Len Fehskens:

>Would someone care to explain to me what we gain by knowing that a given
>composer is or is not "great"? Other than, perhaps, some entertainment
>value, as fodder for another variation on the debate of how might we reduce
>matters of considerable complexity and subtlety to simple linear rankings?

For me, declarations of greatness are mainly a matter of expressing awe.
In my experience, if I hear or see anything that is tremendously exciting
or, to use an 18th Century term, sublime, I simply want to share it.  It is
better, and less lonely, that way.  Probably this is an aspect of the
sociability that makes us human.

Discussions of comparative greatness can be more than a game, but they
can be irritating when they are taken too seriously or when rankings seem
doctrinaire or dogmatic, and especially when good critical reasons are not
given.  Some works are better made, or more inventive, or complex on more
levels (all of which can be discussed in objective terms), and some works,
to be really subjective, are significantly more moving than other works.
Discussions of such considerations can help the community of listeners
clarify their thoughts, notice things they had overlooked, and exercise a
lot of observational and verbal skills, for social and aesthetic reasons.
This can be fun.  But canons of accepted great masterpieces or composers
are obnoxious, even oppressive, if they suggest that only these works are
worth hearing or performing.

There is a wonderful poem by Marge Piercy, "The Poet Dreams of a Nice Warm
Motel," as I remember the title, which, among other delights contains the
line, again as I remember it, "We, at Podunk U., have decided that you are
not truly great." It helps put things in perspective a bit.

Jim Tobin