A frustration

[Maestro267]

This comment from the Ginastera thread...

Well it's not like Ginastera is a well-known composer and is very much one of those composers existing on the fringe. I mean people who are serious about classical music have heard of him and, depending on their own tastes, have heard at least a few of his works.

...made me think, and I think this is worth a new thread.

We have all this talk about composers on the fringes (and beyond) of the repertoire. What more can we who appreciate these unjustly neglected composers do to move them away from the fringes and closer to the centre of the performing/concert hall repertoire? Will we ever see the kind of renaissance and acceptance into the central repertoire as what happened to Mahler in the 1960s?

Many record companies have done a marvellous job in getting many of these neglected composers and works down on disc, in order for us to judge these works for ourselves. There was a time when the BBC were the judge of what is and what isn't worthy of being in the Repertoire. I lay the blame for the neglect of many great British composers squarely at their feet. However now, with the rise of the Internet, we as individuals are able to discover these composers and find some real gems. But it's still not enough. The idea that "if it's not heard, there's probably a good reason for it (ie. it's not good enough)" is the stupidest, most shallow excuse for the neglect of a composer that it is possible to come up with.

[some guy]

Well, we'll have to disagree about the BBC, but generally, yeah, the situation is frustrating.

I blame Canada. (I'm constantly surprised by how often this reference goes zipping over the ol' heads of its auditors.)

Anyway, the BBC (and Glock in particular) does get a bad rap, and its not even always for what they actually did.

Of course, if you like the people they neglected, of course you be able to indulge your desire, why not?

Anyway, my take on it, which is suggested in your final remark, is that the idea of fringes and centres is what's at fault. And the internet is a great one for tearing down that idea.

What can we as individuals do? Buy their CDs and downloads whenever we can. Get to know our local performing groups and bug the living shit out of the management to play a greater variety of music. Diplomatically, of course.

And start threads on internet forums to encourage everyone to listen more and support more and demand more.

You ask what to do; I say that you're doing it.

[Maestro267]

Anyway, my take on it, which is suggested in your final remark, is that the idea of fringes and centres is what's at fault. And the internet is a great one for tearing down that idea.

I totally agree that the concept of a "standard repertoire" should be done away with, but try convincing every orchestra and concert hall programmer to do that and you have a nigh-on impossible task on your hands.

[Jo498]

One composer who is considerably less "fringey" than 40 years ago must be Zemlinsky.

I have a German record guide from the leat 1970s and Zemlinsky is mentioned but there were hardly any recordings. Now there are probably a half dozen or more of the Lyric symphony, several of all the string quartets and some of the operas are played on stage at least once in a while (I have seen the Florentinische Tragödie and Der Zwerg in Berlin about 10 or 12 years ago).

[(poco) Sforzando]

This comment from the Ginastera thread...

...made me think, and I think this is worth a new thread.

We have all this talk about composers on the fringes (and beyond) of the repertoire. What more can we who appreciate these unjustly neglected composers do to move them away from the fringes and closer to the centre of the performing/concert hall repertoire? Will we ever see the kind of renaissance and acceptance into the central repertoire as what happened to Mahler in the 1960s?

Many record companies have done a marvellous job in getting many of these neglected composers and works down on disc, in order for us to judge these works for ourselves. There was a time when the BBC were the judge of what is and what isn't worthy of being in the Repertoire. I lay the blame for the neglect of many great British composers squarely at their feet. However now, with the rise of the Internet, we as individuals are able to discover these composers and find some real gems. But it's still not enough. The idea that "if it's not heard, there's probably a good reason for it (ie. it's not good enough)" is the stupidest, most shallow excuse for the neglect of a composer that it is possible to come up with.

We have had this kind of discussion numerous times in the past. Fact is, neither the BBC nor Canada has ever had much influence on what forms the center of the performing repertoire. The music that gets performed is first of all the music that performers want to play and that concert promoters think will sell tickets. Just because you consider a composer "unduly neglected" isn't going to persuade a conductor or soloist to put in the hard effort to learn a difficult new work, or an impresario to program a work that is not likely to draw an acceptable box office.

The fact is also that most of us get most of our music these days from recordings, and if a performer and record company take on any of your "neglected" works, then ipso facto these works are no longer neglected so long as the recording is available. And since a lot of music gets uploaded to YouTube and Vimeo these days, all you need is to log in and download the file to have it permanently for yourself.

In short, methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. You are actually in a far better position to experience these so-called fringe composers than you might have been even ten years ago, and your complaints seem to be simply that they are not as yet accepted on a list of what has been thought of as "standard repertoire," and that they aren't performed live before an audience of perhaps 2000 that you may never be a part of. I grant that hearing music well-performed live in an excellent concert hall is an altogether marvelous experience, but who among us has the financial resources or ability to travel in order to hear more than a fraction of what's performed live? In short, be grateful for the paradigm shift that you yourself admit: that is, the opportunity to hear a great deal more "neglected" music than you would have ever heard in decades past.

[Maestro267]

Yes, but I wish for a world where music by the likes of Havergal Brian, George Lloyd and William Alwyn (to name three of the many composers I would call neglected relative to the terms I'm about to explain) gets the same rapturous reception in concert halls around the world as Edward Elgar, Ralph Vaughan Williams and Benjamin Britten (again, to name just three) currently get.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Yes, but I wish for a world where music by the likes of Havergal Brian, George Lloyd and William Alwyn (to name three of the many composers I would call neglected relative to the terms I'm about to explain) gets the same rapturous reception in concert halls around the world as Edward Elgar, Ralph Vaughan Williams and Benjamin Britten (again, to name just three) currently get.

Well, too bad, but it's not going to happen until performers want to play their music. As for your contention that "I totally agree that the concept of a 'standard repertoire' should be done away with," that's the last thing I want to see. The standard repertoire represents a body of work that the culture has considered worth preserving over the centuries, and that I would hope each new child learning about classical music would make an attempt to know. If you want to discover George Lloyd or even Lloyd George be my guest; there are dozens of YouTubes available and you won't have to pay a farthing. But I would hope you have a thorough grounding in Bach, Mozart, Wagner, Stravinsky, et al. who form part of the accepted repertoire as well.

[PerfectWagnerite]

The problem is getting enough people who want to hear Brian, or Lloyd or Alwyn so it is economically feasible for a major symphony orchestra to include it on its program.Ever notice how if there is an unfamiliar or fringe work on the program it is almost always paired with something from the standard repertoire? I would love to hear something like Gliere's 3rd Symphony life but the scale of the work and performing forces required simply make the $$$ not add up. But I can still discover the work in many ways because there are no shortage of recordings of this work.

[Mirror Image]

Who would have thought my comment in the Ginastera thread would spur a whole thread unto itself. The idea of neglected composers used to aggravate me but I've come to my senses and stopped worrying or even caring about why my local orchestra won't program Koechlin's Le bussion ardent Parts I & II or Nystroem's Sinfonia del Mare for example. We're very fortunate to have such a wide and diverse range of recordings to drawn upon and listen to anytime we want. This isn't a substitution for hearing a work live of course, but it's all we have. Like Sforzando mentioned, these neglected composers aren't going to get performed in concert until there are musicians that want to bring them to the concert hall until then we'll be 'air conducting' from our homes.

[Sammy]

Yes, but I wish for a world where music by the likes of Havergal Brian, George Lloyd and William Alwyn (to name three of the many composers I would call neglected relative to the terms I'm about to explain) gets the same rapturous reception in concert halls around the world as Edward Elgar, Ralph Vaughan Williams and Benjamin Britten (again, to name just three) currently get.

That's quite a wish, and it won't come true.  We have to settle for recordings, and that isn't shabby.  Actually, I prefer recordings to live performances, so I'm a happy camper.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Actually, I prefer recordings to live performances, so I'm a happy camper.

I wouldn't go that far, but if it comes to experiencing the Brian Gothic or anything of Koechlin, how often are live performances likely to happen? I have yet to hear any work by either in New York, which is supposedly the epicenter of musical culture in the US, or for that matter much of Elgar or VW either. But you can have your Gothic Symphony for a few dollars or pounds on a little disc that you can play any time in the comfort of your home, while with concerts you have to put up with often inordinate ticket prices, getting to and from the hall, and not knowing if your seat will be satisfactory or your seatmates agreeable. And let's say the unexpected happens and the Brian Gothic comes to NY's Carnegie Hall for one night. The hall seats perhaps 2700, tickets are likely to cost over $100, and how does that help someone in Atlanta or Santa Fe who can't get there?

One of the nicer innovations of late (and I'm talking here about live performance, not "neglected" composers per se) has been satellite transmissions of live events from all over the world. For a small admission fee and a short ride in my car, I can see live theatre from London, ballet from Moscow, and opera from the Met. Last weekend was Madame Butterfly from the Met; this weekend I saw Shakespeare's Coriolanus from London. And that isn't shabby.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Well I do what I can in my own modest way:

Buy recordings;

go to concerts of modern / unusual music (I seldom go to performances of standard works anymore, unless they happen to appear on the same program with the aforementioned modern / unusual works);

spread the word (in person and on sites like this).

That's about all. Does it work? I can't tell, but if enough of us do these things, it makes a difference. Hey, this summer we're getting not one but two performances of Martinu's Epic of Gilgamesh (thank you Carlos Kalmar). I can't imagine anyone staging that only 10-15 years ago.

[Scion7]

. . . I've come to my senses and stopped worrying or even caring about why my local orchestra won't program . . .  Nystroem's (edit - ANYTHING)

That's good because that will never, ever happen.    The sound of the crickets quietly chirping inside the halls of The Omni and its empty parking lot would be ominous!

[Mirror Image]

That's good because that will never, ever happen.    The sound of the crickets quietly chirping inside the halls of The Omni would be ominous!

Not as ominous as those rabies-infested bats. Yikes! Look out!

[Parsifal]

Yes, but I wish for a world where music by the likes of Havergal Brian, George Lloyd and William Alwyn (to name three of the many composers I would call neglected relative to the terms I'm about to explain) gets the same rapturous reception in concert halls around the world as Edward Elgar, Ralph Vaughan Williams and Benjamin Britten (again, to name just three) currently get.

Sounds like you're wishing for a world in which Havergal Brian, George Lloyd and William Alwyn were as talented as Elgar, Vaughan Williams and Britten.

The time available for listening to music and the resources available for performing it are limited. There is a need to be selective. I enjoy Alwyn but Vaughan Williams he aint. Excellent recordings of Alsyn's major works are available, so I see no case for him being "unfairly neglected."

[Florestan]

We have had this kind of discussion numerous times in the past. Fact is, neither the BBC nor Canada has ever had much influence on what forms the center of the performing repertoire. The music that gets performed is first of all the music that performers want to play and that concert promoters think will sell tickets. Just because you consider a composer "unduly neglected" isn't going to persuade a conductor or soloist to put in the hard effort to learn a difficult new work, or an impresario to program a work that is not likely to draw an acceptable box office.

The fact is also that most of us get most of our music these days from recordings, and if a performer and record company take on any of your "neglected" works, then ipso facto these works are no longer neglected so long as the recording is available. And since a lot of music gets uploaded to YouTube and Vimeo these days, all you need is to log in and download the file to have it permanently for yourself.

In short, methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. You are actually in a far better position to experience these so-called fringe composers than you might have been even ten years ago, and your complaints seem to be simply that they are not as yet accepted on a list of what has been thought of as "standard repertoire," and that they aren't performed live before an audience of perhaps 2000 that you may never be a part of. I grant that hearing music well-performed live in an excellent concert hall is an altogether marvelous experience, but who among us has the financial resources or ability to travel in order to hear more than a fraction of what's performed live? In short, be grateful for the paradigm shift that you yourself admit: that is, the opportunity to hear a great deal more "neglected" music than you would have ever heard in decades past.

Amen, brother!

Thank you, Mr. Sforz, for expressing my own thoughts on the issue far more elegantly and eloquently than I could have ever done it.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Sounds like you're wishing for a world in which Havergal Brian, George Lloyd and William Alwyn were as talented as Elgar, Vaughan Williams and Britten.

Well done, Scarps!

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I blame Canada. (I'm constantly surprised by how often this reference goes zipping over the ol' heads of its auditors.)

You and I, we can be mothers against Canada together. Spread the word.

[Maestro267]

Well, too bad, but it's not going to happen until performers want to play their music. As for your contention that "I totally agree that the concept of a 'standard repertoire' should be done away with," that's the last thing I want to see. The standard repertoire represents a body of work that the culture has considered worth preserving over the centuries, and that I would hope each new child learning about classical music would make an attempt to know. If you want to discover George Lloyd or even Lloyd George be my guest; there are dozens of YouTubes available and you won't have to pay a farthing. But I would hope you have a thorough grounding in Bach, Mozart, Wagner, Stravinsky, et al. who form part of the accepted repertoire as well.

I do have a grounding on post-Beethoven. I prefer the glorious colours of the vast late-Romantic/modern orchestra to the tameness of the Classical period or the Baroque, where you only need hear one piece to have heard everything.

[Florestan]

I prefer the glorious colours of the vast late-Romantic/modern orchestra to the tameness of the Classical period or the Baroque, where you only need hear one piece to have heard everything.

The idea that "you only need hear one piece to have heard everything" is the stupidest, most shallow excuse for the neglect of entire eras of music history that it is possible to come up with.