"Unjustly neglected" - Anyone else fed up of this?

[Maestro267]

While the term started out with good intentions, it seems that the marketing men have latched on to this term and turned it into one of those cheap "buzz phrases" they add to promotional material regarding certain composers, and I for one am getting fed up with it. I've learnt now that we can't change the world, that everything will stay as it is. We're never going to get a repeat of the Mahler situation, where he rose from relative obscurity to become a centrepiece of the standard repertoire. Those days are long long gone. The standard repertoire is never going to expand beyond where it lies now. Concert programmers will occasionally throw in something or other from certain composers, but it'll just be a gimmick, nothing more. Or they'll throw in a "courtesy" performance of a female composer's work to say they're "doing their bit" for "diversity" or whatever other buzzword they're using nowadays. But that's all those gestures are. Gimmicks. Fake.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

I agree that "unjustly neglected" is an annoying catch phrase. I mainly find myself annoyed when it is thrown around on this forum. I didn't find anything else in your post that I agree with.

[Florestan]

We're never going to get a repeat of the Mahler situation, where he rose from relative obscurity to become a centrepiece of the standard repertoire. Those days are long long gone. The standard repertoire is never going to expand beyond where it lies now.

Never say never, remember?  How can you tell with such certainty what will happen or not happen in 50 years?

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

Never say never, remember?  How can you tell with such certainty what will happen or not happen in 50 years?

There are at least 6 Martinu symphony cycles out there.  Janacek opera seems to be getting more traction...

[Maestro267]

Recordings mean little in the grand scheme of things. They can just throw one of those out like anything, especially now where they can do recordings of concert performances, so they don't have to book special studio time. The standard repertoire is defined by what gets programmed in the major concert halls by the major symphony orchestras.

[Jo498]

The repertoire has expanded in several directions since the Mahler revival. The most obvious revival (started even earlier but gained in momentum in the 70s and 80s) is baroque and older music, especially baroque opera. And unlike some other revivals this is not only taking place on recordings.
And not exactly a revival but certainly a huge expansion occurred with Shostakovich in the last ca. 25 years. When I wanted to buy a disc with DSCH quartets in the early/mid 1990s, I had about three choices (depending on the store), Borodin, Brodsky and another one. Even with the symphonies there was far less available.

There are lots of smaller revivals, e.g. Zemlinsky was obscure until the 1980s and now the Lyric symphony is frequently recorded and some of the operas regularly staged.

Sure, lots of discoveries are and will be mostly restricted to recordings but this is also better than nothing.

(FWIW I also think that the "unjustly neglected" is overused and trite.)

[Florestan]

The standard repertoire is defined by what gets programmed in the major concert halls by the major symphony orchestras.

The standard repertoire of what, or of whom? What major symphony orchestras program in major concerts is only a fraction of what music lovers worldwide listen to. I dare say that concert-going is not anymore the main factor in shaping the audience's taste. Recordings are probably far more popular, accessible and widespread. As Scarpia pointed out astutely, there are six Martinu cycles, meaning there is a  market for them.

[Florestan]

(FWIW I also think that the "unjustly neglected" is overused and trite.)

It would be much more interesting to discuss the "unjustly celebrated". 

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

Recordings mean little in the grand scheme of things. They can just throw one of those out like anything, especially now where they can do recordings of concert performances, so they don't have to book special studio time. The standard repertoire is defined by what gets programmed in the major concert halls by the major symphony orchestras.

The "majors" and their subscription series have shrunk. Interesting music comes from a variety of sources. You might think computing is in decline if you defined computing as what IBM sells.

[vandermolen]

I prefer the expression 'undeservedly neglected'. I consider that a number of the composers whose music I like are 'undeservedly neglected'. I don't expect others to necessarily agree with me and even my own brother considers some of them 'deservedly neglected'.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

"Undeservedly neglected" still smacks of resentment, to my ear. If people have heard it, they have the right to neglect it without being reproached. The most I am willing to venture is "unknown" or "obscure."

[mc ukrneal]

In answer to your question - No.

[vandermolen]

"Undeservedly neglected" still smacks of resentment, to my ear. If people have heard it, they have the right to neglect it without being reproached. The most I am willing to venture is "unknown" or "obscure."

Oh, I don't see it as resentment - more a belief some composers would have wider appeal if their music was better known. I know that concert promoters tend to stick to famous pieces of classical music but realise that has much to do with economics rather than a conspiracy against the 'undeservedly neglected'.

[aukhawk]

I agree that "unjustly neglected" is an annoying catch phrase. I mainly find myself annoyed when it is thrown around on this forum. I didn't find anything else in your post that I agree with.

(FWIW I also think that the "unjustly neglected" is overused and trite.)

And I feel just the same as above about most uses of the word "great".

[Jo498]

But obviously nothing that is printed, performed or recorded is not strictly speaking "unknown". And obscure applies both to "deservedly" and "undeservedly" obscure.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

But obviously nothing that is printed, performed or recorded is not strictly speaking "unknown". And obscure applies both to "deservedly" and "undeservedly" obscure.

The distinction I am looking for between the sentiments "more people would like it if they would only pay attention" vs "more people would like it if only it was not suppressed by a conspiracy of elitists in conservatories" vs "more people would like it if only they knew about it and had the chance to hear it." I think the third of these is occasionally true.

[Jo498]

I think the "conspiracy theory" is silly. Sure, there are feedback loops and re-inforcing of already established favorites. But they clearly exist among works of well known composers as well. E.g. Tchaikovsky's 2nd piano concerto is comparably obscure which is somewhat understandable but not quite to the actual extent.
I also think the the third option is occasionally true. But this is not always enough to establish a piece. Sure, people would like Tchaikovsky's G major concerto or probably also one by Glazunov or Anton Rubinstein. But this does not mean that audiences would like them enough to be played as frequently as, say Mozart's d minor.

[Roasted Swan]

My sense of this as a performer/conductor/programme planner etc is that broadly speaking audiences simply are not curious.  Hence the popularity of Classic FM etc and their (relatively) tiny playlists with the same repertoire occupying the Top100.  This extends further; when I used to programme music for an amateur orchestra there was little interest in trying (say) Tchaik Symphonies 1-3, only 4-6 were considered.  In part this is with orchestras like that was they want to chalk off "big" repertoire...albeit it badly!  My argument was that there was lots of musical interest in the early symphonies but without the real challenges technically of the later ones (still hard mind...).  No... it was Pathetique or nowt!  Part of the reason I resigned!

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

No amount of exposure would convince me to listen to Tchaikovsky PC2 (let along PC1).

I'm not thinking there are pieces that could become warhorses. Maybe there are pieces that could become known among serious music fans. Sometimes I think there should be as many people interested in Saygun symphonies as Shostakovitch. But they've been recorded, people have had their chance. I'm not going out on a limb to claim they're "undeservedly neglected." I still love those works. I wish they'd get enough buzz to motivate more recordings. Same for Tansman.

[Dima]

Oh, I don't see it as resentment - more a belief some composers would have wider appeal if their music was better known. I know that concert promoters tend to stick to famous pieces of classical music but realise that has much to do with economics rather than a conspiracy against the 'undeservedly neglected'.

In Russia, for example, there are no commercial orchestras - all of them have government support. It is indifferent for them economically what to play, but they still play the same music every year. May be the reason is the stagnancy of musicians (and no stimulus to learn new)?