Most Underrated Composers

[modUltralaser]

Knowledge being dropped.

[Sammy]

Kyjo:
Nobody is saying that you can't listen to other music before listening to the three B's and co. - what people are saying, though, is that your recommending of other music is going to be thought of as more reliable if you know the 'standards' -

Maybe so, but my primary problem with Kyjo's reliability relates to all the relatively obscure composers and works he gives praise to. 

[Brian]

Maybe so, but my primary problem with Kyjo's reliability relates to all the relatively obscure composers and works he gives praise to.

In the sense that it's a bit like going to the cheese shop and having the guy at the counter telling you that every single cheese in the store is delicious and underrated and remarkable?

[not edward]

In the sense that it's a bit like going to the cheese shop and having the guy at the counter telling you that every single cheese in the store is delicious and underrated and remarkable?

That is part of the problem

If I want to give a piece new to me a proper hearing, I'm going to assume that it won't be giving up all its secrets easily. So the last thing I want to do is to give a work one fairly superficial listening and then make up my mind about it -- what I want is to give it multiple in-depth listens while in a receptive frame of mind and with as few interruptions as possible.

Now I don't know about other people here, but I don't actually have a massive amount of time available for doing this. I've got other hobbies and interests, I've got people to spend time with, and I spend 40 hours a week working. So if I see a list of 20-30 pieces all mentioned without any specific reasons quoted, I'm probably just going to skim-read it and then forget. On the other hand, if I see a short list posted with reasons that I find compelling (or one posted by someone like Luke who I know has quite similar tastes to me) I'm far more likely to make a mental note to track down the works in question.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Well said.  Classical music is a historically aware art form.  The great composers of the 20th century and the not-so-great (unsung, underrated, whatever you want to call them) were very aware of the 'great' music that was written before them and reacted to it.  How can can a person who doesn't bother with Bach appreciate Shostakovich's 24 preludes and fugues, which both pay tribute to and brashly violate Bach's idiom.   How can a person who doesn't bother with Mozart understand why late Stravinsky is described as "neoclassical."  How can a person who doesn't bother with Bach recognize the way Martinu created a "concerto grosso" based on modern techniques?  How can a person who does not bother with Haydn appreciate that Shostakovich's symphony No 9 is a deranged version of Haydn's technique, or that Debussy's non-functional harmony is a conscious repudiation of the technique of the 19th century German school, as descended from Beethoven?  How can someone who is unaware of Couperin understand the source of Ravel's inspiration? 

Maybe you're incapable of suffering the three B's and the other members of the classical canon, and maybe you enjoy 20th century music without them.  But if you aren't aware of the canon you are missing a lot, and your opinions will be a lot less interesting than those of a person with more knowledge.

Certainly. This echoes and clarifies the concepts from Gadamer and T.S. Eliot referred to earlier. I would expand to say that all arts are "historically aware." Consider just for one example how Manet's "Execution of the Emperor Maximilian" from 1867 echoes Goya's "The Third of May 1808" from 1814. Musical examples could be multiplied indefinitely. Kyle I believe likes Bruckner; does he recognize the indebtedness of the slow movement of the Bruckner 7th to some of the huge adagios of Beethoven's last period, like the 9th symphony and the A minor quartet? Bruckner wrote this into the music, and though of course one can listen without awareness of its predecessors, the work acquires a sense of historical context and continuity when one knows its predecessors.

[Brian]

Q. Do you have to be thoroughly grounded in The Big Classics (Beethoven, Bach, etc.) before you listen to anything else?

Certainly not. Everybody starts somewhere. This isn't a music theory class, this is life, and we get to listen to what we want.

Q. Do you have to be thoroughly grounded in The Big Classics before you can fully appreciate anything else?

Sort of. Depends. Certainly it would be hard to argue that knowledge of Beethoven would help you understand Tallis. I also think that, for example, teaching yourself Mozart to be a better listener to Boulez might not be a great use of your time. But in many cases, this is definitely so. Scarpia mentioned some of them: Shostakovich's Ninth is far more interesting if you know Haydn; Shostakovich's Preludes and Fugues are more interesting if you know Bach; Ravel's La valse is arguably more interesting if you've heard Weber's Invitation to the Dance and some stuff by Johann Strauss Jr. If you don't know Rimsky-Korsakov, you're arguably gonna suck at understanding Stravinsky's ballets, and you're certainly not gonna recognize the quotes and outright plagiarisms.

I'm no saint. I listened to Shostakovich's 24 Preludes and Fugues before listening to Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier. And hell, I loved Shosty's 24 P&Fs before ever hearing more than 5-6 of Bach's. There's no shame in that. But I can't pretend to be an expert in the Shosty works. For now, I'm just a guy who likes them a lot. Maybe someday, after spending time with Bach, I will understand Shosty better.

Q. Is listening to The Big Classics more about understanding the music intellectually, or enjoying it better?

It's probably more the former, but it's both. You enjoy understanding connections between music the same way you enjoy, say, seeing a movie get mentioned on Saturday Night Live.

Q. Wait, can you explain this all using movie analogies?

Sure can!

A lot of folks love recent comedies like Anchorman, There's Something About Mary, Rango, Airplane!. Not all of them understand the influence of a classic comedy that influenced all of them: 1968's The Producers.

The Producers looks kinda tame now, since it's been turned into a docile musical, but it busted down all the rules of comedy at the time. Release was restricted to NYC and LA because the subject matter was so inflammatory. Audiences were left bamboozled. My father caught it on TV a few years later, as a teenager, and his reaction was, "what the hell is going on?"

Until The Producers, there had never been a movie in which a character seduced little old ladies and stole their money. There had never been a movie in which a man appeared covered in bird poop. There had been few so blatant gay jokes. There had never been a movie with farts! According to IMDb, only seven movies tagged "sexual fantasy" were made before 1968, and none of them were funny. And, between the end of World War II and that year, only one film, Dr. Strangelove, had made fun of the Nazis. Certainly none had featured a dancing Adolf Hitler.

Do you have to watch the movie because it's historically important? Probably. It would make you a better student of the movies that followed, like Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which outright stole the line "It's only a flesh wound." But there's a better reason to watch The Producers: it's really f*cking funny.

Q. Okay, maybe an analogy wasn't the best idea.

Almost every romantic, late romantic, neo-romantic, and post-romantic symphony originates with Beethoven's Third. At some point, if you're interested in big, personal-but-universal, idiosyncratic symphonies, you've got to hear Beethoven's Third. And if you want to understand the next 150 years of music, you've got to understand Beethoven's Third.

Q. But I don't have to LIKE it.

Heck no you don't. You don't have to like anything; it's a free country. But the point is this: you don't need to know the Big Classics. But if you don't really understand them, you'll never really understand any of the music they inspired. There will be hidden nuggets of cool stuff that is never unlocked for you. And if you don't like them, that sets your taste against the majority of listeners. Doesn't mean you're wrong.

Q. Why can't I just listen to Martinu's concerti grossi without ever hearing Vivaldi's or Corelli's or any of those other old dead guys'?

You can. Go for it. But it's like reading a murder mystery up until the guy dies and then skipping to the last page to find out who did it. You get the end product, but only in part. And it's not as fun!

[Brian]

Kyle I believe likes Bruckner; does he recognize the indebtedness of the slow movement to some of the huge adagios of Beethoven's last period, like the 9th symphony and the A minor quartet? Bruckner wrote this into the music, and though of course one can listen to the Bruckner without awareness of its predecessors, the work acquires a sense of historical context and continuity when one knows its predecessors.

Curse you for saying it better than I did in about 20% of the word count.

[Sammy]

In the sense that it's a bit like going to the cheese shop and having the guy at the counter telling you that every single cheese in the store is delicious and underrated and remarkable?

Exactly.

[not edward]

There's also, I think, a sense in which all music is a game of expectations: setting them up, then either fulfilling or denying them, and, naturally, these expectations are culturally conditioned, not absolute.

Obviously it's going to enhance appreciation of the work if you know what direction(s) the composer is pointing you in. Indeed, I suspect one reason many people seem to take far less to Mozart or Haydn than to the late Romantics is that the average concertgoer these days is likely to be less aware of the predominant musical topoi of the late 18th century than those of 100 years later.

Which isn't to say that one can't appreciate music without being able to spot these sleights of hand: great music works on so many levels that missing a few (as we all do) still leaves so much.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Curse you for saying it better than I did in about 20% of the word count.

Not at all, BGR. That inspired use of an epistrophe ("Almost every . . . originates with Beethoven's Third, etc.") irresistibly reminds me of Irwin's speech opening Act Two of Alan Bennett's "The History Boys," to the point where I wonder if it was a deliberate allusion:

"If you want to learn about Stalin study Henry VIII. If you want to learn about Mrs. Thatcher study Henry VIII. If you want to learn about Hollywood study Henry VIII."

[Brian]

There's also, I think, a sense in which all music is a game of expectations: setting them up, then either fulfilling or denying them, and, naturally, these expectations are culturally conditioned, not absolute.

GREAT point.

Indeed, I suspect one reason many people seem to take far less to Mozart or Haydn than to the late Romantics is that the average concertgoer these days is likely to be less aware of the predominant musical topoi of the late 18th century than those of 100 years later.

Yet ANOTHER great point. Certainly it took me a lot longer, because it took years and years for me to figure out what exactly was so daring or edgy in Mozart or Haydn.

Not at all, BGR. That inspired use of an epistrophe ("Almost every . . . originates with Beethoven's Third, etc.") irresistibly reminds me of Irwin's speech opening Act Two of Alan Bennett's "The History Boys," to the point where I wonder if it was a deliberate allusion:

Hate to disappoint but not only is it not "The History Boys," but I had to look up the word "epistrophe"! Having now seen it defined, I recognize one of my all-time 2 or 3 favorite rhetorical devices, and one I've used a lot over the years.

A maybe more famous example:
Hourly joys be still upon you!
Juno sings her blessings on you. [. . .]
Scarcity and want shall shun you,
Ceres' blessing so is on you.
— Shakespeare, The Tempest (4.1.108-109; 116-17)

[Parsifal]

In the sense that it's a bit like going to the cheese shop and having the guy at the counter telling you that every single cheese in the store is delicious and underrated and remarkable?

Yes, in that sense it is like going to the Teavana shop in any American Shopping Mall. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Hate to disappoint but not only is it not "The History Boys," but I had to look up the word "epistrophe"! Having now seen it defined, I recognize one of my all-time 2 or 3 favorite rhetorical devices, and one I've used a lot over the years.

Of course! Had you been educated in Shakespeare's time, or even Lincoln's, all kinds of rhetorical devices of this kind would have been drummed into you daily ("of the people, by the people, for the people"). Long ago when I was still teaching college English, I taught a lesson on some of these, and I would still do so, as they do a lot to create a mature writing style. My favorite is anadiplosis, which is really tricky to do well.

We're certainly getting far from underrated composers, aren't we?

[modUltralaser]

Well to return to my earlier sidenote is Haydn underrated compared to Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven?

[Brian]

Sforzando - man that's a good one. This also reminds me of the way you chose your username - my confession that I didn't know what Sforzando means. Maybe it's the way of education these days, but I seem to have intuited a lot of concepts in life without ever knowing what they're called.

Well to return to my earlier sidenote is Haydn underrated compared to Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven?

I think I would say yes! And the reason is that the other three are revered almost as gods, untouchable, in some way "Perfect", while Haydn does not receive the same treatment. In a way, that helps Haydn, because treating the other three as statues is doing them a disservice. Treating Haydn as a cheery guy who just had a fun time writing incredibly good music professionally without psychoses, poverty, or Divine Intervention - well, that's no disservice at all, unless it leads certain people to think less of his art.

[Parsifal]

Sforzando - man that's a good one. This also reminds me of the way you chose your username - my confession that I didn't know what Sforzando means. Maybe it's the way of education these days, but I seem to have intuited a lot of concepts in life without ever knowing what they're called.

I think I would say yes! And the reason is that the other three are revered almost as gods, untouchable, in some way "Perfect", while Haydn does not receive the same treatment. In a way, that helps Haydn, because treating the other three as statues is doing them a disservice. Treating Haydn as a cheery guy who just had a fun time writing incredibly good music professionally without psychoses, poverty, or Divine Intervention - well, that's no disservice at all, unless it leads certain people to think less of his art.

Maybe Bach, Mozart, Beethoven are revered as gods in popular culture, but I don't see that as a particularly interesting distinction.  Among people who are truly interested and knowledgeable about classical music, I think Haydn gets his due.  My own view is that Haydn clearly did more to create the style we think of as classical, but Mozart imbued it with an undefinable magic that Haydn didn't quite achieve.  I find it pointless to try to decide which is "better."

[mc ukrneal]

If "melody" is your criterion, do you know the Symphony of Psalms? The Rake's Progress?

The first not so much, but the second I know very well and is one of those exceptions I mentioned. Excellent piece.

[mc ukrneal]

In the sense that it's a bit like going to the cheese shop and having the guy at the counter telling you that every single cheese in the store is delicious and underrated and remarkable?

I love this analogy a lot, but your conclusion is off. In fact, every one of those cheeses is delicious. Whether you like one of them depends on your tastes. And the salesperson will try to guide you according to his/her tastes and/or general experience of others (feedback). It's more or less the same in music.

[mszczuj]

Maybe Bach, Mozart, Beethoven are revered as gods in popular culture, but I don't see that as a particularly interesting distinction.  Among people who are truly interested and knowledgeable about classical music, I think Haydn gets his due.  My own view is that Haydn clearly did more to create the style we think of as classical, but Mozart imbued it with an undefinable magic that Haydn didn't quite achieve.  I find it pointless to try to decide which is "better."

Haydn music is magic, but he is not considered as god so interpreters don't feel obligated to play his works as if they were the most striking events in the history of mankind (the way I think every piece of music should be played). In his later works there is a great amount of wit, inventiveness or scholarship so they can appeal to us played as they are written (the way I think no piece of music should be played), but his earlier works are woven with pure magic (similar to this of Schubert and of Chopin codas but even more primal) and without revealing this they seems only mediocre. And only when we understand how great he was from the very beginning we can really appreciate how great he was at the end of his career.

[The new erato]

I love this analogy a lot, but your conclusion is off. In fact, every one of those cheeses is delicious.

Better that the conclusion than the cheese is off.