Most Underrated Composers

[Brian]

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...

Definitely guilty here: this is the first thing I've heard by Woelfl, and I hope I didn't sound like condemning his entire output rather than just the works at hand. If he's a pianist first, that would explain some of the difficulties of the string quartets. Incidentally, I wasn't listening to the CD Jens heard, or the quartets he heard, but a new release of three world-premiere-recording quartets by none other than the Quatuor Mosaiques! No flaws with the performance (except maybe they weren't convinced either).

Anyway, I like the way you think.

By the way, the German essay in the booklet (Paladino is an Austrian label) says "Woelfl," which confused me because I thought it should be Wölfl. Looking online, it was Wölfl... wonder why an Austrian label would omit the umlaut in the original German...

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

Just last night I was reviewing Zinman's Schubert and wrote something like "This CD is in the unenviable and hard-to-write-about position of being very good, but no better than a dozen other very good recent recordings." There are a lot of reasons journalists rarely say stuff like that. It's hard to write, it's a sucky clip for your portfolio, it sounds dull, it can be construed as damning (I had to then write something like "I really did like it!"), and the reader can often be left thinking something like, "Well why the heck did I read that then?" Everything is stacked against you. And another thing too: I've resolved to be honest about things like this, but saying "it's not great but it's pretty darn good" is getting really freaking boring.

[Gurn Blanston]

Definitely guilty here: this is the first thing I've heard by Woelfl, and I hope I didn't sound like condemning his entire output rather than just the works at hand. If he's a pianist first, that would explain some of the difficulties of the string quartets. Incidentally, I wasn't listening to the CD Jens heard, or the quartets he heard, but a new release of three world-premiere-recording quartets by none other than the Quatuor Mosaiques! No flaws with the performance (except maybe they weren't convinced either).

Anyway, I like the way you think.

By the way, the German essay in the booklet (Paladino is an Austrian label) says "Woelfl," which confused me because I thought it should be Wölfl. Looking online, it was Wölfl... wonder why an Austrian label would omit the umlaut in the original German...

Just last night I was reviewing Zinman's Schubert and wrote something like "This CD is in the unenviable and hard-to-write-about position of being very good, but no better than a dozen other very good recent recordings." There are a lot of reasons journalists rarely say stuff like that. It's hard to write, it's a sucky clip for your portfolio, it sounds dull, it can be construed as damning (I had to then write something like "I really did like it!"), and the reader can often be left thinking something like, "Well why the heck did I read that then?" Everything is stacked against you. And another thing too: I've resolved to be honest about things like this, but saying "it's not great but it's pretty darn good" is getting really freaking boring.

Brian,
Ah, the Mosaiques is it? Haven't heard it anyway, thought it might have been the Authentic SQ.



This is a good representation of Wölfl's work. I quite like this disk, it may not be the greatest piano sonatas ever written, but that crown has already been taken.   It is a fairer representation of his ability anyway.

If that was a translation into English, I have seen this before, the Austrians are aware that English speakers are afraid of accents, so when they translate something they go the whole hog. 'Woe...' is exactly how 'Wö...' translates.

I would hate to be a reviewer. If that sort of situation didn't make you uncomfortable, then you would have slid down to the level of Hurwitz and not even be worth kicking. So I'm glad you are.

[Parsifal]

Just last night I was reviewing Zinman's Schubert and wrote something like "This CD is in the unenviable and hard-to-write-about position of being very good, but no better than a dozen other very good recent recordings." There are a lot of reasons journalists rarely say stuff like that. It's hard to write, it's a sucky clip for your portfolio, it sounds dull, it can be construed as damning (I had to then write something like "I really did like it!"), and the reader can often be left thinking something like, "Well why the heck did I read that then?" Everything is stacked against you. And another thing too: I've resolved to be honest about things like this, but saying "it's not great but it's pretty darn good" is getting really freaking boring.

"This CD is in the unenviable and hard-to-write-about position of being very good, but no better than a dozen other very good recent recordings," is a useless statement, and not just because it doesn't look good in your portfolio.  Whether the recording is "as good" or "better than" another recording is subjective and applies to you.   There is no one-dimensional axis of goodness on which it is useful to rank recordings.  A useful review would have described various more-or-less objective characteristics of the recording (dry or reverberant sound, priminant or recessed brass, winds, strings, percussion, fast or slow, agressive or smooth articulation, historically aware or self-indulgent, etc.   Maybe you did this as well.  I find the "why the heck did I read that then" sentiment is the most common result of reading any review of music.

[Brian]

Maybe you did this as well

Well yeah. I was quoting from memory 20 words out of 400ish...

[Brian]

Brian,
This is a good representation of Wölfl's work. I quite like this disk, it may not be the greatest piano sonatas ever written, but that crown has already been taken.   It is a fairer representation of his ability anyway.

If that was a translation into English, I have seen this before, the Austrians are aware that English speakers are afraid of accents, so when they translate something they go the whole hog. 'Woe...' is exactly how 'Wö...' translates.

Thanks for that CD recommendation! I will give it a try. And I meant that it said "Woelfl," no umlauts, in the original German text! Very weird 

[Karl Henning]

Well, maybe that's right . . . is Goethe without an umlaut correct?

(Though, if our Gurn types Wölfl, I suppose he hath reason.)

[Parsifal]

Well yeah. I was quoting from memory 20 words out of 400ish...

Fair enough.  The last time I decided on which recording to get based on reviews, I was trying to decide between the Karajan, BPO or Solti CSO recording of Beethoven's ninth.

I picked this one:


It was a new release at the time.   

[Gurn Blanston]

And I meant that it said "Woelfl," no umlauts, in the original German text! Very weird 

  Oops. Well, hell, there is no accounting for that!

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, maybe that's right . . . is Goethe without an umlaut correct?

(Though, if our Gurn types Wölfl, I suppose he hath reason.)

It is that way 90% of the time. You're right though, I am hard pressed to recall a Göthe....

[Karl Henning]

I agree 100%.  I rarely pay attention to reviews unless they are of the "this is a new recording" and one by a composer I am interested in.  I ignore the reviewer's opinion and am only interested in the fact that they reported a new recording.

Or, in other facts which the review may bring to light, the reviewer's opinion set aside.

[Henk]

Pécou. Probably the only interesting contemporary composer. At least for me.

[Purusha]

There are no underrated composers, there are only composers that are known, all whom are rated correctly, and unknown composers, who have no rating at all but for the most part are unknown for a reason.

[Ten thumbs]

There are no underrated composers, there are only composers that are known, all whom are rated correctly, and unknown composers, who have no rating at all but for the most part are unknown for a reason.

Yes but the point is that the reason a composer is unknown may have nothing to do with the quality of his/her music. There are certainly unknown composers who ought to be known. When I was young, both Satie and Scriabin were unknown.