Here is your chance to list the composers whom you consider to be undeservedly neglected.
Here are mine (or today's list anyway!):
J Braga Santos
Richard Arnell
Eduard Tubin
Stanley Bate (on basis of his Third Symphony)
Miaskovsky
Howard Hanson
Kurt Atterberg: if you like dramatic, well-crafted, full-blown Romantic symphonies with big tunes, listen to him ASAP. A number of his works could easily become core repertoire pieces if only they got put out in front of the public. They sound like soundtracks for some imaginary epic adventure or fantasy films.
Bax: sure, he's well known to hardcore fans of early 20th-century British music (i.e., just about all of us on this forum :) ) but he doesn't get recorded or performed (afaik) that much, considering the quality and scope of his work
Boccherini: a delightful Classicist with Romantic leanings. At least Brilliant and CPO have done something to address the enormous gaps in his discography.
Vitezslav Novak: Czech warmth wedded to the Late Romantic opulence of Mahler, Strauss, Zemlinsky et al.
Allan Pettersson: a very tough, uncompromising--and powerful--symphonist. Even his most accessible and tuneful works, like symphonies 7 and 8, demand some work from the listener, but they're worth the extra effort.
Antonio Rosetti: one of many Classical composers (Kraus, Vanhal, et al.) who deserve more time in the spotlight. Mozart and Haydn weren't the only good composers in the world during the late 18th century.
Quote from: Grazioso on November 07, 2010, 04:24:01 AM
Kurt Atterberg: if you like dramatic, well-crafted, full-blown Romantic symphonies with big tunes, listen to him ASAP. A number of his works could easily become core repertoire pieces if only they got put out in front of the public. They sound like soundtracks for some imaginary epic adventure or fantasy films.
Bax: sure, he's well known to hardcore fans of early 20th-century British music (i.e., just about all of us on this forum :) ) but he doesn't get recorded or performed (afaik) that much, considering the quality and scope of his work
Boccherini: a delightful Classicist with Romantic leanings. At least Brilliant and CPO have done something to address the enormous gaps in his discography.
Vitezslav Novak: Czech warmth wedded to the Late Romantic opulence of Mahler, Strauss, Zemlinsky et al.
Allan Pettersson: a very tough, uncompromising--and powerful--symphonist. Even his most accessible and tuneful works, like symphonies 7 and 8, demand some work from the listener, but they're worth the extra effort.
Antonio Rosetti: one of many Classical composers (Kraus, Vanhal, et al.) who deserve more time in the spotlight. Mozart and Haydn weren't the only good composers in the world during the late 18th century.
Totally agree about Novak - regret not including him myself. 'The Storm' is a magnificent work which after epic tribulations achieves a majestic catharsis at the end. I consider Pettersson's Violin Concerto No 2 to be the greatest 20th Century violin concerto. Bax is another fine choice - I recently visited The White Horse pub in Storrington whare Bax lived for the last part of his life. Apart from a plaque on the pub there is depressingly little evidence of his time there - a couple of framed cartoons of him and a framed copy of some piano music.
Bantock recordings are thin on the ground, but things are slowly getting better.
Ireland very neglected, why don't people record him more?, and in the concert hall too.
Sor a very neglected Composer, maybe it's because he has a lot of Guitar works, and for some strange reason the Guitar hasn't seeped into the Classical consciousness like the piano.
Szymanowski still underrated, but things are certainly getting better here.
Alkan why is he so underrated?.
Finzi maybe it's because his output is so small, but his works have quality stamped all over them.
Quote from: Octo_Russ on November 07, 2010, 08:48:35 AM
Bantock recordings are thin on the ground, but things are slowly getting better.
Ireland very neglected, why don't people record him more?, and in the concert hall too.
Sor a very neglected Composer, maybe it's because he has a lot of Guitar works, and for some strange reason the Guitar hasn't seeped into the Classical consciousness like the piano.
Szymanowski still underrated, but things are certainly getting better here.
Alkan why is he so underrated?.
Finzi maybe it's because his output is so small, but his works have quality stamped all over them.
Nearly chose Bantock myself (love the Celtic , Pagan and Hebriddean symphonies) - am a fan of Ireland too - especially Mai Dun and Legend.
Six undeservedly neglected composers? Sure I've got a few on my mind.
1. Frederick Delius
2. William Alwyn
3. Edmund Rubbra
4. Karol Szymanowski
5. Alberic Magnard
6. Walter Piston
1. Havergal Brian
2. Havergal Brian
3. Havergal Brian
4. Havergal Brian
5. Havergal Brian
6. Franz Schmidt
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on November 07, 2010, 03:35:31 PM
1. Havergal Brian
2. Havergal Brian
3. Havergal Brian
4. Havergal Brian
5. Havergal Brian
6. Franz Schmidt
Sarge
:P
Havergal Brian and Franz Schmidt are definitely underrated. I find Schmidt the more appealing composer. As I mentioned on another thread, I think his
Symphony No. 4 is one of the masterpieces of the entire orchestral genre. The only Brian work I like of his (right now) is his
Symphony No. 1 "The Gothic." I really need to go back to relisten to some of his music.
Roberto Gerhard
Ingvar Lidholm
Bruno Maderna
Beatriz Ferreyra
Christine Groult
Pril Smiley
I wouldn't have thought any of the people mentioned so far could be called neglected. Except maybe for Antonio Rosetti and Stanley Bate. Hanson isn't played so much any more, not sure that that's undeserved, though. But many of these have seen an upsurge in recordings since CD days. Gerhard, on my list, has gone through two recorded phases, a spate of LPs then nothing. A slightly larger spate of CDs. Then nothing. A couple of new CDs have come out recently of Maderna's music, which could very easily reinstate his status. Those new CDs have certainly made me rethink his value.
Given those CDs, I could easily agree to replacing Maderna with Gilbert Amy, whose neglect is nothing short of appalling.
I also think it would be better if our lists had more living composers on them. If you stop neglecting Antonio Rosetti, who would care? Not Rosetti, that's for sure! But if you stop neglecting Ingvar Lidholm, he might notice that and give a little grin. ;D
Quote from: some guy on November 07, 2010, 04:22:05 PM
I also think it would be better if our lists had more living composers on them. If you stop neglecting Antonio Rosetti, who would care? Not Rosetti, that's for sure! But if you stop neglecting Ingvar Lidholm, he might notice that and give a little grin. ;D
That's a lovely picture you paint ;D
....but you know we only have so much attention that we can focus on living composers. Making Ingvar Lidholm grin might make John Adams cry... :o
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on November 07, 2010, 03:35:31 PM
1. Havergal Brian
2. Havergal Brian
3. Havergal Brian
4. Havergal Brian
5. Havergal Brian
6. Franz Schmidt
Sarge
How about Havergal Brian? :D
1. Klaus Egge
2. Hilding Rosenberg
3. Gøsta Nystrøm
4. Einar Englund
5. Hermann Koppel
6. Ludvig Irgens Jensen
I had to think a bit about this one, but here would be my 6:
Norbert Burgmuller - Outstanding music. No idea why he isn't better known. A real find for me, and I listen to his music often.
Carl Czerny - Should be better known. He wrote many works, but so few are actually available on disc.
Franz Xaver Richter - I bought the Grandes Symphonies series on Naxos - Wow! These are at least as good as anything written by anyone from that period (18th century, though these were written in 1744 according to what I could find). Apparently he worte 80 symphonies more, only a small number of which can be found on disc.
Anton Arensky - Some wonderful music. I love the symphonies, but he's written chamber pieces, choral, solo, etc... Well worth exploring
Sergei Bortkiewicz - very engaging style and lovely music.
Jacques Offenbach -Some might argue that he is already known, but this guy wrote nearly 100 operettas and I estimate that at least 2/3 of them are either unavailable or have never been recorded!!! Thus - underappreciated. I myself have 16+ different operas/operettas, and that has not been so easy to assemble.
How 'neglected' are these guys really? Well, there certianly those that are more so, but still I felt these guys do not get the attention they should.
Quote from: some guy on November 07, 2010, 04:22:05 PM
I also think it would be better if our lists had more living composers on them. If you stop neglecting Antonio Rosetti, who would care? Not Rosetti, that's for sure! But if you stop neglecting Ingvar Lidholm, he might notice that and give a little grin. ;D
I'm all for supporting good contemporary composers, but classical music is of course broader than that. History lives in our special corner of the musical world. Rediscovering and performing/recording a composer who died centuries ago is just as important as recording some living twenty-something, provided the music of the former warrants it. And personally, the aesthetic of the Classicists and early Romantics appeals greatly to me, so bring them on... :)
Quote from: Octo_Russ on November 07, 2010, 08:48:35 AM
Bantock recordings are thin on the ground, but things are slowly getting better.
On the bright side, Hyperion now offers a box set of its Bantock recordings.
One of the big problems with the scarcity of multiple recordings for the "lesser" British composers is that Maestros Handley and Hickox, two of the greatest champions of British music, both passed away in 2008. (Just about every available Bantock recording was conducted by Handley.) That void needs to be filled pronto. Some interesting thoughts on the matter:
http://www.musicweb-international.com/bax/editorial.htm
Quote from: vandermolen on November 08, 2010, 12:30:01 AM
How about Havergal Brian? :D
From what I've heard of his work, the more neglect, the better. ;D
Quote from: Octo_Russ on November 07, 2010, 08:48:35 AM
Alkan why is he so underrated?
Perhaps he has simply been unknown. Hamelin's championship of his music on Hyperion will hopefully start to set that to rights.
Schoeck and maybe Brian are the only ones I can really think of. But both have a lot of recordings so I'm not complaining too much.
Quote from: Grazioso on November 08, 2010, 03:54:57 AM
I'm all for supporting good contemporary composers, but classical music is of course broader than that. History lives in our special corner of the musical world. Rediscovering and performing/recording a composer who died centuries ago is just as important as recording some living twenty-something, provided the music of the former warrants it. And personally, the aesthetic of the Classicists and early Romantics appeals greatly to me, so bring them on... :)
And I believe that my point was something like this: I'm all for supporting music from the past, but classical music is broader than just the past.
And I wouldn't hedge, either. Recording some living twenty-something is more important than rediscovering and performing/recording a composer who died centuries ago, regardless of warrant. (For each listener warrant and goodness are both things that come
after* the listening experience, not before, even for older music that many other people have listened to already.)
Personally, the aesthetics of all the eras appeals to me, but the aesthetics of my own time even more. After all, this time is the time I'm alive in. This time is the one in which there are composers who are also alive, so not only people whose music you can listen to but who you can hang out with, drinking, laughing, swapping off-color stories, even making sweet love down by the fire. (My last girl friend was a composer.) Because all of life is broader than just the music part of it!! ;D
*Or during, from time to time.
Quote from: some guy on November 08, 2010, 09:05:48 AMAnd I wouldn't hedge, either. Recording some living twenty-something is more important that rediscovering and performing/recording a composer who died centuries ago, regardless of warrant. (
Quite so. That centuries old forgotten music has been written, regardless of whether the Berlin Philharmonic records it. The music of today won't get written unless there are performers to perform it.
Quote from: some guy on November 08, 2010, 09:05:48 AM
And I believe that my point was something like this: I'm all for supporting music from the past, but classical music is broader than just the past.
And I wouldn't hedge, either. Recording some living twenty-something is more important that rediscovering and performing/recording a composer who died centuries ago, regardless of warrant. (For each listener warrant and goodness are both things that come after* the listening experience, not before, even for older music that many other people have listened to already.)
Personally, the aesthetics of all the eras appeals to me, but the aesthetics of my own time even more. After all, this time is the time I'm alive in. This time is the one in which there are composers who are also alive, so not only people whose music you can listen to but who you can hang out with, drinking, laughing, swapping off-color stories, even making sweet love down by the fire. (My last girl friend was a composer.) Because all of life is broader than just the music part of it!! ;D
One of the best posts I've seen on any site. Could not agree more. And of course it has much borader applications, which I've just begun to try and inculcate.
Quote from: erato on November 08, 2010, 12:31:57 AM
1. Klaus Egge
2. Hilding Rosenberg
3. Gøsta Nystrøm
4. Einar Englund
5. Hermann Koppel
6. Ludvig Irgens Jensen
What a great list! Rosenberg is a very good choice as I can't see why BIS have produced complete cycles for Vagn Holmboe and Tubin and not for the equally deserving Rosenberg, whose 2nd, 3rd and 6th symphonies are wonderfully inpiriting scores which convey a great sense of the power of nature IMHO. Klaus Egge's First Symphony can stand alongside Walton's First and his Piano Concerto No 2 is also first rate - he wrote a beautiful String Quartet (on Naxos) - one of the very few CDs of mine my wife also enjoyed Nysroem I'm just discovering and Englund's Second Symphony also conveys a sense of the power of nature.
I guess we can add Frank Martin to that list of undeservedly neglected composers. :)
Depends on what you mean by "undeservedly neglected." I'd say that Beethoven's late quartets are not that well known by the majority of even classical listeners. Anyhow, I'm not that up on the more obscure composers (haven't heard a single thing from most of those mentioned earlier), but here are six that came to mind:
Barraque (a contemporary of Boulez, but he died young leaving us with just a handful of excellent works, from what I've read. I heard part of his epic sonata on youtube, and it is amazing)
Roslavets (the "Russian Schoenberg" who was made a nonentity by the Soviets for daring to write atonal music at a time that Socialist Realism was highly in vogue)
Kurtag (one of the major composers coming out of Eastern Europe in the last 50 years, but not many here have heard of him. Even I have only heard one of his works, and it was on a documentary with Simon Rattle)
Richard Meale (recently departed major Australian composer who did some really interesting stuff in his younger days, but got a bit more conservative in his later years. His earlier works are probably the best. The opera Voss stands midway between his more radical and conservative styles)
Ornstein (he lived for more than 100 years and his works stretch from the Romantic to the post-modern, he was consistently inconsistent as regards style. It's hard to categorise him & I can understand why audiences even today would be baffled by some of the stuff that came from his pen)
Cowell (his use of tone clusters influenced Bartok, and he was deeply admired by guys like Berg)
Quote from: Sid on November 08, 2010, 09:23:18 PMI'm not that up on the more obscure composers (haven't heard a single thing from most of those mentioned earlier)
Well, we'll just have to do something about then won't we? ;)
For the piano (in order of birth):
1. York Bowen. Style and nationality seem to have conspired against him.
2. Alexei Stanchinsky. Difficult to assess, as he managed to destroy most of what he wrote himself, but what remains is of the highest quality in the vein of Scriabin.
5. Anatoly Alexandrov. 2 symphonies, 14 sonatas +++. Is there room only for Shosty & Prokofiev?
5. Miloslav Kabeláč. Perhaps a victim of politics in communist era Czechosolvakia. Symphonies, songs, choral works. I only wish there were more piano. Happily, Baerenreiter Praha is at last slowly producing a complete edition of his works, so there is hope yet.
5. Boris Goltz. Died in the siege of Leningrad in his late 20s, leaving behind 24 preludes, one scherzo and, rumour has it, a piano concerto. So what there is is only about 50 minutes, but it's 50 very good minutes.
5. Ronald Stevenson. Still going at 82, though in somewhat frail health today. The Passacaglia on DSCH remains the longest single movement work in the literature, I believe.
6. Hans Otte. Not to be mistaken for minimalists in the vein of Glass & Reich, he plainly listened to every note, rather than merely setting processes in train.
Have to agree that Cowell, Bortkiewitz and Roslavets are worthy contenders, though they wouldn't squeeze into my top 6. Grainger might have made it a few years ago, but Chandos has been busy overexposing him.
When do we run the 6 undeservedly well-known composers?
Quote from: k-k-k-kenny on November 11, 2010, 02:59:31 AM
When do we run the 6 undeservedly well-known composers?
That would be a blood bath. Best keep that can of worms unopened, preferably buried under ten feet of concrete deep within a mountain somewhere off the map...
I guess so - 6 ain't nearly enough
Many of the above mentioned composers have been well served in the digital era in recordings (Bax, Alkan, Tubin, etc.). But that has not translated into more LIVE performances. Maybe that will be the way for a while. In my experience, the people who buy recordings, and I don't mean once in a blue moon, are not the same population as most of the concert-going public. That is unlikely to chance much either.
Quote from: springrite on November 11, 2010, 04:33:59 AM
Many of the above mentioned composers have been well served in the digital era in recordings (Bax, Alkan, Tubin, etc.). But that has not translated into more LIVE performances. Maybe that will be the way for a while. In my experience, the people who buy recordings, and I don't mean once in a blue moon, are not the same population as most of the concert-going public. That is unlikely to chance much either.
Absolutely correct I think for the most part. There are certain market forces and contingencies of practicability and sensibility that preclude the regular performance of many many pieces and entire oeuvres even - live music can not and will never be as varied as our own listening habits on this board. It's not even worth being sad about. I see live performances as a very different thing - a chance to
feel the incomparable sound of music being created live in front of your eyes in real space, never to "learn" a piece of music.
A quick try (my first one 8)):
1. Stanley Bate (discovery of the kind I didn't imagine could still be made - I only did last week :o :o :o)
2. Arnold Cooke (another recent discovery; perhaps the finest neoclassicst I know of.)
3. Léon Orthel (he's Dutch, isn't he :D)
4. Einar Englund
5. Ludvig Irgens Jensen
6. Havergal Brian - of course. Just one of the really Great. ;D
I know I mentioned Schoeck and Brian, but I think actually Enescu is probably the most underrated composer. I've never met anyone who is very familiar with his oeuvre who doesn't agree.
Quote from: Guido. on February 27, 2011, 01:40:30 AM
I know I mentioned Schoeck and Brian, but I think actually Enescu is probably the most underrated composer. I've never met anyone who is very familiar with his oeuvre who doesn't agree.
He's high on that list yes. I've just played the new disc of his Piano quartets on cpo. Great stuff, like Faure on speed.
There exists a whole class of undeservedly neglected composers who have been neglected for one reason alone, that they were women. Here are six excellent contenders:
Two of the greatest composers of lieder:
Fanny Mendelssohn-Hensel
Josephine Lang
A fine symphonist and composer of chamber music who is at last being recognised:
Louise Farrenc
A Norwegian pianist whose piano music can easily match that of Grieg:
Agathe Backer-Grondahl
A French post-Romantic with a beautiful sound world:
Mel Bonis
Finally a mystery composer whose one recorded work (string quartet Op14) shows a fine grasp of form and considerable inventiveness but who also composed at least 4 symphonies:
Emilie Mayer
@Christo: I discovered Bate only recently, too. After a year or two of nagging from Vandermolen (:P) I asked for the third symphony disc for Christmas and loved it. He's such a "missing link" composer, to a wider tradition that I previously thought was the domain of a few better-known English composers.
I have you to thank for directing me towards Cooke - I also got that string sonatas disc at the same time.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on February 28, 2011, 07:06:51 AM
@Christo: I discovered Bate only recently, too. After a year or two of nagging from Vandermolen (:P) I asked for the third symphony disc for Christmas and loved it. He's such a "missing link" composer, to a wider tradition that I previously thought was the domain of a few better-known English composers.
I have you to thank for directing me towards Cooke - I also got that string sonatas disc at the same time.
I even took refuge from this forum for a while to escape these rather costly pleas by Jeffrey/ Vandermolen ;)
As for Arnold Cooke: start, if you can, with the Lyrita CD with his First Symphony - a masterly First IMHO and just as fine as Bate's Third, but sounding more like Lennox Berkeley. The only other Symphony recorded of Cooke's series of six, is the Third - coupled with Havergal Brian 6 (Tragica) and 16, also fine symphonies and three superb recordings. But you knew that already, of course. :)
I have and love those two Lyrita discs - now I'm trying to justify not immediately buying the Dutton chamber music disc (which I believe is the last of the CDs soley dedicated to his music)...
Mohammed Abdul Wahab
Demetri Cantemir
Fikret Amirov
Tanburi Cemil Bey
Uzeyir Hajibeyov
Hampartsoum Limondjian
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 08, 2010, 04:11:53 AM
Perhaps he has simply been unknown. Hamelin's championship of his music on Hyperion will hopefully start to set that to rights.
Alas, Hamelin isn't a very good Alkan interpreter. Ronald Smith comes closest in the making the music less dry, but he has his problems as well.
Quote from: Jon Silpayamanant on February 28, 2011, 07:35:40 PM
Mohammed Abdul Wahab
Demetri Cantemir
Fikret Amirov
Tanburi Cemil Bey
Uzeyir Hajibeyov
Hampartsoum Limondjian
Great list! (I only know the first three names and would guess, that not all of the other ones would classify als `Western classical music composers' - which makes it even more interesting.) :)
Quote from: Christo on February 28, 2011, 10:56:00 PM
Great list! (I only know the first three names and would guess, that not all of the other ones would classify als `Western classical music composers' - which makes it even more interesting.) :)
I think this is the output of a random character generator.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 28, 2011, 09:55:30 PM
Alas, Hamelin isn't a very good Alkan interpreter.
WRONG. I would say Hamelin is one of the premier Alkan interpreters. His technique is paramount to others, and he brings a subtle touch to the musical aspects of the works. Listen to his new recording of the Concerto for Solo Piano and you'll be convinced of his mastery. Ronald Smith's Alkan to me sounds labored and clunky on the technical side, even though he does have things to say musically.
Quote from: Christo on February 28, 2011, 10:56:00 PM
Great list! (I only know the first three names and would guess, that not all of the other ones would classify als `Western classical music composers' - which makes it even more interesting.) :)
Technically, only Amirov (and possibly Hajibeyov) would count as "Western" composers--or at least as Soviet composers. They're both Azerbaijani but are both known for their Mugham Operas (which was a hybrid Art form melding Azerbaijani Mugham and European Opera).
Tanburi Cemil Bey is probably one of the most well known Ottoman Classical Music composers. I have an interest in him as he was one of the first Ottoman musicians to really incorporate the Cello into the Turkish Art Music Ensembles.
The Moldavian Prince, Cantemir, while he was a European, was better known in the Ottoman Empire as the composer/musicologist, Kantemiroğlu. Some of the earliest transcribed Ottoman pieces exist thanks to him and his forced exile into Turkey.
The Armenian, Hampartsoum Limondjian, is responsible for the notation system that Ottoman composers used before they eventually adopted a modified Western Notation. We can also thank him for the thousands of Ottoman music compositions that survived to be transcribe finally into Western notation.
And what can I say about Mohammed Abdul Wahhab--the "Beethoven of the Arabic World", but I presume you know that, eh? :)
Does "undeservedly neglected" mean "without a thread of their own on this forum"? Because anybody you can mention has his/her devotees somewhere. Lidholm used (at least) to get rave reviews in Fanfare magazine and I enjoy Ett Drömspel very much - I last listened to it last summer, one of the great 20th century operas. But he is certainly neglected in, say, Germany, where nobody has heard of him. - To judge by the names mentioned on GMG, and following someguy's implied precept to avoid DWMs, I propose Alvin Curran, Jonathan Harvey, York Höller, Roger Reynolds, Adriana Hölszky and Maria de Alvear (you know, the one who composed Vagina) of the living composers I know from concerts and/or CDs - but of course each has his/her fan club somewhere. I am amazed by the obscure names some of you are pulling out of your hats, because I have never heard of a lot of them - but Sid, I have most of Barraqué's works on LP/CD, and I have been to more concerts of Kurtág's work than of any other living composer, so I cannot really regard them as "neglected". Bernard van Dieren (sorry, DWM) is neglected, if you like - where are the recordings or performances of the Chinese Symphony?
Quote from: The new erato on November 08, 2010, 12:31:57 AM
1. Klaus Egge
2. Hilding Rosenberg
3. Gøsta Nystrøm
4. Einar Englund
5. Hermann Koppel
6. Ludvig Irgens Jensen
Great list - although do I detect a slight Scandinavian bias? ;D
Must add Lo Presti and Cowell to my list.
Quote from: The new erato on November 08, 2010, 12:31:57 AM
1. Klaus Egge
2. Hilding Rosenberg
3. Gøsta Nystrøm
4. Einar Englund
5. Hermann Koppel
6. Ludvig Irgens Jensen
Naxos is releasing a recording of Irgens Jensen's Symphony in D minor at the end of August(Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra/Bjarne Engeset). What is unique about this recording is that it includes the third movement of the symphony which the composer excised. The Simax recording, originally reased in 1972, with the Oslo Philharmonic Orchestra/Oivin Fjeldstad is the two movement version.
The Naxos disc also includes Irgens Jensen's Passacaglia-the piece which, in the Nordic section of the 1928 Schubert Centenary Competition, came second to Atterberg's 6th Symphony(the eventual winner of the whole competition). This is billed-at least on Presto's site-as a 'World premiere recording' which it manifestly isn't. The Oslo PO under Ole Kristian Ruud recorded the Passacaglia in 1986.
Quote from: Mirror Image on November 07, 2010, 03:14:49 PM
Six undeservedly neglected composers? Sure I've got a few on my mind.
1. Frederick Delius
2. William Alwyn
3. Edmund Rubbra
4. Karol Szymanowski
5. Alberic Magnard
6. Walter Piston
I'm suprised that MI has not updated this list to include Koechlin....
Quote from: jowcol on July 30, 2011, 06:40:16 AM
I'm suprised that MI has not updated this list to include Koechlin....
Good point, but this was back in November so here's my new revised list (in no particular order):
1. Charles Koechlin
2. Edmund Rubbra
3. Karol Szymanowski
4. Nikolai Myaskovsky
5. Havergal Brian
6. Alberic Magnard
Just a word for Stanley Bate's Fourth symphony. I enjoyed the third & maybe,in some ways,the thematic material IS more memorable. But I have to say it was the Fourth that has impressed me the most. It seems more tightly argued & certainly bodes well for more Bates (Stanley not Norman!) from this source.
The only criticism I have of the Dutton issue is that I would have preferred ALL Bate releases,instead of having Arnell thrown in,as well. Dutton seem to feel that name Arnell can sell a cd on his own,but Bate can't!
Chandos said they were interested in recording Bate a while back (on their forum). I only hope this is true.
Meanwhile,my list:
Stanley Bate (if anything else is good as the 3rd & 4th?)
Daniel Jones (A thinking mans symphonist,if ever there was!)
Ildebrando Pizzetti
Charles Tournemire (Symphonies,etc)
David Wynne (no recordings at all,except something from lyrita)
Charles Koechlin (I'm with you there Mirror Image!)
Guy Ropartz
I would list Havergal Brian,but so much has already been said & he's got a very long thread!
NB Stanley Bate is not to be confused with Stanley Bates who played Bungle the Bear
in the Childrens tv series!
Edit: Just realised,I obviously can't count! That's seven!!!!!!!!!
1. Albéric Magnard
2. Rued Langgaard
3. George Enescu
4. Frederick Delius
5. Mieczyslaw Karlowicz
6. He Who Need Not Be Named
I forgot one of my favourites,Rued Langgaard. Thank you for reminding me,Johan.
Must say I'm not keen on getting into the comparison game of schoolboy style point scoring,along the lines of 'such and such a composer is greater than so and so'. As far as I'm aware,this thread is just about undeservedly neglected composers NOT undeservedly neglected,GREAT composers. Also,the neglect of Bach,Mendelssohn and Mahler,mentioned by Toucan,however regrettable and sad,is a little before my time!
As the great Professor C.E.M. Joad used to say when beginning to answer on a question on the famous wartime BBC Brains Trust....
"It all depends on what you mean by neglected....."
To take Johan's list, for example- Magnard, Langgaard, Enescu, Delius, Karlowicz, ANO:
Most of these composers have hardly been neglected on disc, particularly in recent years.
Magnard wrote very little music but there are sets of his four symphonies conducted by Thomas Sanderling(BIS), Jean-Yves Ossonce(Hyperion) and Michel Plasson(EMI).
Thomas Dausgaard has recorded a complete cycle of all sixteen Langgaard symphonies for Dacapo and Ilya Rubinstein has a complete set on the Danacord label.
Delius may not be much played in the concert hall but virtually everything he wrote is on disc.
Similar story with Karlowicz, courtesy of both Chandos and Naxos.
Now I don't think that a composer, almost all of whose music is available to anyone able to purchase it, can claim to be 'neglected'.
If the definition of neglect, on the other hand, includes 'live performances' then very large numbers of composers indeed would fall into that category, including, to name but one, a genius like Carl Nielsen.
I personally prefer to think in terms of composers virtually none of whose compositions is on disc or cases of composers where there are glaring gaps of unrecorded works in their lists of compositions.
Composers like Malcolm Williamson(Australia), Ernst Krenek(Austria), Niels Viggo Bentzon and Paul von Klenau(Denmark), Aare Merikanto and Ernest Pingoud(Finland), Charles Koechlin(France), Ildebrando Pizzetti(Italy), Willem Pijper and Leon Orthel(Netherlands), Klaus Egge and Ragnar Soderlind(Norway), Maximilian Steinberg(Russia), Hilding Rosenberg(Sweden), David Diamond and George Rochberg(USA), Stanley Bate, Arnold Cooke, Peter Racine Fricker, Iain Hamilton, Alun Hoddinott, Daniel Jones and Humphrey Searle(Britain)
would all fall into that category for me.
I take your point, Colin. Not being played and/or recorded at all certainly constitutes real neglect. In that sense none of the figures on my list is neglected (I like seeing Orthel among the composers you name). Still, for me there is another form of neglect and that is when the importance and richness of a composer's contribution to the art isn't really understood or fully acknowledged. I know that a canon is handy, but it is restrictive and has, in the 20th century, been strongly shaped by ideas of (linear) Progress, where everything that didn't comply was regarded as backward. I would love to hear Magnard's Third and Fourth regularly, Karlowicz's symphonic poems, some of Langgaard's symphonies (4, 6, 10..) et cetera. They would make the picture of 20th centrtuy music more complete. I know that CDs have replaced the concert-hall for this kind of music, but I find this deplorable, also for the audience, whose diet has become all too predictable.
(By the way, my No. 6 was Brian, but I thought everyone here knows by now how central he is to me, so I turned him into a Voldemort-like creature and didn't mention his name, for those who know their Harry Potter).
....and I in turn take your point, Johan ;D :)
Now, that really is a first. You read it here, folks....Johan is comparing Havergal Brian to Voldemort :o :o :D :D
Quote from: Dundonnell on July 30, 2011, 01:18:46 PM
....and I in turn take your point, Johan ;D :)
Now, that really is a first. You read it here, folks....Johan is comparing Havergal Brian to Voldemort :o :o :D :D
Seeing that Brian is now the second composer (!) on this board, only a few pages behind Mahler, there will be many who will find this an evil development... ;D
How about setting the Dementors on the critics? ;D
Quote from: Dundonnell on July 30, 2011, 01:29:06 PM
How about setting the Dementors on the critics? ;D
My goodness, Colin - you and popular culture... Never knew you two were so close!
Always pleased to surprise :)
* passer-by revives J.Z. Herrenberg with smelling salts *
Are there any composers that anyone responding on this thread would consider deservedly neglected, or do the adverb and adjective in the subject line always form an inseparable pair?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 30, 2011, 04:56:40 PM
Are there any composers that anyone responding on this thread would consider deservedly neglected, or do the adverb and adjective in the subject line always form an inseparable pair?
Does wishing a composer was deservingly neglected count? ;D
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 30, 2011, 04:56:40 PM
Are there any composers that anyone responding on this thread would consider deservedly neglected, or do the adverb and adjective in the subject line always form an inseparable pair?
I saw that question coming and it's a good one.
If you look at all the composers mentioned, you can see that their nationalities are varied and most of them live(d) between ca. 1850 and the present. Before that time, the three main musical countries were Italy, France and Germany/Austria. With the rise of nationalism, every country got its own national school, some composers of which went on to 'compete' internationally. The backbone of the canon was still formed by the three nations mentioned, with the prestige of symphonic music being highest, making the German/Austrian tradition dominant. And here the problem of neglected composers start. Not only was there an international music market in which you had to compete, that market was driven too by innovation (and the underlying idea of Progress). The undisputed giants have become those composers who are either the musical 'kings' of their respective nations, or have been the most fascinatingly 'new' to international acclaim. Composers who weren't or haven't been either have thus been 'neglected', though the recording industry, for its own commercial reasons, have dug many of them up again. That the majority of them aren't world-shattering geniuses is obvious. That many of them still wrote good music, is obvious, too (to me). Canons are handy and they aren't there for nothing. But a canon isn't static, either. Nor should it be. Sometimes a new entrant can renew it.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 30, 2011, 04:56:40 PM
Are there any composers that anyone responding on this thread would consider deservedly neglected, or do the adverb and adjective in the subject line always form an inseparable pair?
I could have sworn there was a mocking "deservedly neglected" composers thread at some point, but it appears that is not the case. Still, might I nominate Albert Dietrich or Julius Otto Grimm?
Quote from: Dundonnell on July 30, 2011, 01:29:06 PM
How about setting the Dementors on the critics? ;D
Useless. The critics are the Dementors themselves.
Composers aren't always undeservedly neglected,anyway. Listening to Cpo's cd's of Ernst Boehe and Richard Wetz have to be some of the most dreary,turgid,wastefully uninspiring minutes I've ever spent. Maybe it's a good idea to take some of those over enthusiastic reviews of obscure composers on sites like Musicweb with the occasional pinch of salt.
Less please!
Quote from: Brian on July 30, 2011, 11:54:37 PM
I could have sworn there was a mocking "deservedly neglected" composers thread at some point, but it appears that is not the case. Still, might I nominate Albert Dietrich or Julius Otto Grimm?
There was a "great composers who aren't you cup of tea" thread, on which virtually every famous name in musical history made it. (My own least favorite great composer, Richard Strauss, did not, so here I'll redress the balance.)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 31, 2011, 05:27:28 AM
There was a "great composers who aren't you cup of tea" thread, on which virtually every famous name in musical history made it. (My own least favorite great composer, Richard Strauss, did not, so here I'll redress the balance.)
I just found the Worst Composers Ever!! (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,14137.0.html) thread.
Now that's a fun thread!
Quote from: J. Z. Herrenberg on July 30, 2011, 10:55:01 PM
I saw that question coming and it's a good one.
If you look at all the composers mentioned, you can see that their nationalities are varied and most of them live(d) between ca. 1850 and the present. Before that time, the three main musical countries were Italy, France and Germany/Austria. With the rise of nationalism, every country got its own national school, some composers of which went on to 'compete' internationally. The backbone of the canon was still formed by the three nations mentioned, with the prestige of symphonic music being highest, making the German/Austrian tradition dominant. And here the problem of neglected composers start. Not only was there an international music market in which you had to compete, that market was driven too by innovation (and the underlying idea of Progress). The undisputed giants have become those composers who are either the musical 'kings' of their respective nations, or have been the most fascinatingly 'new' to international acclaim. Composers who weren't or haven't been either have thus been 'neglected', though the recording industry, for its own commercial reasons, have dug many of them up again. That the majority of them aren't world-shattering geniuses is obvious. That many of them still wrote good music, is obvious, too (to me). Canons are handy and they aren't there for nothing. But a canon isn't static, either. Nor should it be. Sometimes a new entrant can renew it.
Agreed that canons should not be static, but in practice they tend to be, and it's difficult to say what makes a composer canonical if he (much more rarely she) hasn't been signed up. (In an interesting article on the history of the musical canon, Joseph Kerman cops out by writing: "There has been more about the history and ontology of the canon in these remarks than about the philosophy and politics of canon formation. They are coming to an end where many readers, I rather think, would have liked to see them begin:
How are canons determined,
why, and on
what authority?" Which, of course, is the crux of the problem.)
But then again, I don't know if there is a necessarily sharp distinction between canonical composers on the one side and undeservedly neglected ones on the other. JZ brings up the point about nationalities beyond the Big Three and dates past 1850, but that may be just a reflection of the tastes of posters on this thread: for example, someone could just have well mentioned Mozart's contemporary JM Kraus, who worked in Sweden; or closer to Beethoven's time, JV Vorisek from Bohemia. And since JZ rightly says of these neglected composers that "the recording industry have dug many of them up again," the question is my mind is whether they are truly neglected at all - unless by neglect one means a paucity of live performances. But after all, live performances of lesser-known figures can be arduous for the performers, risky for the producers, expensive for the audience, and in any case at best a few thousand people in geographic proximity may be able to attend. But since a large percentage of listeners approach music primarily through recordings, which are generally easy to obtain and inexpensive, the availability of a recording may well mean that the composer reaches far more people than might be the case otherwise, and so a single CD can offset all kinds of "neglect."
Quote from: cilgwyn on July 31, 2011, 04:43:13 AM
Composers aren't always undeservedly neglected,anyway. Listening to Cpo's cd's of Ernst Boehe and Richard Wetz have to be some of the most dreary,turgid,wastefully uninspiring minutes I've ever spent. Maybe it's a good idea to take some of those over enthusiastic reviews of obscure composers on sites like Musicweb with the occasional pinch of salt.
Less please!
Non! Non! And again, Non! :o
Turgid, dreary and wasteful do not describe Wetz in the slightest. Wetz has beautiful melodies, and certainly this is not depressing music. This is not to say that these are absolutely the best symphonies ever, but I have gotten much enjoyment out of those discs. I've enjoyed the Eduard and Richard Franck on Sterling and Audite respectively as another example, and more examples could be Ziehrer on Naxos/Marco Polo, Contemporaries of Mozart series on Chandos, and Romantic concerti series on Hyperion. And the amount of music that is still unrecorded is actually quite staggering. A well known example - Offenbach. Only about 20-30% of his operetta have ever been recorded. EVER! Franz Xaver Richeter wrote something like 80 symphonies, of which only a small portion have been recorded (and those I have heard are absolutely excellent). The list goes on.
I for one appreciate all the efforts from labels like Opera Rara, CPO, Hyperion, Chandos, Naxos, etc. to bring us unknown and/or unrecorded music, giving us a chance to hear music we cannot hear anywhere else.
More please!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: mc ukrneal on July 31, 2011, 05:50:10 AMZiehrer on Naxos/Marco Polo
Oh man... I bought the Ziehrer opera overtures disc and would have gladly put it in the Deservedly Neglected pile. :(
Quote from: cilgwyn on July 31, 2011, 05:46:11 AM
Now that's a fun thread!
Consider it your introduction to the dearly departed Teresa.
Quote from: Brian on July 31, 2011, 05:55:52 AM
Oh man... I bought the Ziehrer opera overtures disc and would have gladly put it in the Deservedly Neglected pile. :(
The Dances and Marches disc are pretty good (series of four discs). But then again, I love this stuff - Strausses, Lehar, Lumbye, etc. I can listen to that music anytime.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on July 31, 2011, 06:02:59 AM
The Dances and Marches disc are pretty good (series of four discs). But then again, I love this stuff - Strausses, Lehar, Lumbye, etc. I can listen to that music anytime.
I love JStraussJr (have an embarrassing number of the Marco Polo discs), Lehar, and some Komzak, and you ought to check out the Strauss Society's Ivanovici discs - turns out that "Danube Waves" was about the
least cool thing he wrote.
Quote from: Brian on July 31, 2011, 06:20:07 AM
I love JStraussJr (have an embarrassing number of the Marco Polo discs), Lehar, and some Komzak, and you ought to check out the Strauss Society's Ivanovici discs - turns out that "Danube Waves" was about the least cool thing he wrote.
Komzak - got him too. Ivanovici - a new name! Thanks!
I suppose toucan meant to write Gabriel Fauré, and I can agree wholly with him being neglected. Saint-Saens is neglected pretty much because he lived long enough to become old-fashioned, while he was one of the most progressive composers of his generation.
Alkan was forgotten because he was a recluse and his works were always unknown to the public - even though Debussy and Ravel both studied his works under one of Alkan's students.
Of Finnish composers from late 19th or early 20th century, Sibelius is pretty much the only one whose works are played in concerts.
Liszt's music is also underrated by the general public because they only know the showpieces.
Mendelssohn's piano & chamber music aren't performed too much either.
Of the classical era, Boccherini isn't known at all compared to FJ Haydn.
But perhaps the most obviously neglected composer has been Antonio Vivaldi - of whom Stravinsky for example didn't have a very high opinion, even though he was crucial to the development of the concerto form, and he also composed huge amounts of operas and cantatas, among other things.
Modern composers are a different thing entirely - the recent musical idioms are so different that it takes time until people accustom to the new sounds - Mahler wasn't appreciated before Bernstein's first cycle, and J.S. Bach was forgotten completely (well students have played his works pretty much always) after his death until Felix Mendelssohn resuscitated the B minor mass and later Casals recorded the cello suites and Gould the keyboard works. And the solo violin works were used as wrapping paper.
Quote from: toucan on July 31, 2011, 08:22:52 AM
Alessandro Scarlatti's Motets seem as good as the choral music of Vivaldi's - heavenly, literally - see the recording by Michel Corboz on Erato
Vivaldi was forgotten for several centuries and there are still those who believe he is third fiddle to Bach - but let's be fair, the Vivaldi revival is one of the significant musical event of the XXth century - with unacknowledged importance of Ezra Pound and Olga Rudge at its inception.
The Neo-Classical movement of the interwar period - the good efforts of people like Nadia Boulanger (who also shares responsibility in the Monteverdi revival) and Wanda Landowska, explains the re-discovery of so many pre-romantic composers.
The Middle Ages are still a turn off to most of us. Perhaps a look into the recordings of Hugues Cuenod might make a difference - Cuenod sings Guillaume de Machaut as one would sing Schubert and Brahms therefore making him sound as good as Brahms and Schubert - while the scholars who customarily specialize in ancient music try and reconstruct how it may have sounded to contempories, thereby making it seem pedantic and dull.
Yes, Vivaldi has been revived in the last 30 years especially, along with the rise of the HIP movement. There's also the naïve project of recording those works (over 450) whose manuscripts are at Turin. Of Pound's efforts I didn't know previously, although I knew he was a fascist. It reminds me of the one good thing the Nazis did - they digged up Schumann's violin concerto, because Mendelssohn's couldn't obviously have been played in the Third Reich.
Regarding the performance practice of old music, I don't think Machaut or Perotin or Monteverdi should be performed like Richard Strauss - at least most performances shouldn't be like that. If people can appreciate older music only if it sounds like the 19th century romantics, it could be better that they listen to the 19th century romantics instead.
But, we of course can't really know how the music was performed originally, and this isn't to me as important as performing the music so that the unique aspects of the style or piece of music are best realized.
Niccolo Paganini is also very much neglected - other than the caprices and violin concertos, that is.
Quote from: North Star on July 31, 2011, 09:29:09 AM
Niccolo Paganini is also very much neglected - other than the caprices and violin concertos, that is.
The current complete edition on Naxos is revealing that
Zigeunerweisen just barely scratches the surface of what Pablo de Sarasate could do.
Quote from: Brian on July 31, 2011, 09:41:50 AM
The current complete edition on Naxos is revealing that Zigeunerweisen just barely scratches the surface of what Pablo de Sarasate could do.
Yes, he, too is one of the 19th/early 20th century virtuosos who are very much neglected. Ysaÿe isn't too well known, either.
Six?
Well, the No.1 is Johannes Ockeghem. He was a real giant. His music make me unstopped pleasure while listening. I never can predict what next sound will be and never lose interest what it will be. Of course he is appreciated between old music lovers but it is not enough. He should be ranked among the greatest like Bach and Beethoven.
Then the No.2 must be Josquin des Prez. Not so intense as Ockeghem but omnipotent master who could do with sound everything. Like only Haydn and Mozart did.
But if I recognize their greatness I probably ought to think Jacob Obrecht should be the No.3. But I don't know his music enough. On the other hand what I listened was fabulous, May be most ecstatic thing I ever heard.
Well, I'm afraid all it goes in wrong direction. This is completely diffrent musical language and that difference was recognized immediately when our language was born. Prima Pratica had its pinnacle then as our - still our I suppose - Seconda Pratica has its pinnacle in Vienna of late 18th end beginning of 19th century. But there is no reason to expect that masters of that musical language will be performed and recorded and appreciated like masters of our.
So I must begin everythingonce again thinking only about masters of our musical language.
In new post.
Oh! Spell Check suggested me to change Ockeghem to Orgasm!
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 31, 2011, 05:48:27 AM
Agreed that canons should not be static, but in practice they tend to be, and it's difficult to say what makes a composer canonical if he (much more rarely she) hasn't been signed up. (In an interesting article on the history of the musical canon, Joseph Kerman cops out by writing: "There has been more about the history and ontology of the canon in these remarks than about the philosophy and politics of canon formation. They are coming to an end where many readers, I rather think, would have liked to see them begin: How are canons determined, why, and on what authority?" Which, of course, is the crux of the problem.)
Canon formation is a fascinating and extremely complex matter. The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu has written a very interesting book about it, with reference to (French) literature, called
Les règles du jeu. And then there is, for example, the study by Tia De Nora
Beethoven and the Construction of Genius - Musical Politics in Vienna, 1792-1803. I am intrigued by how a reputation is made, what connections you need, how sheer luck plays a role and historic circumstances, and this wholly apart from the artist's talent, perseverance, personality.
QuoteBut then again, I don't know if there is a necessarily sharp distinction between canonical composers on the one side and undeservedly neglected ones on the other. JZ brings up the point about nationalities beyond the Big Three and dates past 1850, but that may be just a reflection of the tastes of posters on this thread: for example, someone could just have well mentioned Mozart's contemporary JM Kraus, who worked in Sweden; or closer to Beethoven's time, JV Vorisek from Bohemia. And since JZ rightly says of these neglected composers that "the recording industry have dug many of them up again," the question is my mind is whether they are truly neglected at all - unless by neglect one means a paucity of live performances. But after all, live performances of lesser-known figures can be arduous for the performers, risky for the producers, expensive for the audience, and in any case at best a few thousand people in geographic proximity may be able to attend. But since a large percentage of listeners approach music primarily through recordings, which are generally easy to obtain and inexpensive, the availability of a recording may well mean that the composer reaches far more people than might be the case otherwise, and so a single CD can offset all kinds of "neglect."
One wonders whether a Kraus, working in Vienna, would have gained a higher reputation. Sometimes it's important for an artist to be at the right place. If he isn't, important contacts aren't there and his career suffers.
I agree that recordings offset neglect. But recordings don't often change critical standing. You need(ed) academia for that.
Quote from: mszczuj on July 31, 2011, 11:02:55 AM
Oh! Spell Check suggested me to change Ockeghem to Orgasm!
For some, I'm sure, there is equivalency ;D
Sarge
Quote from: toucan on July 31, 2011, 02:58:13 PM
The right contacts can help further a career but over the long run it makes no difference - Salieri and Thalberg have been mostly forgotten while Mozart, Schubert, Chopin, Schumann and Listz have remained..
Exactly. In the long run, it is talent (genius) that counts. But as I said, to be at the right place matters, too, even for geniuses - Mozart and Schubert were in Vienna, Chopin and Liszt (early on) in Paris. Schumann's career was more difficult and intricate, because he played second fiddle to his brilliant pianist wife Clara and wasn't made for the conductorship he eventually got in Düsseldorf. But he also was the brilliant editor of an influential music review, and this helped his standing as a composer, too.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 31, 2011, 01:10:17 PM
For some, I'm sure, there is equivalency ;D
Equivalency?
Ockeghem so intensive that you confuse it with orgasm would be for sure something tremendous.
But now consider orgasm so intensive that you confuse it with Ockeghem!
So there should be no doubts which of this two is better.
Quote from: cilgwyn on July 31, 2011, 04:43:13 AM
Composers aren't always undeservedly neglected,anyway. Listening to Cpo's cd's of Ernst Boehe and Richard Wetz have to be some of the most dreary,turgid,wastefully uninspiring minutes I've ever spent. Maybe it's a good idea to take some of those over enthusiastic reviews of obscure composers on sites like Musicweb with the occasional pinch of salt.
Less please!
Ooohhh....I do agree with what you said on another thread about the worthy but rather dull symphonies written by Stanford(although the Irish Rhapsodies are a bit better :)) but I must say I rather like Wetz, particularly his Third Symphony.
There was an invitation earlier by
some guy to identify composers whose neglect was deserved. That was a tempting invitation which I really should resist ;D
I completely understand that there are lots of people who are finding pleasure, satisfaction, delight in the music of a composer like Julius Rontgen. Clearly, these people are buying the cds in sufficient numbers to encourage CPO to continue with its intention of releasing everything the Dutchman ever composed(although I sometimes wonder if such commercial considerations mean much to that wonderful company ;D). Personally, I find Rontgen's music amiable but little more than that. If his neglect had continued I would not have considered that undeserved but others would strongly disagree with me.
So much has depended over the last couple of decades on very mundane and practical considerations; far removed from the high-minded considerations so eloquently expressed by others in their recent contributions to this thread.
If a country, through its record labels for example, has actively encouraged the wider dissemination of their native composers then those composers will start to receive more recognition throughout the world and through the music press.
An outstanding example of that would be Denmark. The Danish companies-Dacapo and Danacord-have done an amazing job of getting a number of neglected Danish composers the recognition they 'deserved;. The same is true of Finland with companies like Finlandia and now Ondine. BIS in Sweden has done a similar-albeit selective job-for Swedish composers. Dux in Poland is yet another outstanding example.
CPO in Germany has not only recorded a huge amount of German and Austrian music but has done superb work on behalf of composers like Milhaud, Villa-Lobos, George Antheil, Panufnik and for composers from Finland, Sweden and now the Netherlands.
One hardly needs to mention the achievement of companies like Chandos, Hyperion and Dutton in Britain.
Other countries have not assertively 'marketed' their composers. Yes, there are/were Norwegian record labels but the cds of Norwegian music were and are often difficult to obtain(even in Oslo!). The Dutch appear to have been similarly reticent. It is a plain fact that without a German company based in Osnabruck we would be unlikely at last to be discovering just what a fine composer Henk Badings actually was. Until Timpani came along most of French 20th Century music was pretty well unknown beyond the works of the obvious great French composers like Debussy, Ravel, Messiaen. Italian music post-Verdi for a very long time meant Respighi. Now-at last-we are getting to know composers like Casella, Malipiero, Petrassi, Dallapiccola.
Frequently it also has to be acknowledged that choice of repertoire to record can be very idiosyncratic. If Robert von Bahr liked a composer then BIS would record him, if not, not.
Thus, von Bahr took a liking for Kalevi Aho so Aho's music gets recorded. Osmo Vanska gave von Bahr some James Macmillan to listen to and von Bahr immediately declaimed that Macmillan was a genius and BIS would record everything he had written. It can all be as hit and miss as that!
Yes...there are and will be composers whose music once discovered/rediscovered disappoints some people and these people will scratch their heads and say 'what was all the fuss about' (as I tend to do about York Bowen ;D) but unless we get the chance to actually hear the music we will never be able to make such essentially subjective assessments.
Believe me, I am VERY happy that both Kalevi Aho and James MacMillan are getting extensively recorded. Say what you want about them, but there aren't many composers out there that can write as much music as they do with such a high amount of quality. I heard Kalevi Aho's 15th symphony recently, and I thought it was excellent, as if it were written by a composer with only 2 symphonies.
Quote from: lescamil on July 31, 2011, 05:46:14 PM
Believe me, I am VERY happy that both Kalevi Aho and James MacMillan are getting extensively recorded. Say what you want about them, but there aren't many composers out there that can write as much music as they do with such a high amount of quality. I heard Kalevi Aho's 15th symphony recently, and I thought it was excellent, as if it were written by a composer with only 2 symphonies.
Oh, regarding Aho...I have, I assure you :)
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,7786.0.html
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 31, 2011, 05:48:27 AM
But since a large percentage of listeners approach music primarily through recordings, which are generally easy to obtain and inexpensive, the availability of a recording may well mean that the composer reaches far more people than might be the case otherwise, and so a single CD can offset all kinds of "neglect."
.. IF the performance and recording are good. Witness the recent kerfuffle over Kalinnikov's 1st in the symphonies thread. A subpar recording can do more harm than good.
Quote from: North Star on July 31, 2011, 07:17:21 AM
Mahler wasn't appreciated before Bernstein's first cycle, and J.S. Bach was forgotten completely (well students have played his works pretty much always) after his death until Felix Mendelssohn resuscitated the B minor mass and later Casals recorded the cello suites and Gould the keyboard works.
I don't think this received wisdom is very accurate. Mahler was appreciated before Bernstein ever played him, though it might be argued he only became
canonical with the first recording of the complete cycle.
Bach was remembered at least by Beethoven, Mozart and Chopin, if not by the average listeners. I suspect his church music continued to be performed after his death, but I'd need an expert opinion on that.
Quote from: eyeresist on July 31, 2011, 08:13:40 PM
.. IF the performance and recording are good. Witness the recent kerfuffle over Kalinnikov's 1st in the symphonies thread. A subpar recording can do more harm than good.
I don't think this received wisdom is very accurate. Mahler was appreciated before Bernstein ever played him, though it might be argued he only became canonical with the first recording of the complete cycle.
Bach was remembered at least by Beethoven, Mozart and Chopin, if not by the average listeners. I suspect his church music continued to be performed after his death, but I'd need an expert opinion on that.
Well yes I only meant that the general public hadn't heard Mahler or Bach before those events.
It might be that some cantata was performed after his death & before Mendelssohn, but nonetheless, the guy was pretty much forgotten by the early 19th century - that is, by the general public. Of course those who studied old music actively knew his pieces, and his keyboard works were standard repertoire for students, and that's how the aforementioned composers got to know Bach.
Quote from: J. Z. Herrenberg on July 31, 2011, 12:51:19 PM
One wonders whether a Kraus, working in Vienna, would have gained a higher reputation. Sometimes it's important for an artist to be at the right place. If he isn't, important contacts aren't there and his career suffers.
Sometimes it's very important for an artist to be at the right place. The exception that may well prove the rule is Janacek, who was so preposterously in the wrong place for his entire life that when his music was finally discovered, he had developed a voice nobody else had ever heard. :)
Quote from: eyeresist on July 31, 2011, 08:13:40 PM
Bach was remembered at least by Beethoven, Mozart and Chopin, if not by the average listeners. I suspect his church music continued to be performed after his death, but I'd need an expert opinion on that.
Not posing as an expert, but if you read Christoph Wolff's account of The Bach Revival in the New Grove's, you'll find that the church music fell almost completely by the wayside after Bach's death, at which point he was held to have been a great organist and master of counterpoint, but as a composer inferior to Handel. Some antiquarian enthusiasts kept interest in Bach alive, but it really wasn't until Mendelssohn's 1829 performance of the St. Matthew Passion (not the B minor Mass) that the tide turned in Bach's favor. Nonetheless, it wasn't until mid-century that most of the church music was even published. The B Minor Mass itself was probably not performed in full before 1859.
Quote from: North Star on July 31, 2011, 10:37:52 PM
Well yes I only meant that the general public hadn't heard Mahler or Bach before those events.
It might be that some cantata was performed after his death & before Mendelssohn, but nonetheless, the guy was pretty much forgotten by the early 19th century - that is, by the general public.
There was no common custom to listen to the dead composers' music in this time. There were some exceptions but these were exactly exceptions.
So there is no reason to said Bach was forgotten after his death. He was just dead after his death.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 01, 2011, 03:57:02 AM
Not posing as an expert, but if you read Christoph Wolff's account of The Bach Revival in the New Grove's, you'll find that the church music fell almost completely by the wayside after Bach's death, at which point he was held to have been a great organist and master of counterpoint, but as a composer inferior to Handel. Some antiquarian enthusiasts kept interest in Bach alive, but it really wasn't until Mendelssohn's 1829 performance of the St. Matthew Passion (not the B minor Mass) that the tide turned in Bach's favor. Nonetheless, it wasn't until mid-century that most of the church music was even published. The B Minor Mass itself was probably not performed in full before 1859.
Ah yes, my mistake.
I'd say that Bach's music was just too difficult for the folk in the 18th century to understand - it's certainly a lot denser than Handel's music.
Quote from: mszczuj on August 01, 2011, 04:10:12 AM
There was no common custom to listen to the dead composers' music in this time. There were some exceptions but these were exactly exceptions.
So there is no reason to said Bach was forgotten after his death. He was just dead after his death.
Well this is true compared to how much dead composers receive attention these days, but the exceptions were religious works, like the B minor mass or the Passions or the Magnificat or Handel's Messiah - which was never forgotten.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 31, 2011, 05:27:28 AM
There was a "great composers who aren't you cup of tea" thread, on which virtually every famous name in musical history made it. (My own least favorite great composer, Richard Strauss, did not, so here I'll redress the balance.)
Mine too - I'd add the name York Bowen to the list of the 'deservedly neglected'.
Me too!
Quote from: vandermolen on August 01, 2011, 06:20:50 AM
Mine too - I'd add the name York Bowen to the list of the 'deservedly neglected'.
Ha! Colin will thank you for that verdict! And cilgwyn. (I like Bowen's piano music a lot, and the Rhapsody for Cello and orchestra on Dutton is absolutely beautiful...)
I have grim memories of being pounced on for daring to criticise him.
Quote from: cilgwyn on August 01, 2011, 06:33:50 AM
I have grim memories of being pounced on for daring to criticise him.
Really?! Bowen and bloodthirst aren't two things I would expect to be connected.
Quote from: J. Z. Herrenberg on August 01, 2011, 06:31:31 AM
Ha! Colin will thank you for that verdict! And cilgwyn. (I like Bowen's piano music a lot, and the Rhapsody for Cello and orchestra on Dutton is absolutely beautiful...)
Actually Johan, you may have a point - I guess that is on the CD with the Brian Cello Concerto.
Quote from: vandermolen on August 01, 2011, 06:39:30 AM
Actually Johan, you may have a point - I guess that is on the CD with the Brian Cello Concerto.
Yes. I think it's - to use a word that will get Colin howling to the Scottish welkin - ravishing.
Use 'ravishing' as much as you like, Johan :) If you find Bowen's music 'ravishing' that's just fine by me. I prefer my music 'sombre and grim'....but that's just me ;D
Quote from: Dundonnell on August 01, 2011, 06:53:43 AM
Use 'ravishing' as much as you like, Johan :) If you find Bowen's music 'ravishing' that's just fine by me. I prefer my music 'sombre and grim'....but that's just me ;D
I like both. Delius and Brian are my two extremes. I am Brian's Eighth personified...
I don't think that he deserves a thread of his own but a composer who certainly was neglected but whose music impressed me when I heard it for the first time last year is
Hermann Hans Wetzler.
Wetzler(1870-1943) was born and received his musical education in Frankfurt am Main but his family had actually settled in the USA in 1848. His father was from Bohemia and his mother was German. Between 1892 and 1905 Wetzler attempted to establish himself in the USA as a musician, culminating in his formation of the Wetzler Symphony Orchestra-which gave the first performance of Richard Strauss' Sinfonia Domestica under the composer's baton. Wetzler returned to Europe in 1905 and conducted in a number of cities, including Cologne from 1919 to 1922. Wetzler later settled in Switzerland but died in New York in 1943. His compositions were banned in Germany after 1935 because of the Jewish origins of his parents.
CPO issued a disc of his two principal orchestral compositions: Visionen and Assisi: Legend for Orchestra (Robert Schumann Philharmonic Orchestra, Chemnitz/Frank Beermann). I was particularly struck by Assisi. Wetzler's compositional style is a not perhaps surprising blend of Richard Strauss, Max Reger, a bit of Bruckner, richly chromatic.
Not great music but better than some of the other 'romantic' Germans unearthed over the last few years by CPO. Worth a listen at least.
Quote from: J. Z. Herrenberg on August 01, 2011, 06:56:35 AM
I like both. Delius and Brian are my two extremes. I am Brian's Eighth personified...
Now, now.....that's surely taking admiration of a composer a bit far, isn't it ;D ;D
If you're looking for Bantock recordings, you need the 6 CD Hyperion set on his orchestral and vocal works on Hyperion
conducted by the late,lamented Vernon Handley .It includes Fifine at the Fair, The Song of Songs, the Hebridean symphony,
Thalaba the Destroyer , and other really interesting works.
Also, get the Chandos world premiere recording of the monumental Bantock oratorio Omar Khayyam ,based on the poetry of this
famous Perisan poet ,also with Handley conducting .
If you have any trouble finding these, check arkivmusic.com , which is by far the best place to get hard-to-find classical CDs, and much,much more.
Quote from: toucan on August 01, 2011, 08:14:04 AM
Usually it is for the best that the artist be free from external contact. Karol Szymanowski found his deeper self and wrote some of his finest work (3rd Symphony & Mythes) during World War One, when the circumstances forced him to seek refuge on his estate of Tymoszówka where he had no contact with the wider musical world & was freed from external influences and mundane distractions. Considerations of career and earthly ambitions are the death of Art and a danger for artists comparable to damnation for Christians.
I know from experience you need both - total dedication to your art, including solitude AND knowing how to get your riches into the world.
If the cd labels were as obsessed with Daniel Jones (or some of the other composers Dundonnell mentions) as they are with Bowen I'd be a happy man. Sombre and grim is how I feel after listening to Bowen or reading yet another rave review or gushing,adulatory post from a Bowen groupie.
Bowen IS God!
Actually,I think it was Eric Clapton. Although I preferred Carlos Santana's playing,myself.
Seriously,one composer who has been mentioned here a few times and does sound interesting.is Egon Wellesz. The first five symphonies sound very interesting & if I can handle the later Peter Mennin symphonies (he's quite good!) I should be able to handle the other ones.
As to Wetzler,I'm pretty sure there is a review in a back copy of IRR,which I keep near the 'throne'. I will go and look.
Quote from: cilgwyn on August 01, 2011, 08:38:55 AM
Actually,I think it was Eric Clapton. Although I preferred Carlos Santana's playing,myself.
Seriously,one composer who has been mentioned here a few times and does sound interesting.is Egon Wellesz. The first five symphonies sound very interesting & if I can handle the later Peter Mennin symphonies (he's quite good!) I should be able to handle the other ones.
As to Wetzler,I'm pretty sure there is a review in a back copy of IRR,which I keep near the 'throne'. I will go and look.
I did listen to a few Frankel and Wellesz symphonies. I liked them, but should listen again.
Quote from: cilgwyn on August 01, 2011, 08:24:33 AM
Bowen IS God!
Just because someone uttered "Oh my God!" upon hearing Bowen praised does not necessarily make Bowen God, me reckon...
I've put Wellesz on my 'list'. If I was a millionaire I'd buy them now,but they'll have to wait. Another composer some people rate very highly is Kurt Atterberg? But no mention of him on THIS thread?
But I can't buy everything!!!
Quote from: cilgwyn on July 31, 2011, 04:43:13 AM
Composers aren't always undeservedly neglected,anyway. Listening to Cpo's cd's of Ernst Boehe and Richard Wetz have to be some of the most dreary,turgid,wastefully uninspiring minutes I've ever spent. Maybe it's a good idea to take some of those over enthusiastic reviews of obscure composers on sites like Musicweb with the occasional pinch of salt.
Less please!
Most interesting.
Quote from: cilgwyn on August 01, 2011, 08:48:15 AM
I've put Wellesz on my 'list'. If I was a millionaire I'd buy them now,but they'll have to wait. Another composer some people rate very highly is Kurt Atterberg? But no mention of him on THIS thread? But I can't buy everything!!!
I love his music for string orchestra, but struggle with his symphonies...
Quote from: J. Z. Herrenberg on August 01, 2011, 09:13:06 AM
I love his music for string orchestra, but struggle with his symphonies...
Based on limited exposure, it's the opposite for me.
The neat thing about Atterberg is that I don't feel the fear that I get with many other composers when I recommend them. His music is melodic, densely crafted and with an effortless drama and pace. If I tried to recommend somebody like Arnell in the same way, I would feel the need to bombard the prospective purchaser with caveats and nota benes.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 01, 2011, 09:38:09 AM
The neat thing about Atterberg is that I don't feel the fear that I get with many other composers when I recommend them. His music is melodic, densely crafted and with an effortless drama and pace. If I tried to recommend somebody like Arnell in the same way, I would feel the need to bombard the prospective purchaser with caveats and nota benes.
Agreed: Atterberg's symphonies 3-8 are immediately likeable, admirable, or even lovable for nearly any listener. (I have completely forgotten what No 2 sounds like and have never heard 9.) He definitely belongs in this thread because, aside from the symphonies and concertos, his output is by and large unrecorded. There are a couple Marco Polo chamber discs and some string music but that's about it on disc so far.
I have looked at that Atterberg cpo boxed set & thought. Is it worth buying? The Eduard Tubin symphonies are another contendor!
Both are composer/symphonists who seem to garner allot of very favourable reviews and posts. In fact,there was quite a fuss about Tubin some years ago.
Mind you,some people probably hate them!
Quote from: cilgwyn on August 01, 2011, 09:53:23 AM
I have looked at that Atterberg cpo boxed set & thought. Is it worth buying? The Eduard Tubin symphonies are another contendor!
Both are composer/symphonists who seem to garner allot of very favourable reviews and posts. In fact,there was quite a fuss about Tubin some years ago.
Mind you,some people probably hate them!
I usually love this repertoire, but I find Tubin a little magpie-like, and a touch cold-edged. He does deserve the praise, but it's not a style that is close to my heart, even in the outwardly attractive Sibelian-RVW-like 4th symphony. I think that if you check samples of Atterberg's cycle on Youtube (there is a fair bit) you might be won over quite quickly, as I was:
http://www.youtube.com/v/ArIFG5KOmKs
Thank you. I DID rather like Tubin's Second symphony! I recorded it on a cassette,off Radio 3,back in the mid 80's. The Sixth is more strenuous,but quite exciting. (I tried the cassette of the Second recently and it STILL plays perfectly).
Despite this,I have NEVER bought a single Tubin cd. I think if I do invest in any Tubin it will probably be the Second.
Thank you for the Atterberg link. I will have a listen later on,after supper!
Tubin is energetic and a bit cold, I agree. I love symphonies 1, 4, 6 and 10...
I know that John is la-la about him, but does anyone have any comments on Rangström? Especially for someone who isn't too familiar with Stenhammer as a frame of reference (he's the usual comparison).
Edit: I second Tubin's 4th symphony too - it's undeniably beautiful and should be heard (although it's no doubt on Youtube too).
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 01, 2011, 10:28:14 AM
I know that John is la-la about him, but does anyone have any comments on Rangström? Especially for someone who isn't too familiar with Stenhammer as a frame of reference (he's the usual comparison).
Edit: I second Tubin's 4th symphony too - it's undeniably beautiful and should be heard (although it's no doubt on Youtube too).
Rangström's First Symphony is terrific (under Segerstam especially). All the others (in my opinion) are small beer.
I seem to be alone on Tubin's Second! It stuck in the 'old mind',especially the way he incorporates a piano into the score. So,presumably the one's you mention are even better!
Rangstrom? Of course. He's the other one people rave about on message boards.
If I buy boxed sets of all three I might end up in a box myself!!!!!
Here is Rangström's First... A real scorcher.
http://www.mediafire.com/?nsl9t5mx79u6o (http://www.mediafire.com/?nsl9t5mx79u6o)
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 01, 2011, 10:28:14 AM
I know that John is la-la about him, but does anyone have any comments on Rangström? Especially for someone who isn't too familiar with Stenhammer as a frame of reference (he's the usual comparison).
Edit: I second Tubin's 4th symphony too - it's undeniably beautiful and should be heard (although it's no doubt on Youtube too).
I like Stenhammar, but Rangstrom does not bring him to mind for me (maybe he should, but does not), thinking of the symphonies. I wish I could put my finger on what other composer he reminds me of. There is some Bruckner sound here, with a bit of Ravel at times (without the eroticism - it's that woodwind sound he sometimes seems to resemble). The brass play a heavy role in the symphonies and create some great sonorities (which is why I say Bruckner, though he is not really an entirely good comparison). Reminds me of Bax in some ways too. I'm not sure if I am helping you much. The set on CPO is excellent. He really has his own sound - perhaps that is why I am having so much trouble with the comparisons.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 01, 2011, 10:14:52 AM
I usually love this repertoire, but I find Tubin a little magpie-like, and a touch cold-edged. He does deserve the praise, but it's not a style that is close to my heart, even in the outwardly attractive Sibelian-RVW-like 4th symphony. I think that if you check samples of Atterberg's cycle on Youtube (there is a fair bit) you might be won over quite quickly, as I was:
http://www.youtube.com/v/ArIFG5KOmKs
The finale of that Atterberg symphony (3) is outrageous and heartwarming and gets to my eyes every time - in fact, has been known to 'get to me' even
thinking about it. Might be the most purely, fully, unabashedly beautiful music I've ever heard.
About to go cook up some Indian food, but thanks to Johan I think I'll be hearing some Rangström for dessert. :)
Rangstrom? Atterberg in a very angry mood ;D A romantic Allan Pettersson?
No, seriously....Rangstrom is great 'fun'. Yes, he was a much better song-composer, no doubt, but his symphonies have tended to be ignored in favour of those by fellow Swedes like Alfven and Atterberg. I really like them because they are 'tough romantic' compositions with bite and power(and yes a good dash of bombastic grandeur too :)). They are probably more tone poems than symphonies if truth be told.
I would need to listen to No.4 again to remind myself of what it sounds lke but there is a lot of impressive-sounding music in Nos.1-3 and I would strongly recommend Nos. 2 and 3.
Quote from: Dundonnell on August 01, 2011, 10:51:43 AM
Rangstrom? Atterberg in a very angry mood ;D A romantic Allan Pettersson?
No, seriously....Rangstrom is great 'fun'. Yes, he was a much better song-composer, no doubt, but his symphonies have tended to be ignored in favour of those by fellow Swedes like Alfven and Atterberg. I really like them because they are 'tough romantic' compositions with bite and power(and yes a good dash of bombastic grandeur too :)). They are probably more tone poems than symphonies if truth be told.
I would need to listen to No.4 again to remind myself of what it sounds lke but there is a lot of impressive-sounding music in Nos.1-3 and I would strongly recommend Nos. 2 and 3.
You have described his music better than I could I think.
Sounds like Rangström will be my next pick-up - all the descriptions offered make a lot of sense to me. Alfvén always had a mildly granitic edge (sometimes coming to prominence in works like the 4th symphony) and I would like to hear more of that. I especially like the hints towards a potential Baxian energetic style and "lost in the forests" kind of atmosphere, and perhaps my expectations of a bit less of Bax's rich scoring and meanderings could only benefit such a style.
I'll grab that link, thanks Johan.
Sounds EXTREMELY tempting,to say the least.
So that's only Atterberg,Tubin,Rangstrom,Wellesz and 'Hello Baliff's'!
Actually,Rangstrom sounds (at least,narrowly) the MOST tempting! And largely self taught?!!!
There is another Scandinavian symphonist that also intrigues me,a little. Louis Glass. I know there is someone on Musicweb who rates his fifth symphony very highly. Is he any good? The available recordings seem of variable quality.
Quote from: cilgwyn on August 01, 2011, 11:33:32 AM
There is another Scandinavian symphonist that also intrigues me,a little. Louis Glass. I know there is someone on Musicweb who rates his fifth symphony very highly. Is he any good? The available recordings seem of variable quality.
He is certainly not in the same class as the names mentioned before, save the Bailiff, maybe.
Quote from: cilgwyn on August 01, 2011, 11:33:32 AM
Sounds EXTREMELY tempting,to say the least.
So that's only Atterberg,Tubin,Rangstrom,Wellesz and 'Hello Baliff's'!
Actually,Rangstrom sounds (at least,narrowly) the MOST tempting! And largely self taught?!!!
There is another Scandinavian symphonist that also intrigues me,a little. Louis Glass. I know there is someone on Musicweb who rates his fifth symphony very highly. Is he any good? The available recordings seem of variable quality.
I know Glass's 'Symphonia Svastica' (!, no 5) and I like it.
One of Glass's symphonies is about forests or woods and might just tempt me,ONE day,as I've always been very keen on woodland,for some reason. But the recordings all sound a bit like 'doofers'.
The reviews of Rangstrom's symphonies are full of mouth watering descriptions. But,I've got one,thanks to Johan,so the rest will,sadly,have to wait,or I'll be busking outside Tesco.
Atterberg's scores have been described as 'cinematic, A scandinavian Howard Hanson? Although Hanson's parents were Scandinavian,weren't they? And it shows in his music. Now he's a composer I DO know.
Rob Barnett rates it extremely highly. I quote,"you must hear this".
I get the feeling Louis Glass could benefit from a cpo or Bis style survey?
Quote from: cilgwyn on August 01, 2011, 11:49:35 AM
Atterberg's scores have been described as 'cinematic, A scandinavian Howard Hanson?
Hmm, I like Atterberg a LOT more than Hanson.
Quote from: Brian on August 01, 2011, 11:52:28 AM
Hmm, I like Atterberg a LOT more than Hanson.
He's certainly a level above - nothing really in terms of "innovation", but simple mastery of his own symphonic world. When comparing just the orchestration, Atterberg is revealed as a virtuoso in comparison. I still like Hanson though.
Also, these mentions of Louis Glass remind me - I haven't heard a note by him. So many of these guys to investigate!
The variable nature of the recordings of Glass has always put me off. Also,some of the best ones have been deleted & you get people asking all these ridiculous prices. He DOES sound quite interesting,but he's not at the top of my 'list'. A really first rate cycle along cpo or Bis lines with really good reviews is the sort of thing that might just tempt me.
If I had to single out one piece of music by Hanson that IS really top notch (& by that,I don't mean that I think it's a masterpiece),I would pick his 'Lament for Beowulf'. Filmic,but thrilling!
If you like that sort of thing!!!
One more name. Aarre Merikanto? I have heard his opera 'Juha' described as a masterpiece. (Not saying I agree,because I haven't heard it).
Quote from: cilgwyn on August 01, 2011, 12:10:54 PM
One more name. Aarre Merikanto? I have heard his opera 'Juha' described as a masterpiece. (Not saying I agree,because I haven't heard it).
A pity GMG member Christo (another Johan) is on holiday. He knows everything about Scandinavian and Baltic composers...
I've got the Rangstrom on now. Now this grabs you straight away. I'm going to have to get some cds (the pc is upstairs). And this is the best of the 'bunch'?
Quote from: cilgwyn on August 01, 2011, 12:23:22 PM
I've got the Rangstrom on now. Now this grabs you straight away. I'm going to have to get some cds (the pc is upstairs). And this is the best of the 'bunch'?
This symphony, 'In Memoriam August Strindberg', is a work that has conviction and necessity written all over it. I don't get that feeling with any of the others. Of course, it's a young man's work, so there isn't a lot of subtlety. But it has a raw power I like very much.
It strikes me as having some of the intensity and 'wildness' of Langgaard's First symphony,but his sound world is VERY different.
I see I have two performances of Louis Glass's 5th. One with Launy Grøndahl/DRSO on a mono Danacord collection of four late Romantic Danish symphonies and another, also on Danacord, with Todorov and the Plovdiv Orchestra. Listening to it as I write - good piece!
Only TWO performances. You lucky man!
Quote from: cilgwyn on August 01, 2011, 12:47:57 PM
Only TWO performances. You lucky man!
I'm checking which is the better performance. Perhaps an upload tomorrow...
Oh, I am afraid that the Plovdiv performances of the Louis Glass symphonies did little for the music and, sadly, little for me too. I found them pretty anaemic pieces, to be honest....but then there is a significant difference between the general 'tone' of the Danish and the Swedish 'romantic/nationalists'. Is that a function of national tradition, national psyche, response to the natural environment/terrain???
Merikanto(a Finn of course) is different again. Not enough of his music available on disc at present unfortunately.
Quote from: Dundonnell on August 01, 2011, 01:19:26 PM
Oh, I am afraid that the Plovdiv performances of the Louis Glass symphonies did little for the music and, sadly, little for me too. I found them pretty anaemic pieces, to be honest....but then there is a significant difference between the general 'tone' of the Danish and the Swedish 'romantic/nationalists'. Is that a function of national tradition, national psyche, response to the natural environment/terrain??
I am listening to both performances. Grøndahl is quicker, more matter-of-fact, Todorov takes his time. I prefer Todorov. I must say I really like the music... It reminds me of Suk, Korngold, Delius in places...
Will you agree to disagree?!
There appears to be some division on this forum regarding the quality of Glass's muse.
Two against,one for. (But if you add Rob Barnett,that's two). But then I like Tournemire's symphonies & no one else seems to care for them too much,so maybe I'll like Glass.
Quote from: cilgwyn on August 01, 2011, 01:56:33 PM
Will you agree to disagree?!
There appears to be some division on this forum regarding the quality of Glass's muse.
Two against,one for. (But if you add Rob Barnett,that's two). But then I like Tournemire's symphonies & no one else seems to care for them too much,so maybe I'll like Glass.
Try him... Both performances.
http://www.mediafire.com/?d1teb75vjc49h (http://www.mediafire.com/?d1teb75vjc49h)
Quote from: cilgwyn on August 01, 2011, 12:10:54 PM
One more name. Aarre Merikanto? I have heard his opera 'Juha' described as a masterpiece. (Not saying I agree,because I haven't heard it).
Merikanto's Juha: Interlude http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AasbrhPdgno
Final scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiPSdeeImng
Juha,as well?!
Thank you,Johan. Wasn't one of these performances of Glass's 5th once available as part of a 2 Lp set? I remember seeing it advertised in Gramophone. I was young then & Gramophone was still a good read. I kept thinking,'Shall I buy this?'. The repertory on offer was pretty esoteric for the period. Also,there was a funny building or temple on the cover?
Quote from: cilgwyn on August 01, 2011, 02:14:31 PM
Juha,as well?!
Thank you,Johan. Wasn't one of these performances of Glass's 5th once available as part of a 2 Lp set? I remember seeing it advertised in Gramophone. I was young then & Gramophone was still a good read. I kept thinking,'Shall I buy this?'. The repertory on offer was pretty esoteric for the period. Also,there was a funny building or temple on the cover?
Must be. It's from a set called
4 Danish Late Romantic Symphonies. I bought this as a download from emusic.
That's the one, That sort of repertory was a bit less common then & I was into allot of neglected or obscure composers. The peculiar artwork helped stir my youthful imagination too. The crafty lot! I REALLY did think about buying this one.
I like this so far. Have to say there's something about that name too. 'Louis Glass'. Don't ask me why.
If I enjoy this I'm going to want to hear that 'Woodland Symphony'. No 4,I think? I gather it's not on the same level. Still,good or bad. I'm obsessed with woods,so it'll go on the 'list'. I gather his 6th is a little different from the others.
This is very calming after that Rangstrom volcano!
It'll be allot easier for me to fully absorb these,mind,once they're on a cd. But I like what I'm hearing. And I have been curious about Glass,(and those others,for a while).
Thank you again.
Some of Rangström's 1st symphony reminded me of Leifs at the lighter end of his spectrum, particularly the finale. Neal was right when he described it as an individual style, and somewhat hard to compare. I really like the sense of monumentality the work gains in its writing for winds and strings, shifting between warm and cold moods, then being fragmented by declamatory, tension building/releasing jab-like chords from the full orchestra. It's not subtle, but rather powerful.
I love that Bis cd of Leifs 'Saga Symphony'. When I put it on I told my mother,'There are some very LOUD,SUDDEN NOISES that could make you jump!' I was a bit worried because of her age. (Imagine if someone had a dicky heart?)
In the event we both jumped!
Incidentally,I wonder if Leifs deserves a place here?
If you jumped at the Saga Symphony, avoid Hekla.
Is that worse?
What about 'Baldr' & 'Edda?
THAT HUGE THUMP near the beginning of Strauss's 'Tod und Verklarung' (at least on the Telarc cd recording) seemed bad enough. I think perhaps they close miked it,on purpose? What a whack. My mum shot out of her seat.
Not to mention that percussion (drums?) at the end of the scherzo in the Gothic. You know just at the start of that wild storm. I could see her head moving around. 'I wondered what it was?' she said.
You could kill someone!
Jimi Hendrix couldn't compete. Although he got our cat going!
I am uploading another Rangström piece to the same folder, which I rate as highly as the First Symphony - the symphonic poem Dityramb. The ending is granite, and rather Brianic.
Quote from: J. Z. Herrenberg on August 01, 2011, 10:38:36 AM
Rangström's First Symphony is terrific (under Segerstam especially). All the others (in my opinion) are small beer.
As I posted in the current listening thread, I was very disappointed in the cycle recorded under Jurowski. His 1st is good, but as the cycle goes on he becomes progressively less committed. There is absolutely nothing songful in his recording of the Song under the Stars (Symphony no. 3) nor in the "cantabile" movement of the 4th symphony, for instance. This is the kind of thing I was referring to in my previous post about unhelpful recordings of rare repertoire - a competent (and admittedly spectacular-sounding) recording can lead to the dismissal of a work, where an outright bad recording can paradoxically leave you intrigued and wanting to hear more.
I've emailed EMI and Brilliant suggesting they reissue the alternate recordings as a set (for each symphony, there is exactly one other recording besides Jurowski - all of them out of print).
Quote from: cilgwyn on August 01, 2011, 02:56:46 PM
THAT HUGE THUMP near the beginning of Strauss's 'Tod und Verklarung' (at least on the Telarc cd recording) seemed bad enough. I think perhaps they close miked it,on purpose? What a whack. My mum shot out of her seat.
Not to mention that percussion (drums?) at the end of the scherzo in the Gothic. You know just at the start of that wild storm. I could see her head moving around. 'I wondered what it was?' she said.
You could kill someone!
You should avoid Mahler's 10th, then.
I'm not sure if I mentioned earlier or if he's been mentioned yet, but I think Josef Suk is still neglected. There are recordings of his music available, but his music still isn't widely performed as it should be.
Quote from: eyeresist on August 01, 2011, 06:10:31 PM
As I posted in the current listening thread, I was very disappointed in the cycle recorded under Jurowski. His 1st is good, but as the cycle goes on he becomes progressively less committed. There is absolutely nothing songful in his recording of the Song under the Stars (Symphony no. 3) nor in the "cantabile" movement of the 4th symphony, for instance. This is the kind of thing I was referring to in my previous post about unhelpful recordings of rare repertoire - a competent (and admittedly spectacular-sounding) recording can lead to the dismissal of a work, where an outright bad recording can paradoxically leave you intrigued and wanting to hear more.
Hmmm. I am having trouble following some of your comments, but let's start with the easier part. First, I disagree that the CPO set becomes less committed as they go on. I think they are committed throughout (it is the one thing that I actually feel strongly about - they take the music by the horns in my opinion), though I would agree they can be a little rough around the edges at times (which oddly seems to be a plus at times as it seems to suit the music).
The third symphony - in what way is it not songful (and I am not sure we share the same understanding of what you mean by that)? Perhaps you have a different expectation of how the music should sound? When I listen, it seems to me...hmm, what's the best word here...manic maybe? Fantastical (does have certain hints of the Sorcerer's Apprentice about it)? It is bombastic and loud (crass even) with some incredibly lyrical moments thrown in. In some ways, Rangstrom is at his most unique here, and I think that comes out in the CPO recording. Personally, I think the 3rd as played here is fantastic - the build ups are incredible, the sound world a bit unique, and I get great pleasure from the music. SO we can disagree over the merits of the recording, and I see no problem with that.
Your last sentence/thought doesn't make sense to me. I cannot think of a case where a bad recording has ever led me to wanting to hear more. If a recording is bad, I will, at best, think about a different recording at some point in the future (but most likely will just dismiss it). So even if we accept your view of the music and this recording, I don't see how this does a dis-service to the music. A mediocre recording should still whet the appetite to hear more (as it still gives an idea of what could have been).
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 01, 2011, 08:30:10 PM
I'm not sure if I mentioned earlier or if he's been mentioned yet, but I think Josef Suk is still neglected. There are recordings of his music available, but his music still isn't widely performed as it should be.
Truth be told, I first purchased about half a dozen Supraphon CDs of Suk's music because, as a young man, I was drawn to it by the sexy paintings on the covers, mostly of naked women. Eventually, the music took over.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 02, 2011, 12:36:14 AM
Your last sentence/thought doesn't make sense to me. I cannot think of a case where a bad recording has ever led me to wanting to hear more. If a recording is bad, I will, at best, think about a different recording at some point in the future (but most likely will just dismiss it). So even if we accept your view of the music and this recording, I don't see how this does a dis-service to the music. A mediocre recording should still whet the appetite to hear more (as it still gives an idea of what could have been).
Well, I mean a recording that gives the impression that it has done justice to the music, and thus may serve for the casual listener to fairly assess the piece, when this is in fact not the case. Again, my real-world example is the Kalinnikov symphony. If I had heard the Kuchar or Jarvi recording first, I probably would have dismissed it, as others have done (as in the GMG favourite symphonies thread), as a tuneful but obviously trivial work. Only by sheer luck (and cheapskatery!) did I encounter the Friedmann recording first. This experience led me to become distrustful of the virtues of standard recommendations, which can often be more a product of faith than of close listening.
In the case of Rangstrom I was struck by the symphonies seemed to decline remarkably in interest, from the 1st to the 4th. This made me more analytical of the details of his performance, and I became conscious of a lack of sympathy with the music on the part of Jurowski. It is all, ultimately, a question of personal taste, but I hope my skepticism will lead in time to my hearing better - or at least more personally satisfying - performances!
Come to think of it. If the loud 'Thwack!' near the beginning of Strauss's 'Death and transfiguration' did actually kill you,that would be highly appropriate;although maybe not quite what the listener was hoping for!
I shall have try listening to Mahler's tenth symphony again. But maybe not. I find late Mahler so self indulgent and gloomy. After a few minutes of earth shattering doom I'm off down to B&Q to find a nice strong piece of rope to hang myself.
Regarding Rangstrom. These posts are extremely interesting. For another comparison,what about Vernon Handley's interpretation of Bantock's 'Hebridean Symphony' and that earlier Marco Polo recording? Not exactly great music,but Handley and the RPO transformed the piece. Something of the atmosphere of the music came through in the earlier recording,but only my curiosity about Bantock and other neglected composers led me to buy the Hyperion cd.
Springrite! So Suk beat Electric Ladyland?!!!
Quote from: springrite on August 02, 2011, 12:43:38 AM
Truth be told, I first purchased about half a dozen Supraphon CDs of Suk's music because, as a young man, I was drawn to it by the sexy paintings on the covers, mostly of naked women. Eventually, the music took over.
:P
Quote from: cilgwyn on August 02, 2011, 04:09:55 AM
Come to think of it. If the loud 'Thwack!' near the beginning of Strauss's 'Death and transfiguration' did actually kill you,that would be highly appropriate;although maybe not quite what the listener was hoping for!
I shall have try listening to Mahler's tenth symphony again. But maybe not. I find late Mahler so self indulgent and gloomy. After a few minutes of earth shattering gloom I'm off down to B&Q to find a nice strong piece of rope to hang myself.
Regarding Rangstrom. These posts are extremely interesting. For another comparison,what about Vernon Handley's interpretation of Bantock's 'Hebridean Symphony' and that earlier Marco Polo recording? Not exactly great music,but Handley and the RPO transformed the piece. Something of the atmosphere of the music came through in the earlier recording,but only my curiosity about Bantock and other neglected composers led me to buy the Hyperion cd.
Kudos for mentioning Bantock. The Handley-led set on Hyperion is worth its weight in gold.
It's worth a couple of gold bricks!
I'll go ahead and mention Bacewicz. I'm sure she's well known and played in Poland, but outside of Poland who has really heard of her today? I really hope Chandos continues their survey of her orchestral music. She's written some ballets that haven't been played that sound really interesting and not to mention several symphonies. All of her VCs have been performed, except for the 6th, which hasn't been published or is lost. Anyway, thought I would add her if she hasn't been mentioned already.
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 02, 2011, 09:42:00 PMI'll go ahead and mention Bacewicz.
And I'll add Elizabeth Maconchy. Her fantastic SQ's deserve much more recognition.
Quote from: Rinaldo on August 07, 2011, 01:54:37 AM
And I'll add Elizabeth Maconchy. Her fantastic SQ's deserve much more recognition.
Yeah, she's one I want explore as well. I heard she has a strong Bartok influence in her music.
Stanley Bate
Richard Arnell
Vitezslav Novak
Nikolai Miaskovsky
Klaus Egge
Hilding Rosenberg
Ronald Lo Presti
Oops that's seven - but never mind as I started the thread ;D
Yes! Stanley Bate. And also Arnold Cooke, Ruth Gipps, Léon Orthel, Elis Pehkonen - to compensate for your slight disgression with only five names. ;)
Ten years ago I would have contributed a list of six composers to this discussion (but ten years ago forums like this didn't exist!)
Now, with forums like this, access to people's recordings from the radio, various labels doing great work to promote neglected composers &c I'd say that a more useful list would be composers and genres that are overrated and crowd out worthier composers.
Because what is needed is continually to be attracting young people to classical music, as listeners and players, so that the tradition continues. Although, thanks to the Internet, you can find a lot of what you are looking for, you have to want to look. Most contemporary attempts to popularise classical music make the mistake of choosing music that isn't likely to appeal to anyone. Here in Australia we have a government funded classical radio service that repeats the format of the UK Classic FM ( :-( ) (no Radio 3 thank you). Concerts are crammed with the same old schmaltzy repertoire, compared to which grunge is like a joyful melody on a spring day. I expect the situation is similar, if not quite so dumbed-down elsewhere in the world.
So, repertoire and composers to concentrate on when trying popularise classical music:
1. early music & renaissance
2. baroque music except opera
3. classical music
4. carefully selected bits of Romantic music leaving most of it out
5. C20 neoclassical, neo- and post-romantic (carefully chosen)
Repertoire and composers to avoid:
1. Bad opera and bad vocal music generally
2. Most Romantic music, especially Tchaikovsky, Brahms &c
3. Most French music post 1720
4. C20 avant garde and aleatory music
Quote from: calyptorhynchus on July 13, 2012, 05:04:25 PM
Because what is needed is continually to be attracting young people to classical music, as listeners and players, so that the tradition continues.
As a young person (22) with several young friends who love classical music, I can tell you something quite odd: of the three people whom I personally have helped become serious classical music lovers, two were "converted" by the slow movement of Beethoven's Seventh, and the other by Shostakovich, and then one of the two who were baptised by Beethoven immediately became a Shostakovich addict. More or less every music student at my university was united by an incredible love of Shostakovich. I think the lesson is that the way to draw people in is with music which is tonal and modestly tuneful, but more importantly, music which has gripping emotional immediacy and complexity - and, let's be honest, a lot of loud climaxes and a big orchestra.
A lot of people are drawn in by Bach and the baroque. I think it's a whole different personality type, actually. It really depends on the individual; none of my friends were like that. Well, one or two.
Quote from: Christo on July 13, 2012, 01:10:21 PM
Yes! Stanley Bate. And also Arnold Cooke, Ruth Gipps, Léon Orthel, Elis Pehkonen - to compensate for your slight disgression with only five names. ;)
I have enjoyed discovering Orthel (thanks to your recommendations). Yes, Ruth Gipps (especially the terrific Symphony No 4) deserved the Dutton Bate/Arnell treatment. :)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 02, 2011, 12:36:14 AM
If a recording is bad, I will, at best, think about a different recording at some point in the future (but most likely will just dismiss it). So even if we accept your view of the music and this recording, I don't see how this does a dis-service to the music. A mediocre recording should still whet the appetite to hear more (as it still gives an idea of what could have been).
There is so much music to listen to though so many people are not likely to be encouraged to listen to another recording. Maybe it depends how bad the performance is as well. If it still sounds like is has interesting musical ideas but they are articulated and phrased badly perhaps someone might try another recording. And certainly if it's a famous work which someone has heard many good things about maybe they might try another recording too. But I'm sure that a bad recording could potentially put someone off listening to another version of the work for quite some time, particularly if it is in a style they aren't so used to.
Quote from: calyptorhynchus on July 13, 2012, 05:04:25 PM
Concerts are crammed with the same old schmaltzy repertoire, compared to which grunge is like a joyful melody on a spring day. I expect the situation is similar, if not quite so dumbed-down elsewhere in the world.
Repertoire and composers to avoid: [when trying popularise classical music:]
2. Most Romantic music, especially Tchaikovsky, Brahms &c
Tchaikovsky is more of a classical romantic, his melody can be quite pure. Generally newcomers to classical music find his music quite attractive.
Quote from: calyptorhynchus on July 13, 2012, 05:04:25 PM
Ten years ago I would have contributed a list of six composers to this discussion (but ten years ago forums like this didn't exist!)
Now, with forums like this, access to people's recordings from the radio, various labels doing great work to promote neglected composers &c I'd say that a more useful list would be composers and genres that are overrated and crowd out worthier composers.
Because what is needed is continually to be attracting young people to classical music, as listeners and players, so that the tradition continues. Although, thanks to the Internet, you can find a lot of what you are looking for, you have to want to look. Most contemporary attempts to popularise classical music make the mistake of choosing music that isn't likely to appeal to anyone. Here in Australia we have a government funded classical radio service that repeats the format of the UK Classic FM ( :-( ) (no Radio 3 thank you). Concerts are crammed with the same old schmaltzy repertoire, compared to which grunge is like a joyful melody on a spring day. I expect the situation is similar, if not quite so dumbed-down elsewhere in the world.
So, repertoire and composers to concentrate on when trying popularise classical music:
1. early music & renaissance
2. baroque music except opera
3. classical music
4. carefully selected bits of Romantic music leaving most of it out
5. C20 neoclassical, neo- and post-romantic (carefully chosen)
Repertoire and composers to avoid:
1. Bad opera and bad vocal music generally
2. Most Romantic music, especially Tchaikovsky, Brahms &c
3. Most French music post 1720
4. C20 avant garde and aleatory music
What a load of cobblers and dreadfully issued 'guidelines'. Develop your argument some more, I might take it seriously, but in its current form (quoted above) there is nothing to take it at all seriously - you present two lists, a should and a shouldn't, but nothing to say why. Happily, our music has stood the test of time, unlike 'grunge' which came from Seattle and lasted only a few years bigtime in youth culture in the early 90's. Unfortunately it is not like joy on a spring day listening to 'grunge' for lovers of classical music! I would like to understand why your post is so vacuous - you clearly have something interesting to say here, but it lacks substance. You have given no reasons for your numbered guidelines. A post like this always pisses me off. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Quote from: Brian on July 13, 2012, 07:24:19 PM
As a young person (22) with several young friends who love classical music, I can tell you something quite odd: of the three people whom I personally have helped become serious classical music lovers, two were "converted" by the slow movement of Beethoven's Seventh, and the other by Shostakovich, and then one of the two who were baptised by Beethoven immediately became a Shostakovich addict. More or less every music student at my university was united by an incredible love of Shostakovich. I think the lesson is that the way to draw people in is with music which is tonal and modestly tuneful, but more importantly, music which has gripping emotional immediacy and complexity - and, let's be honest, a lot of loud climaxes and a big orchestra.
A lot of people are drawn in by Bach and the baroque. I think it's a whole different personality type, actually. It really depends on the individual; none of my friends were like that. Well, one or two.
Not necessarily. While it's true that I discovered Shostakovich much later than I did the others, both Bach and Shostakovich figure very high on my personal list
1-Bach
2-Mahler
3-Shostakovich
4-Beethoven
5-11 Vivaldi, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Chopin, Rachmaninov, Debussy
Numbers 5-11 tend to go up and down relative to each other (which is why I can really confine it to a "Top ten") depending on what I've listened to most recently, what the weather is outside, and the twinge in my right big toe, but Numbers 1-4 have been fairly stable ever since I first heard Shostakovich, about ten years ago now.
Quote from: Scots John on July 15, 2012, 02:34:39 AMWhat a load of cobblers and dreadfully issued 'guidelines'. Develop your argument some more, I might take it seriously, but in its current form (quoted above) there is nothing to take it at all seriously - you present two lists, a should and a shouldn't, but nothing to say why. Happily, our music has stood the test of time, unlike 'grunge' which came from Seattle and lasted only a few years bigtime in youth culture in the early 90's. Unfortunately it is not like joy on a spring day listening to 'grunge' for lovers of classical music! I would like to understand why your post is so vacuous - you clearly have something interesting to say here, but it lacks substance. You have given no reasons for your numbered guidelines. A post like this always pisses me off. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Whoa, calm down, man!
I think you misunderstood - previous poster was describing current practice, not prescribing policy.
Quote from: eyeresist on July 15, 2012, 06:14:44 PM
Whoa, calm down, man!
I think you misunderstood - previous poster was describing current practice, not prescribing policy.
Where is the practice taking place and who is practicing it? And what is the practice? I do not understand the entire post. My fault. Sorry calyptorhynchus. :o :-[
Quote from: Dundonnell on August 01, 2011, 07:13:24 AM
I don't think that he deserves a thread of his own but a composer who certainly was neglected but whose music impressed me when I heard it for the first time last year is
Hermann Hans Wetzler.
Wetzler(1870-1943) was born and received his musical education in Frankfurt am Main but his family had actually settled in the USA in 1848. His father was from Bohemia and his mother was German. Between 1892 and 1905 Wetzler attempted to establish himself in the USA as a musician, culminating in his formation of the Wetzler Symphony Orchestra-which gave the first performance of Richard Strauss' Sinfonia Domestica under the composer's baton. Wetzler returned to Europe in 1905 and conducted in a number of cities, including Cologne from 1919 to 1922. Wetzler later settled in Switzerland but died in New York in 1943. His compositions were banned in Germany after 1935 because of the Jewish origins of his parents.
CPO issued a disc of his two principal orchestral compositions: Visionen and Assisi: Legend for Orchestra (Robert Schumann Philharmonic Orchestra, Chemnitz/Frank Beermann). I was particularly struck by Assisi. Wetzler's compositional style is a not perhaps surprising blend of Richard Strauss, Max Reger, a bit of Bruckner, richly chromatic.
Not great music but better than some of the other 'romantic' Germans unearthed over the last few years by CPO. Worth a listen at least.
Bump.
« No great music ». FALSE ! :) I would daresay that these two works (which I discovered today) are
real masterpieces. I agree with Dundonnel's note about a regerian influence (at his fulsome echt-romantic best, such as in the violin concerto or romances), but instead of a straussian influence (which I didn't detect) I'd rather go for Busoni who was his senior by 4 years, and even the young Schönberg (Pelléas), although Wetzler's musical language is much more concise. Scouring the net for addiitonal info, I didn't find much. He seems to have composed very little (highest opus number I saw is #20).
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/617RqIyM0NL.jpg)
Quote from: Brian on July 13, 2012, 07:24:19 PM
As a young person (22) with several young friends who love classical music, I can tell you something quite odd: of the three people whom I personally have helped become serious classical music lovers, two were "converted" by the slow movement of Beethoven's Seventh, and the other by Shostakovich, and then one of the two who were baptised by Beethoven immediately became a Shostakovich addict. More or less every music student at my university was united by an incredible love of Shostakovich. I think the lesson is that the way to draw people in is with music which is tonal and modestly tuneful, but more importantly, music which has gripping emotional immediacy and complexity - and, let's be honest, a lot of loud climaxes and a big orchestra.
A lot of people are drawn in by Bach and the baroque. I think it's a whole different personality type, actually. It really depends on the individual; none of my friends were like that. Well, one or two.
Maybe. I need to be in a special mood to deal with romantic music or, in general, music with a lot of dynamic changes. I was converted by the Goldberg Variations and I love baroque. The stuff between Bach and Debussy gets less play and, lately, Shostakovich sounds a bit too distraught for me. But his prelude and fugues are pretty awesome.