great works and not-so-great

> > Yes, it was different in the 16th, 17th, and 18th
> > centuries. Everybody
> > wrote great, memorable music. Not a single work
> > was lame, or worth
> > forgetting about.
> >
> > Nobody in the 19th century, for example, wrote lame
> > virtuoso music that
> > was devoid of any depth, or even entertaining.
>
> Out of interest, how can we know that? How can we
> remember what we have forgotten?
> Justin
>

This discussion should move to metatuning.

Some of those pieces survive.

Classical music that's not by Mozart or Haydn, well, it really is for the
most part, not that exciting. It's amazing how much more detailed and
subtle (in a remarkably obvious way) Mozart is, for example. Or Bach in
the baroque. You can find examples . . . . these works have been
recorded and performed fairly extensively.

And as for the Romantic era, plenty of performers, particularly on
orchestral instruments (pianists are lucky and have Chopin, et al) play a
number of "show pieces"---some of them are at least entertaining, but
sometimes it so special-effect-y, and yet so boring.

Of course there are also gems that are relatively undiscovered, like
Franz Schmidt, I love his symphonies. But then, I am somewhat of a
sucker for the sentimental.

CB