Post by dk Post by firstname.lastname@example.org Post by Frank Berger Post by drh8h
You may be right, but with all of the music in the world and the short time we are in it, music that grows on one will always be left to niche audiences who find something special in it. Casals claimed that very quality for Roentgen, Moor and Tovey. Sixty+ years later and despite his advocacy, when do you ever hear their music unless deliberately seeking out an obscure recording? Not a reflection of quality; there is so much competing for our time and attention.
True - I think another consideration is that some repertoire is so time consuming to learn and maintain that many or most concert performers are unwilling to devote the time. Add to that the thumbs down by their managers. Case in point - the least complex of the 14 Medtner Piano Sonatas, the Reminicenza, is the one that gets by far the most recordings and performances by big name pianists. And of course certain composers are more frequently performed in their native countries.
I think some of you are continuing to ignore the conceptual difference
between what is marketable (i.e. appeals to a mass market so that it
pays someone to invest in performing or recording) and what has some
sort of innate quality that either appeals to a knowledgeable cultured
few or takes time to learn to appreciate.
- Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value. ... Unqualified judgment can at most claim to decide the market-value - a value that can be in inverse proportion to the intrinsic value.
How does one determine/measure "intrinsic value"?
seems like Arnold talked about music as circularly
and self-referentially as he "composed".
If I understand correctly ggggggg, in attempting to disagree with my
statement, or at least add his own comment, basically repeated what I said.
I have shared here before how my "Philosphy of the Arts" professor
answered your question, Dan: "Good art is art that satisfies certain,
not necessarily specified, criteria about what constitutes good art.I
guess that mean you judge a work of art according to various recognized
criteria. In painting that could be balance, form, use of color.....I
don't know. In music you would know better than I. I suppose different
genres could have different criteria. You wouldn't judge black and white
photography for its use of color. All this implies that there are
"experts" more qualified to judge ïnherent quality, to use ggggggg's
term, than amateur. I suppose the market value of art is determined
partly by inherent quality and partly by popularity. It seems quite
complex. I don't know if economists have modeled it. Some consumers
art simply buy what they like. Others buy what they think other people
like. Others buy what they think is inherently good, and still others
buy what recognized experts think is good. Then, of course the supply
side factors in - it being much harder to produce something experts
recognize as good, than what the rabble think is good. Bottom line:
can you measure inherent quality? Probably not, but we know it when we
see it in museums or hear it in concert halls, don't we?