Ian raises some great points:

>I find only one thing interesting about this thread, and that is the lack
>of definition of terms.  What constitutes "better music"? (Don's original
>phrase).  What makes one composer "greater" than another? (the debate seems
>to have shifted ground to this) Can a "lesser" composer write "better"
>music than a "greater" one? And many similar questions.  Unless there is
>some area of clear agreement on these things the discussion is not likely
>to be very constructive, IMHO.

I believe the thread's use of these terms is simply "I like this more than
I like that." This seems to me the usual "definition" of the terms "better"
and "greater" when applied to art in general.  After all, most people are
unwilling to call a piece of music "great" when they don't like it.  This
is precisely the question that interests me.  Can we dislike a work and
call it great? If we do, we may have some insight into what in the piece
signals greatness to us.  Of course, our criteria will not be eternal and
universal and will depend largely on our individual assumptions about art,
but at least we have jettisoned the most apparent part of our personal
reaction for the evaluation.

I love Ian's question about the "lesser" composer writing "greater" music:
say, Bruch's GruB an der heiligen Nacht ("Salute to Christmas") as opposed
to Brahms's Rinaldo.  That's an obscure example, but I'm sure someone will
come up with a better one.

Steve Schwartz