Steve Schwartz muses about greatness:

>I know many people want to hold on to such a concept (otherwise, we
>plunge into the relativist abyss), but to me that concept says a lot
>more about the person who believes in it than about the music itself.
>Besides, the criteria always seem to me so narrow.

What's wrong with greatness defined in terms of the effect the music has on
us, and the consistency of that effect? Sure, it's subjective, but so what?
At least it's not a narrow criterion; in fact if anything it's too broad
and vague.

>We tend to define [greatness] in terms of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms,
>Wagner, and Mahler - all Germanic musicians (obviously), and the criteria
>all coming from aesthetic concepts from one culture and time.

But these guys are so different...  Do you really hear a "Germanic core"
common to all these composers? To me Mahler sounds closer to Vaughn
Williams and Elgar than he does to Bach.  Wagner has more in common with
Tchaikovsky than with Mozart...

>We define great conductors by how well they do these composers and not
>others.  I notice very few people wringing their hands over where the
>next great Ravel or Stravinsky conductor is coming from, for example.

Steve, you seem to be talking about strawmen; who are these people waiting
for the next great Brahms or Mahler conductor? I've never met any.  And why
wait for another great Ravel or Stravinsky interpreter? Who cares? I'd say
we have enough good conductors around for all these composers, and if you
include the dead conductors whose work (in vitro) pop up in re-releases
just as often as the living, we probably have more than enough...

>I do ask the questions whether enjoyment counts, whether "happy" music
>counts as much as "solemn" music, and whether one is under some sort of
>aesthetic obligation to like music defined as great.

Happy or solemn, the only obligation should be the opposite: define the
music you consistently enjoy and love as great, and don't be ashamed.

>Obviously, I believe hedonism severely underrated.

Amen.

>My very simple test is does it keep me interested, raise a smile, give me
>pleasure.  For me, life's way too short to worry about listening to only
>the best.

For me pleasure is not enough; it's too mellow, it reminds me of luke-warm
Gramophone reviews ("...despite its minor flaws, this recording gives a
lot of pleasure...").  What I want is musical ecstasy; and what I consider
the best are those pieces which consistently deliver it.  I have nothing
against pleasure, but when it comes to ecstasy, that rush of chemicals I
can feel in my blood while listening, I am a junkie.  And this is where the
distinction between the great and the merely good makes a difference.

>In fact, the main reason why I seek out music I haven't heard before (like
>Fibich) is that it could possibly be a new source of pleasure, and since
>good composers have something only they can tell us, the pleasure is likely
>to be one I've not encountered before.

Here I agree.  What I am looking for the most (although I'll always take
mere pleasure as a substitute) is the next ecstatic musical experience.
It couldn't matter less whether the composer is dead or alive (or somewhere
in between), whether h/she is from Germany or Patagonia, or even whether
the piece is familiar or unfamiliar.  I wouldn't even complain if the
performers are the Women's Philharmonic and the Albino Gay Men's chorus,
conducted by Norman Lebrecht.

Ulvi Yurtsever
E-mail: [log in to unmask]