On Thursday, November 6, 2003 at 6:37:32 AM UTC-8, FoggyTown wrote:

In another thread I suggested that a composer or work that we call
"great" may, in fact, not be that great but be very popular. I
frankly don't know what parameters are used to determine a "great"
piece of music or a "great" composer. Test of time (longevity)?
Volume of output? I wish someone would have a try at definition here.
I'm beginning to wonder if "greatness" is, after all, nothing more
than an extension of popularity.
It also seems that many "not bad" composers had what one might call a
moment of greatness in that they wrote one or two pieces which are
popular now and the rest of their ouvres are totally (or
substantially) ignored. The mid-19th century operettists may be a
good example. Lehar, Suppe, Reznicek, Nicolai, Luigini, Myerbeer,
etc. were lionized in their day. Now - little examples of their
talents are trotted out occasionally as "crowd pleasers" but that's
about all we ever hear from them. Reznicek must have written a lot
more than "Donna Diana". They must all have written orchestral works
as well, but we'll probably never hear them performed. It may be that
the composers mentioned were all one-hit wonders, but I doubt it.
And is it instructive that many composers/works we think of as "great"
now were mercilessly panned by some contemporary critics?
(Slonimsky's "Lexicon of Musical Invective" is a lot of fun, and quite educational, in this regard.)
Anyway, I yield to anyone who can tell us all what makes certain
composers and pieces great.
FoggyTown

- The important thing is never to let oneself be guided by the opinion of one's contemporaries; to continue steadfastly on one's way without
letting oneself be either defeated by failure or diverted by applause.

Gustav Mahler

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)