Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Bach - literally the best composer ever?

Only in your corner of the world, if even there...




"Generally regarded as" is a very poor argument you know...

Your example of Beethoven versus Hummel is a good example why such comparisons are fruitless. Hummel's piano writing is often more beautiful and elegant than Beethoven's, who relied more on drama and special effects. Chopin's writing evolved from the same style as Hummel's. If Chopin had instead looked up to Beethoven as inspiration, what would we have got?

Do you really believe that? Every English teacher and Theater teacher that I've ever talked to has said that Shakespeare is commonly considered the best playwright. If you disagree, then fine, but that is certainly the common perception of Shakespeare. Sure enough, on Wikipedia it says that Shakespeare is "widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist."

Do you really think that Hummel could be considered the equal of Beethoven or that Salieri could be considered the equal of Mozart? Very few musicians would take such a viewpoint seriously. Also, remember that being influential isn't the same thing as being great. No matter what influence Hummel had on Chopin or anyone else for that matter, that doesn't mean that he's equal to or better than Beethoven. Hummel is an example of someone who had talent, but didn't possess genius. His work (much like Salieri's) shows considerable craftmanship, but it doesn't compare to the inspired work of a Beethoven or a Mozart. Compared to those people, Salieri and Hummel sound relatively boring.

Did it ever occur to you that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven are highly regarded for good reason? Did you ever consider that perhaps they simply are greater than any other composers? Even Horowitz (someone who admitted that he doesn't particularly like Beethoven) said that Beethoven and Bach were much more significant composers than Brahms was.

Every ENGLISH teacher... Best PLAYWRITE? Do you see the difference to your first claim?



Equal in what sense? You don't seem to get it at all. The whole idea of an artist or composer being better or equal is ridiculous unless we have some OBJECTIVE and UNIVERSAL criteria for comparison.




I'm sorry but I find your arguments really poor in general. I would never deny the craftmanship or even genius (however that is defined) of Beethoven. Neither did I say that Hummel is better. But B also had his issues. He deliberately wrote difficult stuff for the piano just to impress and annoy his contemporaries. For me fast, furious and dramatic simply does nothing, neither does sentimentality, so his music never has spoken to me. There are very few pieces by him that can somehow evoke feelings in me, but mostly when I listen to him it's completely clinical which IMO is not how music should be received. I've listened to his sonatas over and over just to see what all the fuzz is about. If the pianist is really great, I can enjoy the playing but the music still leaves me completely cold. The level of his inspiration is irrelevant if the end result can not inspire me. So how could anyone say he is the greatest of composers is totally beyond me. BUT I still would never say it cannot be true IN THEIR WORLD. Just like in your world Shakespeare is the greatest. But why do you need to try to make this a universal truth when it obviously isn't? Ever heard of cultural imperialism?

BTW. I suggest you read Mr. Dubai's book on Horowitz before using him as an authority. A great pianist, but quite human in other ways...

Bach OTOH may have set the building blocks for western art music (which he didn't do alone, but that fact tends to be forgotten by those who idolize him) but also kind of ruined it for almost a couple of centuries because of the overly systematic approach. A spectator from today should try to imagine how boring it would be if music never broke out of those systems. Fortunately for us it did

But in music, judgements about "greatness" and the reasons provided for these judgements, however persuasive, don't make them true or matters of "fact." At best these claims are intersubjectively "true": true for many people, often relative to culture or social class or age.

The teachers referred to Shakespeare as both the best playwright and the best author. They said that no one else combined beauty of language with truth of characterization the way that Shakespeare did.


While it might not be possible to analyze music in a completely objective manner (as musical greatness cannot be measured with mathematical precision), critics will often name specific criteria when evaluating composers. For example, Gounod said that Don Giovanni is the perfect opera partly because it contains everything that is necessary, but absolutely nothing more than what is necessary. Tchaikovsky also said that the greatest music (such as the best pieces of Mozart and Beethoven) is free from any superfluous passages. He said that second-rate composers often write unnecessary passages that only detract from the piece's overall quality. Bernstein cited the criteria of "form" when discussing why he believes that Beethoven was the greatest composer.


Actually I didn't try to create a universal truth. I merely stated the common perception of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven- which I happen to agree with and find perfectly logical and convincing.


I certainly did read Dubal's book about Horowitz. That is where I heard Horowitz's statement about Bach and Beethoven being superior to Brahms. Whatever Horowitz's personal flaws were, he obviously was a great artist, and I think that his opinions about Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms (which are consistent with the opinions of most musicians) are credible.

I think we must then just agree to disagree, because you obviously base much of your opinions on authority, while I do not

Being well learned tends to be a double sided sword. One must be very careful not to forget to keep an open mind. Unfortunately most people will not be able to and that's why most "experts" in any field will end up preaching their ideas instead of expanding them. It's all very human, but at the same time somewhat alien to me...

It's one thing to understand Shakespeare; it's quite another to "like" him. Same goes for music and all aesthetic experience for that matter.

Logical gloss:

Outo is drawing a very straightforward distinction. Put it this way: the statement "it is a FACT that Beethoven was better than Hummel," is not at all the same as the statement "it is a FACT that the earth rotates around the sun."

Critics and piano teachers (there are plenty of other examples) often talk as if musical taste is a MATTER OF OBJECTIVE FACT. IT IS NOT. And it's unadulterated elitism to think that it is. At its worst, the elevation of matters of "taste" to matters of "fact" is the hallmark of totalitarianism. That's why it's pretty important to get this right.

That's absolutely NOT to say that the CRAFT of musical analysis can't be objective and fact-based. Of course it can be.

"Shakespeare is great!" A fact as far as the craft of the playwright is concerned. NOT a "fact" as far as whether or not one should "like" or "dislike" Shakespeare. That is a personal matter. Likes and dislikes ("taste") are something wholly subjective and, at the social level, inter-subjective, that is, relative to culture and experience!!!!!!

OH YEAH?

In Hummel's day he WAS considered by many knowledgeable musicians and connoisseurs to be at the level (or above) of Beethoven. And, by the way, I think he was a musical genius, whatever his ranking; Mozart also had high regard for him.

And, of course, Bach's music for a good long while was generally thought to be dry, academic stuff of interest only to scholars and the few piano teachers who used it for teaching material.

Are the rankings and ratings of composers in our day "better"? I wouldn't bet on it. What they are is different.

If you ask trumpet players I bet you would get a lot of votes for Hummel over Beethoven.

That's fine. Regarding objectivity, I understand that a musical judgment is not the equivalent of saying that the earth revolves around the sun. The latter is easily observable, while musical judgments require us to employ personal perception (which isn't always objective). I wasn't arguing in favor of absolute artistic quality; I was merely pointing out that there are certain logical and commonly agreed-upon standards when evaluating art. For example, if professionals were to isolate what they consider the essential elements of music (e.g. form, melody, harmony, motivic devlopment, etc.), they would conclude that Mozart was much better than Salieri. Of course, we have to use our judgment (which might not be completely objective) to determine who is better in any given category and who is better overall, but at least we can identify fair and consistent evaluative criteria.


I wasn't talking about taste at all. I was talking about which artists are commonly perceived as great. Personal preferences are different than artistic judgments. You can acknowledge that someone was great and still say that you don't like that person. For example, Horowitz acknowledged Beethoven's greatness, even though he didn't particularly like Beethoven. Bernstein said that Mahler was his favorite composer, but he thought that Beethoven was the greatest composer.


I think that the current perception of Hummel, Beethoven, and Bach is much more sensible. As my Music History professor explained, some composers are overrated or underrated during their lifetime, but years later, people tend to develop a more accurate perception of the composers' abilities. For example, he said that during the Baroque period, Telemann was overrated, while Bach was underrated. Now, people recognize Bach's supreme greatness and realize that Telemann wasn't so great (at least when compared to Bach).

OK LaReginadellaNotte, you chose to use the word "great" in music to refer to what musical professionals (performers, historians, musicologists, etc.) have generally agreed is "great." But you're not saying that this sort of general consensus is anything like agreement about matters of fact, such as: "The earth revolves around the sun." I don't have any trouble, if I have this much right about your argument.

I myself tend to use the word "great" in music differently than you do. I don't care what the pros happen to think is "great" in music; for me "great" music is music that I happen to like a whole lot.

Yes, I'm not saying that artistic judgments are tantamount to scientific facts. And I do distinguish between music that I think is "great" and music that I happen to love (in many cases, the two categories coincide). Music that one happens to especially like can be described as one's "favorite" music, while music that one thinks is crafted in a highly skillful and effective manner can be described as "great."

"best" or "most beautiful" are such silly notions

Did no one watch this video? It was salient to this argument. Music is not laying pipe, like poetry it's an art. You should all rip out the page from your hearts that wants to calculate greatness in music like it's something that can be quantified objectively. That calculation is very personal and can change from day to day. Music that's a wonderful listening experience today may impress me less than dog excrement tomorrow. Appeals to authority (Horowitz for example) matter little to my heart.

Ultimately, enjoying music is an emotional and intellectual experience. I would never say that craft is unimportant in music composition, but music that moves me goes far beyond craft. the skills necessary to compose music are many and varied. I enjoy contrasting two living choral composers, Eric Whitacre and Morton Lauridsen. Whitacre is creative and clever, obviously very skilled and sometimes his music moves me. Lauridsen has a rich harmonic lexicon, but tends to be less adventurous and yet his music moves me more often, despite the fact that I'm far less religious than he (and most of Lauridsen's music is religious). Those are my personal opinions. I love and enjoy the music of both composers, but my preference changes according to the mood of the day.

After Deep Thought (a.k.a. chess computer program), I've devised a formula, which has stood the test of time (20.15 seconds) for Greatness in Music:

Greatness = ∑(Mastery x Invention x Harmonic Interest x Melodic Beauty x Audacity) squared ÷ (Repetitiveness x New-Ageisms x Monotony x Somnolence x Dryness x Academicisms) + listener's (intelligence + musical education + curiosity - incomprehension) x √(speed of light).

personal tastes, let alone daily moods, play little in arguing about "greatness"

well, at least they should play little, but we know it's not that way...

mine is simpler:

Greatness = Beethoven, the measure of all things (musical)

;-)

Did your professor also given any explanation for why he held this idea? IMO, it is merely a theory, and seems rather self-congratulatory of his own time. It is not a fact, I don't think.

It's well known that the relative ranking of composers tends to shift as times change. But I don't see why that means any particular era's evaluation is better than that of another. To me, all it means is that musical values and fashions tend to change over time. For all we know at present, in one hundred years Telemann may be considered greater than Bach (presupposing there are people left who even care).

I don't think that the professor was suggesting that his views constitute "facts" on par with scientific facts. He was merely stating that he believes (as the vast majority of musicians do) that the current perception of Bach vs. Telemann is accurate.