"development" as it is used most post Beethoven symphonies, is synonymous with (wait for it, DT reference since we're on a DT forum) Outcry-type passages that don't actually add to the enjoyment of the listener. you could certainly call the middle section in that song development, but most people agree it doesn't make the song good.
Sure, strictly speaking, it does designate the middle part of the sonata form. But that is what Beethoven changed : with him, development became more important than the thematic expositions. Beethoven is the master of the symphonic form (and of musical form in general) because he can build long cohesive works from small thematic motives which have no musical interest in themselves (see the POM POM POM POM of Beethoven 5th, it's dull to the extreme without what is coming after that - Beethoven genius does not lie in the POM POM POM POM, it lies in what he does with it). As a general term, development designates all the tools a composer uses to build a structured discourse from a musical material without recuring to non-musical material. Development is what makes a piece coherent as a whole and what allows a serious composer to build large forms. It also allows the musical material to reach its most complex and complete appereances. It is the principle of germanic post-classic symphonic writing. A symphony without development is a symphonic piece, not a symphony. I've used the term development talking about Bruckner, not because he writes long "outcry-type passages", but because the way he develops the musical material over long period of time is staggering in terms of imagination and creativity.
And development is actually what makes a piece of serious music good, at least in the germanic post-classical tradition. The main interest of the germanic tradition lies in
the exploration of the possibilties of the musical material, which the development allows.
It might seems snobish, but it is the truth. This is how and why that music was written. You can listen to a germanic symphony like it was
bel canto, but you're missing 98 % of it. And yes, a lot of listeners nowadays listen to classical music as it was pop music. But it's not pop music.
And for the record, Dvorak's 9th follows the Beethovenian tradition, and uses development a lot.
(and obviously, things changed again with the XXth century, with the teleologic forms of Sibelius, the integration of baroque forms into symphonies with Hindemith and Hartmann, and the mixing of the symphonic poem form with the symphonic form, but the idea of structuring musical discourse through transformations of the musical material remained)
It actually has to do with the rhythm being absent and the melody or thematic lines being absent or so obfuscated that they are lost on anyone who isn't studying the score. so I'm not just saying it is good because it's not not good.
I'm not sure what you're meaning here, but rhythm and thematic lines are not absent of these pieces. These impressions say something of the listener, not of the pieces themselves. Pop music and the culture of fast entertainement have damaged the capacity of listeners to actually hear what is going on in these pieces. At the beginning of the XXth century, melodies and thematic lines were not obfuscated to the listeners, because they knew how to listen to these pieces, they were more patient and didn't expect music to give them instant pleasure. They actually
hear the music. But you can still get these habits. You don't need to know how to read a score for that.
parts of Mahler's and Sibelius' later symphonies are brilliant. I just don't think they hold together as a whole as well as the firsts.
Actually, they hold together much more than their first, especially Mahler's : his first symphonies are programatic and can be quite messy formaly, whereas 5-6-7 and 9 are much more tightly structured. In terms of form, Mahler's 6th is one of the most tightly written of the whole repertoire. A good comparison can be made between the finales from 2 and 6, which are both very long (and I love both) : the finale from 2 is a linear, almost narrative, movement, with little formal structure and little logic outside a succession of episodes, while the finale from 6 is an abstract and very tight work of developement of musical material, where thematic exposition merge with development in a extremly dense course, and as such is an absolute (and somehow puts an end) to the germanic symphonic tradition. Mahler was a great composer in the sense that he was able to switch from free-form, almost symphonic poems movement, to tightly structured sonatas forms, and at his best mix the two, giving a impression of great freedom and dramatism while maintaining the cohesion of the whole.
Sibelius is another beast, reversing the germanic way of doing things (exposing the musical material, then developping it) into a teleologic form, where the complete form of the musical material is actually exposed at the end - the musical material is actually building itself along the course of the work. It's a totally different way of dealing with structure and time.
This is not stuff you get only by reading or analysing the score : you can actually hear the formal construction of pieces, the motivic transformation, the macro and micro-structures, but it does require certain habits of listening (and good interpretations, because the best one are the ones that will make come alive these formal aspects, that will make you feel them). But when you hear it, the pleasure is only greater. The difference is like trying to read a text in a foreign language you know only a few words of, and reading a text in a language you know how to speak.
look, I don't want to keep arguing about this. it's fine to have different tastes in music. just don't go off insulting other people's tastes, especially in a place like this where you know people seek out stuff they like and are passionate and knowledgeable about it, or assume you can somehow appreciate it more than they do.
Ok, I might have sound harsh, but I wasn't trying to insult anyone. I was merely saying that Dvorak 9th is not
that good, and that they are plenty of others fishes. There is so much more to classical music than the mainstream stuff.
ok, reset. I'd love to see a top 50 of yours Kilgore. for real. I might not like it but I sure would read it and listen to any pieces I haven't heard before.
I'm not sure it would be of any use. Most of the pieces I would chose would be from not very well known composers (and some almost unknown), and not accessible ones (and something like 30 % of it would being hardcore contemporary music, that I've not problem saying it's really hard to "get" unless you're a full time classical listener who is also heavily interested in the evolution of serious music over the last century).
Honestly, my top 50 would be a snobish one even to snobish casual classical listeners.