Composers you don't get

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Yes, as we found last night.  Notwithstanding the excellence of both the soloist and the BSO, the Violin Concerto is clearly B-grade Dvořák.  Not utterly without interest, and I say this knowing that Dvořák produced a great wealth of A-material.

Wow, I totally disagree with the consensus here, finding it not inferior to his Cello Concerto.

[Elgarian]

Yes, this is the problem with listening to these top composers. No sooner does one listener decide once and for all that Blank's Concerto for Pots and Pans is weak and dull, when up pops another who thinks it's the bees' knees. Worse, both listeners may well find persuasive arguments that suggest their view is the right one. (For a specific example, the Rest of the Critical World seems to regard Mozart's 13th Piano Concerto as uninspired and banal, but it supplied enough interest and inspiration to sustain me, on repeat, through many a sleepless night in hospital a few years ago.)

It would be so much simpler if we restricted our listening to composers who always wrote bad music, I think. Then we could spend all our time laughing at how dull their work is, and at last be secure in the truth of our critical statements.

[Willoughby earl of Itacarius]

Yes, this is the problem with listening to these top composers. No sooner does one listener decide once and for all that Blank's Concerto for Pots and Pans is weak and dull, when up pops another who thinks it's the bees' knees. Worse, both listeners may well find persuasive arguments that suggest their view is the right one. (For a specific example, the Rest of the Critical World seems to regard Mozart's 13th Piano Concerto uninspired and banal, but it supplied enough interest and inspiration to sustain me, on repeat, through many a sleepless night in hospital a few years ago.)

It would be so much simpler if we restricted our listening to composers who always wrote bad music. Then we could spend all our time laughing at how dull their work is, and be secure in the truth of our critical statements.

Agreed!

[mc ukrneal]

Yes, as we found last night.  Notwithstanding the excellence of both the soloist and the BSO, the Violin Concerto is clearly B-grade Dvořák.  Not utterly without interest, and I say this knowing that Dvořák produced a great wealth of A-material.

Yes. Something the reviewers rarely have the guts to say!

A few comments:
1. I don't know what B-grade means nor how to determine what that is. What do you mean and is there an objective way to really determine this?
2. Do you think it is useful to say this?
3. As to reviewers, I detest reviews where they spend time telling me how second-rate or poor the music they are reviewing is. I have seen it quite often too.  In my opinion, this is not their job. I am fine if they make a passing comment (based on some sort of reasoning) that this may not be as enticing as other works from this composer for reasons that then follow (less lyrical, less melodic, tangential structure, etc.). But too many reveiws spend time telling me how wonderful (or poor) a performace is of poor quality music. There is a lot of music I don't like, but my not liking it does not automatically make it inferior.

By the way, this is a pet peeve of mine. I hope I didn't come across too aggressively.

[eyeresist]

I think it's necessary to grade the quality of the work itself, so that we don't subside into a fairyland where everything is wonderful. I mentioned here a couple of years ago, I think, that my exploration of American composers had been hindered by people's apparent lack of discernment. If people talk as though Roy Harris was the equal of Ives, for instance, and I find myself unimpressed with Harris, why would I bother with Ives? Or forum threads in which people ask for good introductory works to a composer, and some nut starts recommending all the juvenilia as unmissable. No-one benefits by this attitude.

[Karl Henning]

A few comments:
1. I don't know what B-grade means nor how to determine what that is. What do you mean and is there an objective way to really determine this?

Well, what it means is, as Edward plainly states, not up at the level of the composer's best works (the plural there is generally significant).

My counterpoint will perforce be, there is no purely objective means of evaluating any music, so the question is not useful.  Is there a purely objective means of laying out why Beethoven's first symphony is not on the same level as his (to make the question really toothsome) eighth symphony?

Per Velimir's protest, there are listeners who will vehemently assert that the Beethoven first is every bit as fine as his ninth.  Now, that is a proposition against which it were useless to suggest any purely objective criteria.

2. Do you think it is useful to say this?

Well, to answer one rhetorical question with another: Is an actual musician's honest opinion ever useful?

[Karl Henning]

I think it's necessary to grade the quality of the work itself, so that we don't subside into a fairyland where everything is wonderful.

Overall, agreed.  We can agree that for practically any music which an accomplished composer can write, there are listeners who will appreciate it.  This does not negate the value of discussing wherein lies the distinction between excellence and that's very good, but . . . .

[mc ukrneal]

I think it's necessary to grade the quality of the work itself, so that we don't subside into a fairyland where everything is wonderful. I mentioned here a couple of years ago, I think, that my exploration of American composers had been hindered by people's apparent lack of discernment. If people talk as though Roy Harris was the equal of Ives, for instance, and I find myself unimpressed with Harris, why would I bother with Ives? Or forum threads in which people ask for good introductory works to a composer, and some nut starts recommending all the juvenilia as unmissable. No-one benefits by this attitude.

I disagree. But also let me be clear, I am not suggesting that on a forum like this (or even at review sites) that we don't state our preferences. The key here is the rationale behind them. Someone telling us that one composer is better than another doesn't add much. Saying Ives is better than Harris is, in my opinion, totally unhelpful (unless there is some sort of understanding, when additional info has already been revealed). Why he is preferred and what is interesting about one or another composer is what is ultimately interesting. And if someone recommends something obscure and provides a logical explanation, I think that is great. Otherwise, many greats we take for granted today would still be unheard (like Ives or Mahler).

The question here is not a lack of discernment, but a difference in priorities and likes. It comes down to the criteria, which are almost never clear. This is true for performances too. I can't tell you how many times someone has said something like ...don't recommend, because it's too bombastic, too loud, too aggressive, etc., which has only fuelled my interest (most of the time), the exact opposite of what the reviewer is concluding.  But if they did not expand upon the logic/reasoning/criteria, I would only know it was not recommended. I might then miss some wonderul performance or music.

To be more blunt, if I followed the advice of some reviewers about the quality of the music, I would have missed some amazing works of music. 

[mc ukrneal]

Well, what it means is, as Edward plainly states, not up at the level of the composer's best works (the plural there is generally significant).

My counterpoint will perforce be, there is no purely objective means of evaluating any music, so the question is not useful.  Is there a purely objective means of laying out why Beethoven's first symphony is not on the same level as his (to make the question really toothsome) eighth symphony?

Per Velimir's protest, there are listeners who will vehemently assert that the Beethoven first is every bit as fine as his ninth.  Now, that is a proposition against which it were useless to suggest any purely objective criteria.

I would disagree a bit. If one provides the reasons, one could show why one thinks that (using this example) Beethoven's first is better than Beethoven's 9th. It would have to include reasonable explanations and discussion. One could accept or reject. But saying Beethoven's 9th is better than his 1st is also different from saying that the first is not up to the level of his 9th. I think it is fairly standard these days for most people to say the ninth is better than the first when they really mean the ninth is preferred over the first. All they know is they like the ninth more.

In the earlier part, I agree that the plural is important. But even more important is the 'why' behind it. There is something that those works are doing that the other one is not. There is some quality there that can be indentified. I think all of these differences can be explained.

Well, to answer one rhetorical question with another: Is an actual musician's honest opinion ever useful?

My question was not entirely rhetorical. The answer to yours is yes and no. It depends on the context.

[Karl Henning]

Certainly it's rhetorical. If even one person finds use for an opinion, it's useful, right? If even one person finds B-grade (and, incidentally, I don't see how I could have phrased my post less abrasively; if such diplomatic expression comes under fire, so much the worse for diplomacy ; ) moving, then it's music right up at the top, isn't it?

Take Telemann (please). (Old stand-up allusion, there.) A call for purely objective criteria as to why JS Bach is a great composer, but Telemann, only a good composer won't settle the matter. To musicians, it's obvious; to an impassioned Telemanniac, no answer will serve.

[mc ukrneal]

Certainly it's rhetorical. If even one person finds use for an opinion, it's useful, right? If even one person finds B-grade (and, incidentally, I don't see how I could have phrased my post less abrasively; if such diplomatic expression comes under fire, so much the worse for diplomacy ; ) moving, then it's music right up at the top, isn't it?

Take Telemann (please). (Old stand-up allusion, there.) A call for purely objective criteria as to why JS Bach is a great composer, but Telemann, only a good composer won't settle the matter. To musicians, it's obvious; to an impassioned Telemanniac, no answer will serve.

If something is obvious, it should be easy to explain, don't you think? Someone who is closed minded is not exactly a useful foil here. And in your example, both groups are presented in a close-minded way - for both sides, the reasons are obvious, because there is no reason. It just is.

As to the other, I don't believe it is useful (using terms like second-tier/grade B, etc.). It doesn't add insight (that I can see), but it does expose the reviewer's thinking. I mean, is there an accepted list of whic composers belong to which tiers? I don't think we could agree on one. And that leads back to why - and that is what I find interesting.

[Karl Henning]

One hardly gets more obvious than the following:

. . . there is no purely objective means of evaluating any music . . . .

Along with my following implication that the Beethoven Op.93 is obviously a better work of music than his Op.21 (which doesn't stop any of us from enjoying the latter).

Something which you have obliged us all by making obvious is:  I can state the obvious, but that does not mean that you won't completely sidestep a point, how obvious soever, which is inconvenient to your viewpoint. Which does not make for a particularly interesting conversation, I don't think.

Speaking of that which exposes the reviewer's thinking, you utterly astonish me by asking for "an accepted list of [which] composers belong to which tiers."  I don't see how you can take part for years in a forum discussing classical music, and say any such thing. Of course, you have wit enough to know that it does not advance the conversation.  So you offer it, what? because it "proves" that all composers are equally good?

Now, if on the other hand, I list a group of composers whom practically anyone would accept for an A-list composer, and another group of composers whom any temperate mind would not object to having listed as beneath that A-list rank: what?  You're going to say that this lstener, or that, finds one or more of those composers especial favorites — so how could they be B-list composers, right?

To conclude, you baffle me even with the disingenuousness of If something is obvious, it should be easy to explain, don't you think? As if all the important (or even basic) musical matters were easy to explain.

But one example (no any intellectually dense example):  A clarinet plays, out of sight perhaps.  To me (to a million musicians) it is obviously a clarinet.  You (perhaps) do not know just from hearing a couple of notes that it is a clarinet.  How does anyone explain that?

[mc ukrneal]

One hardly gets more obvious than the following:

Along with my following implication that the Beethoven Op.93 is obviously a better work of music than his Op.21 (which doesn't stop any of us from enjoying the latter).

Something which you have obliged us all by making obvious is:  I can state the obvious, but that does not mean that you won't completely sidestep a point, how obvious soever, which is inconvenient to your viewpoint. Which does not make for a particularly interesting conversation, I don't think.

Speaking of that which exposes the reviewer's thinking, you utterly astonish me by asking for "an accepted list of [which] composers belong to which tiers."  I don't see how you can take part for years in a forum discussing classical music, and say any such thing. Of course, you have wit enough to know that it does not advance the conversation.  So you offer it, what? because it "proves" that all composers are equally good?

Now, if on the other hand, I list a group of composers whom practically anyone would accept for an A-list composer, and another group of composers whom any temperate mind would not object to having listed as beneath that A-list rank: what?  You're going to say that this lstener, or that, finds one or more of those composers especial favorites — so how could they be B-list composers, right?

To conclude, you baffle me even with the disingenuousness of If something is obvious, it should be easy to explain, don't you think? As if all the important (or even basic) musical matters were easy to explain.

But one example (no any intellectually dense example):  A clarinet plays, out of sight perhaps.  To me (to a million musicians) it is obviously a clarinet.  You (perhaps) do not know just from hearing a couple of notes that it is a clarinet.  How does anyone explain that?

Not sure why you have resorted to insulting and belittling me. You also seem to wish to 'win' the conversation instead of exchanging differences of opinion. You seem to have decided that I am being disingenous and that you know what I am going to say and what I mean better than I myself do (at least, that is what you write). And to think all I was trying to say is that I dislike when reviewers tell me whether a piece or composer are good or not (and whether they are worth my time).

[starrynight]

One thing that annoys me about reviewers is how they sometimes belittle a work by a lesser known composer just because the style reminds them of a famous one.  Just because a composer is little known doesn't mean they might not produce just as enjoyable a piece as a famous one.  Obviously that doesn't mean that the whole output of the lesser known is better than the famous one, but that hardly matters in judging a single work (it shouldn't anyway).

As for Mozart's 13th concerto, I doubt that many say it's a bad work.

And again with Beethoven's 1st and 9th, I doubt many say either are bad.  The first is obviously a piece with very different objectives but that doesn't have to mean it's weaker.

And certainly I think it is good to critically judge pieces.  Consistency of invention isn't that easy and every composer is likely to fall short on some occasion.  Saying all of a particular composer's work is great or bad isn't that helpful in comparing their own works to each other or comparing it to other composers within their style or period.  Some pieces if set against other pieces will eventually fall short, certainly after repeated close comparative listening.  Does it matter?  Well if you want to carefully use your limited time to hear better crafted pieces more often then it probably does.  But it does take time and effort in comparing pieces to work out the more inventive pieces in a style.

[Karl Henning]

One thing that annoys me about reviewers is how they sometimes belittle a work by a lesser known composer just because the style reminds them of a famous one.

Right, though that's not what any of us is talking about w/r/t the Dvořák vn cto.

As for Mozart's 13th concerto, I doubt that many say it's a bad work.

And again with Beethoven's 1st and 9th, I doubt many say either are bad.  The first is obviously a piece with very different objectives but that doesn't have to mean it's weaker.

With all respect, neighbor, if Beethoven walked among us, and if you told him to his face that his first symphony was just as fine a piece as his ninth, I expect a hothead such as he to smack you for belittling the accomplishment of the ninth.

Is it really the suggestion here, that there can be no qualititative difference between a piano concerto which Mozart wrote in 1782 and one which he wrote seven years (and 12 further piano concertos) later?

This is the blindspot in the respectful opposition which baffles me.  The denial that a great artist — even a great artist — benefits from experience, and that his art is apt to wax better over time. And what purpose does this denial serve?  To make us listeners feel better for liking earlier works just as well?  This is what strikes me as the wrong-headed opposed notions. No one here is saying that one shouldn't like the Dvořák vn cto, the Mozart 13th cto, Beethoven's first symphony.

[starrynight]

I wasn't talking about Dvorak. 

But of course a composer will say their latest work is vastly superior to their earlier.  If they didn't they would probably feel they had been wasting time changing their style.  But to me music is an entertainment for the mind and therefore I want a piece to give me enjoyment.  A simpler piece can do this just as much as a more complex longer work.  Is there any point judging a work for not being what it wasn't ever aiming to be?  For the listener I don't think there is.  Simpler pleasures can sometimes suit our mood and be quite powerful, popular music can attest to that.  This isn't to disparage complex ambitious works, but the enjoyment of music can be so much broader than that.  Our minds surely enjoy a variety of styles.  Does ranking something according to complexity really develop our musical tastes?  I'm not sure it would, it would potentially limit our judgement and enjoyment if anything.

[Elgarian]

Is it really the suggestion here, that there can be no qualititative difference between a piano concerto which Mozart wrote in 1782 and one which he wrote seven years (and 12 further piano concertos) later?

I was the one who dragged Mozart's 13th PC into this, so I ought to answer (and also I should respond to starry's doubts about whether informed folks are likely to rubbish a Mozart PC). Anyway, no, I wasn't suggesting that, not at all, Karl. I wasn't actually making any comparisons. (I revel in lots of Mozart's PCs.) I'm just making a claim for my own subjectively perceived value in this particular concerto, against received opinion.

To address starry's point. I have two books on Mozart's PCs. C.M. Girdlestone says, of the 13th (K415 - he calls it the 9th) that 'the piano part is timid'; 'great beauties remain unknown because they lie side by side  with weaknesses and banalities'; 'the work loses itself in conventional virtuosity'. My other 'expert', Arthur Hutchings, considers that 'the first movement fails', being 'filled with pretentious rubble'; the slow movement (which I happen to adore) 'merits no long examination'. etc.

These comments are, presumably, justifiable from a musical analysis point of view, and I'm quite unable to say whether their analysis is correct. I assume that it is. But I listen from a listening point of view, and I find myself wondering whether Messrs Hutchings and Girdlestone ever actually listened to the thing for its own sake without taking it apart? If it is so banal as they say, how did it come about that it sustained such close listening, night after night, as I gave it when lying in hospital - and indeed, since?

I don't want to elevate it to some Superconcerto status relative to others. I don't want to compare it with the others at all. I just want to say that I know from personal experience that this 'banal' piece of music can move and fascinate a human being so much as to help him significantly through difficult circumstances. Hutchings's and Girdlestone's opinions, though noted, seem weirdly irrelevant in the face of that. That's fair comment - isn't it?

[North Star]

Composers, if they're any good, develop and get more individual style at a later age. Beethoven's 1st piano sonata is an excellent work, but I don't believe anyone really thinks it's as good as the 32nd (or the 8th). Usually, when ranking composers pieces, it's important how individual the piece is among the composers opera, and among other composers'.
Complexity is of course most important as a criterion when there is little of it - I don't think anyone would rank Beethoven's late quartets just according to how complex they are, but ranking the 29th piano sonata higher than the 28th based on increased complexity wouldn't be so strange.

[Bulldog]

And to think all I was trying to say is that I dislike when reviewers tell me whether a piece or composer are good or not (and whether they are worth my time).

I would agree concerning reviews of famous works by famous composers.  Let's say the recording is Beethoven's 9th symphony.  Since, through general consensus, both Beethoven and his 9th reside at the top of the heap, it would be a waste of time to critique either.  Also, I think most readers want to know what the reviewer thinks of the performance, not the quality of the work.

Switch to relatively obscure composers/works and the reviewer's mission changes greatly.  These are situations where readers do want to know what the reviewer thinks of the composer and specific works on the recording.  It could be Pierne piano works, Koechlin string quartets, Myaskovsky symphonies, etc. 

As for the quality of Beethoven's 1st symphony vs. his 9th, there is no doubt that the 9th is a huge advancement over the 1st.  A listener might well enjoy the 1st as much or more, but that's personal enjoyment and nothing more.  Anyone who tried to make the argument that the 1st symphony is as masterful and original as the 9th would be engaging in a nut-job endeavor.

[starrynight]

I've read some positive comments about Mozart's 13th PC in the past.  One thing about it's historical critical reputation that would be used against it is probably that pianists have performed it less than some of the others, that has probably blinded some.  I wouldn't say it's one of my own favourites particularly but I can still get some enjoyment out of it.  I think I also read somewhere once that Mozart performed it quite a lot or that it's reception at the time was quite good.  There's an interesting performance of Mozart's 5th PC on youtube with Malcolm Frager btw, that was another piece that Mozart apparently liked performing.  And Mozart's 8th PC is a personal favourite of mine, I have liked it for many years.

It's the job of the reviewers I suppose to pick out the wheat from the chaff, unfortunately they will have their own preferences and biases which will in many cases make them make some extreme comments.

Beethoven's 1st in it's way is arguably as masterful as the 9th, whether it is as original is certainly very much more questionable.  But why should I care about that?  As long as it's original in the sense of not being generic (which it isn't I think) and it gives me enjoyment with what it is aiming for that is all I care about.  Also let's not forget Beethoven was quite an experienced composer by the time he wrote his 1st. 

And repying to Northstar:
"Composers, if they're any good, develop and get more individual style at a later age."

I don't agree, you could get good composers who do some remarkably fresh and accomplished work when younger and lose interest later or try other styles that don't quite work for them.

"when ranking composers pieces"
I'm not too obsessed with ranking, maybe people get too concerned about that.  Of course I can have big favourites and some of those are right at the end of a composer's opus in a style, such as Mozart's 41st or Brahms 4th, but that doesn't mean I have to say they are unquestionably better than Mozart's 34th or Brahms 2nd for instance.  They are simply different kinds of pieces.  Mozart himself was a bit annoyed with Leopold when he was in Paris and found he had not distributed his earlier symphonies.  Mozart still had some pride in his earlier work.

And to me it is about enjoyment, not some assumed historical importance.  When we listen to music we surely live in the moment, it moves us intellectually and emotionally in the way it wishes to if it is a successful piece.