Most Underrated Composers

[Brian]

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.

I'm curious about this. What are the criteria to earn multiple in-depth listens? How do you (or do you) try to make an assessment of "I don't get this" vs. "I dislike this"? To avoid alienating anybody, let's say the music is a pretty poor, uninventive Haydn knock-off, like Joseph Woelfl's string quartets*. What do you listen for, how do you set about evaluating the music's worth, when do you give up?

Hope I'm not coming off rude; I think this is really interesting.

*of course, this being GMG, we do have a Woelfl fan in the house

[Karl Henning]

Good topic/question.

[Brian]

I would not decribe myself a fan, but I detest this kind of comment.  The man may not measure up in your estimation, but he was a decent enough composer for his music to have lasted until now in order that some, yes, rude, poster on an Internet forum could denigrate him.  It smacks of thinking of  composers as products and not people.

Sorry, but I really don't like that kind of comment.

Well let's assume for the sake of argument that there is a poor work of music. Doesn't matter whose. Call it the Symphony by Joe Fakeperson, and again, assume for argument that it is not good. How are you supposed to describe the Symphony by Joe Fakeperson? Are you supposed to censor your opinion of it because it would hurt Mr. Fakeperson's feelings? If a record label records the symphony, does its mere survival justify it? Should anyone criticizing it leave open (as I did!) the possibility that others will like it?

Like my last post, not trying to be rude, but sincerely curious, because your reply seems to indicate that there's really no good way to discuss poor art. To me that's a shame because without the ability to recognize bad art we wouldn't recognize good art.

[not edward]

I'm curious about this. What are the criteria to earn multiple in-depth listens? How do you (or do you) try to make an assessment of "I don't get this" vs. "I dislike this"? To avoid alienating anybody, let's say the music is a pretty poor, uninventive Haydn knock-off, like Joseph Woelfl's string quartets*. What do you listen for, how do you set about evaluating the music's worth, when do you give up?

Hope I'm not coming off rude; I think this is really interesting.

*of course, this being GMG, we do have a Woelfl fan in the house

For me, I think it's almost more the case that, by default, I'm hoping that a work merits multiple in-depth listens. Reasons not to proceed with them would be most likely a judgement call (partially informed by my past listening experience) on my part that the music lacks invention and/or is poorly written, and that it appears to contain little that would be likely to change my judgement with future listens.

Past experience exploring new music has shown me that the works that have stuck with me for years have often been ones that, if I'd been forced to rush into judgement on after one listening, would probably not have earned a particularly favourable review (off the top of my head, examples would include Beethoven's op 127 quartet and the Missa solemnis, Carter's Concerto for Orchestra and Piano Concerto, the Brahms symphonies, a lot of Stravinsky, the Berg Kammerkonzert, Debussy's Jeux, Prokofiev's 7th symphony and so on). This, of course, isn't to say that there aren't many works I've liked straight away and still find powerful and stimulating (Mahler's 9th, Haydn's late quartets, Boulez's Le marteau sans maitre and the late Beethoven sonatas, to name a few).

But essentially (and this is where the Copland quote in my signature comes in), I want to feel that if I'm going to dismiss a work, I know why I'm doing it.

[modUltralaser]

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."

I don't think, at least when it comes to this sort of discussion, that one is striving to rank them in some sort of order. Although, to return to Gadamer and Eliot, we all obviously have some sort of ordering that we think is the most accurate representation. The reason I inquire about Haydn is that there seem to be two camps. There are those that would agree with you, that the Romanticism of Mozart makes him more 'worthy' of note, but I've been coming across more and more literature that seem to assert that placing Bach and Haydn together isn't as crazy as it might seem, especially when it comes to rhetoric and the construction of his string quartets.

The rest are not underrated, IMO.

Richard Nanes is underrated?

[DavidW]

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.

Same here Edward.  Depending on the week I work 40-60 hours, and I split my free time between walking my dog, reading novels, watching movies and listening to music (occasionally photography and origami as well).  That leaves me with only a few hours a week for music listening.  On top of those time constraints I like the major composers more than the "underrated" ones so I end up spending very little each week with non-canon music.  That doesn't make me a snob!  I just don't spend several hours a day listening to music like some of the other posters here.

[Parsifal]

I'm curious about this. What are the criteria to earn multiple in-depth listens? How do you (or do you) try to make an assessment of "I don't get this" vs. "I dislike this"? To avoid alienating anybody, let's say the music is a pretty poor, uninventive Haydn knock-off, like Joseph Woelfl's string quartets*. What do you listen for, how do you set about evaluating the music's worth, when do you give up?

I don't think I owe anything to the composer or his/her music.  I am under no obligation to give any music a "fair" hearing.  Sometimes I listen to an unfamiliar piece of music and think, "I don't get it, but there seems to be something there, it's worth another listen."  Other times, I think, "this is crap, what does the composer think is good about this?"  In the latter case, there are no subsequent listens.  Perhaps it would be injudicious of me to proclaim the music to be worthless after a cursory listen, but I see no reason to subject myself to it again.

An example, Panufnik's Symphony No 8.  Just listened to it (Boston Symphony, Ozawa).  The back cover has the following quote from Fanfare Magazine, "Absolutely the finest orchestral recording ever heard in any format."  Huh?  Personally, I'd put it in the bottom 0.1%, and I hope if I ever come across this disc again I remember not to listen to it.  I've mentally put Panufnik on the list of composers never to listen to again.  But, presumably there are people sent into transports of ecstasy by this stuff.

[asin]B0000666BF[/asin]

[The new erato]

The back cover has the following quote from Fanfare Magazin, "Absolutely the finest orchestral recording ever heard in any format." 

Hyperbole like this - whatever the facts of it - is why I've stopped listening to (reading) musical journalists.

[Sergeant Rock]

...let's say the music is a pretty poor, uninventive Haydn knock-off, like Joseph Woelfl's string quartets

That's the kind of comment that makes me hit the buy button at Amazon 


Sarge

[Parsifal]

That's the kind of comment that makes me hit the buy button at Amazon 

That, or a 1 star rating from that cretin, "Santa Fe Listener."

[Karl Henning]

I think trying to find objective criteria is a dodgy enterprise, and I fall back on the test of time as the best arbiter of greatness.

If the test of time is not purely objective, it is a workable amalgam of subjective and objective.

[Karl Henning]

Hyperbole like this - whatever the facts of it - is why I've stopped listening to (reading) musical journalists.

I mean . . . who can write that sort of thing?  What are they thinking?

[The new erato]

I mean . . . who can write that sort of thing?

Lots of them.

What are they thinking?

You don't need to think to write.

[(poco) Sforzando]

An example, Panufnik's Symphony No 8.  Just listened to it (Boston Symphony, Ozawa).  The back cover has the following quote from Fanfare Magazine, "Absolutely the finest orchestral recording ever heard in any format."  Huh?  Personally, I'd put it in the bottom 0.1% . . . .

I'm surprised you rate it so high.

[DavidW]

If the test of time is not purely objective, it is a workable amalgam of subjective and objective.

Just don't fall into the trap of thinking that even a trace amount of subjectivity takes away all objectivity.  I agree with SA.  If generations after a composer has passed away there are people interested in performing and/or listening to that composer, there must be something to his or her music.

[Karl Henning]

I would agree, but I think the objective qualities are mostly intangible and difficult to identify or measure.

Indeed.

Just don't fall into the trap of thinking that even a trace amount of subjectivity takes away all objectivity.

Exactly!

[DavidW]

Indeed.

Exactly!

The English profs at my school hate it when students think that all opinions are equal because they are not facts!   The students then suffer when their essays are torn apart for not having logical, well supported arguments.  Those silly billies!

[Gurn Blanston]

Just don't fall into the trap of thinking that even a trace amount of subjectivity takes away all objectivity.  I agree with SA.  If generations after a composer has passed away there are people interested in performing and/or listening to that composer, there must be something to his or her music.

To relate the practical at hand to the theoretical in this case; Wölfl is first and foremost a composer for the piano.  I think in this case that recording his string quartets, which are not only far less interesting than his piano works, but in this instance are not well-performed either, should not be a cause to condemn him overall. He was a friend and contemporary of Beethoven who had a high respect for his pianism, something that was a pretty rare commodity!  Perhaps that is the key to dealing with the less famous; take the trouble to find out what they were good at and listen to that. Even the greats wrote some clunkers that people don't listen to more than once, but you don't judge Beethoven by Der Glorreiche Augenblick, so why judge Wölfl by his string quartets? Just a thought...

[Karl Henning]

Right . . . condemn Chopin for an average cello sonata, will you?

[Parsifal]

Right . . . condemn Chopin for an average cello sonata, will you?

  The Cello Sonata is one of the best things he wrote, IMO.