I have kind of a philosophical question, somewhat on the lines of the "if a tree falls and no one is there, does it make a sound?"

If no one thought Beethoven's music was great, would it still be great?

I would contend yes, because there are elements of greatness that can be measured and which are not subjective. Just look at the rhythmic and thematic unity that permeates his 5th symphony (to cite an obvious example). Even if people didn't think it was great, one would have to admire the craftsmanship and architectural structure that went into making that piece. And that is not an isolated example - so much of his music follows that theme of architectural unity, be it harmonic, rhythmic, melodic, or the combination of all three, that I don't see how the greatness can be denied...

But, I'm obviously biased, as my sig implies...

Of course... it's Beethoven!

"If no one thought Beethoven's music was great." What does that even mean?

Bored today?

You don't see how that compares to "if no one hears a tree fall, did it really makes a noise"?

No.

Well, is his music great just because it's popular, or are there deeper reasons?

How about that explanation?

If it's popular then that pretty much rules out your initial question does it not? It's not great, because it's popular, at any rate. It's popular, because it's great. I'm not sure there is sufficient time, nor paper available to detail all of the reasons Beethoven is such a great composer.

The question was a hypothetical. I'm sure if you thought hard enough you could think of something good to say about his music.

But this reasoning assumes thematic and rhythmic unity is good.

Why?
How could one measure craftsmanship(assuming that this is desirable)?

I think it's an interesting question. It seems like another way of asking, "What defines great art? Is it just consensus or are there objective criteria?" I was recently asked to defend why I find classical music generally of greater value than popular music like rock 'n roll. I couldn't answer to his or my satisfaction, mentioning that it was more interesting because there seems to be more going on, more complexity, a greater range of ideas and themes, etc. I also think it has to do with intent and ambition. Classical music sets out to do enormous things, and great classical music is successful in achieving them.

Those are good, valid questions - and I don't know if there will ever be a satisfactory answer to that. Everyone has their own sense of aesthetics and taste, so how does one account for that. What one person values in a piece may be denounced by others. However, I still think that thematic and rhythmic unity is something to be desired and is a sign of artistic worth, even if it might not be your particular cup of tea.

The way I thought about this question was to flip it around and assume that humans received a message from an extra-terrestrial civilization that we know absolutely nothing about. From that message, what could we deduce? Probably not much, but I would like to think that if we were able to find patterns and rhythms and some form of repetition, we might deduce that the author of the message possessed marked intelligence and a knowledge of structure, form, and architecture, and while we would probably not ever be able to appreciate or understand the message as it was intended by the sender, we would at least have a respect for the author in that regard. As opposed to if we received something that was just random noise. It may be that what we perceive as random noise might be the pinnacle of their artistic endeavors, but to us, with no context at all, we would probably dismiss it as just that - noise...

Now, to flip it - let's say that we sent out a piece by Beethoven and some other civilization intercepted it. They would have absolutely no context in how to interpret that message, and they'd probably never understand it the way Beethoven intended it, but by seeing the patterns and unity, I'd like to think that they might respect the author of that message as one who knew a thing or two about structure and architecture.

I have often wondered (as I am sure most of you have) what would happen if you took someone (say from an hunter gatherer type of tribe), who had no previous exposure whatsoever to occidental music, and sat them down in Royal Albert Hall and said (in their native tongue, of course) "just sit still and be quiet for a couple of hours" while Beethoven's 9th is playing. Would they like it or not?

I have also wondered what kind of effect it would have on a child's sense of musical taste if you took them to some remote place as soon as they were born and arranged it so that the only exposure to music they had was just Schoenbergian style serialism.

You must prefer incredibly slow tempi.

I am not sure that I understand this question from a philosophical point of view. People do think that Beethoven's music is great. Therefore, the premise cannot hold. So on what basis can one judge the consequences?

Some of the respondents have attempted to address the question - what is it intrinsically in great art that makes it great? That is a deep question which I cannot answer; but I think it is not quite the same question.

They would neither like it or not like it; they simply would have no idea what was going on. Much like as if I were to witness some of their rituals.



It'd have the same effect as any other restricted musical diet, I think. It would be the central defining thing in their musical sensibility, and so would be the most comfortable.

I grew up on a diet of pop songs (noone in my family was musical), and still remember my first exposure to classical music - an LP of Beethoven's 5th & 8th symphonies. I bought it with my own pocket money on the strength of the sleeve note that said that the first movement of the 5th was castigated as rubbish and repetitive by some critics in his day, and yet is the one Beethoven tune that everybody recognizes today....so I had to hear it for myself. And I thought the way Beethoven uses and develops that simple motif (this was long before I knew anything about sonata form and 'development' - and a year before I started to learn the piano) to make something great out of almost nothing was truly amazing.

The likes of ABBA, the Bee Gees and the Beatles got swept aside after that....

No, it wouldn't.

"Great" is a cultural value judgement, and so there has to be somebody recognizing greatness before it can exist.

Glad you understand my question without my having to put it in children's terms.

No, his music would simply be.
There is no such thing as 'objective greatness' despite what people like to believe. It's all in our thoughts.

Immediately the "Eye of the Beholder" sketch from SNL starring Pamela Anderson comes to mind.



Eye of the Beholder sketch

So if there was a Beethoven masterpiece that is currently lost somewhere and no one knew about it, would it not be great? It would still exist and be, right?

This discussion reminds me of Berkeley and the tree falling in the forest where no one hears it...

I think it would be great music, but nobody would know of it and know to be able to call it great.

You know this for certain? When anthropologists, and other travellers, visit exotic locations they are often transfixed and enjoy partaking in the unusual customs of their hosts. Who is to say the same would not happen if the situation were reversed?



Again, how do you know this for certain, they may in fact develop no sense of musical preference. One could make the argument that the music of Schoenberg and his disciples only makes sense in the context of what came before him and what he has abandoned and added to the occidental tradition. Without that context it seems to me just as reasonable to assume the child may not perceive the musicality within the music. They may recognize the sounds as familiar and possibly develop comforting associations, but would they actively seek the music out for its own sake? And would they appreciate a new serial work that they had not been raised upon?