mind.

Really if you think Beethoven is a well-known composer because he wrote Op. 111 you haven't been paying attention. Beethoven's fame rests on the symphonies, his piano concertos, the Moonlight and the Pathetique. The vast majority of record buyers or concert goers wouldn't last a minute of those late piano sonatas.

Same with Mozart. Mozart is his operas, his last three symphonies, some concerts and galant serenades. Most people wouldn't even know he wrote string quartets. And I'm not talking about people who don't care for classical music, but the vast majority of the audience, who used to buy Karajan LPs and now the current equivalent of safe repertoire, safe performers.

[JohnGavin]

Really if you think Beethoven is a well-known composer because he wrote Op. 111 you haven't been paying attention. Beethoven's fame rests on the symphonies, his piano concertos, the Moonlight and the Pathetique. The vast majority of record buyers or concert goers wouldn't last a minute of those late piano sonatas.


This brings up the idea of trends in music. 20 years ago this was true - but lately op. 111 and the last Schubert Piano Sonata in B Flat have been so talked up and hyped as holy icons that they are talked about as much as Lang Lang these days. Remember when the movie “Amadeus” came out? Mozart was elevated to God-like stature after that. I liked to tell people that instead, he was an uneven genius. Listen to his 15 sets of piano variations for proof. There are plenty of people who will buy records because they think they had better like something they’ve heard about.

[Herman]

Post by JohnGavin
This brings up the idea of trends in music. 20 years ago this was true - but lately op. 111 and the last Schubert Piano Sonata in B Flat have been so talked up and hyped as holy icons that they are talked about as much as Lang Lang these days.

Talked about by whom?

I checked LangLang's discography and there is obviously no Schubert (boring harmony spinning) - or Beethoven 111 (how many trills does he need?) there.

[JohnGavin]

I checked LangLang's discography and there is obviously no Schubert (boring harmony spinning)


There is - see “Lang Lang at Carnegie Hall’

[Herman]

Post by JohnGavin
There are plenty of people who will buy records because they think they had better like something they’ve heard about.

Unfortunately the aspirational pull of classical music listening or reading Finnegans Wake is pretty much dead.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Herman

Post by JohnGavin
There are plenty of people who will buy records because they think they had better like something they’ve heard about.

Unfortunately the aspirational pull of classical music listening or reading Finnegans Wake is pretty much dead.

http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics3/grossefuge.html
- But the publishing executive noted that while [serious writers'] novels have a devoted readership, they are often bought by others more out of a sense of obligation than to be read.
https://books.google.com/books?id=CGV-sHezvSgC&pg=PA2292&dq=%22But+the+publishing+executive+noted+that+while+their+novels+have+a+devoted+readership,+they+are+often+bought+by+others+more+out+of+a+sense+of+obligation+than+to+be+read.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVscPRqMzcAhVmilQKHVoUDp8Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22But%20the%20publishing%20executive%20noted%20that%20while%20their%20novels%20have%20a%20devoted%20readership%2C%20they%20are%20often%20bought%20by%20others%20more%20out%20of%20a%20sense%20of%20obligation%20than%20to%20be%20read.%22&f=false

When it come to "Finnegan's Wake" in particular:

- ...It has baffled generations of ordinary readers, even those who admire and enjoy Joyce’s earlier writing. As a result, it has gained a reputation as a book more written about than read, the ultimate in modernist incomprehensibility.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2015/apr/28/finnegans-wake-james-joyce-modern-interpretations

[Bozo]

There are plenty of people who will buy records because they think they had better like something they’ve >heard about.

For example , we have youngsters playing LvB Op.110 and 111 and D.960 in competitions.

[drh8h]

Post by Herman

Post by drh8h
I don't care if it is the Monteverdi's Orfeo, B Minor Mass, WTC, "Haydn" Quartets, Op. 111, La Mer, "Classical" Symphony, Wozzeck, Rubinstein's Melody or Danse Macabre. And it keeps you coming back. That's where Rachmaninov and Medtner come in. I have heard the latter's music, mostly in his own recordings and while it has good qualities, nothing sticks to the mind.

Really if you think Beethoven is a well-known composer because he wrote Op. 111 you haven't been paying attention. Beethoven's fame rests on the symphonies, his piano concertos, the Moonlight and the Pathetique. The vast majority of record buyers or concert goers wouldn't last a minute of those late piano sonatas.
Same with Mozart. Mozart is his operas, his last three symphonies, some concerts and galant serenades. Most people wouldn't even know he wrote string quartets. And I'm not talking about people who don't care for classical music, but the vast majority of the audience, who used to buy Karajan LPs and now the current equivalent of safe repertoire, safe performers.

I am not saying that. My point is that whether the listener is only occasional or more sophisticated, the elements of music that go to that strange desire to actually listen to something again, find it interesting or boring, are not very different. The more experienced listener will have a much wider appreciation of nuance and complexity. Remember those Haydn Society records that snootily proclaimed on the cover, "For the Mature Listener?" But in the end it comes down to some combination of notes that exert an appeal that makes one want to delve in and listen again. I'm am not a musician and never been trained, but I have had this experience hundreds of times. Other things, no matter how much I am told they are good, never do it for me.

"Good music is that which penetrates the ear with facility and quits the memory with difficulty." Sir Thomas Beecham. Never have seen it put better by a master of language. It's as true for Perotin or Wolf (two really specialist tastes) as it is for Ravel's Bolero.

Addendum: I'm don't think we can slander people for listening to Karajan either. I have virtually all his orchestral, as opposed to opera, recordings. Love or hate, many of his later recordings don't seem to me to have the elements that would attract a naive listener, even in standard works. In fact, I really think they would be put off. He was at times far too refined for the hoI polloi.

[Frank Berger]

Post by drh8h

Post by Herman

Post by drh8h
I don't care if it is the Monteverdi's Orfeo, B Minor Mass, WTC, "Haydn" Quartets, Op. 111, La Mer, "Classical" Symphony, Wozzeck, Rubinstein's Melody or Danse Macabre. And it keeps you coming back. That's where Rachmaninov and Medtner come in. I have heard the latter's music, mostly in his own recordings and while it has good qualities, nothing sticks to the mind.

Really if you think Beethoven is a well-known composer because he wrote Op. 111 you haven't been paying attention. Beethoven's fame rests on the symphonies, his piano concertos, the Moonlight and the Pathetique. The vast majority of record buyers or concert goers wouldn't last a minute of those late piano sonatas.
Same with Mozart. Mozart is his operas, his last three symphonies, some concerts and galant serenades. Most people wouldn't even know he wrote string quartets. And I'm not talking about people who don't care for classical music, but the vast majority of the audience, who used to buy Karajan LPs and now the current equivalent of safe repertoire, safe performers.

I am not saying that. My point is that whether the listener is only occasional or more sophisticated, the elements of music that go to that strange desire to actually listen to something again, find it interesting or boring, are not very different. The more experienced listener will have a much wider appreciation of nuance and complexity. Remember those Haydn Society records that snootily proclaimed on the cover, "For the Mature Listener?" But in the end it comes down to some combination of notes that exert an appeal that makes one want to delve in and listen again. I'm am not a musician and never been trained, but I have had this experience hundreds of times. Other things, no matter how much I am told they are good, never do it for me.
"Good music is that which penetrates the ear with facility and quits the memory with difficulty." Sir Thomas Beecham. Never have seen it put better by a master of language. It's as true for Perotin or Wolf (two really specialist tastes) as it is for Ravel's Bolero.
Addendum: I'm don't think we can slander people for listening to Karajan either. I have virtually all his orchestral, as opposed to opera, recordings. Love or hate, many of his later recordings don't seem to me to have the elements that would attract a naive listener, even in standard works. In fact, I really think they would be put off. He was at times far too refined for the hoI polloi.

Beecham believed that to be "good" music had to have a hook? Amazing.

[drh8h]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by drh8h

Post by Herman

Post by drh8h
I don't care if it is the Monteverdi's Orfeo, B Minor Mass, WTC, "Haydn" Quartets, Op. 111, La Mer, "Classical" Symphony, Wozzeck, Rubinstein's Melody or Danse Macabre. And it keeps you coming back. That's where Rachmaninov and Medtner come in. I have heard the latter's music, mostly in his own recordings and while it has good qualities, nothing sticks to the mind.

Really if you think Beethoven is a well-known composer because he wrote Op. 111 you haven't been paying attention. Beethoven's fame rests on the symphonies, his piano concertos, the Moonlight and the Pathetique. The vast majority of record buyers or concert goers wouldn't last a minute of those late piano sonatas.
Same with Mozart. Mozart is his operas, his last three symphonies, some concerts and galant serenades. Most people wouldn't even know he wrote string quartets. And I'm not talking about people who don't care for classical music, but the vast majority of the audience, who used to buy Karajan LPs and now the current equivalent of safe repertoire, safe performers.

I am not saying that. My point is that whether the listener is only occasional or more sophisticated, the elements of music that go to that strange desire to actually listen to something again, find it interesting or boring, are not very different. The more experienced listener will have a much wider appreciation of nuance and complexity. Remember those Haydn Society records that snootily proclaimed on the cover, "For the Mature Listener?" But in the end it comes down to some combination of notes that exert an appeal that makes one want to delve in and listen again. I'm am not a musician and never been trained, but I have had this experience hundreds of times. Other things, no matter how much I am told they are good, never do it for me.
"Good music is that which penetrates the ear with facility and quits the memory with difficulty." Sir Thomas Beecham. Never have seen it put better by a master of language. It's as true for Perotin or Wolf (two really specialist tastes) as it is for Ravel's Bolero.
Addendum: I'm don't think we can slander people for listening to Karajan either. I have virtually all his orchestral, as opposed to opera, recordings. Love or hate, many of his later recordings don't seem to me to have the elements that would attract a naive listener, even in standard works. In fact, I really think they would be put off. He was at times far too refined for the hoI polloi.

Beecham believed that to be "good" music had to have a hook? Amazing.

In that same talk I believe he praises the songs of Wolf, not exactly music with "hooks." A "hook" for a serious musician could be much more profound than one for the occasional concert goer who gets excited by every fast passage or noisy climax. His remark I think does explain somewhat his distaste for "Protestant Counterpoint." Was it he or RVW who conducted a famous Bach piece and afterwards exclaimed, "Maybe St. Matthew's Passion, but not mine!"

[Bozo]

Post by Frank Berger
Beecham believed that to be "good" music had to have a hook? Amazing.

He was speaking from experience.

Other fav quotes :

"Composers should write tunes that chauffeurs and errand boys can whistle. "

"A musicologist is a man who can read music but can't hear it. "

[drh8h]

Post by Bozo

Post by Frank Berger
Beecham believed that to be "good" music had to have a hook? Amazing.

He was speaking from experience.
"Composers should write tunes that chauffeurs and errand boys can whistle. "
"A musicologist is a man who can read music but can't hear it. "

Part of our problem here is we are confounding popular and profound. I consider Schubert's Unfinished to be about as profound as any piece on earth, but that did not stop it being popular.

[Frank Berger]

Post by drh8h

Post by Bozo

Post by Frank Berger
Beecham believed that to be "good" music had to have a hook? Amazing.

He was speaking from experience.
"Composers should write tunes that chauffeurs and errand boys can whistle."
"A musicologist is a man who can read music but can't hear it."

Part of our problem here is we are confounding popular and profound. I consider Schubert's Unfinished to be about as profound as any piece on earth, but that did not stop it being popular.

Quoting my Philosophy of the Arts professor from 50 years ago: "Good art
satisfies certain, not necessarily specified, criteria about what
constitutes good art." Form, use of color, balance, etc. For music,
fill in your own criteria. Having a hook could be one criterion, but
neither necessary nor sufficient. That is for "good" music. For
popularity, I suppose the criteria list is smaller: melody (hook) and
rhythm.

[drh8h]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by drh8h

Post by Bozo

Post by Frank Berger
Beecham believed that to be "good" music had to have a hook? Amazing.

He was speaking from experience.
"Composers should write tunes that chauffeurs and errand boys can whistle."
"A musicologist is a man who can read music but can't hear it."

Part of our problem here is we are confounding popular and profound. I consider Schubert's Unfinished to be about as profound as any piece on earth, but that did not stop it being popular.

Quoting my Philosophy of the Arts professor from 50 years ago: "Good art
satisfies certain, not necessarily specified, criteria about what
constitutes good art." Form, use of color, balance, etc. For music,
fill in your own criteria. Having a hook could be one criterion, but
neither necessary nor sufficient. That is for "good" music. For
popularity, I suppose the criteria list is smaller: melody (hook) and
rhythm.

For some, not me, a hook can be clever counterpoint.

[Frank Berger]

Post by drh8h

Post by Frank Berger

Post by drh8h

Post by Bozo

Post by Frank Berger
Beecham believed that to be "good" music had to have a hook? Amazing.

He was speaking from experience.
"Composers should write tunes that chauffeurs and errand boys can whistle."
"A musicologist is a man who can read music but can't hear it."

Part of our problem here is we are confounding popular and profound. I consider Schubert's Unfinished to be about as profound as any piece on earth, but that did not stop it being popular.

Quoting my Philosophy of the Arts professor from 50 years ago: "Good art
satisfies certain, not necessarily specified, criteria about what
constitutes good art." Form, use of color, balance, etc. For music,
fill in your own criteria. Having a hook could be one criterion, but
neither necessary nor sufficient. That is for "good" music. For
popularity, I suppose the criteria list is smaller: melody (hook) and
rhythm.

For some, not me, a hook can be clever counterpoint.

Sure. I guess I wasn't really precise. Like Trump, I don't always
manage to say what I mean to say. I think "blurting" is the operative
word. Anyway, "hook" doesn't have to be just melody, and different
people can be hooked on different things. Certaiinly this applies to
musical experts and novices.

[Herman]

Post by JohnGavin
Lesser known works of music generally deserve their obscurity.
Decades ago I would have strongly challenged this theory (which I heard from a highly accomplished virtuoso). Now I’ve moved closer to it - somewhat. Since many here listen to a wide range of music, your opinions will be interesting.

Lesser known by which audience?

well-known classical music would be Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn's Messiah, Mahler, Bach Passions and those keyboard pieces composed for Gould, Tchaikovsky and Dvorak and that's it.

[JohnGavin]

Lesser known by which audience?

well-known classical music would be Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn's Messiah, Mahler, Bach Passions and those keyboard pieces composed for Gould, Tchaikovsky and Dvorak and that's it.
_————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Thanks. I’ll have to check out Haydn’s Messiah - embarrassed

[Herman]

Post by Herman
Lesser known by which audience?
well-known classical music would be Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn's Messiah, Mahler, Bach Passions and those keyboard pieces composed for Gould, Tchaikovsky and Dvorak and that's it.
_————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Thanks. I’ll have to check out Haydn’s Messiah - embarrassed to admit I don’t know it.

Handel

[Frank Berger]

Post by JohnGavin
Lesser known works of music generally deserve their obscurity.
Decades ago I would have strongly challenged this theory (which I heard from a highly accomplished virtuoso). Now I’ve moved closer to it - somewhat. Since many here listen to a wide range of music, your opinions will be interesting.

The problem with the theory is the word "deserve." Does it imply the
existence of an inherent quality which is distinct from popularity? If
so, then it should not be surprising that some works which are
objectively good (as rated by experts) may not always be popular.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by JohnGavin
Lesser known works of music generally deserve their obscurity.
Decades ago I would have strongly challenged this theory (which I heard from a highly accomplished virtuoso). Now I’ve moved closer to it - somewhat. Since many here listen to a wide range of music, your opinions will be interesting.

The problem with the theory is the word "deserve." Does it imply the
existence of an inherent quality which is distinct from popularity? If
so, then it should not be surprising that some works which are
objectively good (as rated by experts) may not always be popular.

Concerning objectivity, this 2013 thread may be of interest:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.classical.recordings/xzUzKludQqs%5B1-25%5D

[Ricardo Jimenez]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 05:40:55 -0700 (PDT), JohnGavin

Post by JohnGavin
Lesser known works of music generally deserve their obscurity.
Decades ago I would have strongly challenged this theory (which I heard from a highly accomplished virtuoso). Now I’ve moved closer to it - somewhat. Since many here listen to a wide range of music, your opinions will be interesting.

The "generally" makes it hard to refute the theory. The two most
cited examples of composers whose music was obscure for a long time
after their deaths and then underwent a permanent revivial are Bach
and Mahler. Maybe the most interesting question is, who will be the
next such example?

[weary flake]

Post by JohnGavin
Lesser known works of music generally deserve their obscurity.
Decades ago I would have strongly challenged this theory (which I heard
from a highly accomplished virtuoso). Now I’ve moved closer to it -
somewhat. Since many here listen to a wide range of music, your
opinions will be interesting.

My suspicions have always been that music is dismissed for dumb reasons,
and we're supposed to accept the professor or critic's dismissal without
hearing it ourselves: this music is bad because it's in mono, or it's too
old, or it's too sentimental, or it's too dramatic, or it has too much
harmony, or other reputable critics said it's bad, or the composer is a
monarchist, or is ugly, the music is obsolete because it's not serial,
sold too few copies so must be suppressed, the composer's third cousin is
a composer residing in a country we're at war with, etc.

[John Hood]

I have an obsessive interest in string quartets, where the popular
repertoire seems to be like a 'Top 50' which most quartets aim to
perform or record - hence you can find 795 pairings of Debussy & Ravel
on Amazon UK. My opinion is that there are many obscure composer's
quartets that are wonderful but most likely exist on only one recording.

My conclusion is that the music industry mostly pushes the popular,
presumably because they think that's what will sell. That is why it is
an 'industry', as profit, not music is mostly always the focus.

It's a bit like politics, when push comes to shove, core principles are
abandoned in an attempt to stay in power!

JH

Post by JohnGavin
Lesser known works of music generally deserve their obscurity.
Decades ago I would have strongly challenged this theory (which I heard from a highly accomplished virtuoso). Now I’ve moved closer to it - somewhat. Since many here listen to a wide range of music, your opinions will be interesting.

[drh8h]

Post by John Hood
I have an obsessive interest in string quartets, where the popular
repertoire seems to be like a 'Top 50' which most quartets aim to
perform or record - hence you can find 795 pairings of Debussy & Ravel
on Amazon UK. My opinion is that there are many obscure composer's
quartets that are wonderful but most likely exist on only one recording.
My conclusion is that the music industry mostly pushes the popular,
presumably because they think that's what will sell. That is why it is
an 'industry', as profit, not music is mostly always the focus.
It's a bit like politics, when push comes to shove, core principles are
abandoned in an attempt to stay in power!
JH

Post by JohnGavin
Lesser known works of music generally deserve their obscurity.
Decades ago I would have strongly challenged this theory (which I heard from a highly accomplished virtuoso). Now I’ve moved closer to it - somewhat. Since many here listen to a wide range of music, your opinions will be interesting.

Yes, but "unknown" works--think that famously overplayed "Canon," can suddenly become popular. Look how Gregorian Chant of all things had a popularity boom. It must take a performer or a producer who can spot the potential to go if not go mainstream, find a niche. That it doesn't happen so often tells me the well is pretty dry.

[Bozo]

Post by John Hood
I have an obsessive interest in string quartets,

I'm not obsessive about sq's, but here is Anton Rubinstein's SQ # 2 I've been enjoying a couple times over recent days, Royal String Quartet Copehagen,Etc. label recording , you may enjoy ( he wrote 4 others I think, have not heard ) :

[HT]

Post by JohnGavin
Decades ago I would have strongly challenged this theory (which I heard from a highly accomplished virtuoso). Now I’ve moved closer to it - somewhat. Since many here listen to a wide range of music, your opinions will be interesting.

ISeveral highly interesting recitals and concerts can be given with music written by composers whose names don't appear in programs performed in the Concertgebouw in the last two decades.

Henk

[Haydn House CD]

Post by JohnGavin
Lesser known works of music generally deserve their obscurity.
Decades ago I would have strongly challenged this theory (which I heard from a highly accomplished virtuoso). Now I’ve moved closer to it - somewhat. Since many here listen to a wide range of music, your opinions will be interesting.

[Haydn House CD]

Post by JohnGavin
Lesser known works of music generally deserve their obscurity.
Decades ago I would have strongly challenged this theory (which I heard from a highly accomplished virtuoso). Now I’ve moved closer to it - somewhat. Since many here listen to a wide range of music, your opinions will be interesting.

Here's a "these are the times" question for everyone: Do you live in fear of liking the wrong music?

[h***@gmail.com]

-Here's a "these are the times" question
-for everyone: Do you live in fear of
-liking the wrong music?

I live in fear of missing out on possible music of whatever genre that could deepen one's life experience, and is one of the reasons I range fairly widely across musical genres.

I would hate to be without jazz in all its diversity, flamenco, certain periods and styles of pop, and a lot of contemporary classical. I'm continually finding 'great worthiness' in many genres outside 'standard' classical music, and therefore I continue to search.

So the question doesn't really apply to me, because I refuse to stay in a comfortable rut. If I feel music is getting too 'samey' for me I look elsewhere. In a nutshell.

Ray Hall, Taree

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Haydn House CD

Post by JohnGavin
Lesser known works of music generally deserve their obscurity.
Decades ago I would have strongly challenged this theory (which I heard from a highly accomplished virtuoso). Now I’ve moved closer to it - somewhat. Since many here listen to a wide range of music, your opinions will be interesting.

Here's a "these are the times" question for everyone: Do you live in fear of liking the wrong music?

You are asking such a question in times when people have not only lost their fear of authority, but have long lost their fear of God?

Listening to the wrong music is the least of their worries.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Haydn House CD

Post by JohnGavin
Lesser known works of music generally deserve their obscurity.
Decades ago I would have strongly challenged this theory (which I heard from a highly accomplished virtuoso). Now I’ve moved closer to it - somewhat. Since many here listen to a wide range of music, your opinions will be interesting.

Here's a "these are the times" question for everyone: Do you live in fear of liking the wrong music?

You are asking such a question in times when people have not only lost their fear of authority, but have long lost their fear of God?

Liking the wrong music is the least of modern man's fears.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Haydn House CD

Post by JohnGavin
Lesser known works of music generally deserve their obscurity.
Decades ago I would have strongly challenged this theory (which I heard from a highly accomplished virtuoso). Now I’ve moved closer to it - somewhat. Since many here listen to a wide range of music, your opinions will be interesting.

Here's a "these are the times" question for everyone: Do you live in fear of liking the wrong music?

You are asking such a question in times when people have not only lost their fear of authority, but have long lost their fear of God?
Liking the wrong music is the least of modern man's fears.

Actually, liking the wrong ANYTHING is the least of modern man's fears.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Haydn House CD

Post by JohnGavin
Lesser known works of music generally deserve their obscurity.
Decades ago I would have strongly challenged this theory (which I heard from a highly accomplished virtuoso). Now I’ve moved closer to it - somewhat. Since many here listen to a wide range of music, your opinions will be interesting.

Here's a "these are the times" question for everyone: Do you live in fear of liking the wrong music?

- To enjoy the things we ought and to hate the things we ought has the greatest bearing on excellence of character.

Aristotle

[dk]

Post by g***@gmail.com
To enjoy the things we ought and to hate the
things we ought has the greatest bearing on
excellence of character.

I HATE QUOTE BOTS!

dk