Three Composers You Feel To Be Unfairly Neglected

[some guy]

Unfortunately, Copland, Gershwin, Bernstein, Barber, and perhaps John Adams are the only American composers performed with any regularity here. Hanson, Schuman, Harris, Creston, Mennin, Diamond, Persichetti, etc. are virtually ignored.

I'll bet they're not ignored nearly as much as Ignace or Childs or Amacher or Brown or Wolff or Henry, etc.

You can easily test how ignored they are by measuring how difficult it is to supply first names to these.  Your list is easy: Howard, William, Roy, Paul, Peter, David, Vincent. (And I listen to none of these frequently, except for Bill.)

[kyjo]

Kurt Atterberg, Joly Braga Santos, and George Lloyd. (If allowed four I would've also included Howard Hanson.) Three composers who were simply born fifty years too late for their musical styles. Others may use that a criticism but I certainly do not. They continued to write beautiful, melodic, steadfastly tonal music well into the 20th century despite the militant serialist/avant-garde regime of the Darmstadt School and its ilk. Fortunately, the music of these three composers has recently been revived by recordings, but live performances are still very scarce. If given the chance, their immensely appealing music would go down with thunderous applause at any concert hall around the world.

[Andy D.]

Penderecki, Lutoslawski, me

It could be argued certain film composers get unfairly neglected appreciation-wise; Jerry Goldsmith's works were at times easily concert-level and yet maestro Williams gets so many more performances it's ridiculous (to me Goldsmith and Williams are equally phenomenal). Check out Planet of the Apes for some serial-esque and at times outright avante-garde goodness.

Alfred Newman's Robe was so interestingly written (with a clustery choir part that would fit into the art music label with no difficulty) yet again the film score stage is overwhelmingly about Morricone (another extreme great) and the abovementioned Williams.

[relm1]

My vote is definitely for too prolific English composer, Derek Bourgeois (1941-2017).  He held the same post as Gustav Holst as Director of Music at the St. Paul's Girl's school and later director of the National Youth Symphony of Britain.  His music is very much in the English tradition but borrows from 20th century Russian's too.  Other's would include Vyacheslav Ovchinnikov because I like all I've heard and he's impossible to even find a full list of works and Vitezslav Novak because his later symphonies still aren't available. 

[vandermolen]

My vote is definitely for too prolific English composer, Derek Bourgeois (1941-2017).  He held the same post as Gustav Holst as Director of Music at the St. Paul's Girl's school and later director of the National Youth Symphony of Britain.  His music is very much in the English tradition but borrows from 20th century Russian's too.  Other's would include Vyacheslav Ovchinnikov because I like all I've heard and he's impossible to even find a full list of works and Vitezslav Novak because his later symphonies still aren't available.

I know nothing of Bourgeois at all but certainly agree about Ovchinnikov and Novak. I'd be very interested to hear Novak's 'Autumn Symphony' and a new recording of his masterpiece 'The Storm' would be nice. It would be great if Naxos or some other company could release Ovchinnikov's 1st and 2nd symphonies on CD. Wilfred Joseph is another rather neglected symphonist.

[relm1]

I know nothing of Bourgeois at all but certainly agree about Ovchinnikov and Novak. I'd be very interested to hear Novak's 'Autumn Symphony' and a new recording of his masterpiece 'The Storm' would be nice. It would be great if Naxos or some other company could release Ovchinnikov's 1st and 2nd symphonies on CD. Wilfred Joseph is another rather neglected symphonist.

I must remedy that lack of Bourgeois exposure immediately.  It is probably one of his more conservative symphonies but a good introduction nonetheless in that it is very English, from 1988, and very accessible.  His Symphony No. 6.  This is him at his most traditional. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLnAHa2aBmk

His first symphony reminds me of William Walton's first and was composed when he was only 18 years old and at Cambridge where it was premiered by David Wilcocks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS_uE3w5kS4

His last symphony to receive a public performance orchestrally was No. 7 (2002).  After that, he wrote a staggering 116 total!!!!)  All of substantial and diverse quality.  It is too hard to quantify the range and quality of the neglect but there is Mahlerian grandeur, epic Shostakovitch, poignant longing songs of loss, all of which not heard.  His Symphony No. 9 is an amazing two hour epic which includes a massive fugue.  Here is a great retrospective from a few years ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/feb/09/derek-bourgeois-symphonies

This composer's neglect is criminal. 

[relm1]

I will also like to add Alun Hoddinott as my fourth top three unfairly neglected composer.

[vandermolen]

I must remedy that lack of Bourgeois exposure immediately.  It is probably one of his more conservative symphonies but a good introduction nonetheless in that it is very English, from 1988, and very accessible.  His Symphony No. 6.  This is him at his most traditional. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLnAHa2aBmk

His first symphony reminds me of William Walton's first and was composed when he was only 18 years old and at Cambridge where it was premiered by David Wilcocks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS_uE3w5kS4

His last symphony to receive a public performance orchestrally was No. 7 (2002).  After that, he wrote a staggering 116 total!!!!)  All of substantial and diverse quality.  It is too hard to quantify the range and quality of the neglect but there is Mahlerian grandeur, epic Shostakovitch, poignant longing songs of loss, all of which not heard.  His Symphony No. 9 is an amazing two hour epic which includes a massive fugue.  Here is a great retrospective from a few years ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/feb/09/derek-bourgeois-symphonies

This composer's neglect is criminal.

Thanks very much for this update Karim. He is a complete blank in my knowledge. I hope that we get some commercial recordings of his symphonies. That First Symphony does sound waltonian. At least with Hoddinott there are recordings of several of his symphonies and much else besides.

[relm1]

My fifth and sixth top three neglected composer are Ragnar Soderling and Arthur Butterworth.  Would love the rest of their significant output to be available because these northerners do not disappoint.  There is some Sibelius, Shostakovich, and Vaughan Williams in them.  Soderling is still composing and has composed nine symphonies to date.

[Ken B]

I know nothing of Bourgeois at all but certainly agree about Ovchinnikov and Novak. I'd be very interested to hear Novak's 'Autumn Symphony' and a new recording of his masterpiece 'The Storm' would be nice. It would be great if Naxos or some other company could release Ovchinnikov's 1st and 2nd symphonies on CD. Wilfred Joseph is another rather neglected symphonist.

I believe Bourgeois is actually commonly performed— by bands.  I have heard at least two pieces by him in concerts by brass bands.

There is a whole parallel universe of bands. I "discovered" Eric Erwazen. When I mentioned him to a brass bander, he knew the man, and played his music. He is well known in that universe.

[relm1]

I believe Bourgeois is actually commonly performed— by bands.  I have heard at least two pieces by him in concerts by brass bands.

There is a whole parallel universe of bands. I "discovered" Eric Erwazen. When I mentioned him to a brass bander, he knew the man, and played his music. He is well known in that universe.

You make an excellent point.  What to do of symphonically wonderful composers like Johan de Meij and David Maslanka who should be better known but have been relegated to band for practical reasons?  I think that should be no different than substantial composers who had to make their living in commercial settings (Shostakovitch in communist days for example).  Great composers are great composers regardless of the medium.

[Ken B]

You make an excellent point.  What to do of symphonically wonderful composers like Johan de Meij and David Maslanka who should be better known but have been relegated to band for practical reasons?  I think that should be no different than substantial composers who had to make their living in commercial settings (Shostakovitch in communist days for example).  Great composers are great composers regardless of the medium.

I was at a band concert where de Meij conducted. I have heard both his wonderful trombone concerti live (Joe Alessi and Alain Trudel) at different concerts.

[some guy]

...the militant serialist/avant-garde regime of the Darmstadt School and its ilk.

I think the world of music would be substantially improved if this canard would only die.

Certainly the world of classical music discussion forums would be substantially improved.

[kyjo]

I think the world of music would be substantially improved if this canard would only die.

Certainly the world of classical music discussion forums would be substantially improved.

Well, don't forget that William Glock, who served as a BBC Controller of Music from 1959 to 1972, discouraged performances of new music written in a traditional, tonal style and was rumored to have held a "blacklist" of composers who didn't fit his ideals. Pierre Boulez said "Any musician who has not experienced - I do not say understood, but truly experienced - the necessity of dodecaphonic music is USELESS. For his whole work is irrelevant to the needs of his epoch."

[Ken B]

Well, don't forget that William Glock, who served as a BBC Controller of Music from 1959 to 1972, discouraged performances of new music written in a traditional, tonal style and was rumored to have held a "blacklist" of composers who didn't fit his ideals. Pierre Boulez said "Any musician who has not experienced - I do not say understood, but truly experienced - the necessity of dodecaphonic music is USELESS. For his whole work is irrelevant to the needs of his epoch."

Oh facts. You cannot use facts to dispel a canard.

Boulez btw controlled for many years most of the money that France spent on performance art, including music. Unthinkable he used it to push only music he liked. And it's not like he physically disrupted concerts of music he disapproved of. Oh, wait. Scratch that.

[some guy]

Well, don't forget that William Glock, who served as a BBC Controller of Music from 1959 to 1972, discouraged performances of new music written in a traditional, tonal style and was rumored to have held a "blacklist" of composers who didn't fit his ideals. Pierre Boulez said "Any musician who has not experienced - I do not say understood, but truly experienced - the necessity of dodecaphonic music is USELESS. For his whole work is irrelevant to the needs of his epoch."

If only you had read just a little farther in the Wikipedia article.... (Also, it is prudent to acknowledge your sources and particularly to put quotes around words that you present exactly as they were in your source. Even more important is retaining the original import of the source, which, in this case, was not a simple "discouraged" but the very different "was accused of.")

"His obituarist Stephen Plaistow commented that when he took over, 'BBC music was becalmed. I remember Peter Heyworth in the Observer in the 1950s berating the old music division for giving us always the latest cow-and-gate cantata and Cheltenham symphony, but rarely the latest Stravinsky...the thrust of Glock's policy was obvious, and omissions there may have been, but the notion of such a list is absurd.'"

Seems it's an issue of framing. You say he discouraged performances of "new music written in a traditional, tonal style." Others say he encouraged new music that was genuinely new (as opposed to simply "written recently"). Which framing is more accurate?

But before you answer, there's another question to answer that may affect your response to the first question : Had the BBC prior to Glock discouraged new music that deviated from tradition and/or tonality?

[some guy]

Oh facts. You cannot use facts to dispel a canard.

Boulez btw controlled for many years most of the money that France spent on performance art, including music. Unthinkable he used it to push only music he liked. And it's not like he physically disrupted concerts of music he disapproved of. Oh, wait. Scratch that.

Yes, some actual facts would be quite refreshing here....

[ritter]

Oh facts. You cannot use facts to dispel a canard.

Boulez btw controlled for many years most of the money that France spent on performance art, including music. Unthinkable he used it to push only music he liked. And it's not like he physically disrupted concerts of music he disapproved of. Oh, wait. Scratch that.

That's the problem with canards. Wrong facts go unchecked and then are used as absolute proof.

If anyone took the time to look up what was being performed by e.g. the Orchestre de Paris, the Paris Opéra or any other major French musical institution when Boulez allegedly held absolute power, they'd realise how wrong this notion of "suppression" of music Boulez disliked is. Of course, he didn't promote that music in the institutions he himself led (initially, the Domaine Musical—which received no state subsidies, it must be noted—, and later IRCAM and the EIC—created at the behest of Georges Pompidou, who gave the composer-conductor a free hand to act as he saw fit). What do people expect, for Boulez to program, let's say, Henri Sauget—a composer he had no affinity with—at the espace de projection? That's like asking William Christie to perform Stockhausen with Les Arts Florissants. 

The situation in London was not different. Yes, the BBC became a bastion of avantgardism under Glock and Boulez, but there was no dearth of the "other" music at the Royal Opera House, the London orchestras (LSO, Philharmonia, etc.), or even the BBC Proms during those years.

But, of course, it's much easier to blame Boulez for other composers (often of the second or third ranks) not having had wider exposure and lapsed into oblivion, than to look at their music on its own merits (or lack thereof). 

The only known episode of physical disruption of a concert involving Boulez was when Manuel Rosenthal conducted (then) recent Stravinsky works—including one of Igor Fyodorovich's weakest pieces, the Four Norwegian Moods—at the Théâtre des Champs-Elysées in 1946. A group of youngsters—from the circle close to Boulez—started ridiculing the music mid-performance, and their agenda—which doesn't justify their attitude IMO—was to draw attention to the absence of twelve-tone works from concert programs and the risk they perceived of Paris falling back to the "facile" pre-war musical scene (where anything Schoenbergian or—later—Webernian was almost completely absent until the advent of the Domaine). But, it turns out, Pierre Boulez himself—who was 21 years of age at the time—was not in the audience that night.

[Ken B]

That's the problem with canards. Wrong facts go unchecked and then are used as absolute proof.

If anyone took the time to look up what was being performed by e.g. the Orchestre de Paris, the Paris Opéra or any other major French musical institution when Boulez allegedly held absolute power, they'd realise how wrong this notion of "suppression" of music Boulez disliked is. Of course, he didn't promote that music in the institutions he himself led (initially, the Domaine Musical—which received no state subsidies, it must be noted—, and later IRCAM and the EIC—created at the behest of Georges Pompidou, who gave the composer-conductor a free hand to act as he saw fit). What do people expect, for Boulez to program, let's say, Henri Sauget—a composer he had no affinity with—at the salle modulable? That's like asking William Christie to perform Stockhausen with Les Arts Florissants. 

The situation in London was not different. Yes, the BBC became a bastion of avantgardism under Glock and Boulez, but there was no dearth of the "other" music at the Royal Opera House, the London orchestras (LSO, Philharmonia, etc.), or even the BBC Proms during those years.

But, of course, it's much easier to blame Boulez for other composers (often of the second or third ranks) not having had wider exposure and lapsed into oblivion, than to look at their music on its own merits (or lack thereof). 

The only known episode of physical disruption of a concert involving Boulez was when Manuel Rosenthal conducted (then) recent Stravinsky works—including one of Igor Fyodorovich's weakest pieces, the Four Norwegian Moods—at the Théâtre des Champs-Elysées in 1946. A group of youngsters—from the circle close to Boulez—started ridiculing the music mid-performance, and their agenda—which doesn't justify their attitude IMO—was to draw attention to the absence of twelve-tone works from concert programs and the risk they perceived of Paris falling back to the "facile" pre-war musical scene (where anything Schoenbergian or—later—Webernian was almost completely absent until the advent of the Domaine). But, it turns out, Pierre Boulez himself—who was 21 years of age at the time—was not in the audience that night.

I talked about Boulez controlling funding, not "absolute power" — a phrase you made up — over any orchestra.
Otherwise you admit the facts are so, but downplay them.
Your argument is it seems, they didn't exert a complete stranglehold, so therefore they had no effect.

[ritter]

I talked about Boulez controlling funding, not "absolute power" — a phrase you made up — over any orchestra.
Otherwise you admit the facts are so, but downplay them.
Your argument is it seems, they didn't exert a complete stranglehold, so therefore they had no effect.

Pierre Boulez never controlled funding for any Parisian (or French) musical institution beyond his own. I.e. the Orchestre de Paris, the Opéra, the radio orchestra, etc., etc., were funded directly by the competent authorities, and did very well during Boulez's "control" (to use your term).

I'm not downplaying anything, I'm denying a fallacy that has become widespread. That Boulez was outspoken and brash at times is undeniable, but so were many of his predecessors and contemporaries when they defended their aesthetic positions, and that does not turn him or them into musical tyrants or anything of the kind.