Composers on GMG - Who's currently hot....and who's not?

[Mirror Image]

I don't see that as an either/or.

I did, because influence doesn't equate to music that moves me.

[karlhenning]

Well, you said "move me emotionally/intellectually," which seemed to me broad enough to include part of why I enjoy the question of inter-composerly influence.

[Mirror Image]

Well, you said "move me emotionally/intellectually," which seemed to me broad enough to include part of why I enjoy the question of inter-composerly influence.

For me, if I'm moved by something intellectually, I'm moved by thoughts of what possibly went through the composer's minds as they wrote this harmony or that melody. I could spend hours on end thinking about what went through Koechlin's or Bartok's mind.

[karlhenning]

That's something I hardly ever do, FWIW

[Mirror Image]

That's something I hardly ever do, FWIW

Well it's impossible to get into anyone's mind and what their thought process was, but sometimes I just have to wonder, especially if it's a composer like Pettersson whose music comes across as psychologically scarred and tormented.

[Cato]

What, Karl's hot and I'm not? Not sure how to take that, Cato... I mean, we've never even met    

To avoid favoritism, I used an alphabetical listing!   0:)

"Composers on GMG..." struck me as composers who are members on GMG!

So, yes, I think both of you qualify as "hot"...as opposed to e.g. Saul!   0:)

[Philoctetes]

I believe we have many voices exemplifying a similar School of Resentment on this forum - folks who, for whatever reason, turn their back on the established literature and instead prefer to devote their time towards championing lesser known, supposedly "undeservedly neglected" figures.

I don't think this is a good summa of why I do the things I do. I sort of work off of the assumption that people on this forum have already listened to the masters, and am just trying to trump up those who have not yet been heard (no value judgments attached).

[Scarpia]

I did, because influence doesn't equate to music that moves me.

I don't see that anyone said or implied that one can't or shouldn't be fascinated by music on "the fringe."  I've recently found myself fascinated by some music of Tansman, which may be almost as "fringy" as Koechlin.  I don't see any contradiction between the fact that Tansman is not a particularly important composer and the fact that I really enjoy some of his music.
 

[Scarpia]

Well it's impossible to get into anyone's mind and what their thought process was, but sometimes I just have to wonder, especially if it's a composer like Pettersson whose music comes across as psychologically scarred and tormented.

I must say I don't find the personal motivations of the composer to be important to my appreciation of their works.   I guess I subscribe to a less militant version of Stravinsky's philosophy that music doesn't express anything except itself.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I don't think this is a good summa of why I do the things I do. I sort of work off of the assumption that people on this forum have already listened to the masters, and am just trying to trump up those who have not yet been heard (no value judgments attached).

What makes you think I was referring to you?

[Philoctetes]

What makes you think I was referring to you?

I didn't. I personalized it, needlessly.

[Mirror Image]

I don't see that anyone said or implied that one can't or shouldn't be fascinated by music on "the fringe."  I've recently found myself fascinated by some music of Tansman, which may be almost as "fringy" as Koechlin.  I don't see any contradiction between the fact that Tansman is not a particularly important composer and the fact that I really enjoy some of his music.

Tansman is a name I heard of, but have not heard any of his music. What is his music like?

[Scarpia]

Tansman is a name I heard of, but have not heard any of his music. What is his music like?

20th century neoclassical, probably more similar to late Stravinsky or Hindemith than anyone else.  The chamber music has been the most interesting too me (there is a Naxos release of chamber music including Clarinet).

[Mirror Image]

20th century neoclassical, probably more similar to late Stravinsky or Hindemith than anyone else.  The chamber music has been the most interesting too me (there is a Naxos release of chamber music including Clarinet).

Interesting. I'll have to check him out. Thanks for the info.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I don't quite see it like that - what I see is

a) a small group of people who fit your description of Bloom's 'relativists', agitating for a neglected group (female composers, ignored classicists, whatever) as being 'as good as' their male counterparts, classicist contemporaries, whatever) - but these I don't see as a major feature of the board.

b) a group of people (a large group of people, probably most of us) who will argue from time to time (or sometimes more often!)  that a particular piece or a particular composer is worth more attention than they might generally get - you've done this yourself with e.g. Clementi sonatas or Auber, Spontini, IIRC...

a) - the wish to promote composers based not on their individual qualities but the basis that they happen to belong to a larger 'excluded' group - strikes me as nonsensical and, yes, it smacks of a resentment. b) however, is perfectly valid. Saying 'I think this composer may be worthy of more consideration than they usually get' doesn't in itself imply resentment, although of course it doesn't necessarily mean that the composer is worthy of that consideration! 

Composers with a strong character tend to attract listeners strongly, though this might be a smallish group of listeners. The Brianites (and I'm one) are an example - I imagine you are at least in part thinking of him/them, as you've not had much time for him before. I don't think there's a single Brian lover on this board who would dream of placing him on a par with Beethoven or Bach, nor, probably of (say) Nielsen and Sibelius, to cite near contemporary symphonists. What they say is - this composer's music is quite odd, but it speaks to me very strongly, I think it might speak to others too, given the chance; its oddness, however, means that it hasn't been given as much of an airing as it needs to be given that chance. In Brian's case that picture is changing - just as it did for other composers before him - the symphonies are being recorded more and more, by better and better ensembles and conductors who make his oddnesses sound a little less...odd! And, lo and behold, new listeners are trying him and liking him all the time. It would be a mischaracterisation of Brian's admirers to suggest that they are in any way turning their backs on the core literature for the sake of the periphery. OTOH, I also think that peripheral art - literally eccentric art - is of its nature bound to appeal strongly to a small but passionate group, where centric art's appeal is bound to be more general, and perhaps not always as passionate.

But it is, after all, possible for a composer to be undeservedly neglected, isn't it? The scare quotes aren't strictly necessary, I think.

To try to answer Luke, as he has given the most thoughtful response: I can't quantify how "many" people here seem to embody attitudes of resentment towards canonical composers, but (without mentioning names) I can easily remember being told here that Bach wrote "Muzak," that the St. Matthew is "appallingly mundane," Mozart is a "sissy" and Beethoven a "bombastic bore," "I often feel I will go mad if I hear any more Mozart. It just drives me crazy all the Mozart mania and people assuming he was the greatest," "I don't like opera [or chamber music, or piano music, or sacred music, or the moderns, or the Renaissance - take your pick] - and this is just a small sampling. Obviously this is not always a black and white thing. I'm not pretending that the board is rife with a majority of people who are totally out to jettison the accepted canon. But the attitudes quoted above do exist, and if this is not resentment towards some of the most admired names in musical history, then how would you describe it?

I absolutely agree too that there are any number of composers who have been unjustly neglected, and too much emphasis on a small body of names. This is the essential problem with a canon of any sort. Before the turn of the 19th century or so, composers were primarily expected to produce new work, and the idea of preserving a corpus of music for posterity was largely unknown. Now we've gone to the other extreme where new music is often reviled, and what we get are endless performances and recordings of a very limited repertoire always of music of the past (and a very limited past at that, overwhelmingly concentrating on 19th century orchestral music). This is hardly a healthy situation, above all not a good one for living composers, and to that degree it is extremely valuable that we get to hear less familiar names who have much good music to offer.

But to my mind there is a major difference between expanding one's horizons beyond the generally accepted canon and to some degree or other rejecting it. Most of you will not like me for saying this - not that I really care - but it seems to me that if one does not know very well the touchstones of the canonical literature - such as (but not limited to) the B minor Mass, the Goldbergs, the Art of Fugue, the major Mozart operas and concertos, the Eroica, the Grosse Fuge and the other late Beethoven quartets, Tristan, Meistersinger, and the Ring, Falstaff, the Chopin ballades, the songs of Schubert and Schumann, the chamber music of Brahms and Bartok, La Mer, Le Sacre, Erwartung, Pierrot, Wozzeck - that one is in a less secure position to assess work that is not part of the canon. The core repertoire is not just some arbitrary collection of pieces that some mean person selected in order to keep other worthy music from being heard. Works like those I named are the essence of the art, and if somebody is going to go off on the "Bach is overrated" or "Wagner is a snooze" tangent, then I'm going to fight back.

And that's why if someone who truly does appreciate this core literature says to me, "listen also to Brian, or Pettersson, or Farrenc, or Vorisek," then I am more likely to take that person seriously than I am someone who displays some degree of resentment towards major periods, genres, or composers.

[Mirror Image]

To try to answer Luke, as he has given the most thoughtful response: I can't quantify how "many" people here seem to embody attitudes of resentment towards canonical composers, but (without mentioning names) I can easily remember being told here that Bach wrote "Muzak," that the St. Matthew is "appallingly mundane," Mozart is a "sissy" and Beethoven a "bombastic bore," "I often feel I will go mad if I hear any more Mozart. It just drives me crazy all the Mozart mania and people assuming he was the greatest," "I don't like opera [or chamber music, or piano music, or sacred music, or the moderns, or the Renaissance - take your pick] - and this is just a small sampling. Obviously this is not always a black and white thing. I'm not pretending that the board is rife with a majority of people who are totally out to jettison the accepted canon. But the attitudes quoted above do exist, and if this is not resentment towards some of the most admired names in musical history, then how would you describe it?

I absolutely agree too that there are any number of composers who have been unjustly neglected, and too much emphasis on a small body of names. This is the essential problem with a canon of any sort. Before the turn of the 19th century or so, composers were primarily expected to produce new work, and the idea of preserving a corpus of music for posterity was largely unknown. Now we've gone to the other extreme where new music is often reviled, and what we get are endless performances and recordings of a very limited repertoire always of music of the past (and a very limited past at that, overwhelmingly concentrating on 19th century orchestral music). This is hardly a healthy situation, above all not a good one for living composers, and to that degree it is extremely valuable that we get to hear less familiar names who have much good music to offer.

But to my mind there is a major difference between expanding one's horizons beyond the generally accepted canon and to some degree or other rejecting it. Most of you will not like me for saying this - not that I really care - but it seems to me that if one does not know very well the touchstones of the canonical literature - such as (but not limited to) the B minor Mass, the Goldbergs, the Art of Fugue, the major Mozart operas and concertos, the Eroica, the Grosse Fuge and the other late Beethoven quartets, Tristan, Meistersinger, and the Ring, Falstaff, the Chopin ballades, the songs of Schubert and Schumann, the chamber music of Brahms and Bartok, La Mer, Le Sacre, Erwartung, Pierrot, Wozzeck - that one is in a less secure position to assess work that is not part of the canon. The core repertoire is not just some arbitrary collection of pieces that some mean person selected in order to keep other worthy music from being heard. Works like those I named are the essence of the art, and if somebody is going to go off on the "Bach is overrated" or "Wagner is a snooze" tangent, then I'm going to fight back.

And that's why if someone who truly does appreciate this core literature says to me, "listen also to Brian, or Pettersson, or Farrenc, or Vorisek," then I am more likely to take that person seriously than I am someone who displays some degree of resentment towards major periods, genres, or composers.

I think, in the end, we like what we like. Whether it's from the pen of Bach or Bartok. You may not agree with my stance on this composer or that composer, but I'm not changing my mind about them anytime soon just like if I criticized a composer you enjoy, this shouldn't alter your view of that composer. I think too often in classical music the other person listens to the other person and tries to mold their opinion from everybody else's without forming their own. I hate Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart, but this doesn't, and shouldn't, mean that I don't respect them as composers nor does it mean that I don't recognize their genius and innovations, because I do. What this does mean, however, is that I simply don't enjoy early classical music (from Baroque to Classical eras). I think for anyone to deny these composer's influence would be foolish. There are plenty of people that dislike Beethoven just like there are plenty of people who dislike Janacek.

[Sid]

Well maybe I was setting up a false dichotomy between the "mainstream" and the "fringe" which is a bit ironic since I usually profess to dislike and question "black and white" thinking. But I was reacting more to MI's negative comments regarding Xenakis, Boulez and Stockhausen more than anything else. It's fine to like and appreciate the less mainstream repertoire, but I find little sense in dissing the prime movers and shakers in classical music, be it of the last 50 years or last 500+ years. I agree 110% with Sforzando's comments above regarding the value of the canon - which is of course constantly changing all of the time as our view and assessment of musical history develops.

...And that's why if someone who truly does appreciate this core literature says to me, "listen also to Brian, or Pettersson, or Farrenc, or Vorisek," then I am more likely to take that person seriously than I am someone who displays some degree of resentment towards major periods, genres, or composers.

That's a bit like my acquaintance who completed the composition degree who I was talking about earlier. She's not only familiar with the big names but also some of the lesser known ones who have had some influence in shaping things in music. Eg. I was telling her once that I liked the complexity of Carter and she said "Carter's not complex, Harry Partch is complex!" I then got a recording (or THE recording, as there's only one!) of his Delusion of the Fury, and his music "clicked" with me straight away, it was a good recommendation as any. No matter who's hot or not on these forums, composers like Partch generally get little mention. He was on the fringes for most of his life, but by the time he died in the 1970's, he had achieved cult status, at least on the West coast of the USA. Since then, many other mainstream composers have been highly influenced by him, like Steve Reich. All of his music is performed on the unique instruments that he invented, or reinvented using ancient examples. Even out here in the "colonies" his music has been performed, and I plan to see it live later this year in Sydney (at a concert also featuring other contemporary composers influenced by him).

What I'm saying is that at least being familiar with the big fish in the pond will allow one to understand what the smaller fish were doing as well. Wierd metaphor, I know (I'm not suggesting that the big fish have to eat the little fish!).

Works like those I named are the essence of the art, and if somebody is going to go off on the "Bach is overrated" or "Wagner is a snooze" tangent, then I'm going to fight back.

Yes, some people do tend to rubbish some of the finest composers in the history of music, and unfairly compare them to others. Take Rachmaninov, who is often derided. This composer had an enormous range, composing not only for his own instrument (the piano, of course), but also in the orchestral, chamber, artsong and opera realms. & yet despite all of his considerable achievements, some people put him down to no end. I'd basically put Rachmaninov on par with guys like Stravinsky and Prokofiev, quite easily. Not all of his works were pure gold, but neither were all of those composed by the other two. Rachmaninov carried on the Romantic tradition (later with some "Modern" touches), he was not much different in that regard from someone like Langgaard. & yet I'd hazard a guess that quite a number of members of this forum would put Rachmaninov below Langgaard. It seems like this kind of muddled thinking seems like the fashionable thing to do, but it strikes me as being totally off-track for many reasons...

[Mirror Image]

Yes, some people do tend to rubbish some of the finest composers in the history of music, and unfairly compare them to others. Take Rachmaninov, who is often derided. This composer had an enormous range, composing not only for his own instrument (the piano, of course), but also in the orchestral, chamber, artsong and opera realms. & yet despite all of his considerable achievements, some people put him down to no end. I'd basically put Rachmaninov on par with guys like Stravinsky and Prokofiev, quite easily. Not all of his works were pure gold, but neither were all of those composed by the other two. Rachmaninov carried on the Romantic tradition (later with some "Modern" touches), he was not much different in that regard from someone like Langgaard. & yet I'd hazard a guess that quite a number of members of this forum would put Rachmaninov below Langgaard. It seems like this kind of muddled thinking seems like the fashionable thing to do, but it strikes me as being totally off-track for many reasons...

I like music off the beaten track. I like exploring and finding new composers to listen to and, hopefully, come to appreciate. Only recently has Koechlin's music hit me. I hope that someday you will explore this composer as I think he would be right up your alley. That is, if you can let down your guard long enough to listen to the music.

Re: Rachmaninov

I actually prefer Rachmaninov to Langgaard, but, then again, I think Rachmaninov had more heartfelt things to say musically speaking. Now, I do think Langgaard's neglect is unfortunate as I think he's a very fine composer and has written some notable works like, for example, Music of the Spheres, which predates Ligeti by decades (he composed this work in 1918). I recognize the quality of Rachmaninov's and Langgaard's music. Your attitude lately has surprised me. One minute you're deriding composers who wrote in a late-Romantic style, but now, all of a sudden, you're praising them? Make up your damn mind.

[Luke]

To try to answer Luke, as he has given the most thoughtful response: I can't quantify how "many" people here seem to embody attitudes of resentment towards canonical composers, but (without mentioning names) I can easily remember being told here that Bach wrote "Muzak," that the St. Matthew is "appallingly mundane," Mozart is a "sissy" and Beethoven a "bombastic bore," "I often feel I will go mad if I hear any more Mozart. It just drives me crazy all the Mozart mania and people assuming he was the greatest," "I don't like opera [or chamber music, or piano music, or sacred music, or the moderns, or the Renaissance - take your pick] - and this is just a small sampling. Obviously this is not always a black and white thing. I'm not pretending that the board is rife with a majority of people who are totally out to jettison the accepted canon. But the attitudes quoted above do exist, and if this is not resentment towards some of the most admired names in musical history, then how would you describe it?

I absolutely agree too that there are any number of composers who have been unjustly neglected, and too much emphasis on a small body of names. This is the essential problem with a canon of any sort. Before the turn of the 19th century or so, composers were primarily expected to produce new work, and the idea of preserving a corpus of music for posterity was largely unknown. Now we've gone to the other extreme where new music is often reviled, and what we get are endless performances and recordings of a very limited repertoire always of music of the past (and a very limited past at that, overwhelmingly concentrating on 19th century orchestral music). This is hardly a healthy situation, above all not a good one for living composers, and to that degree it is extremely valuable that we get to hear less familiar names who have much good music to offer.

But to my mind there is a major difference between expanding one's horizons beyond the generally accepted canon and to some degree or other rejecting it. Most of you will not like me for saying this - not that I really care - but it seems to me that if one does not know very well the touchstones of the canonical literature - such as (but not limited to) the B minor Mass, the Goldbergs, the Art of Fugue, the major Mozart operas and concertos, the Eroica, the Grosse Fuge and the other late Beethoven quartets, Tristan, Meistersinger, and the Ring, Falstaff, the Chopin ballades, the songs of Schubert and Schumann, the chamber music of Brahms and Bartok, La Mer, Le Sacre, Erwartung, Pierrot, Wozzeck - that one is in a less secure position to assess work that is not part of the canon. The core repertoire is not just some arbitrary collection of pieces that some mean person selected in order to keep other worthy music from being heard. Works like those I named are the essence of the art, and if somebody is going to go off on the "Bach is overrated" or "Wagner is a snooze" tangent, then I'm going to fight back.

And that's why if someone who truly does appreciate this core literature says to me, "listen also to Brian, or Pettersson, or Farrenc, or Vorisek," then I am more likely to take that person seriously than I am someone who displays some degree of resentment towards major periods, genres, or composers.

Now this I agree with every word of, and thanks for taking the time to write it. Well, almost every word - I still have a little problem with the word 'resentment' characterising those who dismiss Mozart, Beethoven and Bach in the way you describe in your first paragraph. The words arrogance and ignorance float through lightly my mind, but not resentment...

...and before that inflames anyone too much:

- arrogance, because, I'm sorry, but it is a little arrogant to proclaim one's disdain for a Mozart as if a) one's one-listener's-opinion actually matters, or b) one (a bloke on an internet forum) has weighed him (one of the supreme musicians) in the balance and found him wanting. But it's all a matter of attitude and phrasing - I don't think it's arrogant to hold the position, as many more do, 'I know he's one of the greatest, but I don't really get it or enjoy it; my loss I suppose' - and TBH that is the position of the majority of the anti- camp, I think. That's why I always say, when there's discussion of a composer I don't care for much, 'It's probably my fault, it's my loss, I wish I liked them, I hope that one day I do, and I'll keep on trying'.

- ignorance, because, I'm sorry, but if e.g. James feels that Mozart is merely a composer of lightweight trifles then he displays a real ignorance which, I think, does more damage to the credibility of his arguments elsewhere than any amount of Jamesian pffffing. The same holds for dismissal of Beethoven or Bach - there simply aren't any grounds to hold the position that this is bad music, and to suggest that it is only shows ignorance of the music itself. This is not the same as saying one has to like  the music, however.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I still have a little problem with the word 'resentment' characterising those who dismiss Mozart, Beethoven and Bach in the way you describe in your first paragraph.

Sforzando, as he explains, borrows 'resentment' from Harold Bloom (I have (read) several books by him). Perhaps the word is simply not apt for what happens on this board. Bloom uses it for groups trying to establish their own alternative canons, and who resent and envy the prestige accorded to 'the' Canon. I don't see that here on GMG.