Best 12 composers of 21st century (no John Williams??)

[filmmusic 1,826]

14 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

The highly abstract 'drone' mode brought forth in recent years might bloom into something more substantial or at least used with more musical considerations in mind. And even if you see me shrugging at 'Dunkirk's leaden idea of a sound concept, it sure is something a lot of people noticed. It's not good music by any means but who knows what it will spawn?

I don't consider this drone music needs much high ,musical skills to be composed.

Give an expensive computer with many sample libraries to a 10 year old kid, and he probably will come across with something like this.

 

Schoenberg speaks about repeated sequences in music but this applies here too:

"Why there is  a lesser merit in such procedure than in variation is obvious, because variation requires a new and special effort".

 

So, i don't know exactly how to explain it in non-musical terms in a way that everyone understands, but I think that a 30 second theme of Williams (i take him as an example, i don't mean he's the start and end of all things), eg. the love theme from The Terminal has much more merit than a 10 minute drone music passage; and the funny thing is that I also thought this would be obvious to everyone.

[publicist 4,643]

This is of course grossly simplifying the fact that drawn-out slow moving chords can have meaning and be done with musical skill whereas, to use your analogy, a third-rate hack can come up with a 'pleasing' jazz tune Terminal-style - which is for obvious reasons also is not advancing the art of movie music. We go in circles here. Half of this discussion  is noted by a firm 'i don't like/care for so it can't be of any worth' which never makes for a good thesis.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

And on that note, I think it's time to start ignoring this thread. 

[filmmusic 1,826]

5 minutes ago, publicist said:

 Half of this discussion  is noted by a firm 'i don't like/care for so it can't be of any worth' which never makes for a good thesis.

well, i want to differentiate myself from this position because I don't have this opinion.

 

And i can tell you an example:

Ennio Morricone - Le Vent Le cri

 

I LOVE that theme, and it moves me very much!

But I think it's musically cheap! That exact repetition of a musical idea in a harmonic chain, is kitsch and banal (by musical standards).

 

So, as  you see the thing you said, doesn't at least apply to me.

[publicist 4,643]

That's not the same as claiming the last 15 years of film music have been shite and have brought forth nothing!

[filmmusic 1,826]

6 minutes ago, publicist said:

That's not the same as claiming the last 15 years of film music have been shite and have brought forth nothing!

Of course there are exceptions.

But yes, i would claim that this particular drone style (i should have clarified earlier*), doesn't bring music forth, but it brings it back to a primitive state.

 

* i don't claim that every drone music is bad.

Eg. The Unanswered question by Ives (which was used in The Thin Red Line), would be considered drone music I guess, but I think it's a masterpiece.

 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

5 minutes ago, publicist said:

The last 15 years of film music have been shite and have brought forth nothing!

 

I agree!

[A24 4,331]

Same goes for charts music.

 

 

As a young child, The Beatles were everywhere, and I thought it was only going to get better. And even though it lead to several good things (more bands started to explore what can be done with popular music), I was wrong. People have no need for musical sophistication (or they lack the musical education because they have not been exposed to anything better).

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Quote

 brings it back to a primitive state

 

...that is often precisely the point.  What is wrong with that?  Why should the degree of musical complexity involved have any effect on how valuable you deem the piece to be?  

 

Art is made to be experienced, not dissected.  Whether or not it moves you is all that should matter, not that you think a 10 year old with a computer could do it - when will this bullshit idea cease, by the way?

 

So why keep citing Schoenberg in the hopes of convincing others that you can in fact objectively prove the worth or unworth of something?  What would you get out of it?  Is it simply about trying to feel vindicated in your opinions?  I just don't get it.  What a waste. 

[filmmusic 1,826]

10 minutes ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

 

 

So why keep citing Schoenberg in the hopes of convincing others that you can in fact objectively prove the worth or unworth of something?  What would you get out of it?  Is it simply about trying to feel vindicated in your opinions?  I just don't get it.  What a waste. 

I apologize.

It seems I'm influenced much by an academic background, where when you write something, you should back it up with bibliography.

 

I guess I shouldn't use it here, since this is a public forum thread, and not a dissertation.

 

 

" Art is made to be experienced, not dissected.  Whether or not it moves you is all that should matter "

 

Ok. I guess then if you're moved by a Justin Bieper song, it is higher art than a Queen song.

And I rest my case.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

If someone is profoundly moved by a Justin Bieber song, but finds Queen boring, then I'm not going to try and tell them they're wrong.  

 

I will leave the shop talk of why a technical eye reveals that Bieber is shit compared to Queen out of it.  What does that offer in the face of one's internal experience of a thing?  I think, nothing.  

 

And that's fine.  I know this is where pub and I will diverge - there is no value in the search for "objective" ground on evaluating art beyond technical parameters.  I am certain that the pursuit of such a thing is merely the brain trying desperately to find a way to know it is right about something which is beyond right and wrong.  The pleas of "we must have a standard, or else civilization will collapse and bad taste will reign!" are just the artistic version of insecurities about penis dimension.

 

It is a waste. 

[filmmusic 1,826]

16 minutes ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

If someone is profoundly moved by a Justin Bieber song, but finds Queen boring, then I'm not going to try and tell them they're wrong.  

 

 

I'm not trying to convince anyone that he is wrongly moved by something.

I'm trying to say that it's totally irrelevant if you're moved by a piece of art or not, when we have a discussion on what is great by that art's innate criteria.

 

Whether you like the Parthenon or not  doesn't matter at all, since it is a FACT that it is one of the greatest architectural monuments mankind has ever produced.

(for the record, I don't like the Parthenon. My personal tastes lie in renaissance and baroque).

 

This discussion has been misunderstood.

We're not talking about personal tastes, nor we're trying to diminish anyone's personal tastes.

The title of that article was about the greatest film composers, and that they are cream of the crop.

By who's standards?

If they said by their opinion or the article had a different title, I wouldn't have any objection to its contect.

In the end, I think it was a totally unfortunate choice of a title.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

I've not misunderstood the discussion, but I think you are not getting that we have a fundamental disagreement about how to judge art and I don't really feel like explicating it any further.  Suffice it to say that I think you are deeply wrong and the above post has several shockingly dogmatic statements.  

[BloodBoal 7,538]

7 minutes ago, filmmusic said:

Whether you like the Parthenon or not  doesn't matter at all, since it is a FACT that it is one of the greatest architectural monuments mankind has ever produced.

 

Hehehe... Reminds me of this discussion:

 

 

[filmmusic 1,826]

9 minutes ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

I've not misunderstood the discussion, but I think you are not getting that we have a fundamental disagreement about how to judge art and I don't really feel like explicating it any further.  Suffice it to say that I think you are deeply wrong and the above post has several shockingly dogmatic statements.  

 

Ok, agreed.

And I'm claiming that a judgement of a musical piece by musical criteria + personal taste is more spherical and complete (not absolute) than personal taste alone (if i understood correctly how you judge music)

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

 

5 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Hehehe... Reminds me of this discussion:

 

 

 

But you were kidding. 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Was I?

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

3 minutes ago, filmmusic said:

 

Ok, agreed.

And I'm claiming that a judgement of a musical piece by musical criteria + personal taste is more spherical and complete (not absolute) than personal taste alone (if i understood correctly how you judge music)

 

Why is it more complete?  What value do analytical judgements have in such a context?  Are you going to convince the Bieber fan that Ferneyhough is better by revealing the methods therein?  

 

You can put two chorale harmonizations side by side and say which has better part writing according to the textbooks.  But that will add nothing to the argument with a person who prefers the sloppier one.  Therefore I think theoretical basis for judging the quality of art is useless since as I said, art is to be experienced and not dissected.  Experience is all we need judge it on. 

[A24 4,331]

Who listens to Bieber?

 

I rest my case.

[filmmusic 1,826]

59 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

Who listens to Bieber?

 

I rest my case.

From what I hear thousands of people are moved by his music.

And from that criterion alone, his music should be cited next to Mozart's.

in fact I think many of his songs as compositions, surpass Mozart's genious!

The public can never go wrong in understanding greatness when they hear it!

 

@TheGreyPilgrim

Ok, seriously now, I think I understand what you're saying about how to judge music.

So, in that regard I take it you dismiss anything that has to do with statements  about "greatest someone" (eg. greatest painters, greatest architectures, greatest composers, greatest sculptors, greatest film directors etc.) since art cannot be measured by anything but a person's taste.

in essence, you dismiss the history of art, right? (since history of art  is written by those who excel in their field according to some given standards)

 

So I take it, that Kubrick and Hitchcock are not great directors. They just happened to be liked by some random persons since art cannot be measured, is that right?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Quote

So, in that regard I take it you dismiss anything that has to do with statements  about "greatest someone" (eg. greatest painters, greatest architectures, greatest composers, greatest sculptors, greatest film directors etc.) since art cannot be measured by anything but a person's taste.

in essence, you dismiss the history of art, right? (since history of art  is written by those who excel in their field according to some given standards)

 

But what is art?

[filmmusic 1,826]

2 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

 

But what is art?

Quote

Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.^[1][2] In their most general form these activities include the production of works of art, the criticism of art, the study of the history of art, and the aesthetic dissemination of art.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

 

 

But yes, of course "what is art" can be disputed in some cases.

Eg. you see a naked man in the street standing wearing his underpants on his  head and holding a watermelon, trying to evoke some emotions.

Is this art?

 

[Thor 7,493]

What is certain at this point is that author Gabrielle Kiss -- who no doubt just did this quickly to fill some Indiewire space and to list her favourites -- would get a tremendous kick out of reading this thread (and its sister thread over on FSM).

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

22 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

 

But what is art?

 

Video games!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

27 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

But what is art?

 

Sicario.

[Quintus 5,399]

Page 4 I see. Well done guys.

 

War. War never changes.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

 

But what is art?

 

I am.

[Quintus 5,399]

You wish. These masterpieces here are actual art:

 

 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Why does Williams look like Dom DeLuise in that top one?

[Quintus 5,399]

It's actually entitled Jowl Williams.

[Score 770]

6 hours ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

 

Why is it more complete?  What value do analytical judgements have in such a context?  Are you going to convince the Bieber fan that Ferneyhough is better by revealing the methods therein?  

 

You can put two chorale harmonizations side by side and say which has better part writing according to the textbooks.  But that will add nothing to the argument with a person who prefers the sloppier one.  Therefore I think theoretical basis for judging the quality of art is useless since as I said, art is to be experienced and not dissected.  Experience is all we need judge it on. 

 

 

Ok, I have followed the whole discussion and it's interesting that such an initial topic has generated a hot debate about the major problem with art, which is its evaluation. And it IS a problem: the way people react to the art which is produced in their lifetime has a huge impact on how art will evolve. At some point during the 18th century, people got tired of fugues (I'm oversimplifying, of course) and wanted to hear something "easier" with which they could relate better, and classical music appeared (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and their contemporaries). In the 19th century the sensibility of society in Europe drifted towards Romanticism: each work of art must express something in an original way, each composer must have a distinctive voice, etcetera. Starting with Beethoven, composers would not write 40+ or 100+ symphonies anymore, but just a few and (almost) all remarkable (some almost-romantic traits of originality were already present in several works by Mozart). Then instruments improved technically, and in parallel the push for originality led composers to explore new harmonic languages and instrumental textures, the job of composer itself changed significantly, and we could reconstruct step-by-step the whole history of music up to avant-guarde.

 

The point is: no matter whether one subjectively likes a certain composer or not, the process that has led us, today, to have a huge pool of music from which we can take what we want to listen to for our pleasure, has been a process of evolution, which has progressively enlarged the possibilities of expression by incorporating new sounds, new combinations of sounds, and new forms (yes, even in the transition from Baroque to Classical: if it's not evident, we can discuss it). It's a "research" process, it required "brain" and effort from many brilliant people. It is quite objective to label who these people were. These people, I think, are those that filmmusic considers great, and I am completely with him on this: there is some objectivity in the evaluation of art. The fact that I personally don't like several aspects of Brahms' music is irrelevant to the fact that he is a great composer.   

 

Concerning the Bieber vs. Ferneyhough experiment, well, I have done something similar with a few friends, with whom I was having a discussion similar to the one in this thread. It turned out, they had never listened with care to classical music and its derivatives, but only to pop (of what I would consider a "low level" - there is of course some great pop as well). They were willing to take a challenge, however, and I proposed them to listen to a certain list of works from Bach to Stravinsky which I compiled for them. At the end they all agreed that what I had proposed them was a much deeper and more satisfactory experience than what they had known before, and they all started to listen to classical music, some even subscribed to concert halls. As far as I'm concerned, I take this as an evidence that there is some objective greatness in music. On the same line, I don't know anyone above 18 who likes Bieber, maybe there is something objective to be drawn from that as well!

 

 

 

 

 

[filmmusic 1,826]

51 minutes ago, Score said:

 

 

 At the end they all agreed that what I had proposed them was a much deeper and more satisfactory experience than what they had known before, and they all started to listen to classical music, some even subscribed to concert halls.

 

 

 

 

I have to say i was surprised by this outcome. I didn't expect it.

 

 

[Bespin 8,480]

At 14 I was listening to classical music ONLY. Now at 43, I listen to Despacito and I love it.  What's wrong with me?

 

- An anxious music lover

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I've always just had omnivorous taste.  At 14 I was listening to Ozzy Osbourne and Madonna and Daft Punk and Tchaikovsky and Led Zeppelin and Miles Davis and Dolly Parton and Mozart.

[Bespin 8,480]

11 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

I've always just had omnivorous taste.  At 14 I was listening to Ozzy Osbourne and Madonna and Daft Punk and Tchaikovsky and Led Zeppelin and Miles Davis and Dolly Parton and Mozart.

 

I think it's the first time I see "Dolly Parton and Mozart" in the same sentence and in the same order.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Dolly Parton is a genius.

[Bespin 8,480]

Just now, Disco Stu said:

Dolly Parton is a genius.

 

I say nothing against Dolly Parton, you say nothing against Charles Aznavour.  Ok, that's a deal!

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Just now, Bespin said:

you say nothing against Charles Aznavour

 

I never have!

[Bespin 8,480]

1 minute ago, Disco Stu said:

 

I never have!

 

I know.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

[Bespin 8,480]

[Score 770]

26 minutes ago, filmmusic said:

 

I have to say i was surprised by this outcome. I didn't expect it.

 

 

 

I was surprised as well. But they were very open-minded people (and with a high level of education), only, they had never been introduced to classical music. What really surprised me was that they ADMITTED that they had enjoyed the stuff that I had proposed them more than what they were listening to before. I mean, I even went with them to some classical concerts, so I'm sure they weren't just trying to get rid of me 

 

 

 

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

1 hour ago, Score said:

 

 

Ok, I have followed the whole discussion and it's interesting that such an initial topic has generated a hot debate about the major problem with art, which is its evaluation. And it IS a problem: the way people react to the art which is produced in their lifetime has a huge impact on how art will evolve. At some point during the 18th century, people got tired of fugues (I'm oversimplifying, of course) and wanted to hear something "easier" with which they could relate better, and classical music appeared (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and their contemporaries). In the 19th century the sensibility of society in Europe drifted towards Romanticism: each work of art must express something in an original way, each composer must have a distinctive voice, etcetera. Starting with Beethoven, composers would not write 40+ or 100+ symphonies anymore, but just a few and (almost) all remarkable (some almost-romantic traits of originality were already present in several works by Mozart). Then instruments improved technically, and in parallel the push for originality led composers to explore new harmonic languages and instrumental textures, the job of composer itself changed significantly, and we could reconstruct step-by-step the whole history of music up to avant-guarde.

 

The point is: no matter whether one subjectively likes a certain composer or not, the process that has led us, today, to have a huge pool of music from which we can take what we want to listen to for our pleasure, has been a process of evolution, which has progressively enlarged the possibilities of expression by incorporating new sounds, new combinations of sounds, and new forms (yes, even in the transition from Baroque to Classical: if it's not evident, we can discuss it). It's a "research" process, it required "brain" and effort from many brilliant people. It is quite objective to label who these people were. These people, I think, are those that filmmusic considers great, and I am completely with him on this: there is some objectivity in the evaluation of art. The fact that I personally don't like several aspects of Brahms' music is irrelevant to the fact that he is a great composer.   

 

Concerning the Bieber vs. Ferneyhough experiment, well, I have done something similar with a few friends, with whom I was having a discussion similar to the one in this thread. It turned out, they had never listened with care to classical music and its derivatives, but only to pop (of what I would consider a "low level" - there is of course some great pop as well). They were willing to take a challenge, however, and I proposed them to listen to a certain list of works from Bach to Stravinsky which I compiled for them. At the end they all agreed that what I had proposed them was a much deeper and more satisfactory experience than what they had known before, and they all started to listen to classical music, some even subscribed to concert halls. As far as I'm concerned, I take this as an evidence that there is some objective greatness in music. On the same line, I don't know anyone above 18 who likes Bieber, maybe there is something objective to be drawn from that as well!

 

No, I don't believe that even the big summation composers who capped their eras can be graced with some objective, unassailable label of greatness - beyond a technical one, which again, I don't think equals an "overall" greatness in everyone's experience, whatever the results of an isolated "experiment" with your friends. 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

3 minutes ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

 

No, I don't believe that even the big summation composers who capped their eras can be graced with some objective, unassailable label of greatness - beyond a technical one, which again, I don't think equals an "overall" greatness in everyone's experience, whatever the results of an isolated "experiment" with your friends. 

 

Yes, to me what he described is not "evaluation of art" but "tracing a historical narrative."

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

9 hours ago, filmmusic said:

From what I hear thousands of people are moved by his music.

And from that criterion alone, his music should be cited next to Mozart's.

in fact I think many of his songs as compositions, surpass Mozart's genious!

The public can never go wrong in understanding greatness when they hear it!

 

@TheGreyPilgrim

Ok, seriously now, I think I understand what you're saying about how to judge music.

So, in that regard I take it you dismiss anything that has to do with statements  about "greatest someone" (eg. greatest painters, greatest architectures, greatest composers, greatest sculptors, greatest film directors etc.) since art cannot be measured by anything but a person's taste.

in essence, you dismiss the history of art, right? (since history of art  is written by those who excel in their field according to some given standards)

 

So I take it, that Kubrick and Hitchcock are not great directors. They just happened to be liked by some random persons since art cannot be measured, is that right?

 

Now you're being dumbly reductive with that last paragraph.  Disappointing.  I think Kubrick is great.  Beyond my own skin that sentiment means nothing, and it doesn't need to.  Things can have the quality our experience gives them.  We don't need to make them worthy in a vacuum by this kind of BS search for objective greatness.  I have no problem with art history generally surmising the prevailing opinions of things, but I do not rely on it to tell me what my own feelings should be.  

 

No, I don't believe in nor see the point of any "greatest" lists - IF THEY ARE MEANT TO BE DEFINITIVE.  I don't believe this one is intended to be.  I understand your fundamental issue with this article and that it is purely semantic.  The irony is that the dogmatic certitude you think the article's title exudes is precisely what seems to permeate your own thinking, but you are convinced of the academic ironcladness of your position.  That is where I see the deludedly sure assessments of greatness coming from, not throwaway listicles.  

[filmmusic 1,826]

32 minutes ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

 

  I have no problem with art history generally surmising the prevailing opinions of things, but I do not rely on it to tell me what my own feelings should be.  

 

 

Noone told you that you should! And i don't rely on it either.

This is where the misunderstanding is done.

You have this notion that I'm trying to convince you, or that history or specialists are trying to convince you that you shouldn't like A or B because they are not considered great.

I don't and they don't!

 

 

Sometimes what I like coincides with what is generally considered great, sometimes it doesn't.

I love Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles the original 1990 movie. Is this a great movie? No, far from it, but I enjoy it.

It just so happens, that when it does coincide, at least in music which is my field and I'm studying, the emotions are even deeper and more exilarating because I can understand why I'm feeling this or that.

 

It's like when you go to a psychologist and start understanding your feelings.

 

I'm sure if I had studied painting, I would appreciate more certain paintings, or I would understand better why this is great and that is not.

 

Anyway, my examples with Kubrick and Hitchock was a simple way to show you that art can be ""measured"", because you insist (and wrongly I strongly believe) that it cannot be measured.

Then how are these directors considered great, if there are no innate universal criteria of the art of filmmaking, by which they are considered to excel in this art..

Can you please explain it to me?

 

(Now, if we SHOULD measure art or not, that is entirely another matter, and I think here's another confusion in our discussion)

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

They are called great because many subjectively experience their work as being great.  That their technique is masterful as well is irrelevant because I maintain that a Kubrick skeptic, who simply gets nothing out of his work, will be unmoved by demonstrations of this technique.  

 

I don't believe the measurable, technical aspects of a piece of art will cause someone to experience it as great.  Bach is great to me for many reasons, and surely his technique enhances that extant appreciation.  But if I didn't like his music in the first place, recognizing his technical skills wouldn't change that.  That's what people mean when they say they "appreciate" something like free jazz.  They can see that it takes skill, but it still doesn't do anything for them as an artistic experience.  

 

But have you ever heard someone talk about a piece of music in the opposite way?  Boy, that music did absolutely nothing for me, was all form and no content, made me feel like ripping my hair out, but the counterpoint was technically perfect - masterpiece, great art, I'll be back tomorrow night!

 

The disparity between how often you would see these two sentiments tells me that there is one parameter of artistic judgement that far outweighs the other. 

 

And no, as I've now said a billion times, I don't think it's worth it to try objectively measuring art. 

 

[filmmusic 1,826]

13 minutes ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

 

I don't believe the measurable, technical aspects of a piece of art will cause someone to experience it as great.

 

Fine by me! I don't believe it either.*

If that was the case, we would all be listening to "what is considered great" music, and we would all be enjoying "what are considered great" films.

 

" I don't think it's worth it to try objectively measuring art.  "

 

Fine by me here too. I haven't touched this subject at all, if it is worth it or not.

I was merely saying that if anyone wants to try, this can be done. That's all.

 

 

* with one exception:

if he/she studies in depth that particular art, it could help him/her experience it as great.

Score said something important previously.

That he doesn't believe anyone above 18 would enjoy Bieber songs.

Why is that? because adults have generally more maturity than kids.

[Score 770]

17 minutes ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

They are called great because many subjectively experience their work as being great.  That their technique is masterful as well is irrelevant because I maintain that a Kubrick skeptic, who simply gets nothing out of his work, will be unmoved by demonstrations of this technique.  

 

 

Could it be that we are all just discussing on the appropriate use of the word "great" (which for me has some objective connotation, and from what I understand also for filmmusic) versus the use of more subjective words like "favourite" or "popular"?

 

Now, if we agree that the label "great" requires some objective assessment, this in art can only be based on the technical aspects, and possibly on the influence on the future developments of the art. I tend to call something great based on that (so Brahms is "great", but by no means among my "favourites", while being among the favourites of a friend of mine), and that's why I don't accept that the list that started this whole thing was titled "greatest composers". If the title had been "my favourite composers - have a listen to this stuff, guys!", then I would have no problems with that. 

 

If I read your sentence which I quoted above, I realize that you are using the word "great" where I would use the word "favourite", and that's probably all. Since you recognize that there is such a thing as "masterful technique", versus sloppy technique, then we are indeed just discussing semantics, but we agree on the content (of course we all also like music that isn't technically masterful, and nobody has the right to have problems with that). But then, which word other than "great" would you use to describe masterful technique + high impact on the development of the art? 

 

Things would be different if, instead, you would mantain that even technique and impact cannot be judged objectively. Then it would simply be impossible to say anything objective about art, and it would be useless to discuss anything about music. 

 

However, if we agree that there is some "great" music in the sense that I mean (if you don't like "great", insert your favourite word for that), it can only be judged based on musical education. Without that, it is impossible to even realize that there is a difference between "my favourite" and "great", and that's why reading that "John Williams and Danny Elfman didn't make it" into a list of greatest composers sounds simply wrong. It could convey an objectively wrong message.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

58 minutes ago, Score said:

 

 

Could it be that we are all just discussing on the appropriate use of the word "great" (which for me has some objective connotation, and from what I understand also for filmmusic) versus the use of more subjective words like "favourite" or "popular"?

 

If I read your sentence which I quoted above, I realize that you are using the word "great" where I would use the word "favourite", and that's probably all.

 

I first thought it was mostly semantics, but you and filmmusic - I could be misreading - still seem to want great to be something separate from favorite and not just two different words for the same thing.  I'm saying that, technical evaluations aside, they can't be different, and there's no point to try.

 

58 minutes ago, Score said:

But then, which word other than "great" would you use to describe masterful technique + high impact on the development of the art? 

 

Influential?  If I didn't like, say, Stravinsky, I'd refer to him as "merely" influential since that's a measurable fact, but I do like him, so I call him great.

 

In my view, the word great should imply that it is a subjective assessment based on one's own ephemeral experience, because that word was chosen over a more objective one like skilled or, indeed, influential.