Donald Satz:

>Through consensus, Mahler's symhonies were not considered great in the
>first half of this century; now, consensus tells us they are great.  Did
>Mahler revise his symphonies in the interim? No. Popular opinion changed,
>the symphonies remained the same.  Would you really want greatness defined
>by the "crowd" with all its capacity for the herd instinct? Does greatness
>have no permanency? Is it just a fad of the moment? Maybe, but I'll stick
>with saying that greatness is defined by the individual while the group
>measures popularity.  "Greatness" means something to me, and I decide who
>and what is in that category.  You make your own decisions for yourself.

What I intended in my post was partly a gloss on your rather oracular
initial statement, specifically on what it might mean to "confer"
greatness (or the status of greatness) on a work or composer, which is an
intriguing notion.  What you say now suggests more that individual judgment
"recognizes" greatness in a work and that greatness is an objective fact
about the work.  Is that a fair interpretation? I have had a tendency to
think along those lines myself, but music can be great--or good--only if
it has a potential to be actually appreciated by an audience (if only
an audience of one.) I don't have a problem with individual judgment,
but calling a group of musical consensus builders a crowd or a herd is
regrettable, especially when we are talking about composers like Mahler.
Critics and audiences can be shortsighted, sure.  But widespread acclaim
from listeners familiar with the works of a composer like this surely
counts for a lot.

When Mahler was not appreciated widely were his symphonies less great?
Not if the test is potential appreciation.  They always had the qualities
that later audiences learned to love and admire.  But there is another
test of greatness, that comes from actual acclaim, suggested by your use
of "conferred." (Greatness of reputation, perhaps.) Suppose audiences stop
liking Mahler.  In that case any greatness conferred by widespread acclaim
would be lacking in permanency, yes.  Let us not trivialize it by speaking
of a fad.  If great acclaim, intense admiration, deep appreciation, etc.
do not measure greatness at all, then we should not speak of conferring
(the status of) greatness, after all.

Jim Tobin