Composers who created only one masterpiece

[abidoful]

influence and popularity of the work in question has to be a part of the equation.

Indeed

[jochanaan]

Oh no!  Not ANOTHER thread where we discuss the nature of greatness/masterpieces/the soul of music/bananas?!?

[jowcol]

Oh no!  Not ANOTHER thread where we discuss the nature of greatness/masterpieces/the soul of music/bananas?!?

Better yet, we can work in a definition of the "Genius Banana".   A genius banana is able to perceive things differently, setting him/her/it apart for the rest of the bunch.

[zamyrabyrd]

The opera, Cavelleria Rusticana, by Pietro Mascagni.
Quite a few hits within this hit showing much promise for future works but after the initial sparks, kind of fizzled out.

ZB

[Guido]

Humperdinck? What are his other* works like?

*other than Hansel and Gretel obviously. Just saw this at Glyndbourne and was reminded by what an incredible piece of music this is - definitely in my top ten favourite operas.

[offbeat]

Rutland Boughton - The Immortal Hour !

[knight66]

I have it, interesting piece, but it never occured to me that anyone would take it as a top flight work.

Mike

[abidoful]

Let's have a thread called: "Composers who produced NO materpieces (not a SINGLE ONE!!!!!!)"

[MDL]

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.

Didn't Holst consider his Hymn of Jesus and Egdon Heath to be his greatest works? Certainly for me, along with The Planets, they are his most striking creations. I've only heard a third of the works on your list, at most, so I can't comment on them; however, if the enjoyable but undeniably second-rate Bena Mori and Hammersmith are anything to go by, you're going to have an uphill struggle convincing most people that Holst was anything but a one-trick pony.

Edit: Well, a three-trick pony, maybe.

[Wendell_E]

Let's have a thread called: "Composers who produced NO materpieces (not a SINGLE ONE!!!!!!)"

The Internet's not nearly big enough for that one.

[Lethevich]

Rutland Boughton - The Immortal Hour !

I wish I could be sure, given how nobody has recorded any of his other potentially fascinating operas

[schweitzeralan]

Over the years I've listened to so many composers who have conceived musical titles at many levels of style,be they melodic, harmonic or rhythmic persuasions.  A colleague once told me that J.S. Bach wrote a masterpiece every week for church services. Amazing. No doubt, the perennially acknowledged masters; namely,  Bach, Mozart, Haydin, Chopin, et. al, have been recognized over the centuries as "major  maestros," as they have been shared publically and aesthetically by virtue of their symphonic, keyboard, choral,  revelations.

There have been  several composers whose works I have appreciated.  Yet I found that there were a few composers who  wrote perhaps only one work that was considered, at least by me, as quintessential master works.

I'm referring to the following: Gliere's  "3rd. Symphony"; E.J. Moeran's "Symphony in G Minor;  Arthur Farewell's "Mountains of the Gods Suite;" Joseph Marx's "Autumn Symphony," a magnificent musical experience.  Madetoja's 2nd Symphony,"to mention a few.

There are others, but I only come up within these for now.  Opinions will vary, to be sure, but I'm curious if there are those who agree or not.

Rarely do I revive former threads, except if and when I find many to be relevant and insightful.  I've never reinvigorated a previous one of my own, but I was thinking about the concept after listening to a recording of works by Lili Boulanger.  The seven works performed by the Orchestre du Luxembourg are superb.  Emotional and dramatic throughout.  Yet I consider one to be a masterpiece.  Again dramatic but develops and unfolds themes and complex harmonies with vigor and extraordinary detail; namely, the "D'un soir triste. Perhaps there lurks other works yet to be recorded by the sister of the well known acknowledged maestra Nadia. 

[abidoful]

I think....yes, Karol Szymanowski is such a composer---he composed one work that IMO has that extra quality. It's unique. It has that ease, insight, GLOW, freshness, polishness, "newness" that breaks boundaries, unique form, colours, scents, imagination, soulfulness: the FIRST VIOLIN CONCERTO op.35.

[Guido]

Strongly disagree with Szymanowski as a choice.

[Chaszz]

Max Bruch's violin concerto. It's possible that he created other works of similar quality, but I'm not aware of any. I like the Scottish Fantasy ok, but not as much as the violin concerto. And Cimarosa with his opera "Il Matrimonio Segreto." Maybe not a masterpiece of the stature of Mozart's best opera's, but nevertheless a very good effort.

Max Bruch's late Concerto for Viola, Clarinet and Orchestra, op.88 in E minor, is an underapprecated masterpiece of rare beauty, which well deserves to take its place beside his Violin Concerto in the repertoire. I think back pleasurably to the time, several years ago, when I discovered this neglected gem and basked every day for a number of weeks in its radiance. Pigeonhole the poor man if you must, but only after you have given this magnificent work a fair chance.   

[abidoful]

Strongly disagree with Szymanowski as a choice.

o.k 

[Cristofori]

What do I consider to be a masterpiece? It is a thing that has  absolutely stood the test of time, that is widely recognizable and acknowledged by a large percentage of people from many backgrounds, nationalities, etc., and beyond dispute.

This applies whether one personally appreciates the object in question or not. Some examples would be  Michelangelo's "David", Leonardo Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, The Great Pyramids of Giza, etc.

In the musical world, I think many here already know what some of those masterpieces are. Anybody who would argue that Bach's Mass in B Minor, Handel's Messiah, Beethoven's Symphony No. 5, Vivaldi's Four Seasons, etc. are not masterpieces is someone who's musical opinions should not be taken seriously.

However, many of the composers and their works mentioned on this thread could indeed be argued whether or not they are "masterpieces". If a particular piece of music (or anything else for that matter) could be described as "unappreciated", "neglected", "ignored", "underperformed", then it really can't be considered a masterpiece in the broader definition of the term, regardless how much we wish it to be. 

So, without a precise definition of what a "masterpiece" really is, then threads like this will inevitably descend into bickering based on ones personal biases, opinions and emotions.

Perhaps the OP should have referred to them as "One Hit Wonders". In that sense, then certain composers like Holst, Albinoni, Orff, Boccherini, Bizet, etc., might fall under that definition.

[schweitzeralan]

What do I consider to be a masterpiece? It is a thing that has  absolutely stood the test of time, that is widely recognizable and acknowledged by a large percentage of people from many backgrounds, nationalities, etc., and beyond dispute.

This applies whether one personally appreciates the object in question or not. Some examples would be  Michelangelo's "David", Leonardo Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, The Great Pyramids of Giza, etc.

In the musical world, I think many here already know what some of those masterpieces are. Anybody who would argue that Bach's Mass in B Minor, Handel's Messiah, Beethoven's Symphony No. 5, Vivaldi's Four Seasons, etc. are not masterpieces is someone who's musical opinions should not be taken seriously.

However, many of the composers and their works mentioned on this thread could indeed be argued whether or not they are "masterpieces". If a particular piece of music (or anything else for that matter) could be described as "unappreciated", "neglected", "ignored", "underperformed", then it really can't be considered a masterpiece in the broader definition of the term, regardless how much we wish it to be. 

So, without a precise definition of what a "masterpiece" really is, then threads like this will inevitably descend into bickering based on ones personal biases, opinions and emotions.

Perhaps the OP should have referred to them as "One Hit Wonders". In that sense, then certain composers like Holst, Albinoni, Orff, Boccherini, Bizet, etc., might fall under that definition.

Interesting and informative response to the query.  There seems to be a plethora of terms and concepts concerning what defines, or what "makes" a work a masterpiece.  Its all accessible on line.  To me it isn't that I simply like one composer over another; nor that one style or influence assures the work is a masterpiece.  There are many interesting responses in this thread.  I introduced it because I truly believed that certain individual musical works held, or absorbed my whole attention span because to me the work was conceived and developed with originality, unique harmonic structure, drama, variations of suggestive feeling or implied emotion; and, above all, I detected no weakness nor lapses within the work.  A masterpiece for me means intenseness, nuances, and singularity of purpose consistently developing without pause.  Its my own opinion, to be sure and I was interested in what other posters thought.

[Dana]

What do I consider to be a masterpiece? It is a thing that has  absolutely stood the test of time, that is widely recognizable and acknowledged by a large percentage of people from many backgrounds, nationalities, etc., and beyond dispute.

This applies whether one personally appreciates the object in question or not. Some examples would be  Michelangelo's "David", Leonardo Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, The Great Pyramids of Giza, etc.

In the musical world, I think many here already know what some of those masterpieces are. Anybody who would argue that Bach's Mass in B Minor, Handel's Messiah, Beethoven's Symphony No. 5, Vivaldi's Four Seasons, etc. are not masterpieces is someone who's musical opinions should not be taken seriously.

However, many of the composers and their works mentioned on this thread could indeed be argued whether or not they are "masterpieces". If a particular piece of music (or anything else for that matter) could be described as "unappreciated", "neglected", "ignored", "underperformed", then it really can't be considered a masterpiece in the broader definition of the term, regardless how much we wish it to be. 

So, without a precise definition of what a "masterpiece" really is, then threads like this will inevitably descend into bickering based on ones personal biases, opinions and emotions.

Perhaps the OP should have referred to them as "One Hit Wonders". In that sense, then certain composers like Holst, Albinoni, Orff, Boccherini, Bizet, etc., might fall under that definition.

I recommend this post.

[knight66]

I agree with most of that quoted post; not sure about intenseness. How about we add Rodrigo. His guitar concerto seems to me a masterpiece. I don't think any of his other pieces are as well regarded, though there is one other I certainly enjoy just as much. But if you say his name, it is only going to be that guitar concerto that most people could bring to mind.

Not clear it has much intensity about it, but perhaps we take different meanings from the word.

Mike