Ulvi replies to me:

>>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.

Absolutely nothing, as long as we admit its subjectivity.  I've read many
people who don't.  It's also the "consistency" that I have problems with.
Within our short lifetimes, some music may indeed make the same effect on
us.  Over many lifetimes, I'm not so sure.  After all, Mozart, at least in
1880, was considered a minor master.  Verdi, until recently, was a "guilty
pleasure" among cognoscenti.  And, of course, this doesn't take into
account the fact that some of us change our minds about composers, perhaps
even several times.

>>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...

Actually, I agree.  Their music is all different.  But we're not really
talking about music alone, but about perceptions on what makes great music.
These, if I read my music history right, tend to be Romantic ones, taking
off from German Romantic and Victorian theorists and appearing in the
United States, at any rate, in watered-down form in Transcendentalist
circles.  Read Dwight, editor of Dwight's Miscellany for some particularly
smarmy prose.

>>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.

Take a look at which conductors are currently considered great and at the
music they performed which people valued.  I believe you'll find a fairly
strong correlation to a very narrow strip of music.  For example, I like
Ansermet, Beecham, Paray, Munch, and Monteux.  In certain repertoire, they
are unsurpassed, in my opinion.  Of this group, how many are considered
great conductors by classical fans at large? We tend to judge conductors by
how well they do the Germanic and Central European repertoire, particularly
that of the 19th century.  How many conductors considered great today (I
don't care really whom you choose; take those from the "Great Conductors"
video series, if you like) *didn't* specialize in Beethoven, Bruckner, or
Mahler? Toscanini was valued for his Beethoven and a small sliver of his
repertoire.  It has always seemed to me over the years that most of us
define greatness almost exclusively in terms of this music.  As I say, I
have nothing against Germanic 19th-century composers.  Some of them I even
like.  I just want greatness to include a few more people, countries, and
times.

>And why wait for another great Ravel or Stravinsky interpreter? Who cares?

I do.

>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...

Here we disagree.  I think most high-profile conductors these days are
tremendously ordinary.  On the other hand, I don't think it healthy living
in the past, recalling the days of Tara and the kings.  Music is a living
art to me.  Recordings are generally the best I can do, but if I had the
money to pay my own musicians (in other words, millions of millions), I'd
much prefer that.  Recordings become museum exhibits almost immediately.
There's nothing wrong with a museum, but it's watching art under glass
(sometimes literally so).  Furthermore, I can't think of any single
musician who has said the last word on any single piece of music which
bears listening to more than once.  So of course I'm eager to hear the
next new world-changing insight into such music.

>>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.

I'm not at all ashamed.  Hell, I've even talked about the Beach Boys in
this forum.  How's that for brass?

>>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...").

See, you underrate pleasure, because you define it in such a way as
guarantees it superficial.

>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.

Isn't ecstasy pleasure, intense pleasure? However, I can't listen like that
all the time.  I mean, there's a reason why I listen to the St.  Matthew
Passion or the Ring once every couple of years.  I'm just not strong enough
for anything more frequent.  Furthermore, I don't live on that high a level
all the time, or even most of the time.  It seems to me that Dvorak's
Slavonic Dances or the Symphony No.  8 speaks to me, not at my most exalted
(such as it is), but at my most human and earthbound.  That's not a shabby
or ignoble thing to me.  Kazantzakis I think hit it right on the head when
he made the last temptation of Christ the opportunity for a happy normal
life (as opposed to Messiah and Redeemer).  Wenders's Wings of Desire says
essentially the same thing - angels envy us.

Steve Schwartz