Most Underrated Composers

[kyjo]

I have Bloch's "Schelomo" and one Langgaard disc (Sinfonia Interna etc.) All the other composers on your list are unknown to me. I listened to Jongen's "pompous" music but didn't get exited. I have been planning to explore Enescu at some point. Currently I am into Liszt.

Well, that's a start! I'd be interested to hear how your Enescu exploration goes when it takes place. The Chandos recordings of his orchestral music are essential listening IMO.

[Parsifal]

I don't think there is such a thing as an 'underrated' composer. They are all pretty much held in the amount of esteem to which they have risen or sunk.

I was going to post something very similar.  There are many composers who I seem to enjoy more than most people do.  Some are quite obscure, some are relatively well known but not generally held in the highest regard.  To claim that these composers are 'underrated' would be to take for granted that my taste is superior, and that to fail to agree with me betrays a lack of sophistication.  That would be pure narcisism.   

[71 dB]

I'd be interested to hear how your Enescu exploration goes when it takes place. The Chandos recordings of his orchestral music are essential listening IMO.

It may take years before it takes place but I'll keep those Chandos recordings in mind, thanks!

[kyjo]

I was going to post something very similar.  There are many composers who I seem to enjoy more than most people do.  Some are quite obscure, some are relatively well known but not generally held in the highest regard.  To claim that these composers are 'underrated' would be to take for granted that my taste is superior, and that to fail to agree with me betrays a lack of sophistication.  That would be pure narcisism.

I'm sorry Scarpia, but you're speaking Greek to me. I don't understand why "underrated" has to be such a dirty word. I thought it simply implied that a composer isn't getting as much recognition as a person believes he/she should receive. What does this have to do with narcissism?

[DavidW]

I take it that Greg meant let's share composers that we enjoy, and other posters might not be listening to.  I don't see the point of having this long drawn out pedantic discussion on the meaning of the word "underrated."

Kyjo, rec me some Alwyn.

[Brian]

Wishing to change the course of this conversation,

I wish to un-change it. It's refreshing to see a sudden outburst of intelligent, insightful discussion that goes past listing of names and inquires into the whole philosophy and appeal of "underrated composers." Naturally Sforzando is to blame for the elevation of the material here. I love amw's post, too.

My journey has taken me across the borderlines of this debate. As a youth* I started my listening career on the "bread and butter" composers: Brahms, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky. Then I arrived at GMG back in 2007, and subscribed to Naxos streaming music. Suddenly I was listening to all the niche new releases and moving into more obscure corners of music by the day: Khachaturian to Kuhlau to Kopylov to Kalliwoda. And other people whose names did not begin with K. I convinced a cellist friend to incorporate compositions by Piatigorsky into her repertoire, introduced my college roommate to Atterberg's symphonies, and liked Ries's piano concertos more than Mozart's.

*though, of course, at 24 I'm still pretty close to being a "youth"

As I've grown to learn more about music, I've become more selective about this stuff, however. (And, incidentally, I've become more involved with the works of Beethoven, Haydn, and Bach.) The truth is, while there is some truly remarkable music which time has forgotten (strongly agree with amw here on history's prejudices), there is also a massive amount of music which time forgot for good reason. And I do think there is a tendency among some listeners - not naming names or questioning anybody's sincerity - to fetishize the forgotten or obscure as ways to show that you're smart or knowledgeable or an especially good music lover.

Can't blame those people. Well, I can, but it is a natural weakness, and one that occurs in every specialty field. "Sure, California zinfandels are great, but have you had some of the red wines that have been coming out of Hungary?" "Pssh, everyone wants a Lamborghini." "I don't really like spaghetti bolognese. I much prefer some pastas they make in Italy but you can't find them here." "Sure, Dickens is good, but nobody gives Wilkie Collins enough credit." "The live bootleg from an appearance in 1964 on Belgian TV is far superior to the famous studio track."*

*this last happens to be my opinion of the Dave Brubeck Quartet's hit "Take Five." Judge for yourself. The Belgian cut is really elevated by Brubeck's own melancholic piano solo, to me.

I don't know what the turning point was for me, if there was one. Increased interest in Beethoven, Haydn, Ravel, and most recently Bach; decreased interest in composers like Svendsen to whom I'd given a lot of time.

My interest in unknown composers is not gone; it's just more selective. I'm starting to apply reasonable rules to unfamiliar works: why are they so unfamiliar? What merit do they have? What caused their obscurity? Would they really work in a concert hall? (David Hurwitz is terrible about this. "It would be a huge hit in the concert halls!" he writes in half his reviews. "No it wouldn't," I almost always say when listening. The exception: Albert Roussel's Suite in F, which really would be a knockout concert opener.) Is Kalliwoda's Fifth Symphony really a forgotten landmark in music history that secretly influenced generations to come, or is it just a pretty entertaining 1840s symphony that fell through the cracks? Is Braga Santos' Second Symphony a moving journey, or an overlong formless trudge? Over the last few months, it has been surprising to see that listening to an unknown work and then disliking it will actually offend people. There can sometimes be a mentality where it's impossible for music to be boring so long as it's tonal.

We could easily get into a debate here about whether quality in art is objective and ever can be. The better point is: we can all agree that some music is good, and some music is less good. We can also agree that some music is held in high esteem and some music isn't. The more I learn about music the more I see those categories lining up. They do not line up perfectly: I still find some repertory staples boring and I still love dearly and praise highly some music which the New York Philharmonic is never going to play. Heck, since Sforzando mentioned Joachim Raff, I enjoy a couple of Raff's symphonies. But to say that every composer who ever took up a pen is underrated simply because he or she is not highly rated, or because his or her music has a couple appealing features, or even because it provides a decent amount of pleasure, is to be indiscriminate in a way that makes serious criticism, discussion, and debate rather difficult.

[kyjo]

I take it that Greg meant let's share composers that we enjoy, and other posters might not be listening to.  I don't see the point of having this long drawn out pedantic discussion on the meaning of the word "underrated."

Kyjo, rec me some Alwyn.

Post of the month right there! Yes, I'd be glad to rec you some Alwyn, David! I would start with these three excellent Chandos discs:

[asin]B000000APK[/asin]

This disc contains some of the most beautiful, heartfelt music composed in the 20th century. Lyra Angelica will take your breath away in its gorgeousness. A truly uplifting disc all-around.

[asin]B000000ASC[/asin]

The Third Symphony is a greatly moving, powerful work, and perhaps Alwyn's masterpiece. It utilizes twelve-tone techniques, but you'd never guess it, such is the sweepingly lyrical power of the music.

[asin]B000000ALW[/asin]

The Fourth Symphony is a stirring, atmospheric work. The Elizabethan Dances are simply delightful.

There are more recordings of Alwyn's music on Chandos, all of which are worth investigating. David Lloyd-Jones has also recorded an Alwyn series for Naxos. At Naxos price, you certainly can't go wrong with Lloyd-Jones' recordings, but Hickox really coaxes that extra ounce of magic out of the music. If you wish to sample Alwyn's music, there's plenty of it on YouTube. Please let me know if you need any further recs!

[kyjo]

I wish to un-change it. It's refreshing to see a sudden outburst of intelligent, insightful pointless, pedantic discussion

Corrected.

[kyjo]

I wish to un-change it. It's refreshing to see a sudden outburst of intelligent, insightful discussion that goes past listing of names and inquires into the whole philosophy and appeal of "underrated composers." Naturally Sforzando is to blame for the elevation of the material here. I love amw's post, too.

My journey has taken me across the borderlines of this debate. As a youth* I started my listening career on the "bread and butter" composers: Brahms, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky. Then I arrived at GMG back in 2007, and subscribed to Naxos streaming music. Suddenly I was listening to all the niche new releases and moving into more obscure corners of music by the day: Khachaturian to Kuhlau to Kopylov to Kalliwoda. And other people whose names did not begin with K. I convinced a cellist friend to incorporate compositions by Piatigorsky into her repertoire, introduced my college roommate to Atterberg's symphonies, and liked Ries's piano concertos more than Mozart's.

*though, of course, at 24 I'm still pretty close to being a "youth"

As I've grown to learn more about music, I've become more selective about this stuff, however. (And, incidentally, I've become more involved with the works of Beethoven, Haydn, and Bach.) The truth is, while there is some truly remarkable music which time has forgotten (strongly agree with amw here on history's prejudices), there is also a massive amount of music which time forgot for good reason. And I do think there is a tendency among some listeners - not naming names or questioning anybody's sincerity - to fetishize the forgotten or obscure as ways to show that you're smart or knowledgeable or an especially good music lover.

Can't blame those people. Well, I can, but it is a natural weakness, and one that occurs in every specialty field. "Sure, California zinfandels are great, but have you had some of the red wines that have been coming out of Hungary?" "Pssh, everyone wants a Lamborghini." "I don't really like spaghetti bolognese. I much prefer some pastas they make in Italy but you can't find them here." "Sure, Dickens is good, but nobody gives Wilkie Collins enough credit." "The live bootleg from an appearance in 1964 on Belgian TV is far superior to the famous studio track."*

*this last happens to be my opinion of the Dave Brubeck Quartet's hit "Take Five." Judge for yourself. The Belgian cut is really elevated by Brubeck's own melancholic piano solo, to me.

I don't know what the turning point was for me, if there was one. Increased interest in Beethoven, Haydn, Ravel, and most recently Bach; decreased interest in composers like Svendsen to whom I'd given a lot of time.

My interest in unknown composers is not gone; it's just more selective. I'm starting to apply reasonable rules to unfamiliar works: why are they so unfamiliar? What merit do they have? What caused their obscurity? Would they really work in a concert hall? (David Hurwitz is terrible about this. "It would be a huge hit in the concert halls!" he writes in half his reviews. "No it wouldn't," I almost always say when listening. The exception: Albert Roussel's Suite in F, which really would be a knockout concert opener.) Is Kalliwoda's Fifth Symphony really a forgotten landmark in music history that secretly influenced generations to come, or is it just a pretty entertaining 1840s symphony that fell through the cracks? Is Braga Santos' Second Symphony a moving journey, or an overlong formless trudge? Over the last few months, it has been surprising to see that listening to an unknown work and then disliking it will actually offend people. There can sometimes be a mentality where it's impossible for music to be boring so long as it's tonal.

We could easily get into a debate here about whether quality in art is objective and ever can be. The better point is: we can all agree that some music is good, and some music is less good. We can also agree that some music is held in high esteem and some music isn't. The more I learn about music the more I see those categories lining up. They do not line up perfectly: I still find some repertory staples boring and I still love dearly and praise highly some music which the New York Philharmonic is never going to play. Heck, since Sforzando mentioned Joachim Raff, I enjoy a couple of Raff's symphonies. But to say that every composer who ever took up a pen is underrated simply because he or she is not highly rated, or because his or her music has a couple appealing features, or even because it provides a decent amount of pleasure, is to be indiscriminate in a way that makes serious criticism, discussion, and debate rather difficult.

Yawn......don't feel like reading all this......

[Gurn Blanston]

Yawn......don't feel like reading all this......

Which probably says way more about you than you would wish to have said. 

[Parsifal]

Yawn......don't feel like reading all this......

Maybe you should read it.  You might learn something.

[Parsifal]

Kyjo, rec me some Alwyn.

When I saw this, the thought occurred to me, "what's the point of asking this, it's identical to searching the keyword "Alwyn" on Amazon.  It's just going to result in a list of the most popular Alwen releases.

I tried it, sure enough, it did, except Amazon interposed a Naxos release.

[71 dB]

I could be exploring lots of new composers and works but why not listen to what I already have, for example Hindemith's Cello Concertos instead?

I think I sampled some Alwyn few years ago, almost bought a Naxos disc but then I changed my mind and bought something else...

Often post war music just doesn't speak to me, it's musical noise I don't want to waste my life on.

I like Michael Torke. Uplifting and fun music! Underrated?

Then there's non-classical music. This year I have explored for example Herbie Hancock (first half of 70's). If you spent your free time exploring Bantock you don't have time to explore Rose Royce. We have to choose.

[Parsifal]

Often post war music just doesn't speak to me, it's musical noise I don't want to waste my life on

I would not characterize Alwyn as typical "post war music."  It's quite tuneful, often with very vivid orchestration and imaginative harmony (if memory serves).  But you can live without it, obviously.  I can related to "new music fatigue" where the incessant discovery of new music makes it difficult to find time to listen to favorite, already known music.

[kyjo]

mmm... this thread should be the reason why 14 of the 16 people on my ignore list just went un-green...autumn garbage cleaning 

You have 16 people on your ignore list?!

[71 dB]

I would not characterize Alwyn as typical "post war music."  It's quite tuneful, often with very vivid orchestration and imaginative harmony (if memory serves).  But you can live without it, obviously.  I can related to "new music fatigue" where the incessant discovery of new music makes it difficult to find time to listen to favorite, already known music.

Sorry, I didn't mean Alwyn is like that.

You have 16 people on your ignore list?!

My reaction too. This is a forum of occasional nasty remarks but 16?!!?

[North Star]

My reaction too. This is a forum of occasional nasty remarks but 16?!!?

Well you can't expect Annie to have enough of them for us all.  0:)

[The new erato]

Yawn......don't feel like reading all this......

Well, your problem. It is something of the most sensible written on this board for a long time.

[kyjo]

Not you, my dear, do not worry  . You are the only Finn I keep  . In my experience (on the contrary to some posters uselessly trying to make a point with knowledge and elitism referrals to people who think they are mathematicians because they have been only looking or exposed to numbers for some time now with the help of internet), those obscurity promoters are more often classical music upstarts than not(if not, most probably they are teenagers with not fully evolved yet brains)... which I don't see the point in wasting a second of my time. Classical music is very valuable and as recently posted great composers and compositions are great for a reason...quality.

Posts like this make me wonder why I even joined GMG in the first place. You need to step out of your little comfort zone of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart and see what riches and variety the classical music world has to offer. I assume you are blocking me, Annie-what do I ever do to you?!

[amw]

When I saw this, the thought occurred to me, "what's the point of asking this, it's identical to searching the keyword "Alwyn" on Amazon.  It's just going to result in a list of the most popular Alwen releases.

Well, it is often more helpful to have the personal opinions of someone (particularly someone whose musical tastes are closer to one's own) than a simple list.

The only Alwyn I've heard is a disc of string quartets (perhaps on Naxos?) with the Razoumovsky Quartet. For me they occupied very similar emotional & musical ground to Tippett's while being less striking and powerful, so I wasn't tempted to explore further, but the playing and sound quality were very good so perhaps you'll be more convinced than I.

Is Kalliwoda's Fifth Symphony really a forgotten landmark in music history that secretly influenced generations to come, or is it just a pretty entertaining 1840s symphony that fell through the cracks?
[...]
I still find some repertory staples boring and I still love dearly and praise highly some music which the New York Philharmonic is never going to play.

I singled out these two remarks because they brought a more detailed example to mind. (Not Kalliwoda, another "missing link" between Beethoven and the Romantics.) I, personally (why does it seem like so many of these posts about "underrated" music are really about the person making the post? Oh well, too late now), prefer Berwald's piano trios to Mendelssohn's. At the same time, I completely understand why Mendelssohn's D minor piano trio is a repertoire staple, whereas Berwald's D minor trio is a curiosity. Mendelssohn's trio is very well written, in a way that (like many of his best works) lends the music a sense of inevitability—that it could have been composed no other way. Every note contributes to a coherent argument, the melodic writing is inspired throughout and the piece includes one of Mendelssohn's most memorable scherzos. Berwald's trio, by contrast, has more of a sense of conscious experimentation, quite eccentric aspects relative to early-19th-century style and it must be admitted that the melodies hardly stick in one's head quite as much. It so happens that I relate better (compositionally and analytically) to the formal and harmonic problems Berwald set for himself, and therefore find the piece more interesting, but I'm not going to complain about how "underrated" Berwald is relative to Mendelssohn. Berwald's work is simply not on a level of quality's with Mendelssohn's—no matter how much more I may enjoy it. It would not make sense for him to be as highly rated.

My reaction too. This is a forum of occasional nasty remarks but 16?!!?

I'm only ignoring 3 or 4 people (I think I may have at one point taken Sean off ignore simply because his posts are often so entertaining one can't help but read them) but can definitely understand the temptation—the forum becomes so much cleaner when one blocks out everyone whose posts are primarily about themselves >.>