Chris Bonds:

>Just read the comment about Fibich's symphonies from S.  Schwartz.  Raises
>the question: what is the difference in payoff between listening to (and
>buying) Fibich's symphonies, and another listen to Schubert, or Mozart, or
>Beethoven, or Stravinsky, or even Ives or Carter? Granted all the time we
>have left in this life is finite (some is more finite than others!) do we
>go for breadth of experience or for greater depth into the unfathomable
>greatness of genius? Is time spent listening to Fibich better spent
>listening to the other masters? Has Fibich ALREADY been tested in the
>crucible of critical opinion (and found wanting) and so we have no need to
>listen? Or is it time for a reassessment? Or does listening to Fibich give
>us new perspectives into composers who loom larger in the "greatness"
>category?

I've just finished reading John Bird's intro to his biography of Percy
Grainger.  It contains a fine rant on the concept of 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.  We tend to define 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.  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.  So the criteria tend to be a little circular.  I'm not saying the
Germans are terrible composers and anybody who listens to them is a prig.
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.

Obviously, I believe hedonism severely underrated.  I value Beethoven
especially for his knockabout stuff - the finales to the first and second
symphonies, the opening movements to 6 and 7, the Bagatelles - as well as
the Missa Solemnis, the fifth, and the ninth.  And I should say that I
enjoy the finale to Mozart's Symphony No. 39 as much as any movement
in the Requiem.

In short, I've never worried about whether the music I've listened to is
"worthy." 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.  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.  On the other
hand, Sturgeon's Law says we have to wade through a lot of crap to find the
pearl.  I've definitely put in time among pieces that had little for me.
But most of the time, I can honestly say that because I'm not looking for
the next 9th symphony (although I'd be happy to encounter it), I'm not
disappointed all that much.

Steve Schwartz