Composers who created only one masterpiece

[Teresa]

But if were to use Gliere's third symphony, well then I'd want to add the Red Poppy (or at least some parts of it), which is terribly underrated.

I'm not a big fan of Gliere's three symphonies but I love The Red Poppy ballet which not only features the wonderful Russian Sailors' Dance but the Chinese Dance, Variation with Gold Fingers, Dance of the Chinese Women, and many other dances and waltzes.  In addition Gliere wrote many wonderful Symphonic Poems and Overtures. 

[Teresa]

Surely Holst is the reigning champion of this discipline? (I hope this doesn't kindle an argument about whether it is "great" enough - I've seen several of those )

I love his music, but it's often wilfully evasive. He knew he was writing excellent music, but it feels like he self-consciously took a step back from composing in the manner that would allow for a success as great and musically far-reaching as his Planets suite. His later music is too "knowing". I suppose Grieg's PC could be included for the same reasons, but his Peer Gynt music - especially simply the suites alone - are too good to dismiss.

Holst and Grieg are two of my favorite composers and IMHO nearly everything they wrote is pure gold. 

Here are my favorite compositions by Holst, every single one an absolute masterpiece.

  Beni Mora - Oriental Suite, Op. 29, No. 1 (1910)
  Fugal Overture, Op. 40, No. 1 (1922)
  Hammersmith - Prelude and Scherzo, Op. 52 (1930)
  Indra, Symphonic Poem, Op. 13 (1903)
  Japanese Suite, Op. 33 (1915)
  The Lure: Ballet music from the Opera (1921)
  A Moorside Suite (1928)
  The Morning of the Year: Dances, Op. 45 (1927)
  The Perfect Fool: Ballet, Op. 39 (1922)
  The Planets, Op. 32 (1916)
  Sita - Interlude from Act III, Op. 23 (1906)
  Somerset Rhapsody, Op. 21, No. 2 (1907)
  Suite de Ballet In E Flat Op.10
  Suite Nos. 1 and 2 for Military Band, Op. 28 (1909-11)
  Symphony in F "The Cotswolds", Op. 8 (1900)
  Walt Whitman Overture Op.7 (1899)
  A Winter Idyll (1897)

I don't love everything by Holst, I don't care for his choral works or his works for strings alone.  But too much of his output has been neglected far too long by the masses.  The Planets is a great and colorful work but it is not his best. 

[Teresa]

I'd suggest Glazunov for his string quintet, but maybe that's because I just really like his string quintet.

Brian, have you heard Glazunov's The Seasons ballet?, I find it simply marvelous.   He is a composer I really need to explore more, as he has written a lot and it seems to be to my liking. 

[Teresa]

Once again we founder on the definition of master piece - we all have different standards for where the cut off comes.

I'm not sure how meaningful the term really is in the abstract without knowing anything about who is using the term.

For me a masterpiece is a work that is PERFECT from the first note to the last, and totally enjoyable throughout.  I think it differs from listener to listener since no one likes exactly the same things.  Though there will be some overlap.

[schweitzeralan]

I hope you're not referring to Carmina Burana - certainly not his greatest work.

And Moeran's cello concerto is a certainly a masterpiece, so he's not allowed.

My nomination would be Gershwin - though I very much like and even love some of the earlier scores, Porgy and Bess is by far the greatest thing he produced and is quite simply one of the finest operas ever written.

Tavener might be another - The Protecting Veil. Nothing else of his output seems up to this.

Ruggles probably too - Suntreader is an incredible work of searing intensity - everything else he wrote seems to be leading to or tailing off from this piece.

The Moeran Cello Concerto?  That one I don't know.  Do you believe it's up to the Symphony?  Interesting.

[MishaK]

For me a masterpiece is a work that is PERFECT from the first note to the last, and totally enjoyable throughout.  I think it differs from listener to listener since no one likes exactly the same things.  Though there will be some overlap.

I'm not sure "enjoyability" is a valid metric, unless by that you mean to include works that may actually be rather distressing but quite cathartic.

I'll try to paraphrase what I recall Boulez saying here at a talk in Chicago a few months ago: a masterpiece is a work that says something meaningfully new and which influences what comes after, such that you can say the history of music would be different without it. Or as he added: "Mozart I can't live without, but Telemann I'm not so sure about." ;-)

[greg]

And it's a shame, because it's an amazing work.

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks so. 

[abidoful]

This is shaky subject, although I think I have a clue what you're aming for. Maybe its about "famous" works, which is more of a socioligical thing, some pieces  are just "hits" or have otherwise an enormous reputation. For example this outrules the sort of compositions which probably were never performed and didn't create a "stir" in their time.

If I came to play this game, I'd say
1. Holst- Planets
2. Albinoni- Adagio
3. Bruch- violin concerto
4. Rubinstein- Melody
5. Gabriel Linsen- Mä oksalla ylimmällä (local Finnish example)
6. Bizet- Carmen
(7. Koussevitzky- contrabass concerto)
Actually this is very evasive game I doubt numbers two and four, miniatures are a different matter; become sometimes even anonymous "tunes" and Albinoni's piece isn't actually by Albinoni at all

[schweitzeralan]

This is shaky subject, although I think I have a clue what you're aming for. Maybe its about "famous" works, which is more of a socioligical thing, some pieces  are just "hits" or have otherwise an enormous reputation. For example this outrules the sort of compositions which probably were never performed and didn't create a "stir" in their time.

If I came to play this game, I'd say
1. Holst- Planets
2. Albinoni- Adagio
3. Bruch- violin concerto
4. Rubinstein- Melody
5. Gabriel Linsen- Mä oksalla ylimmällä (local Finnish example)
6. Bizet- Carmen
(7. Koussevitzky- contrabass concerto)
Actually this is very evasive game I doubt numbers two and four, miniatures are a different matter; become sometimes even anonymous "tunes" and Albinoni's piece isn't actually by Albinoni at all

What I had in mind is close to what Theresa posted in regards to her opinion; namely, a masterpiece is a work which is perfect From the first note to the last.  Opinions vary to be sure.

[knight66]

How does anyone decide whether a piece is note perfect from one end to the other? I assume this implies structural excellence and instrumental expertise.

I feel there are precious few here fit to judge; if there are any. Only the composer knows whether their intensions actually sit in on the page and whether they feel they have done their best. Then comes the opinion of musicologists.

Discussed elsewhere: The Missa Solemnis is a masterpiece, but there are textural elements involving the audibility of lines in it that possibly would be different had Beethoven been able to hear it.

So, seemingly tumbled off its pedestal.

Mike

[Sergeant Rock]

Peter Warlock - The Curlew.


Sarge

[Teresa]

How does anyone decide whether a piece is note perfect from one end to the other? I assume this implies structural excellence and instrumental expertise.  I feel there are precious few here fit to judge; if there are any...

Mike

Not necessarily, I can imagine a composition being structurally note perfect with no one thinking it a masterpiece.  I believe a masterpiece is in the ears of the listener, if the music is so perfectly beautiful in execution, length, movement, and color that the listener would not change a single note then it is a masterpiece to that listener.  So thus anyone who has a pair of ears is qualified to determine what is a masterpiece to him or her. 

[knight66]

Subjective slop Teresa.

Mike

[Franco]

I'm not sure "enjoyability" is a valid metric, unless by that you mean to include works that may actually be rather distressing but quite cathartic.

I'll try to paraphrase what I recall Boulez saying here at a talk in Chicago a few months ago: a masterpiece is a work that says something meaningfully new and which influences what comes after, such that you can say the history of music would be different without it. Or as he added: "Mozart I can't live without, but Telemann I'm not so sure about." ;-)

He seems to be repeating this idea over and over in each recent interview he gives, which does not burnish his reputation as an innovator, the only difference is he's changed the names of the composers from Stravinsky and Hindemith to Mozart and Telemann.

[schweitzeralan]

Not necessarily, I can imagine a composition being structurally note perfect with no one thinking it a masterpiece.  I believe a masterpiece is in the ears of the listener, if the music is so perfectly beautiful in execution, length, movement, and color that the listener would not change a single note then it is a masterpiece to that listener.  So thus anyone who has a pair of ears is qualified to determine what is a masterpiece to him or her.

Basically, I think I agree with your asseveration on this subject.  As I indicated the perspectives may vary.  Being no musician I can't detail in any technical detail the structural eloquence of a masterful work.  I consider a masterpiece to be a singular, beautiful, coordinated musical achievement if and when I somehow feel I'm part of it.  Perhaps not creatively but psychologically which links all my senses somehow to the work.  I thus have a sort of lidentity with the  musical sublimity. In a masterpiece every measure or passage remains fresh and well wrought.   Certain listeners have their preference in terms of period styles and genre; understood.  Thank the muses for the few masterpieces that thrive and which never lose their pulse with me.

[Guido]

The Moeran Cello Concerto?  That one I don't know.  Do you believe it's up to the Symphony?  Interesting.

Absolutely. I actually prefer it overall I think, though I love both works.

One of Raphael Wallfisch's finest performances on disc too. It's coupled with the rather lovely, but lesser violin concerto.

Oh and his string trio is also definitely in the same league as these pieces - a wonderful piece.

[jochanaan]

Surely Holst is the reigning champion of this discipline? (I hope this doesn't kindle an argument about whether it is "great" enough - I've seen several of those )

I love his music, but it's often wilfully evasive. He knew he was writing excellent music, but it feels like he self-consciously took a step back from composing in the manner that would allow for a success as great and musically far-reaching as his Planets suite. His later music is too "knowing".

Have you heard his "The Hymn of Jesus"?  Great stuff!

I suppose Grieg's PC could be included for the same reasons, but his Peer Gynt music - especially simply the suites alone - are too good to dismiss.

And Grieg wrote lots of tiny gems for piano that probably don't get enough play.  He was almost the Norwegian Chopin.

[Lethevich]

Have you heard his "The Hymn of Jesus"?

Damnit, I forgot about that. I do consider that to be a masterpiece, albeit one that probably won't appeal to a broad audience

[cliftwood]

My nomination is by Arrigo Boito's Mefistofele, surely one of the greatest and most powerful operas ever written.

The opening of this opera is surpassed by no composer's work for overwhelming beauty.

What a pity that except for one other operatic work, he devoted his life to Verdi.

[Dana]

Not necessarily, I can imagine a composition being structurally note perfect with no one thinking it a masterpiece.  I believe a masterpiece is in the ears of the listener, if the music is so perfectly beautiful in execution, length, movement, and color that the listener would not change a single note then it is a masterpiece to that listener.  So thus anyone who has a pair of ears is qualified to determine what is a masterpiece to him or her.

    Surely though, one has to be able to share the joy of the music with someone else? This isn't to mean that one should have a popularity contest to aid in determining what is or isn't a masterpiece, but perspective, and universality of appeal has to come in somewhere, simply because good music is good because it has universal, or near universal, appeal. I mean, we're not just saying whether or not we think something is good, we're asking whether it's a masterpiece, and there has to be a distinguishing factor somewhere. Gade's Octet may be one of my favorite compositions, but I'm going to have a hard time convincing people that it's a masterpiece, because Mendelssohn's Octet is very similar to it, and universally recognized. Therefore, I think that influence and popularity of the work in question has to be a part of the equation.