Regarding David Wright's points:

I don't necessarily disagree with the criteria he sets up (although
I feel some of them strongly overlap and should have been split into
sub-headings), but he is very inconsistent and wilful in their application.
For instance, Wright seems unwilling to recognise meta-musical, ie
emotional, as well as mere compositional-technical originality in the
case of Schubert or Bach; but Mozart has 'an originality of charm and
spontaneity seen in his best work coupled with a unique, mercurial
elegance' which gives him the edge over Haydn and Bach.  Haydn is demoted
to 'famous' because 'some of his music is predictable and not strikingly
original' but Mozart is judged great in the light of 'his best work' (now
this would rightly be cannon-fodder for Bob Draper).  W.  is another one of
those who claims to scrutinize 'famous names' afresh, but to my mind many
of his criticisms are, quite frankly, old hat (Bach straight-jacketed by
theory, Chopin only a pianist-composer, Schubert only 'pleasant' and really
only worthwhile in his songs, which have a 'gem-like perfection').  And
surprise surprise, 2 British composers (Walton and Vaughan Williams) are
'great', but Sibelius isn't - and here one ludicrous example is given:
Some movements in a Sibelius symphony are designated 'allegro' but aren't
lively and cheerful enough to justify that description - that's one mark
already on Beckmesser's slate.

We all have criteria by which we try to rank artists in our own minds in
the course of our listening experience, and as I said, I don't even think
W's criteria are too bad in themselves - but his article exposes that
fundamentally our views on art are nakedly subjective, and this sort of
pompous claim to objectivity and reason is in my view dishonest, not to
mention bloody irritating.

Felix Delbruck
[log in to unmask]