Your Main Criteria for Great Music

[Peter1953]

Many members are very knowledgeable and I'm wondering what members think what their main criteria are for real good music, whether it is a symphony, a concert, chamber music, piano solo or whatever. Very well possible that musicologists and musicians have totally other criteria than someone like me: just a (critical) listener to Romantic classical music (who plays the piano very rudimentary).

What are the two (or three) main criteria for you so that you can say for yourself: this is really great music? In other words: what makes a piece of music so grandiose for you?

For me the main criteria are:
1. Melody
2. Memorability
(3. Development of the thematic material)

Do you think that most famous composers wrote more memorable music than many unsungs?

[John H White]

On of the most memorable pieces of music in my experience was the march theme from Raff's Lenore Symphony. After just one hearing on the wireless, as we used to call it back in 1949, I kept it in my head , humming and whistling it to myself for around 40 years, before I was able to pick up a 2nd hand LP of the symphony and hear it played again.

[Marcus]

The main criteria for great/enjoyable music for me are as you listed.
For me, melody, development, structure, genre,  & tonality are important. Obviously the genius of the composer determines the "great" works.
For some reason which I do not pretend to understand, the all important genre for me is the Symphony, and in particular, works written in the 19th century & early 20th century.
That does not mean that I do not enjoy the symphonies of Shostakovich, Elgar Vaughan-Williams, Bax, Walton, Dunhill,Arnell,Hanson, Sibelius,Neilsen etc.etc.(there are too many to name), but the late romantic symphonies provide most enjoyment for me. I began listening to Mahler in 1959, (symphony no1 -Horenstein), and it is to his music that  I return most, followed by Beethoven,Brahms ,Schumann,  Tchaikowsky, Rachmaninov,Bruch,Volkmann & Fuchs.  Bruckner & Furtwangler are also in that list, as is the recent release of Bruno Walter's Symphony no1.
Some of the late 20th century symphonies are interesting to hear once, maybe twice, but are mostly forgetable. Whereas, I never tire of Mahler & Beethoven, I do not revisit the symphonies of composers such as Rochberg,Henze, Vermuelen, & Yttrehus very often.
I sometimes think that I was born into the wrong century. Anyone else out there with similar tastes to me ?

[Alan Howe]

Memorability and individuality wrapped up in genius.

[mbhaub]

For music to be great to me, it must move me. To one emotion or the other, it doesn't matter, but it has to grab me. You can have all the notes in the right place, a nice tune, great orchestration, but if I don't emotionally connect, I cannot consider it great. Thus, any Mahler symphony is a greater work than any Mendelssohn symphony, and just about anything by Mozart. The Raff 3rd is great music: that second movement gets me everytime. Bach, most of it, leaves me stone cold. But the symphonies of Elgar, Vaughan Williams, Bax and Glazunov are just brilliant.

I just had this same question posed in Dallas, Texas this past weekend. The DSO played Franz Schmidt's 4th symphony followed by the Brahm's first piano concerto. The reviewer made a comment that the Brahms presented a stark reminder of the difference between good music and great, with Brahms being the greater, of course. I couldn't have disagreed more. The Schmidt moves me like little other music can, the Brahms is so long, and often boring (Why do his slow movements seem so terribly long?).

[Alan Howe]

...which shows how subjective measuring things by how much they move you is. IMHO it is not very helpful to compare a Mendelssohn symphony with one by Mahler in these terms: in fact, if this is the criterion, most late-Romantic music will come out better than earlier music (thus Elgar, VW, Bax, Glazunov and Mahler are all superior to Mendelssohn, Bach, etc.) simply because they are heavier, more Romantic, more emotion-laden, etc.

This is a perfectly good criterion as far as personal preference is concerned, but not for measuring the greatness of music.

'Memorability and individuality wrapped up in genius' allows you to include both Bach's great B minor Mass and Schmidt's 4th...

[thalbergmad]

For me, music must produce emotion. I want to be as happy as when my girlfriend left me and as sad as when i accidentally sat on my banjolele, or even better, both.

I like music that builds up pictures in the imagination and that contains melodies that stay in your head for days.

Tonality is important to me. I have tried to appreciate some late 20th century works, but much of it to me sounds like a terrorist attack at a Steinway factory.

I am at my happiest (and saddest) with the romantics.

Thal

[Steve B]

Melody leads to memorability leads to emotion leads to a(subjective, of course) primarily emotional response; but harmony can play a part in this too.

A propos of Peter's topic, I think the first (slow and fast) movement of the Wolf-Ferrari Piano trio in F sharp minor,op. 7 fits all these criteria; there are two lovely melodies, and the second just builds and builds , thereby evoking the emotion(in this case, melancholy and yearning).

Anyway else know this piece(was available, may still be, on ASV DCA 935, with a particuarly expressive cellist)?

[Amphissa]

 
I used to think I knew the answer to this kind of question.

I used to think melody was the most important thing, because after all, it is the melodies we remember from music. If I hear Beethoven's 9th, or even just think of Beethoven's 9th, the glorious Ode to Joy melody gets stuck in my head for days.

(Thanks for reminding me of that. Now I'm stuck, and you are too.)

I agree that most of the music I consider great has great melodic passages. Just to pick one composer -- Rachmaninoff's 1st and 2nd symphonies, the first two symphonic dances, the 2nd and 3rd piano concertos, the cello sonata, etc -- these to me are great works.

But there is more to it than just melody or memorability -- at least not in the sense of being able to "replay" the music in my head. There are a lot of melodies that appear in music that are memorable, but trite. But even if the melodies are good and memorable, the difference between a good symphony or concerto and a great one has to do with its ability to evoke in me a response that is much more than just the "nice tune" effect.

I'm also not sure if it is technically an emotional response that is important to me. Mahler 6 evokes an emotional response, but it is not a symphony I consider great, and it is not a symphony I want to listen to much.

But I guess it is something akin to emotional response. A psychological affinity? A sense of connectivity. Basically, it is just the powerfulness of the experience of listening to the music that makes it great.

In the end, if music demands that I listen and takes me into a place where the music defines that world, captivates me and holds me, then it is great music.

Fact is, most music is not great in that sense. Which is fine. The whole notion of greatness is that it is an ideal that is rarely achieved, which is why we appreciate it so much. I can enjoy music, and even enjoy it a lot, without it being great music, just enjoyable music. After all, that is the basic intent of most music -- to entertain. It is a relatively rare thing for music to become much more than that.

[Mark Thomas]

I find this an impossible question to answer. Twenty years ago, I'd have had no problem with it, but age brings uncertainty... I could certainly answer the easier question: "What makes a piece of music something which I like and respect and will return to?" but that certainly doesn't make a work "great music." I suppose that if enough people answer that question in the affirmative then it makes the music "great" by acclamation, but I don't think that's a very satisfactory definition.

[monafam]

This is a tough question for me as well.   Sure here is the far too simplistic "I know it when I hear it," but that's actually not always true.  If we go with the music alone, no backstory or analysis, on it's first listen, I feel like melody and rhythm in a sense probably stand out the most to me.  Since faster, allegro type movements catch my ear, these are probably most memorable to me.   Slower movements take me a little longer to digest and oftentimes it's the melody which ultimately plays against my emotions.

So the melody and rhythm stand out first.  The other thing that tends to shape my opinion is knowing a little more of what the composer is trying to accomplish.  While I can't do much in terms of analysis, and could certainly be duped in my naivete by someone else's review, just knowing more about the work itself can do wonders for me on multiple listens! 

I doubt I answered that well...love the question though.

[Ilja]

A difficult question indeed, not in the last place because what I think is great music isn't necessarily what I enjoy the most. I *respect* Reinecke, for instance, but on a purely hedonistic plane I can't stand most of it. And although I wouldn't call German's Welsh Rhapsody 'great music', I do revel in every minute of it. For me then, speaking strictly personally, 'great music' is that which combines great depth with great enjoyment.

[chill319]

Peter1953,  exposure to this forum has made it more difficult for me to answer your important question. Example: the first five or six times I listened to Bruch Symphony 3 it sounded like watered down Brahms. Today, however, after an interval of some months, it is the *performance* rather than the symphony that sounds watered down.  In a recreative medium performance tradition counts for a good deal.

That said, I favor works that have more to say to me the sixth or seventh time than they did the first. In the case of a unsung giants like Draeseke or Wilhelm Berger, that means learning how to listen to the enormity of what they are risking when the subtext they are composing "against" is not yesterday's style but the day before yesterday's.

[Peter1953]

Thank you all for your very interesting and valuable posts. I agree, it is a difficult question to answer. On the other hand I thought it was a nice exercise to think it over again what makes music really great music. I'm very interested in your opinions.

I like Alan's short and strong definition. If it is the communis opinio that a certain piece of music is called great music, then I agree with Mark that it's not very satisfactory.
I know some people who feel powerful while listening to Beethoven's orchestral music. Obviously something happens to them, and it's quite interesting to see what this music does to their feelings. They will certainly acknowledge that this is truly great music. Well, we all do, don't we? But why do they get overwhelmed by a powerful feeling? This music must touch their hearts in a certain way.

Amphissa said something important and that is that the basic intent of most music is entertainment. I think he has a good point. Just an example: how about Ries's sparkling piano concerto op. 55? Memorable, catchy melodies, especially the opening movement. Really entertaining music. However, is this example of a memorable showpiece really great music? I don't think so. Another example is Rufinatscha's 5th symphony. Is that a memorable showpiece as well? No, not a showpiece, but definitely tuneful, powerful and memorable music. This is great music, isn't it?

Martin says, like Thal and Steve, that for him great music must move him. An interesting statement. I think that music which touches you, definitely has an extra dimension. It's all about emotion.
Interesting is what Brahms said after the failure of the premiere of his first piano concerto. The audience and critics thought it was nothing but atonal noise, but then the young Brahms is supposed to have said: "I'm not interested in what people say, because I'm just experimenting with my feelings." And what does it to me? How can I keep my eyes dry while listening to the 2nd movement?

Maybe that is indeed something what makes music truly great music. And then comes the question: how many unsung composers have written music that moves you? Famous composers like Brahms, Bruch, Mahler, Rachmaninov, Schumann and Tchaikovsky had the skills to compose music that goes right into your heart.

Raff wrote some really moving music (I've mentioned in another thread the slow movement of his 2nd violin concerto as perhaps the most striking example), and so did Rubinstein. That's why for me personally, Raff and Rubinstein are the greatest unsung composers. How many other unsungs wrote besides beautiful, memorable music (and many did so!) also beautiful, memorable and moving, real sensitive music?

In summary: yes, it's a tough question to answer...

[Ilja]

There is also a problem of semantics to be considered. On a personal level I don't mind to classify a work as 'great', but I think much of this forum is about avoiding using such ephitets as public statements. Because when we do, we automatically reduce other works to the status of 'not great' and thereby perpetuate the arrogance of those who kept so much of the music we love out of the concert halls for so long.