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