I did a search and got nothing... I thought there was already a thread for this.
Several come to mind:
Atterberg
Pettersson
Lachenmann
Braga Santos
Cras
Rontgen
Zelenka
Gade
Miaskovsky
Weinberg
Medtner
Andreae
Froberger
Louis Couperin
Ropartz
Le Flem
Aho
I agree with your choices of Atterberg, Pettersson, and Braga Santos, Greg. All excellent choices. A few of mine:
Delius (!!!)
Villa-Lobos
Honegger
Milhaud
Myaskovsky
Chavez
Revueltas
Ginastera
Rubbra
Sculthorpe
Vine
William Schuman
Casella
Malipiero
Pizzetti
Howells
Finzi
Freitas Branco
Madetoja
More here (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,17503.0.html) and here (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,19179.0.html); and on a tangent, here (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,18936.0.html) and here (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,16977.0.html).
Nav, you are the man!
Probably someone I haven't heard of.
Without any doubt Joseph Haydn.
Quote from: Opus106 on March 27, 2013, 10:20:18 AM
More here (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,17503.0.html) and here (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,19179.0.html); and on a tangent, here (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,18936.0.html) and here (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,16977.0.html).
No wonder the search didn't bring up the term "underrated."
Quote from: The new erato on March 27, 2013, 11:19:29 AM
Probably someone I haven't heard of.
;D
Hmmm... I might check out some Couperin, to start.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 27, 2013, 10:11:40 AM
I agree with your choices of Atterberg, Pettersson, and Braga Santos, Greg. All excellent choices. A few of mine:
Delius (!!!)
Villa-Lobos
Honegger
Milhaud
Myaskovsky
Chavez
Revueltas
Ginastera
Rubbra
Sculthorpe
Vine
William Schuman
Casella
Malipiero
Pizzetti
Howells
Finzi
Freitas Branco
Madetoja
MI you promised to never change your avatar!!! Anyway cheers on the new look which I find ever so much more cheerful. Plus one on Ginastera and Rubbra. Consistency is the hobgoblin of one of those things you don't want, and someday you might like Bach and I Delius.
Taneyev. Very underrated, when compared to his more 'famous' compatriots. Perhaps undeservedly so, but who cares? ;D I enjoy his music very much so, and he's my third favourite Russian composer after Shostakovich and Tchaikovsky. Yes, I enjoy him even more than Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky and Rachmaninov (and I really, really, really love the music of these composers).
Perhaps my Taneyev is John's Delius! :)
Quote from: Johnll on March 27, 2013, 03:56:58 PM
MI you promised to never change your avatar!!! Anyway cheers on the new look which I find ever so much more cheerful. Plus one on Ginastera and Rubbra. Consistency is the hobgoblin of one of those things you don't want, and someday you might like Bach and I Delius.
Yeah, I know, but I've said many things that I could never actually commit to. ;) I think I'll give Bach's sacred choral works a shot at some point as I'm quite attracted to music for larger forces. What's so interesting is I can understand why so many people dislike Delius' music but, at the same time, people can't understand why I don't like Bach. I never understood this kind of mentality. Oh well, Delius isn't the only composer I love. Anyway, Ginastera and Rubbra have been favorites for many years and it still saddens me that not much has been recorded of their music. Rubbra might be even more underrated than Ginastera.
Most of the composers mentioned here are not so much "underrated" and underappreciated and unjustly neglected .
All of them have their admirers .
Quote from: Superhorn on March 27, 2013, 05:47:06 PM
Most of the composers mentioned here are not so much "underrated" and underappreciated and unjustly neglected .
All of them have their admirers .
A true and fair statement.
Quote from: mszczuj on March 27, 2013, 11:55:03 AM
Without any doubt Joseph Haydn.
Thanks, saved me from saying it. He is the
sine qua non of everything post 1770. Too few realize it. :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 27, 2013, 05:54:01 PM
Thanks, saved me from saying it. He is the sine qua non of everything post 1770. Too few realize it. :)
8)
In the grand scheme of things, I can't honestly disagree. He was such a towering figure, and powerful influence on so many composers spanning many eras.
He is underrated in a sense. He should be spoken of being at the same level at least, as Mozart and Beethoven, and not as the 'next great one after these two' vein.
Quote from: Greg on March 27, 2013, 09:52:05 AM
I did a search and got nothing... I thought there was already a thread for this.
Several come to mind:
Atterberg
Pettersson
Lachenmann
Braga Santos
Atterberg! Yaay!
I hate to do this... serisouly!
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 27, 2013, 04:31:34 PM
What's so interesting is I can understand why so many people dislike Delius' music but, at the same time, people can't understand why I don't like Bach.
Dude, you have it mixed up. There are many people who like and listen to Delius (have you been to the 'Listening' thread lately?), but it is
you who go out of your way to make yourself appear silly (and taking that as a cue, we just bully you and make fun of Delius for the sake of it :P ;)).
Thread duty: *wishes he could say something useful here*.... :-[
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 27, 2013, 04:31:34 PM
Yeah, I know, but I've said many things that I could never actually commit to. ;) I think I'll give Bach's sacred choral works a shot at some point as I'm quite attracted to music for larger forces. What's so interesting is I can understand why so many people dislike Delius' music but, at the same time, people can't understand why I don't like Bach. I never understood this kind of mentality. Oh well, Delius isn't the only composer I love. Anyway, Ginastera and Rubbra have been favorites for many years and it still saddens me that not much has been recorded of their music. Rubbra might be even more underrated than Ginastera.
You've got it all wrong. The problem is your tendency to equate "I like" with "greatest of all time" and vice versa, as well as using "snobbery" and cowtowing to "academia" as reasons for people disagreeing with you. Stop doing that (aka be a little humble and admit that you don't know it all), and we're fine with you loving Delius and disliking Bach.
Quote from: ChamberNut on March 27, 2013, 05:59:18 PM
In the grand scheme of things, I can't honestly disagree. He was such a towering figure, and powerful influence on so many composers spanning many eras.
He is underrated in a sense. He should be spoken of being at the same level at least, as Mozart and Beethoven, and not as the 'next great one after these two' vein.
Yes, that is the sense I meant it in. :)
8)
Quote from: Sammy on March 27, 2013, 10:07:31 AM
Cras
Zelenka
Miaskovsky
Weinberg
Aho
Even on an otherwise very good list, these are outstanding choices.
I'll throw in Silvius Weiss.
Quote from: mszczuj on March 27, 2013, 11:55:03 AM
Without any doubt Joseph Haydn.
And maybe his brother.
Also,
Anatole Liadov and Nikolai N. Tcherepnin. The later had little output, but then so did Buddy Holly. ;)Oh, and William Boyce as well.How about Handel?
Quote from: Brian on March 28, 2013, 04:38:27 AM
I'll throw in Silvius Weiss.
This isn't another dwarf-tossing joke, is it? ; )
Quote from: The new erato on March 28, 2013, 12:03:38 AM
You've got it all wrong. The problem is your tendency to equate "I like" with "greatest of all time" and vice versa, as well as using "snobbery" and cowtowing to "academia" as reasons for people disagreeing with you. Stop doing that (aka be a little humble and admit that you don't know it all), and we're fine with you loving Delius and disliking Bach.
I never claimed to "know it all." I equated Delius to ONE of the greatest of all-time, which you still can't seem to understand and, above all, it's just my opinion. I can dislike academia all I want, erato. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me, I just don't like the snobbery of these people. That's okay isn't it? I can dislike something if I want to can't I? I don't need your permission to dislike something do I? Do I need to check in with you before sharing my love of music or posting something negative about a composer I don't like?
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 28, 2013, 06:44:45 AM
Do I need to check in with you before [...] posting something negative about a composer I don't like?
No need for that. Just take a moment for yourself, make sure whether what you're about to post was really asked for and whether it makes sense, and then proceed accordingly. For instance consider this statement of unfair generalisation:
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 28, 2013, 06:44:45 AM
I can dislike academia all I want, erato. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me, I just don't like the snobbery of these people.
I think one can certainly be Gustav Holst. He's well known just for The Planets that, although it is absolutely a masterpiece, has unfortunately cast a shadow on many other beautiful works Holst composed.
Others:
Allan Pettersson
William Schuman
Carlos Chavez
Yngve Sköld
Jón Leifs
Hans Christian Lumbye
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 28, 2013, 04:13:45 AM
Yes, that is the sense I meant it in.
So did I. There are some people in the history of culture whose names are commonly known even to those who are not especiallly interested in art, liiterature, music.. Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe, Leonardo,, Michelangelo. There are three composers who belong to this pantheon. I think it is the great disadvantage for the western culture that it doesn't remember that Haydn is one of them.
In general, female composers are underrated. This doesn't mean that any are amongst the 'greatest' but only that they deserve a greater representation in the repertoire.
One exception: a strong case can be made for placing Fanny Hensel firmly amongst the greatest composers of lieder.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on March 28, 2013, 02:19:33 PM
In general, female composers are underrated. This doesn't mean that any are amongst the 'greatest' but only that they deserve a greater representation in the repertoire.
One exception: a strong case can be made for placing Fanny Hensel firmly amongst the greatest composers of lieder.
Even with the unfortunate last name of
Wagner, American
Melinda Wagner has some recordings of interest out there:
[asin]B005CVFJ4O[/asin]
and
[asin]B00004T8MN[/asin]
Which besides
M. Wagner's Flute Concerto, offers the
Poul Ruders Concerto in Pieces.
I listened to a little bit of Couperin yesterday and enjoyed it.
Here's a good channel for lesser known composers and their (mainly) symphonies:
http://www.youtube.com/user/GoldieG89?feature=watch
It's kind of weird not being "stuck" on a certain composer or musician, since I have been for 13 years (ever since I've started listening to music). There's a ton of great stuff out there I don't know about (that channel proves it), but nothing at the moment to be obsessed over. I'll still get a rush out of Mahler every now and then, but it happens and it's over and I don't even think about listening to more.
It would be nice to find a new composer to be obsessed over. I've been enjoying some Lachenmann, Braga Santos, and Delius, but perhaps what I really need is for Mahler to come back to life again and write more symphonies. :P
Greg, I imagine a guy like you getting a bit obsessed with Shostakovich or Pettersson.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 28, 2013, 09:12:54 PM
Greg, I imagine a guy like you getting a bit obsessed with Shostakovich or Pettersson.
Shostakovich phase passed (still one of my favorites), Pettersson I really only was crazy about the 7th and 8th symphonies. Maybe I should revisit a few of the other symphonies.
Any other suggestions? You seem to know a bit about obscure composers. ;)
Quote from: Greg on March 28, 2013, 09:20:54 PM
Shostakovich phase passed (still one of my favorites), Pettersson I really only was crazy about the 7th and 8th symphonies. Maybe I should revisit a few of the other symphonies.
Any other suggestions? You seem to know a bit about obscure composers. ;)
The only other Pettersson work I can stand behind and recommend without reservation is his
Symphony No. 6. Like the 7th, this symphony has an amazing journey from darkness to light. Completely brooding and I highly suggest checking out the newer Christian Lindberg BIS recording for this symphony.
You might want to try some Rawsthorne. His three symphonies are aggressive but completely engaging IMHO. Checkout the Lloyd-Jones performances on Naxos.
Quote from: Greg on March 28, 2013, 08:42:01 PM
perhaps what I really need is for Mahler to come back to life again and write more symphonies. :P
Matthijs Vermeulen. Try his 1st Symphony, you find perfect Mahler in it though mixed with Johannes Ockeghem, which of course doesn't make it worse, as Ockeghem is one of the greatest and the most underrated composers ever. The othean symphonies of Vermeulen are not so mahlerian but probably more interesting, especially the 2nd.
And it is not the bad idea to look down to Netherlands while looking for underrated composers as you can find the whole rows of them there. I was impressed especially by Vermeulen and Dieppenbrock, but there is an extremely interesting row of Andriessens as well.
Quote from: ChamberNut on March 27, 2013, 04:02:05 PM
Taneyev. Very underrated, when compared to his more 'famous' compatriots.
Agreed. I hope
Taneyev's time is finally coming. It
already has to some degree.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 28, 2013, 06:44:45 AM
I never claimed to "know it all." I equated Delius to ONE of the greatest of all-time, which you still can't seem to understand and, above all, it's just my opinion. I can dislike academia all I want, erato. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me, I just don't like the snobbery of these people. That's okay isn't it? I can dislike something if I want to can't I? I don't need your permission to dislike something do I? Do I need to check in with you before sharing my love of music or posting something negative about a composer I don't like?
You can like or dislike anything you want. I find your posts intereting, and most of your likes pretty similar to mine. But before you make sweeping generalizations based on limited experience, just take note of what Opus106 said. If you reread my comments you will see that they usually are triggered by those, not by your liked or dislikes.
Quote from: The new erato on March 29, 2013, 03:00:30 AM
You can like or dislike anything you want. I find your posts intereting, and most of your likes pretty similar to mine. But before you make sweeping generalizations based on limited experience, just take note of what Opus106 said. If you reread my comments you will see that they usually are triggered by those, not by your liked or dislikes.
Okay, erato, I'm sorry for going on about this, let's just put it behind us.
Quote from: Lisztianwagner on March 28, 2013, 08:46:07 AM
Yngve Sköld
Definitely definitely definitely definitely, Ilaria!! So many great pieces which deserve more recordings. If I'm successful in being a conductor, I would love to promote his music. :)
Quote from: madaboutmahler on March 29, 2013, 07:17:46 AM
Definitely definitely definitely definitely, Ilaria!! So many great pieces which deserve more recordings. If When I'm successful in being a conductor, I would love to promote his music. :)
There Daniel, I had to fix that for you. I have no doubt in my mind! :)
Quote from: ChamberNut on March 29, 2013, 07:19:31 AM
There Daniel, I had to fix that for you. I have no doubt in my mind! :)
Oh, thank you, Ray! Very kind of you!! :)
Quote from: madaboutmahler on March 29, 2013, 07:17:46 AM
Definitely definitely definitely definitely, Ilaria!! So many great pieces which deserve more recordings. If I'm successful in being a conductor, I would love to promote his music. :)
Quote from: ChamberNut on March 29, 2013, 07:19:31 AM
There Daniel, I had to fix that for you. I have no doubt in my mind! :)
It would be fantastic, Skold's music certainly deserves to be recorded more! Haha, I'm sure you'll be successful in being a conductor too, Daniel; and if I become a great pianist, I'll be honoured to help you in performning his piano concertos. ;)
Quote from: Lisztianwagner on March 29, 2013, 08:48:30 AM
It would be fantastic, Skold's music certainly deserves to be recorded more! Haha, I'm sure you'll be successful in being a conductor too, Daniel; and if I become a great pianist, I'll be honoured to help you in performning his piano concertos. ;)
Absolutely!
haha, thank you, Ilaria! Hope so! Of course, that would be great! :D
Is Alkan underrated? Then Alkan.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 28, 2013, 09:35:46 PM
The only other Pettersson work I can stand behind and recommend without reservation is his Symphony No. 6. Like the 7th, this symphony has an amazing journey from darkness to light. Completely brooding and I highly suggest checking out the newer Christian Lindberg BIS recording for this symphony.
You might want to try some Rawsthorne. His three symphonies are aggressive but completely engaging IMHO. Checkout the Lloyd-Jones performances on Naxos.
When I listen to Pettersson's 6th, I just can't help but think how I wish it were the 7th or 8th. >:D
Rawsthorne's 3 Symphonies are good, and I do have those versions. Maybe I'll get them another listen tomorrow. He's probably another composer I would put on this list if I listened to him more.
Quote from: mszczuj on March 28, 2013, 10:33:15 PM
Matthijs Vermeulen. Try his 1st Symphony, you find perfect Mahler in it though mixed with Johannes Ockeghem, which of course doesn't make it worse, as Ockeghem is one of the greatest and the most underrated composers ever. The othean symphonies of Vermeulen are not so mahlerian but probably more interesting, especially the 2nd.
And it is not the bad idea to look down to Netherlands while looking for underrated composers as you can find the whole rows of them there. I was impressed especially by Vermeulen and Dieppenbrock, but there is an extremely interesting row of Andriessens as well.
Thanks for the suggestion. Found it on youtube and will listen! :)
Quote from: Greg on March 29, 2013, 07:05:55 PM
When I listen to Pettersson's 6th, I just can't help but think how I wish it were the 7th or 8th. >:D
Rawsthorne's 3 Symphonies are good, and I do have those versions. Maybe I'll get them another listen tomorrow. He's probably another composer I would put on this list if I listened to him more.
I know what you mean. Pettersson's 7th is just a masterpiece from start to finish. Nothing is wasted. But the 6th does have many good sections. Rawsthorne's symphonies are just so aggressive. The 2nd does let up a little, but the 1st and 3rd are, I'm sure, quite taxing on the orchestra musicians.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 29, 2013, 07:08:41 PM
Rawsthorne's symphonies are just so aggressive.
That's the first thing that came to mind when listening to them. ;D
What does "underrated" mean? So far it seems to mean "composers you like that don't get a lot of recognition by historians/critics/record labels", in which case i imagine "underappreciated" would be a better term. People seem to have a tendency to overrate obscure composers (esp. late-romantic and early twentieth), equalling them to the established greats in quality, which is arguably only rarely the case.
+1 to Ockeghem, Zelenka and Froberger. Some under-appreciated modern composers, imo, include Marc Yeats, Vladimir Tarnopolski, Gérard Pesson, Michael Finnissy, Claude Vivier (who is, however, finding his niche), John Wall, Robert Phillips, Aldo Clementi, Luke Bedford, Costin Miereanu, Ivo Malec, Jean-Claude Risset, etc. i'll try not to overrate any of these people. :|
It really doesnt bother me that some of the composers I like might be over or under-appreciated by others - Its what I think about their music that matters to me :laugh:
Quote from: Beorn on March 29, 2013, 10:24:16 AM
Is Alkan underrated? Then Alkan.
Certainly Alkan. Friends still ask who he is, and in the same category - Heller.
Quote from: Greg on March 27, 2013, 09:52:05 AM
I did a search and got nothing... I thought there was already a thread for this.
Several come to mind:
Atterberg
Pettersson
Lachenmann
Braga Santos
Don't know Lachenmann but agree with all the others.
I would add:
Tubin
Frank Bridge
Stanley Bate
Richard Arnell
Rootham
Diamond
Miaskovsky (of course!)
Weinberg
Eshpai
Malcolm Williamson
Hilding Rosenberg
Popov
Egge
Hurum
Lo Presti
Cimarosa
Durante
Galuppi
Meyr
Cherubini
Boccherini
Donatoni
Aperghis
Pécou
Heininen
These are in fact favourite composers of mine.
Quote from: Henk on March 30, 2013, 06:15:01 AM
Cimarosa
Durante
Galuppi
Meyr
Cherubini
Boccherini
Donatoni
Aperghis
Pécou
Heininen
These are in fact favourite composers of mine.
Welcome back,
Henk! :)
Quote from: Conor on March 30, 2013, 02:08:03 AM
It really doesnt bother me that some of the composers I like might be over or under-appreciated by others - Its what I think about their music that matters to me :laugh:
Except when not all of a composer's works are recorded, or there are not enough good recordings (in non-classical, this doesn't apply, luckily). All the Havergal Brian fans know what I'm talking about...
Quote from: Greg on March 30, 2013, 06:44:35 AM
Except when not all of a composer's works are recorded, or there are not enough good recordings (in non-classical, this doesn't apply, luckily). All the Havergal Brian fans know what I'm talking about...
Yes, true :)
Quote from: ChamberNut on March 30, 2013, 06:30:45 AM
Welcome back, Henk! :)
Thanks Ray, I'm not determined to stay long, I just post something.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 29, 2013, 07:08:12 AM
Okay, erato, I'm sorry for going on about this, let's just put it behind us.
Yes indeed, same here.
Magnard
Suk
Martinu
Honegger
Déodat de Severac
Chabrier
Syzmanowski
Hugo Wolf
Villa-Lobos
K A Hartmann
Rodrigo
Frank Martin
Gerald Finzi
Howard Hanson
Havergal Brian
Poulenc
Eric Beethoven
Underrated composers?
Arnold Bax. No new cycles! :-[
Quote from: RJR on June 01, 2013, 06:00:29 AM
Magnard
Suk
Martinu
Honegger
Déodat de Severac
Chabrier
Syzmanowski
Hugo Wolf
Villa-Lobos
K A Hartmann
Rodrigo
Frank Martin
Coincidentally listening to Magnard Symphony 4 - a great work.
Väinö Raitio comes to mind.
Top 30 most underrated composers in my view (in no particular order)
1. Atterberg
2. Braga Santos
3. Tveitt
4. Bloch
5. Leifs
6. Diamond
7. Rubbra
8. Hartmann
9. Miaskovsky
10. Koechlin
11. Holmboe
12. Casella
13. Tubin
14. Enescu
15. Broadstock (easily my favorite contemporary composer next to Aho)
16. Novak
17. Langgaard
18. Raitio
19. Orthel
20. Bortkiewicz
21. Rosenberg
22. Honegger
23. Alwyn
24. Bate
25. Bridge
26. Creston
27. Magnard
28. Melartin
29. Arnell
30. Jongen
Many of the composers I included because a lot of their work still remains unrecorded. Those composers would be Diamond, Koechlin, Novak, Raitio, Orthel, Bortkiewicz, Rosenberg, Bate, Creston, and Jongen. The other composers I included may have relatively good representation on disc, but they are still seldom given credit for their talent.
Quote from: kyjo on September 22, 2013, 04:15:51 PM
1. Atterberg
2. Braga Santos
Haven't listened to many on the list, but these definitely deserve the top two spots.
Quote from: Greg on September 22, 2013, 05:48:55 PM
Haven't listened to many on the list, but these definitely deserve the top two spots.
Totally. 8) Atterberg and Braga Santos will always be the top two on my list. They composed such gorgeous, life-affirming music. :)
I was going to say Aho, Atterberg, Cras, Weinberg, Weiss, and Zelenka, but Sammy and I already named all those composers when the thread started. I might add that I think C.P.E. Bach is underrated, and although ratings are going up for Martinu, they're not high enough. Lera Auerbach deserves greater acclaim.
Quote from: Brian on September 22, 2013, 07:05:25 PM
I was going to say Aho, Atterberg, Cras, Weinberg, Weiss, and Zelenka, but Sammy and I already named all those composers when the thread started. I might add that I think C.P.E. Bach is underrated, and although ratings are going up for Martinu, they're not high enough. Lera Auerbach deserves greater acclaim.
Aho and Cras are certainly underrated and I could have very well included them. Weinberg I'm still trying to warm to, but I'm very grateful for what Chandos, Naxos and Neos have done to advance his cause. Auebach I haven't yet investigated, but she's been highly praised in many circles. Any recommendations on where to start with her music, Brian? I'd appreciate it. :)
Quote from: kyjo on September 22, 2013, 07:11:30 PM
Aho and Cras are certainly underrated and I could have very well included them. Weinberg I'm still trying to warm to, but I'm very grateful for what Chandos, Naxos and Neos have done to advance his cause. Auebach I haven't yet investigated, but she's been highly praised in many circles. Any recommendations on where to start with her music, Brian? I'd appreciate it. :)
I was a huge fan of a Cedille CD which came out earlier this year of her cello music - she was the pianist. Most of the Auerbach I know is for small ensembles (solo piano on BIS, solo violin also on BIS paired with Bach and Ysaye).
Quote from: Brian on September 23, 2013, 06:01:35 AM
I was a huge fan of a Cedille CD which came out earlier this year of her cello music - she was the pianist. Most of the Auerbach I know is for small ensembles (solo piano on BIS, solo violin also on BIS paired with Bach and Ysaye).
Thanks, Brian! Browsing Amazon, I see that all the recordings of her music consist of her work for small ensembles. Wikipedia indicates that she has composed quite a few orchestral works as well, including two symphonies, two VCs and a PC. Wonder why they haven't been recorded? I see her Double Concerto for violin and piano has been posted on YT, though.
Quote from: kyjo on September 23, 2013, 11:31:44 AM
Thanks, Brian! Browsing Amazon, I see that all the recordings of her music consist of her work for small ensembles. Wikipedia indicates that she has composed quite a few orchestral works as well, including two symphonies, two VCs and a PC. Wonder why they haven't been recorded? I see her Double Concerto for violin and piano has been posted on YT, though.
The cello concerto is getting premiered this year, I think, and there's an opera in the works.
I think a lot of it is because it's a lot cheaper to record contemporary music for smaller ensembles. Pretty rare to see composers who don't have a big foothold in concert halls (i.e., not Adams/Glass/Golijov etc.) getting big orchestral CDs. I recently reviewed a double album of six concertos for various instruments by Thomas Oboe Lee, and while they were utterly fantastic and I very heartily urge everyone to listen to them, the recording sessions were rushed and it was obvious.
[asin]B008YEX7IQ[/asin]
"Thomas Oboe Lee weaves many influences into a distinctive artistic voice. Born in China to nightclub singers, he spent his teenage years living in Brazil, then moved to the United States to study composing at Harvard and the New England Conservatory. Along the way he picked up the sounds not just of bossa nova and samba, but the American jazz of Davis, Coltrane and Evans. What's delightful is that all this merged together into a composer of really interesting music. These six concertos show his range and his talent for catchy, tuneful music with strong rhythms and emotions." - me on MusicWeb (read more!) (http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2013/May13/Thomas_Oboe_Lee_BMOP1025.htm)
[asin]B00ARWDRBK[/asin]
"The finale, marked "Con estrema intensita," is marked by cello playing which follows this marking so strongly I was worried the bow was going to snap and all the strings were going to come flying off. What makes Auerbach's music successful despite its rarely-relenting intensity, by the way, is how sincere it feels; she has mastered what the Greeks called the "ethical appeal," the idea that the author is a persuasive one. Her music seems to be driven by something more personal than ambition or self-seriousness." - me on MusicWeb again (http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2013/June13/Auerbach_celloquy_CDR90000137.htm)
Quote from: Brian on September 23, 2013, 11:43:12 AM
I think a lot of it is because it's a lot cheaper to record contemporary music for smaller ensembles. Pretty rare to see composers who don't have a big foothold in concert halls (i.e., not Adams/Glass/Golijov etc.) getting big orchestral CDs. I recently reviewed a double album of six concertos for various instruments by Thomas Oboe Lee, and while they were utterly fantastic and I very heartily urge everyone to listen to them, the recording sessions were rushed and it was obvious.
[asin]B008YEX7IQ[/asin]
"Thomas Oboe Lee weaves many influences into a distinctive artistic voice. Born in China to nightclub singers, he spent his teenage years living in Brazil, then moved to the United States to study composing at Harvard and the New England Conservatory. Along the way he picked up the sounds not just of bossa nova and samba, but the American jazz of Davis, Coltrane and Evans. What's delightful is that all this merged together into a composer of really interesting music. These six concertos show his range and his talent for catchy, tuneful music with strong rhythms and emotions." - me on MusicWeb (read more!) (http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2013/May13/Thomas_Oboe_Lee_BMOP1025.htm)
Yes, I saw that Thomas Oboe Lee recording when it was first released but has since slipped under my radar. Thanks for the tip! The MusicWeb review is quite enticing. Always great to have new composers to explore. :)
Quote from: Brian on September 23, 2013, 11:43:12 AM
. . . I recently reviewed a double album of six concertos for various instruments by Thomas Oboe Lee, and while they were utterly fantastic and I very heartily urge everyone to listen to them, the recording sessions were rushed and it was obvious.
Specifically, how did you feel
Flauta carioca fared,
Brian? [I could easily imagine the sessions with
Robt Levin being rushed, e.g.]
Quote from: karlhenning on September 23, 2013, 12:13:43 PM
Specifically, how did you feel Flauta carioca fared, Brian? [I could easily imagine the sessions with Robt Levin being rushed, e.g.]
I notice this in the recording dates
19 December 2009 (piano, oboe, flute concertos)
That's an hour's worth of music recorded in one day, with three different soloists... Don't remember specifically where the signs of rushing were most and least apparent, but I do remember thinking that recording a CD in a single day was an almost cruel workload. The six soloists were all very good, by the way.
Oof
Quote from: kyjo on September 22, 2013, 04:15:51 PM
...6. Diamond
Heard a Diamond symphony over the radio. Not particularly impressed, but impressed enough that I wouldn't mind hearing more.
Quote from: kyjo on September 22, 2013, 04:15:51 PM
10. Koechlin
Very interesting both as a man and as a composer!
Quote from: kyjo on September 22, 2013, 04:15:51 PM
14. Enescu
Love those Romanian rhapsodies! And he's written some gorgeous chamber music.
Quote from: kyjo on September 22, 2013, 04:15:51 PM
22. Honegger
Indeed. He wrote a lot more great music than Pacific 231, as fun as that one is.
Quote from: kyjo on September 22, 2013, 04:15:51 PM
30. Jongen
Joseph Jongen? I've played a woodwind quintet by him; very nice!
Quote from: jochanaan on September 23, 2013, 04:32:44 PM
Heard a Diamond symphony over the radio. Not particularly impressed, but impressed enough that I wouldn't mind hearing more.Very interesting both as a man and as a composer! Love those Romanian rhapsodies! And he's written some gorgeous chamber music.Indeed. He wrote a lot more great music than Pacific 231, as fun as that one is.Joseph Jongen? I've played a woodwind quintet by him; very nice!
Good to hear you're familiar with some of these composers! Re Jongen, he's a composer who has yet to disappoint me, prolific as he was. His
Symphonie Concertante for organ and orchestra will blow your socks off! Man, how I'd love to hear it in concert! He's also written some gorgeous chamber music as well, which is an appealing blend of Franckian chromaticism and Debussian/Ravelian impressionism.
The exhilarating finale of the
Symphonie Concertante: http://youtu.be/e_C-e166bb0
The beautiful
Pieces en trio for flute, cello and harp: http://youtu.be/sZBxAX8QCCk
(http://www.defilharmonie-webshop.be/sites/default/files/styles/product_detail/public/products/images/RFP%20006.jpg)
The Antwerp Philharmonic has recently recorded Jongen's Three symphonic movements and Adolphe Samuel's 6the symphony. The Jongen work is quite spectacular and Samuel a complete new name/discovery( Late Romantic with impressionistic influences). haven't heard it yet.
P.
Quote from: pjme on September 24, 2013, 01:27:15 AM
(http://www.defilharmonie-webshop.be/sites/default/files/styles/product_detail/public/products/images/RFP%20006.jpg)
The Antwerp Philharmonic has recently recorded Jongen's Three symphonic movements and Adolphe Samuel's 6the symphony. The Jongen work is quite spectacular and Samuel a complete new name/discovery( Late Romantic with impressionistic influences). haven't heard it yet.
P.
Yes, I saw that disc and it sounds like it would be right up my alley! I've put it in my shopping cart. :)
Quote from: kyjo on September 23, 2013, 04:49:08 PM
...The exhilarating finale of the Symphonie Concertante: http://youtu.be/e_C-e166bb0
Very nice!
Quote from: jochanaan on September 24, 2013, 06:24:02 PM
Very nice!
Glad you enjoyed it (well, it's almost impossible not to like :D)!
Quote from: kyjo on September 23, 2013, 04:49:08 PM
The exhilarating finale of the Symphonie Concertante: http://youtu.be/e_C-e166bb0
Surprisingly good for someone I've never heard of. Definitely will check out more of his stuff.
Quote from: Greg on September 26, 2013, 06:28:33 AM
Surprisingly good for someone I've never heard of. Definitely will check out more of his stuff.
Great to hear! Don't expect Jongen's other works to be in the same bombastic style as the
Symphonie Concertante, though. Most of his other works are highly impressionistic, but with late-romantic elements such as long-limbed melodies incorporated throughout. BTW, just because you haven't heard of a composer doesn't mean his/her music isn't good. I mean, at one time (an eternity ago, it seems), I had never heard of Mahler, but I didn't assume his music wasn't good! ;)
Quote from: kyjo on September 26, 2013, 02:14:56 PM
Great to hear! Don't expect Jongen's other works to be in the same bombastic style as the Symphonie Concertante, though. Most of his other works are highly impressionistic, but with late-romantic elements such as long-limbed melodies incorporated throughout.
I listened to his Harp Concerto and some other stuff today and I see what you mean. The Harp Concerto is a fine work. Whatever it was I listened to after that lost my attention, though. Will explore more.
Quote from: kyjo on September 26, 2013, 02:14:56 PM
BTW, just because you haven't heard of a composer doesn't mean his/her music isn't good. I mean, at one time (an eternity ago, it seems), I had never heard of Mahler, but I didn't assume his music wasn't good! ;)
What I mean is obscure composers. I try to search youtube and try out some obscure composers I've never heard of before. Most often I'm disappointed, though I'll find a gem here and there.
Today I found something absolutely wonderful that deserves to be on this thread:
http://www.youtube.com/v/DNvdPJx-Fws
The second movement, starting at 19'33" is something that just needs to be heard. It is a beast. It reminds me of the Sephiroth boss battle theme of Final Fantasy 7, but even better. Or maybe a Bruckner scherzo. The middle, pastoral section is somewhat Prokofievian, but only vaguely.
The problem I've had with classical music in general the last few years is that I haven't found any new composers to be obsessed with. I suppose that, when I got into metal, it was a whole new world to explore, but I've stagnated with discoveries with that genre recently and pretty much don't listen to music that much any more, other than to have some sound while studying.
If Sulek wrote a bunch of stuff as good as his 8th Symphony, I'd have a new composer to be obsessed with, which hasn't happened in years. I doubt it, though I'll explore. Sadly, I'm stuck to live performances of his music on youtube, since he hasn't been recorded much at all.
Quote from: Greg on September 26, 2013, 05:46:32 PM
I listened to his Harp Concerto and some other stuff today and I see what you mean. The Harp Concerto is a fine work. Whatever it was I listened to after that lost my attention, though. Will explore more.
What I mean is obscure composers. I try to search youtube and try out some obscure composers I've never heard of before. Most often I'm disappointed, though I'll find a gem here and there.
Today I found something absolutely wonderful that deserves to be on this thread:
http://www.youtube.com/v/DNvdPJx-Fws
The second movement, starting at 19'33" is something that just needs to be heard. It is a beast. It reminds me of the Sephiroth boss battle theme of Final Fantasy 7, but even better. Or maybe a Bruckner scherzo. The middle, pastoral section is somewhat Prokofievian, but only vaguely.
The problem I've had with classical music in general the last few years is that I haven't found any new composers to be obsessed with. I suppose that, when I got into metal, it was a whole new world to explore, but I've stagnated with discoveries with that genre recently and pretty much don't listen to music that much any more, other than to have some sound while studying.
If Sulek wrote a bunch of stuff as good as his 8th Symphony, I'd have a new composer to be obsessed with, which hasn't happened in years. I doubt it, though I'll explore. Sadly, I'm stuck to live performances of his music on youtube, since he hasn't been recorded much at all.
Yes, the Harp Concerto is a gorgeous work! I'm not usually disappointed when it comes to lesser-known music, but that's just me, of course! :D
Kudos for bringing up Sulek! The reason why his music is not more widely known and recorded is beyond me, especially since he had such an individual voice. Therefore, we're very fortunate to have so much of his music posted on YT. Definitely check out his Violin and Organ Concertos if you have time. They're stunning works. :)
Quote from: kyjo on September 24, 2013, 06:44:18 PM
Glad you enjoyed it (well, it's almost impossible not to like :D)!
Really? I think it's bombastic crap.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 26, 2013, 07:11:11 PM
Really? I think it's bombastic crap.
I heard about 10 minutes of it and I wasn't impressed either. I wouldn't go so far to call it crap, though. It just didn't appeal to me, but to each their own.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 26, 2013, 07:11:11 PM
Really? I think it's bombastic crap.
Something tells me you should exercise great caution around the "five unknown works everyone should hear" thread.
Quote from: kyjo on September 23, 2013, 04:49:08 PMHis Symphonie Concertante for organ and orchestra will blow your socks off! Man, how I'd love to hear it in concert!
My local orchestra (the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra) performed this with Cameron Carpenter in the solo role a few months ago. I was distinctly unimpressed with the piece, finding it rather uninspired and directionless for the most part and not well incorporating the organ into the orchestral palette (it was often surrounded with similar colours so that it was hard to tell when the soloist was playing), though I suppose that is my loss. It could have been a lacklustre interpretation but the APO went on to deliver a memorable and striking rendition of Chaikovsky's Sixth and Carpenter has quite the international reputation. I wasn't driven to seek out more of Jongen's œuvre, would much rather listen to Poulenc or Holmboe, but I'm not surprised to hear that this piece is somewhat of a stylistic departure for him; it didn't seem very confidently put together at all to me.
Malec
Hespos
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 26, 2013, 07:11:11 PM
Really? I think it's bombastic crap.
Strrrrrrrike one! That's all I'll say for now, although I'd like to say much more.
Quote from: Brian on September 26, 2013, 07:25:01 PM
Something tells me you should exercise great caution around the "five unknown works everyone should hear" thread.
You mean the "two thousand unknown works, generally listed without any reasons given" thread? I could have written it without reading it. Garbage is garbage, whether it's sung, unsung, or barely croaked. As Schumann once wrote, he who is afraid to attack music that's bad is only a half-hearted supporter of music that's good.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 26, 2013, 07:11:11 PM
Really? I think it's bombastic crap.
What is wrong with it? As soon as you let an good organ rip, it ALWAYS sounds bombastic, no matter what is being played. Bruckners Symphonies transcribed for Organ sound dreadfully bombastic also, but the
music there. Still, mind you, I wont be exploring Jongen either. :-[
What I
will be exploring is Gregs post of the composer Sulek. I listened to what is above, and it appeals to me
very much.
Thanks Greg, I'm off to YT to hear some more!
Quote from: Scots John on September 27, 2013, 04:18:02 AM
What is wrong with it? As soon as you let an good organ rip, it ALWAYS sounds bombastic, no matter what is being played.
Right, all those bombastic Bach preludes and fugues . . .
And why you'd want to listen to Bruckner transcribed for organ is beyond me. That's just a perpetuation of the cliché that his orchestration was organ-inspired. It is not.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 27, 2013, 04:21:25 AM
Right, all those bombastic Bach preludes and fugues . . .
And why you'd want to listen to Bruckner transcribed for organ is beyond me. That's just a perpetuation of the cliché that his orchestration was organ-inspired. It is not.
***Gets handbag out***QuoteThat's just a perpetuation of the cliché that his orchestration was organ-inspired.
That may be true for sure, but that is not
why I listen to Rogg and others giving Bruckner the Organ treatment. I like to hear Bruckner 'bombastic', and Organ kind of helps it be so. And so does Barenboim with the BPO... :)
QuoteRight, all those bombastic Bach preludes and fugues . . .
Good point.
***Throws handbag away and runs towards a bust of Bach, screaming for help and forgiveness***
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 27, 2013, 04:21:25 AM
Right, all those bombastic Bach preludes and fugues . . .
And why you'd want to listen to Bruckner transcribed for organ is beyond me. That's just a perpetuation of the cliché that his orchestration was organ-inspired. It is not.
Do you ever have something helpful to contribute to discussions? Browsing through your posts, it appears not. ::)
I was enjoying the Jongen on youtube for the first three minutes but found the remainder rather boring and uninspired. I don't think it's a matter of the music being bombastic; Jongen just ran out of inventiveness.
Quote from: Sammy on September 27, 2013, 02:56:57 PM
I was enjoying the Jongen on youtube for the first three minutes but found the remainder rather boring and uninspired. I don't think it's a matter of the music being bombastic; Jongen just ran out of inventiveness.
Now that, folks, is the proper way to express a negative opinion. Saying something is "bombastic crap", on the other hand, is not.
P.S. I'm rather surprised to so many members don't think much of the Jongen. :-\
I listened to the entire Jongen piece. I thought it enjoyable - not significant, but virtuosic fun. A good companion to the Saint-Saens Organ Symphony, maybe. The finale, which kyjo posted and Sforzando disparaged, was not the most interesting part to me - that was either the scherzo or the adagio.
However, the day after listening, amw posted his/her comment and his/her remark that Jongen didn't differentiate the organ from the orchestra sufficiently, and didn't create an effective dialogue. As soon as I read it I knew it was true. There had been moments listening when I had to concentrate - "is that the organ or the woodwinds?"
It is much better than similar "organ symphonies" for organ and orchestra by Alexandre Guilmant. Sforzando, if you really want to wallow in some bombastic absurdity, try Guilmant's Symphony No. 1 (YouTube link! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJVFSf58ju0)), a work so ridiculous it's most generously interpreted as parody. A sort of organ Warsaw Concerto. Rather fittingly, the finest available recording features organist Edgar Krapp.
Quote from: kyjo on September 27, 2013, 03:29:51 PM
Now that, folks, is the proper way to express a negative opinion. Saying something is "bombastic crap", on the other hand, is not.
P.S. I'm rather surprised to so many members don't think much of the Jongen. :-\
Well, I do like Jongen's chamber music - his piano quartet and piano trio on Cypres and the two string quartet recordings on Pavane. That's all I've heard of the man's music until I hit the youtube link.
Quote from: kyjo on September 27, 2013, 10:54:35 AM
Do you ever have something helpful to contribute to discussions? Browsing through your posts, it appears not. ::)
No, nothing whatsoever, and I'm sure you've proved that point to yourself by carefully reading all 3000+ posts of mine, not to mention all those I posted previously under my given name. I suppose that's why too, on the thread entitled "What Do You Like Most About GMG," three people specifically and very kindly mentioned me.
QuoteP.S. I'm rather surprised to so many members don't think much of the Jongen. :-\
I'm not.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 27, 2013, 07:24:52 PM
I suppose that's why too, on the thread entitled "What Do You Like Most About GMG," three people specifically and very kindly mentioned me.
Wow. I've never seen so much humility in one sentence. ::)
How come every thread about "underrated" or "unsung" music has to become a breeding ground for insults and arguments? I should have never resurrected this thread. ::)
Quote from: kyjo on September 27, 2013, 07:43:33 PM
How come every thread about "underrated" or "unsung" music has to become a breeding ground for insults and arguments? I should have never resurrected this thread. ::)
Kyle, you know you're my buddy, but just lighten up a bit please. Not everyone likes the same things and nobody is wrong for expressing their opinion about the music. No matter how much you disagree with them.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 27, 2013, 07:48:10 PM
Kyle, you know you're my buddy, but just lighten up a bit please. Not everyone likes the same things and nobody is wrong for expressing their opinion about the music. No matter how much you disagree with them.
It was the pompous comment from Sforzando that ticked me off, not anyone's opinion of the music.
Quote from: kyjo on September 27, 2013, 07:58:42 PM
It was the pompous comment from Sforzando that ticked me off, not anyone's opinion of the music.
Someone made a pompous comment on a classical music forum?!?!?!? Call the police! Man all battle stations! This is war!!!! :P
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 27, 2013, 08:01:38 PM
Someone made a pompous comment on a classical music forum?!?!?!? Call the police! Man all battle stations! This is war!!!! :P
(http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/citizen_cane.gif)
Love your post!
P.S. Sforzando is one of our longest-standing, most knowledgeable, and most insightful GMGers, and although the present dominant discussion method of trading recording recommendations like baseball cards doesn't suit his style very well, he has (to the extent that anybody can earn the right to a little pomposity) earned the right to a little pomposity.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 27, 2013, 08:01:38 PM
Someone made a pompous comment on a classical music forum?!?!?!? Call the police! Man all battle stations! This is war!!!! :P
Yep. My reaction exactly. :P
Quote from: Brian on September 27, 2013, 08:14:14 PM
(http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/citizen_cane.gif)
Love your post!
P.S. Sforzando is one of our longest-standing, most knowledgeable, and most insightful GMGers, and although the present dominant discussion method of trading recording recommendations like baseball cards doesn't suit his style very well, he has (to the extent that anybody can earn the right to a little pomposity) earned the right to a little pomposity.
Thanks, Brian. :)
I've never had any problems with Sforzando, but the few times I've interacted with him has always been pleasant and even surprising.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 27, 2013, 04:13:57 AM
You mean the "two thousand unknown works, generally listed without any reasons given" thread? I could have written it without reading it. Garbage is garbage, whether it's sung, unsung, or barely croaked. As Schumann once wrote, he who is afraid to attack music that's bad is only a half-hearted supporter of music that's good.
There is a lot of truth in this. However, there is a shorter list of works that are little known for reasons that have nothing to do with their quality.
Quote from: Scots John on September 27, 2013, 04:18:02 AM
What is wrong with it? As soon as you let an good organ rip, it ALWAYS sounds bombastic, no matter what is being played. Bruckners Symphonies transcribed for Organ sound dreadfully bombastic also, but the music there. Still, mind you, I wont be exploring Jongen either. :-[
What I will be exploring is Gregs post of the composer Sulek. I listened to what is above, and it appeals to me very much.
Thanks Greg, I'm off to YT to hear some more!
Good to see someone else who like this. :)
I gave the symphony another listen and seems it holds up well (sounded even better the second time around). Not sure if I can say the same about his other symphonies that are on youtube (2, 4, 6). Just wish youtube would have all of them, but I don't think the others have been recorded.
Still haven't listened to other stuff besides the symphonies, though there is more. If you find that you like any of his other stuff, post it here!
Quote from: kyjo on September 27, 2013, 07:41:02 PM
Wow. I've never seen so much humility in one sentence. ::)
Had I known the estimable Brian was going to chime in, I would have suppressed that remark. If you had accused me of being intolerant, supercilious, sarcastic, dogmatic, I would have cheerfully assented. I'll even give you pompous. But since you chose to attack me, based on your extensive "browsing," as having nothing to contribute to this forum, I felt entitled to defend myself.
Allow me, however, to offer a serious reply to your general line of thinking, since you are not the only one who has done a little browsing. Over the years, I have found a segment of music-lovers devoted to the notion that (in its most extreme form) the generally accepted classical repertoire consists of a bunch of overrated old bores like Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Chopin, and company, while they propose a revisionist set of composers whom they invariably speak of as the neglected, the underrated, the underplayed, the unsung, all of whom apparently deserve far more admiration than the aforementioned overplayed dinosaurs.
Exactly what this idea of being "underrated," etc., means is never quite clear, and certainly not on this thread where Joseph Haydn, certainly one of the best-known and most highly esteemed composers in history, is lumped together ("without any doubt," yet) with any number of others whose main virtue appears to be that a great many people are unlikely to have heard of them. And of course if these composers are "neglected," they're always "undeservedly neglected," the opposite possibility being apparently unthinkable.
Again in its most extreme form, proponents of this position will accuse others of being brainwashed sheep, while they themselves are courageous free-thinkers, able to perceive for instance the glories of Ditters von Differsdorf against the rest of us too unenlightened to see beyond those fuddy-duddy late Beethoven quartets. At times too there is dark talk of a "conspiracy" to keep these unsung heroes from being better known, to which I am reminded of Charles Rosen's wicked quip when being told of such a conspiracy against the music of Hans Pfitzner: "Why, what a splendid conspiracy that must be! Where can I sign up?"
But since all the composers on this thread have been performed and recorded, often by highly reputed artists, it's hard to see what all the complaining is about. The revisionists never tell us what a proper level of appreciation for their "unsung" composers would be. More live performances? But only a few thousand can be present at any concert, so the experience is useless to anyone without the means to attend. More recordings? But surely any recording is better than none, and if even if one recording exists, it provides an opportunity for the music to be heard and known. Most of us get most of our music from recordings anyway, and so if recordings exist, they can be widely duplicated and disseminated, thus ensuring that the composer's work has the opportunity for recognition that the complainants claim it deserves.
What the revisionists never admit to is a fundamental contradiction in their own position. They speak endlessly of the neglected and the underappreciated, yet they fail to acknowledge that if recordings weren't already available, they would have no basis for championing their own "unsung" favorites.
I read for example in an article on Allan Pettersson, "Throughout history, countless numbers of superior artists have been overshadowed by the so-called giants in their respective fields."* What an extraordinary statement. Does he simply mean "superior" in the sense of "excellent," or does he really mean that these "countless numbers" (none of whom of course is identified) are of greater merit than "so-called giants" like Mahler or Sibelius? And despite the writer's plaintive and obviously rhetorical title — "Allan Pettersson—A Composer Forgotten?" — he has to admit that Petterson "has faired [sic] well in the recorded medium, nearly all of his music is available now on compact disc." This is neglect? What's more the writer identifies a variety of scholars, performers, and societies devoted to Pettersson's music; and there have been performances and recordings by such well-known names as Dorati, Commissiona, Blomstedt, Ida Haendel, Segerstam, Alun Francis, and more. If this is neglect, I'd suspect there are any number of struggling composers who would kill to be so passed over.
The fact is that if Pettersson, Atterberg, Braga Santos, and others mentioned on this thread (not Haydn of course, for if Haydn is underplayed, then rabbits are an endangered species) are not as widely performed as the revisionists would like, that could be because concert promoters and record companies are afraid their music won't fill seats, and/or that performers simply aren't interested in their work. I think that people who don't play music themselves don't always recognize the extraordinary degree of care and effort it takes to prepare and often memorize a work for performance. If a violinist isn't interested in the Pettersson #2, isn't it possible that (like me), he or she simply finds it 50 minutes of unmemorable note-spinning, and which is supposedly nearly unplayable besides? (For the record, however, I am impressed by several of Pettersson's middle symphonies.)
There is one more objection to the revisionists' grievances, and that is that historically speaking, availability and dissemination of even the standard repertoire, not to mention the so-called unsung, has greatly increased over the past 50 years. There was a time when Barbirolli was discouraged from performing the Berlioz Fantastique by the powerful impresario Sol Hurok. It wasn't until 1959 when the first complete Ring opera, Solti's Rheingold, was issued on LP; today a complete new cycle seems to be released every other week. And YouTube has created yet another explosion of availability. Judging from number of posts alone here, Havergal Brian is this forum's favorite composer, and there is no dearth of recordings.
I was emailing about this revisionist phenomenon with a friend a few years ago, who wrote back: "People who want to believe they are among an 'elite' few capable of greater insights than the common man will always rebel against the received wisdom. So Bach and Beethoven are obviously overrated since we are told that they are very great composers. And people who are into Klami and Raff are very rare, so naturally such people are privy to some deeper understanding of what makes great Art. It's just another form of elitism."
--
* http://www.christopherbrakel.com/Brakel--Pettersson.pdf
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 30, 2013, 05:36:11 PM
Allow me, however, to offer a serious reply to your general line of thinking, since you are not the only one who has done a little browsing.
Good post, thanks. I think that while there's certainly an element of elitism in the adherence to an alternative canon—which I think is a more neutral term than "underrated" or "deservedly forgotten"—part of it also comes from objections to certain aspects of historiography. For instance, the people who devised and adhere to the Chopin-Alkan-Liszt-Reger-Busoni-Skryabin-Szymanowski-Medtner etc alt-canon presumably never really enjoyed the music of the Bach-Mozart-Beethoven-Brahms-Wagner-Mahler etc canon and, instead of concluding that perhaps Bach, Mozart, et al. really are great composers whom they simply can't relate to at this point and will return to later, they determine that the fault lies with historians placing too much emphasis on the Germanic tradition and organicism and development and so forth and blame nationalism and construct other such socio-historical arguments to explain the existence of some kind of conspiracy devoted to the promotion of these more well-known composers.
Similarly I suspect a lot of the Atterberg-Braga Santos-Pettersson alt-canon comes from a quarrel with the common historiographical notion of the 20th century (and later) as a time of post-tonal pluralism—essentially, from that point of view, music took a "wrong turn" sometime around 1900, and this alt-canon represents the composers whose music actually
ought to have survived if not for this conspiracy promoting Schoenberg and Bartók and Ligeti and Reich and all those isms that were just new for the sake of newness. Hence it's very important for proponents of this alt-canon to convert other people to their side because of a degree of siege mentality—they're fighting a "war" not only against fans of creepy atonal music but also against the neutral observers who might point out that Atterberg for instance has been increasingly represented on recording in recent years and yet has not won significantly wider acceptance or championing than, say, Brian Ferneyhough, for the attention of the much wider audience whose tastes run from Bach to Shostakovich.
I should emphasize, first, that I don't mean to denigrate proponents of alternative canons or call them
wrong. Very often they have a point, particularly about the neglect of certain groups of composers based on nationality, opposition to prevailing styles or conscious experimentation rather than organic development (history tends to focus on outlining a "progress" of music, spends little time on composers not from Germany/Austria/France/Italy/Russia and fetishize compositional "trademarks"). We shouldn't make exaggerated claims for the importance of e.g. Pettersson, or Fanny Hensel or George Frederick Pinto or John White, but we also shouldn't completely forget that they exist. Second, that I don't believe everyone who prefers alt-canon composers is necessarily coming from this particular motivation. I, personally, listen to more "neglected" composers than "mainstream" ones these days. My reasons for doing so are not related to a particular argument with the historical canon, however, but simply the near overabundance of recorded music out there. I've probably heard Beethoven's Seventh a hundred times. It was, of course, enormously exciting to discover it around the age of eight, and I've heard many performances and interpretations and it's usually been a quite satisfying experience. But by this point I know it well enough that I have quite large portions of it memorised and generally know more or less what's going to come next when I happen to listen to it. Thus I started to get a little bored with it, criticise it for structural flaws, object to various aspects of the interpretation with the obligatory
When I
become a great conductor I'll do it this
way and so forth, and eventually wound up at the
Man this piece is soooo predictable, I already know how it's gonna end, screw this Beethoven guy, give me some Rheinberger point.
Of course, I still have a recording of Beethoven's Seventh (I think it's Kleiber/Vienna) and I'll spin it whenever I have any Beethovenian cravings, but most of the time I prefer to listen to
new music (i.e. new to me, regardless of the era when it was written), due to the importance of what one could call the thrill of discovery. There's lots of music I already know and love, but I couldn't listen to just that music forever, hence why you don't see me on any of those "desert island"/"top three favourites" threads. Maybe it's a personality thing.
I'm sure that at least a few of the "unsung composers"/"alternative musicology" gentlefolk have their own reasons for exploring those works that are unrelated to historical revisionism. That has seemed to be
the major motivation in my experience though, above and beyond any kind of elitism. The standard-repertoire-only people have their own elitists, too.
Apparently all the logic and sensibility drove everyone away! :)
It is interesting. For me, underrated/underappreciated/etc. was simply a way to draw attention to less well known composers (and had nothing to do with unseating the likes of Beethoven/Mozart/etc.). They could be composers who people simply passed by, had not heard of, or were (for whatever reason) given less attention. Like others, I do like to explore certain periods of music. I think some people are trying to recapture the wonder of composers past as well, so people may exaggerate their enthusiasm a bit.
On the other hand, there is one mainstream composer (not unsung really), where the majority of works are still unrecorded and not performed - Offenbach. He wrote close to 100 operas/operettas, and only about a third have made their way to disc. Perhaps a bit of an exception, but there you have it.
Quote from: kyjo on September 27, 2013, 10:54:35 AM
Do you ever have something helpful to contribute to discussions? Browsing through your posts, it appears not. ::)
Sforzando is one of the most knowledegable and articulate posters the GMG has ever had. Regrettably, he does not suffer fools gladly and his declining participation in the site (along with that of Luke) has been a great loss here.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 30, 2013, 05:36:11 PM
Again in its most extreme form, proponents of this position will accuse others of being brainwashed sheep, while they themselves are courageous free-thinkers, able to perceive for instance the glories of Ditters von Differsdorf against the rest of us too unenlightened to see beyond those fuddy-duddy late Beethoven quartets.
Differsdorf is one of the most underrated composers and there's nothing fuddy-duddy about (late) Beethoven quartets.
Ned Rorem. Just discovering his music.
Quote from: kyjo on September 22, 2013, 04:15:51 PM
Top 30 most underrated composers in my view (in no particular order)
1. Atterberg
2. Braga Santos
3. Tveitt
4. Bloch
5. Leifs
6. Diamond
7. Rubbra
8. Hartmann
9. Miaskovsky
10. Koechlin
11. Holmboe
12. Casella
13. Tubin
14. Enescu
15. Broadstock (easily my favorite contemporary composer next to Aho)
16. Novak
17. Langgaard
18. Raitio
19. Orthel
20. Bortkiewicz
21. Rosenberg
22. Honegger
23. Alwyn
24. Bate
25. Bridge
26. Creston
27. Magnard
28. Melartin
29. Arnell
30. Jongen
Wishing to change the course of this conversation, what do members think of the composers who I included in my list? Do you agree or disagree with them being "unsung"? If you haven't heard a particular composers' music, would you like recommendations on what recordings to buy/listen to? I would, of course, be happy to help.
P.S. Looking back at my list, I'm still pretty satisfied with it, except that I feel Stjepan Sulek deserves a place on it. His music is of outstanding quality and originality and hardly any of it has made it onto CD, so he would definitely qualify as "unsung". I think I'd replace.....Arnell, I guess......with Sulek. :)
Quote from: 71 dB on October 01, 2013, 11:21:10 AM
Differsdorf is one of the most underrated composers and there's nothing fuddy-duddy about (late) Beethoven quartets.
I don't think there is such a thing as an 'underrated' composer. They are all pretty much held in the amount of esteem to which they have risen or sunk. Doesn't mean that one shouldn't listen to them or appreciate whatever value they add to one's listening experience (I do it all the time), but to confuse fame with quality is a grave error that directly reflects the amount of intellectual rigor one has applied to the issue. I listen to
Kleinmeister regularly. And enjoy them. It doesn't make them anything more than
Kleinmeister though. At some point we just all need to get a grip. :)
8)
Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2013, 11:28:48 AM
Ned Rorem. Just discovering his music.
Yes, indeed! A wonderful, underrated composer for sure. What works of his have you heard so far? I own all the Naxos discs of his music and I'm mightily impressed with all of them, especially the ones containing the three symphonies, PC 2 and the VC.
Quote from: kyjo on October 01, 2013, 11:30:59 AM
What do members think of the composers who I included in my list? Do you agree or disagree with them being "unsung"? If you haven't heard a particular composers' music, would you like recommendations on what recordings to buy/listen to? I would, of course, be happy to help.
I have Bloch's "Schelomo" and one Langgaard disc (Sinfonia Interna etc.) All the other composers on your list are unknown to me. I listened to Jongen's "pompous" music but didn't get exited. I have been planning to explore Enescu at some point. Currently I am into Liszt.
Oh, I have Bridge's Piano Quintet.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 01, 2013, 11:45:28 AM
I have Bloch's "Schelomo" and one Langgaard disc (Sinfonia Interna etc.) All the other composers on your list are unknown to me. I listened to Jongen's "pompous" music but didn't get exited. I have been planning to explore Enescu at some point. Currently I am into Liszt.
Well, that's a start! :) I'd be interested to hear how your Enescu exploration goes when it takes place. The Chandos recordings of his orchestral music are essential listening IMO.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 01, 2013, 11:32:02 AM
I don't think there is such a thing as an 'underrated' composer. They are all pretty much held in the amount of esteem to which they have risen or sunk.
I was going to post something very similar. There are many composers who I seem to enjoy more than most people do. Some are quite obscure, some are relatively well known but not generally held in the highest regard. To claim that these composers are 'underrated' would be to take for granted that my taste is superior, and that to fail to agree with me betrays a lack of sophistication. That would be pure narcisism.
Quote from: kyjo on October 01, 2013, 11:47:56 AM
I'd be interested to hear how your Enescu exploration goes when it takes place. The Chandos recordings of his orchestral music are essential listening IMO.
It may take
years before it takes place but I'll keep those Chandos recordings in mind, thanks!
Quote from: Scarpia on October 01, 2013, 11:59:32 AM
I was going to post something very similar. There are many composers who I seem to enjoy more than most people do. Some are quite obscure, some are relatively well known but not generally held in the highest regard. To claim that these composers are 'underrated' would be to take for granted that my taste is superior, and that to fail to agree with me betrays a lack of sophistication. That would be pure narcisism.
I'm sorry Scarpia, but you're speaking Greek to me. I don't understand why "underrated" has to be such a dirty word. I thought it simply implied that a composer isn't getting as much recognition as a person believes he/she should receive. What does this have to do with narcissism?
I take it that Greg meant let's share composers that we enjoy, and other posters might not be listening to. I don't see the point of having this long drawn out pedantic discussion on the meaning of the word "underrated."
Kyjo, rec me some Alwyn.
Quote from: kyjo on October 01, 2013, 11:30:59 AM
Wishing to change the course of this conversation,
I wish to un-change it. It's refreshing to see a sudden outburst of intelligent, insightful discussion that goes past listing of names and inquires into the whole philosophy and appeal of "underrated composers." Naturally Sforzando is to blame for the elevation of the material here. I love amw's post, too.
My journey has taken me across the borderlines of this debate. As a youth* I started my listening career on the "bread and butter" composers: Brahms, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky. Then I arrived at GMG back in 2007, and subscribed to Naxos streaming music. Suddenly I was listening to all the niche new releases and moving into more obscure corners of music by the day: Khachaturian to Kuhlau to Kopylov to Kalliwoda. And other people whose names did not begin with K. I convinced a cellist friend to incorporate compositions by Piatigorsky into her repertoire, introduced my college roommate to Atterberg's symphonies, and liked Ries's piano concertos more than Mozart's.
*though, of course, at 24 I'm still pretty close to being a "youth"As I've grown to learn more about music, I've become more selective about this stuff, however. (And, incidentally, I've become more involved with the works of Beethoven, Haydn, and Bach.) The truth is, while there is some truly remarkable music which time has forgotten (strongly agree with amw here on history's prejudices), there is also a massive amount of music which time forgot
for good reason. And I do think there is a tendency among some listeners - not naming names or questioning anybody's sincerity - to fetishize the forgotten or obscure as ways to show that you're smart or knowledgeable or an especially good music lover.
Can't blame those people. Well, I can, but it is a natural weakness, and one that occurs in every specialty field. "Sure, California zinfandels are great, but have you had some of the red wines that have been coming out of Hungary?" "Pssh, everyone wants a Lamborghini." "I don't really like spaghetti bolognese. I much prefer some pastas they make in Italy but you can't find them here." "Sure, Dickens is good, but nobody gives Wilkie Collins enough credit." "The live bootleg from an appearance in 1964 on Belgian TV is far superior to the famous studio track."*
*this last happens to be my opinion of the Dave Brubeck Quartet's hit "Take Five." Judge for yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT9Eh8wNMkw) The Belgian cut is really elevated by Brubeck's own melancholic piano solo, to me.I don't know what the turning point was for me, if there was one. Increased interest in Beethoven, Haydn, Ravel, and most recently Bach; decreased interest in composers like Svendsen to whom I'd given a lot of time.
My interest in unknown composers is not gone; it's just more selective. I'm starting to apply reasonable rules to unfamiliar works: why are they so unfamiliar? What merit do they have? What caused their obscurity? Would they really work in a concert hall? (David Hurwitz is terrible about this. "It would be a huge hit in the concert halls!" he writes in half his reviews. "No it wouldn't," I almost always say when listening. The exception: Albert Roussel's
Suite in F, which really would be a knockout concert opener.) Is Kalliwoda's Fifth Symphony really a forgotten landmark in music history that secretly influenced generations to come, or is it just a pretty entertaining 1840s symphony that fell through the cracks? Is Braga Santos' Second Symphony a moving journey, or an overlong formless trudge? Over the last few months, it has been surprising to see that listening to an unknown work and then disliking it will actually offend people. There can sometimes be a mentality where it's impossible for music to be boring so long as it's tonal.
We could easily get into a debate here about whether quality in art is objective and ever can be. The better point is: we can all agree that some music is good, and some music is less good. We can also agree that some music is held in high esteem and some music isn't. The more I learn about music the more I see those categories lining up. They do not line up perfectly: I still find some repertory staples boring and I still love dearly and praise highly some music which the New York Philharmonic is never going to play. Heck, since Sforzando mentioned Joachim Raff, I enjoy a couple of Raff's symphonies. But to say that every composer who ever took up a pen is underrated simply because he or she is not highly rated, or because his or her music has a couple appealing features, or even because it provides a decent amount of pleasure, is to be indiscriminate in a way that makes serious criticism, discussion, and debate rather difficult.
Quote from: DavidW on October 01, 2013, 12:27:17 PM
I take it that Greg meant let's share composers that we enjoy, and other posters might not be listening to. I don't see the point of having this long drawn out pedantic discussion on the meaning of the word "underrated."
Kyjo, rec me some Alwyn.
Post of the month right there! :) Yes, I'd be glad to rec you some Alwyn, David! I would start with these three excellent Chandos discs:
[asin]B000000APK[/asin]
This disc contains some of the most beautiful, heartfelt music composed in the 20th century.
Lyra Angelica will take your breath away in its gorgeousness. A truly uplifting disc all-around.
[asin]B000000ASC[/asin]
The Third Symphony is a greatly moving, powerful work, and perhaps Alwyn's masterpiece. It utilizes twelve-tone techniques, but you'd never guess it, such is the sweepingly lyrical power of the music.
[asin]B000000ALW[/asin]
The Fourth Symphony is a stirring, atmospheric work. The
Elizabethan Dances are simply delightful.
There are more recordings of Alwyn's music on Chandos, all of which are worth investigating. David Lloyd-Jones has also recorded an Alwyn series for Naxos. At Naxos price, you certainly can't go wrong with Lloyd-Jones' recordings, but Hickox really coaxes that extra ounce of magic out of the music. If you wish to sample Alwyn's music, there's plenty of it on YouTube. Please let me know if you need any further recs! :)
Quote from: Brian on October 01, 2013, 12:36:20 PM
I wish to un-change it. It's refreshing to see a sudden outburst of intelligent, insightful pointless, pedantic discussion
Corrected.
Quote from: Brian on October 01, 2013, 12:36:20 PM
I wish to un-change it. It's refreshing to see a sudden outburst of intelligent, insightful discussion that goes past listing of names and inquires into the whole philosophy and appeal of "underrated composers." Naturally Sforzando is to blame for the elevation of the material here. I love amw's post, too.
My journey has taken me across the borderlines of this debate. As a youth* I started my listening career on the "bread and butter" composers: Brahms, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky. Then I arrived at GMG back in 2007, and subscribed to Naxos streaming music. Suddenly I was listening to all the niche new releases and moving into more obscure corners of music by the day: Khachaturian to Kuhlau to Kopylov to Kalliwoda. And other people whose names did not begin with K. I convinced a cellist friend to incorporate compositions by Piatigorsky into her repertoire, introduced my college roommate to Atterberg's symphonies, and liked Ries's piano concertos more than Mozart's.
*though, of course, at 24 I'm still pretty close to being a "youth"
As I've grown to learn more about music, I've become more selective about this stuff, however. (And, incidentally, I've become more involved with the works of Beethoven, Haydn, and Bach.) The truth is, while there is some truly remarkable music which time has forgotten (strongly agree with amw here on history's prejudices), there is also a massive amount of music which time forgot for good reason. And I do think there is a tendency among some listeners - not naming names or questioning anybody's sincerity - to fetishize the forgotten or obscure as ways to show that you're smart or knowledgeable or an especially good music lover.
Can't blame those people. Well, I can, but it is a natural weakness, and one that occurs in every specialty field. "Sure, California zinfandels are great, but have you had some of the red wines that have been coming out of Hungary?" "Pssh, everyone wants a Lamborghini." "I don't really like spaghetti bolognese. I much prefer some pastas they make in Italy but you can't find them here." "Sure, Dickens is good, but nobody gives Wilkie Collins enough credit." "The live bootleg from an appearance in 1964 on Belgian TV is far superior to the famous studio track."*
*this last happens to be my opinion of the Dave Brubeck Quartet's hit "Take Five." Judge for yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT9Eh8wNMkw) The Belgian cut is really elevated by Brubeck's own melancholic piano solo, to me.
I don't know what the turning point was for me, if there was one. Increased interest in Beethoven, Haydn, Ravel, and most recently Bach; decreased interest in composers like Svendsen to whom I'd given a lot of time.
My interest in unknown composers is not gone; it's just more selective. I'm starting to apply reasonable rules to unfamiliar works: why are they so unfamiliar? What merit do they have? What caused their obscurity? Would they really work in a concert hall? (David Hurwitz is terrible about this. "It would be a huge hit in the concert halls!" he writes in half his reviews. "No it wouldn't," I almost always say when listening. The exception: Albert Roussel's Suite in F, which really would be a knockout concert opener.) Is Kalliwoda's Fifth Symphony really a forgotten landmark in music history that secretly influenced generations to come, or is it just a pretty entertaining 1840s symphony that fell through the cracks? Is Braga Santos' Second Symphony a moving journey, or an overlong formless trudge? Over the last few months, it has been surprising to see that listening to an unknown work and then disliking it will actually offend people. There can sometimes be a mentality where it's impossible for music to be boring so long as it's tonal.
We could easily get into a debate here about whether quality in art is objective and ever can be. The better point is: we can all agree that some music is good, and some music is less good. We can also agree that some music is held in high esteem and some music isn't. The more I learn about music the more I see those categories lining up. They do not line up perfectly: I still find some repertory staples boring and I still love dearly and praise highly some music which the New York Philharmonic is never going to play. Heck, since Sforzando mentioned Joachim Raff, I enjoy a couple of Raff's symphonies. But to say that every composer who ever took up a pen is underrated simply because he or she is not highly rated, or because his or her music has a couple appealing features, or even because it provides a decent amount of pleasure, is to be indiscriminate in a way that makes serious criticism, discussion, and debate rather difficult.
Yawn......don't feel like reading all this......
Quote from: kyjo on October 01, 2013, 12:46:38 PM
Yawn......don't feel like reading all this......
Which probably says way more about you than you would wish to have said. ::)
8)
Quote from: kyjo on October 01, 2013, 12:46:38 PM
Yawn......don't feel like reading all this......
Maybe you should read it. You might learn something.
Quote from: DavidW on October 01, 2013, 12:27:17 PMKyjo, rec me some Alwyn.
When I saw this, the thought occurred to me, "what's the point of asking this, it's identical to searching the keyword "Alwyn" on Amazon. It's just going to result in a list of the most popular Alwen releases.
I tried it, sure enough, it did, except Amazon interposed a Naxos release.
I could be exploring lots of new composers and works but why not listen to what I already have, for example Hindemith's Cello Concertos instead?
I think I sampled some Alwyn few years ago, almost bought a Naxos disc but then I changed my mind and bought something else...
Often post war music just doesn't speak to me, it's musical noise I don't want to waste my life on.
I like Michael Torke. Uplifting and fun music! Underrated?
Then there's non-classical music. This year I have explored for example Herbie Hancock (first half of 70's). If you spent your free time exploring Bantock you don't have time to explore Rose Royce. We have to choose.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 01, 2013, 01:55:36 PMOften post war music just doesn't speak to me, it's musical noise I don't want to waste my life on
I would not characterize Alwyn as typical "post war music." It's quite tuneful, often with very vivid orchestration and imaginative harmony (if memory serves). But you can live without it, obviously. I can related to "new music fatigue" where the incessant discovery of new music makes it difficult to find time to listen to favorite, already known music.
Quote from: Annie on October 01, 2013, 02:00:10 PM
mmm... this thread should be the reason why 14 of the 16 people on my ignore list just went un-green...autumn garbage cleaning >:D
You have 16 people on your ignore list?! ??? ???
Quote from: Scarpia on October 01, 2013, 02:01:01 PM
I would not characterize Alwyn as typical "post war music." It's quite tuneful, often with very vivid orchestration and imaginative harmony (if memory serves). But you can live without it, obviously. I can related to "new music fatigue" where the incessant discovery of new music makes it difficult to find time to listen to favorite, already known music.
Sorry, I didn't mean Alwyn is like that.
Quote from: kyjo on October 01, 2013, 02:03:56 PM
You have 16 people on your ignore list?! ??? ???
My reaction too. This is a forum of occasional nasty remarks but 16?!!?
Quote from: 71 dB on October 01, 2013, 02:09:03 PM
My reaction too. This is a forum of occasional nasty remarks but 16?!!?
Well you can't expect Annie to have enough of them for us all. 0:)
Quote from: kyjo on October 01, 2013, 12:46:38 PM
Yawn......don't feel like reading all this......
Well, your problem. It is something of the most sensible written on this board for a long time.
Quote from: Annie on October 01, 2013, 02:44:17 PM
Not you, my dear, do not worry :D. You are the only Finn I keep ;D. In my experience (on the contrary to some posters uselessly trying to make a point with knowledge and elitism referrals to people who think they are mathematicians because they have been only looking or exposed to numbers for some time now with the help of internet), those obscurity promoters are more often classical music upstarts than not(if not, most probably they are teenagers with not fully evolved yet brains)... which I don't see the point in wasting a second of my time. Classical music is very valuable and as recently posted great composers and compositions are great for a reason...quality.
Posts like this make me wonder why I even joined GMG in the first place. You need to step out of your little comfort zone of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart and see what riches and variety the classical music world has to offer. I assume you are blocking me, Annie-what do I ever do to you?!
Quote from: Scarpia on October 01, 2013, 01:33:09 PM
When I saw this, the thought occurred to me, "what's the point of asking this, it's identical to searching the keyword "Alwyn" on Amazon. It's just going to result in a list of the most popular Alwen releases.
Well, it is often more helpful to have the personal opinions of someone (particularly someone whose musical tastes are closer to one's own) than a simple list.
The only Alwyn I've heard is a disc of string quartets (perhaps on Naxos?) with the Razoumovsky Quartet. For me they occupied very similar emotional & musical ground to Tippett's while being less striking and powerful, so I wasn't tempted to explore further, but the playing and sound quality were very good so perhaps you'll be more convinced than I.
Quote from: Brian on October 01, 2013, 12:36:20 PMIs Kalliwoda's Fifth Symphony really a forgotten landmark in music history that secretly influenced generations to come, or is it just a pretty entertaining 1840s symphony that fell through the cracks?
[...]
I still find some repertory staples boring and I still love dearly and praise highly some music which the New York Philharmonic is never going to play.
I singled out these two remarks because they brought a more detailed example to mind. (Not Kalliwoda, another "missing link" between Beethoven and the Romantics.) I, personally (why does it seem like so many of these posts about "underrated" music are
really about the person making the post? Oh well, too late now), prefer Berwald's piano trios to Mendelssohn's. At the same time, I completely understand why Mendelssohn's D minor piano trio is a repertoire staple, whereas Berwald's D minor trio is a curiosity. Mendelssohn's trio is very well written, in a way that (like many of his best works) lends the music a sense of inevitability—that it could have been composed no other way. Every note contributes to a coherent argument, the melodic writing is inspired throughout and the piece includes one of Mendelssohn's most memorable scherzos. Berwald's trio, by contrast, has more of a sense of conscious experimentation, quite eccentric aspects relative to early-19th-century style and it must be admitted that the melodies hardly stick in one's head quite as much. It so happens that I relate better (compositionally and analytically) to the formal and harmonic problems Berwald set for himself, and therefore find the piece more interesting, but I'm not going to complain about how "underrated" Berwald is relative to Mendelssohn. Berwald's work is simply not on a level of quality's with Mendelssohn's—no matter how much more I may enjoy it. It would not make
sense for him to be as highly rated.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 01, 2013, 02:09:03 PM
My reaction too. This is a forum of occasional nasty remarks but 16?!!?
I'm only ignoring 3 or 4 people (I think I may have at one point taken Sean off ignore simply because his posts are often so entertaining one can't help but read them) but can definitely understand the temptation—the forum becomes so much cleaner when one blocks out everyone whose posts are primarily about themselves >.>
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 27, 2013, 04:13:57 AM
You mean the "two thousand unknown works, generally listed without any reasons given" thread? I could have written it without reading it. Garbage is garbage, whether it's sung, unsung, or barely croaked. As Schumann once wrote, he who is afraid to attack music that's bad is only a half-hearted supporter of music that's good.
This is what GMG needs more of.
QuoteYou need to step out of your little comfort zone of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart and see what riches and variety the classical music world has to offer.
Perhaps I better stick to the Art-Music Forum, where the members appreciate my knowledge of lesser-known music.
Yawn......don't feel like reading all this......
In other words, you are entitled to dictate to other people, but unless you are treated with the adulation you deserve, you parade your boredom at being challenged by someone genuinely thoughtful.
Quote from: Philo (Artist formerly known as) on October 01, 2013, 03:56:18 PM
Man, you're a twat. It's a small wonder why you like Mirror Image.
How old are you, Philo? That's the kind of post I would expect from someone 15 years old or younger. Also, that's quite rude how you had the nerve to bring John into this discussion. You're just jealous of people like John and I who actually have meaningful things to say around here.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 01, 2013, 04:04:58 PM
In other words, you are entitled to dictate to other people, but unless you are treated with the adulation you deserve, you parade your boredom at being challenged by someone genuinely thoughtful.
Listen Sforzando, I'm done arguing with you. Your posts make no sense to me. If you don't like my posts, then, go ahead and block me. I really don't care. I would never block you, but, go ahead, block me.
Quote from: amw on September 30, 2013, 09:25:29 PM
I'm sure that at least a few of the "unsung composers"/"alternative musicology" gentlefolk have their own reasons for exploring those works that are unrelated to historical revisionism. That has seemed to be the major motivation in my experience though, above and beyond any kind of elitism. The standard-repertoire-only people have their own elitists, too.
Thanks. A pleasure to read such a thoughtful comment. To take your second point first, I did stress that I was talking about what I see as the extreme position, and it undoubtedly exists. I am more likely to take a recommendation for a lesser-known composer seriously, for example, if I sense the person making it is also grounded in the established canon, which is not some arbitrary dictate by a handful of snobs, but a cultural heritage that has been built by centuries of audiences, scholars, performers, and other composers. I am thinking for instance of a major film critic, Ray Carney of Boston University, who is an authority on film makers like John Cassavetes and Mike Leigh, and who, when challenged why he never wrote on Fellini, Bergman, Renoir, etc., said that those great directors already had their advocates; his job was to promote others he felt insufficiently appreciated. But he also had the intellectual chops to make his case.
Quote from: kyjo on October 01, 2013, 04:09:18 PMYou're just jealous of people like John and I who actually have meaningful things to say around here.
Seems to me you've just proudly ignored the most meaningful things in this thread, written by three or four people besides myself.
I think what it comes down to is a philosophical difference. "Meaningful things to say," to you, are that you love certain music and want everyone else to hear it, and want everyone else to tell you that it's just as good as you think it is. You also want to rank recordings so we know which conductor is best in every piece.
How can we even explain it to you that those conversations barely scratch the surface of the meaningful discussions which art can inspire? How can we explain it that because you're happy to remain on the surface, you shouldn't insult and belittle those who are curious and articulate enough to go beyond the
who and
what to explore the
why and the
how?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 01, 2013, 04:17:06 PM
Thanks. A pleasure to read such a thoughtful comment. To take your second point first, I did stress that I was talking about what I see as the extreme position, and it undoubtedly exists. I am more likely to take a recommendation for a lesser-known composer seriously, for example, if I sense the person making it is also grounded in the established canon, which is not some arbitrary dictate by a handful of snobs, but a cultural heritage that has been built by centuries of audiences, scholars, performers, and other composers. I am thinking for instance of a major film critic, Ray Carney of Boston University, who is an authority on film makers like John Cassavetes and Mike Leigh, and who, when challenged why he never wrote on Fellini, Bergman, Renoir, etc., said that those great directors already had their advocates; his job was to promote others he felt insufficiently appreciated. But he also had the intellectual chops to make his case.
This reminds me of the Gadamer debates in which he was accused of conservatism for recognizing the reality of an already established tradition, and in which he rehabilitated the idea of prejudice.
Quote from: The new erato on October 01, 2013, 02:34:30 PM
Well, your problem. It is something of the most sensible written on this board for a long time.
It is indeed. I always enjoy reading anything Brian writes, for its good sense, wit, and felicity of style.
Quote from: Philo the Harbinger on October 01, 2013, 04:20:21 PM
This reminds me of the Gadamer debates in which he was accused of conservatism for recognizing the reality of an already established tradition, and in which he rehabilitated the idea of prejudice.
I would appreciate your expanding, Philo. I know the name, but don't have your grounding in philosophy.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 01, 2013, 04:27:28 PM
I would appreciate your expanding, Philo. I know the name, but don't have your grounding in philosophy.
It'll have to wait until tomorrow, as I currently am on my mobile. But I will respond first thing tomorrow.
Folks, I've temporarily locked this thread, just for 24 hours or so. Let's all take a deep breath (and no usage of the "t" word, please 8)).
Let's all go listen to some old Diana Ross records - oops, wrong board - and this (hopefully) interesting discussion can be continued tomorrow.
--Bruce
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 01, 2013, 04:27:28 PM
I would appreciate your expanding, Philo. I know the name, but don't have your grounding in philosophy.
To give somewhat of a background, Gadamer's main idea was philosophical hermeneutics, as contrasted with Habermas, Foucault, and Derrida (all who stem from a critical theory perspective). These last three accused Gadamer of being conservative and that his thought could be viewed as counterproductive for what they might call progress. This was so mainly because of how Gadamer tied understanding/truth/etc. to tradition and the importance of prejudice for understanding/truth/etc.
Essentially Gadamer asserts that all understanding stems from the knowledge that comes from tradition, but he states further that tradition is not a static concept, but rather that it does change with the times, but only if those new ideas are deemed acceptable to the history of the tradition. One cannot simply invent a new idea and then expect it to be accepted as norm if one has not put in the work, or more importantly, if one has not actually studied the classical tradition, which existed long before they made their pronouncement. Piet Mondrian is a great example from the art world of someone who understood the classics, and whose work was informed by that knowledge, who then created something new, which then later became part of that tradition.
The second point, which is where many people get stuck, is that of prejudice. He doesn't mean it in the way that Americans understand it (this was something he was warned about though). What he means is that everyone comes into a text, whatever it may be, with preconceived notions about it, even before they really know what it is. This might be their belief system, their culture, their so on and so forth, but it would be a fool's journey to deny its very existence. Instead one must seek to acknowledge their own prejudices and work within their framework, as some of them are unlikely to change, but to return back to the point of tradition, prejudices aren't static either. Instead, prejudice is a tool of parsimony which aids in our ability to understand and thereby decide.
Quote from: Philo the Harbinger on October 02, 2013, 04:09:01 PM
To give somewhat of a background, Gadamer's main idea was philosophical hermeneutics, as contrasted with Habermas, Foucault, and Derrida (all who stem from a critical theory perspective). These last three accused Gadamer of being conservative and that his thought could be viewed as counterproductive for what they might call progress. This was so mainly because of how Gadamer tied understanding/truth/etc. to tradition and the importance of prejudice for understanding/truth/etc.
Essentially Gadamer asserts that all understanding stems from the knowledge that comes from tradition, but he states further that tradition is not a static concept, but rather that it does change with the times, but only if those new ideas are deemed acceptable to the history of the tradition. One cannot simply invent a new idea and then expect it to be accepted as norm if one has not put in the work, or more importantly, if one has not actually studied the classical tradition, which existed long before they made their pronouncement. Piet Mondrian is a great example from the art world of someone who understood the classics, and whose work was informed by that knowledge, who then created something new, which then later became part of that tradition.
The second point, which is where many people get stuck, is that of prejudice. He doesn't mean it in the way that Americans understand it (this was something he was warned about though). What he means is that everyone comes into a text, whatever it may be, with preconceived notions about it, even before they really know what it is. This might be their belief system, their culture, their so on and so forth, but it would be a fool's journey to deny its very existence. Instead one must seek to acknowledge their own prejudices and work within their framework, as some of them are unlikely to change, but to return back to the point of tradition, prejudices aren't static either. Instead, prejudice is a tool of parsimony which aids in our ability to understand and thereby decide.
I'm too tired to write much now, for which undoubtedly most will be grateful, but I've always felt your second point to be true, and as for the first, it sounds extraordinarily similar to T.S. Eliot's main point in "Tradition and the Individual Talent." Eliot was of course primarily writing about poetry, but everything he says applies to music and our understanding of music as well:
Quote
[The] historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence; the historical sense compels a man to write not merely with his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling that the whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and within it the whole of the literature of his own country has a simultaneous existence and composes a simultaneous order. This historical sense, which is a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal and of the timeless and of the temporal together, is what makes a writer traditional. And it is at the same time what makes a writer most acutely conscious of his place in time, of his contemporaneity.
No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists. . . . [W]hat happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art which preceded it. The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the new (the really new) work of art among them. The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions, values of each work of art toward the whole are readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and the new.
Forgive me, but I do not sense this understanding of history in the comments from our Young Turks here.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 02, 2013, 06:39:40 PM
I'm too tired to write much now, for which undoubtedly most will be grateful, but I've always felt your second point to be true, and as for the first, it sounds extraordinarily similar to T.S. Eliot's main point in "Tradition and the Individual Talent." Eliot was of course primarily writing about poetry, but everything he says applies to music and our understanding of music as well:
Forgive me, but I do not sense this understanding of history in the comments from our Young Turks here.
I thought that was your point to begin with, that without the sense of history and appreciation of the classics, any sense of rebelling from them was wasted. I can see this philosophy as reinforcing that point. And I agree with it too; iconoclasm without knowing what is being rejected lacks far too much to be validated by 'I like...'
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 03, 2013, 04:16:16 AMiconoclasm without knowing what is being rejected
What have the Romans done for us?
http://www.youtube.com/v/9foi342LXQE
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 02, 2013, 06:39:40 PM
I'm too tired to write much now, for which undoubtedly most will be grateful, but I've always felt your second point to be true, and as for the first, it sounds extraordinarily similar to T.S. Eliot's main point in "Tradition and the Individual Talent." Eliot was of course primarily writing about poetry, but everything he says applies to music and our understanding of music as well:
Forgive me, but I do not sense this understanding of history in the comments from our Young Turks here.
I need to read some more Eliot.
I agree with you. These young Turks seem to like the new simply because it is new (substitute obscure, etc.). I hearken back to Gurn's instruction to listen to Haydn and Mozart with the history of rhetoric in mind.
Just caught up with this thread. I am no doubt one of those who promote, in the eyes of some others 'deservedly neglected composers'. However, this is in no way to denigrate the great musical giants of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn etc. It is just that I don't think that I have much to offer in discussing their music, which is very well known. However, it gives me great pleasure to maybe introduce someone else here to a new discovery and if I hear something which really enthuses me I want to share that with others ( which does not mean that I expect them to necessarily share my opinion ). A recent example is the lovely song by William Denis Browne, which I mentioned on the British Composer's thread and which at least three others seem to have enjoyed too. I don't think that there is anything elitist in this. It would be absurd for me to say 'You must hear Beethoven's Seventh Symphony' (which I do have the highest opinion of and often play) as I guess that more or less everyone knows this work anyway. I fully respect the fact that others may regard some of the composers I like as second or third rate and I have no problem with that.
I don't think anyone had you in mind in decrying the gratuitous iconoclast type.
Quote from: vandermolen on October 03, 2013, 11:31:54 AM
Just caught up with this thread. I am no doubt one of those who promote, in the eyes of some others 'deservedly neglected composers'. However, this is in no way to denigrate the great musical giants of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn etc. It is just that I don't think that I have much to offer in discussing their music, which is very well known. However, it gives me great pleasure to maybe introduce someone else here to a new discovery and if I hear something which really enthuses me I want to share that with others ( which does not mean that I expect them to necessarily share my opinion ). A recent example is the lovely song by William Denis Browne, which I mentioned on the British Composer's thread and which at least three others seem to have enjoyed too. I don't think that there is anything elitist in this. It would be absurd for me to say 'You must hear Beethoven's Seventh Symphony' (which I do have the highest opinion of and often play) as I guess that more or less everyone knows this work anyway. I fully respect the fact that others may regard some of the composers I like as second or third rate and I have no problem with that.
Jeffrey, I couldn't have said it better. Scarpia has no idea what he is talking about.
Whoever said you have to be thoroughly grounded in Bach, Beethoven, Mozart et al before you can listen to other music-let me just say that is complete and utter bullshit. There's no "one way" into classical music. Classical music can be approached from a variety of angles. It's not "wrong" to start with 19th or 20th century music if you are new to classical music. I mean, what if everyone recommends a newbie to Bach, and the newbie in question doesn't like his music. With everyone demanding him/her to start with Bach, the newbie might give up, thinking he/she will have nothing to enjoy in the world of classical music. People need to do the research themselves to find out what composers they connect most closely with. So, those of you who say that if you don't particularly care for the Baroque and Classical "greats", you aren't a "true" classical music fan-let me tell you that you are WRONG.
Quote from: kyjo on October 03, 2013, 11:40:59 AM
Jeffrey, I couldn't have said it better. Scarpia has no idea what he is talking about.
I can't say I know what that means. I simply remarked to vandermolian that I didn't think anyone would find anything to object to in his advocacy for little-know composers.
Quote from: Scarpia on October 03, 2013, 11:51:37 AM
I can't say I know what that means. I simply remarked to vandermolian that I didn't think anyone would find anything to object to in his advocacy for little-know composers.
I'm sorry Scarpia, I misunderstood you. :-[
Quote from: kyjo on October 03, 2013, 11:50:07 AM
Whoever said you have to be thoroughly grounded in Bach, Beethoven, Mozart et al before you can listen to other music-let me just say that is complete and utter bullshit. There's no "one way" into classical music. Classical music can be approached from a variety of angles. It's not "wrong" to start with 19th or 20th century music if you are new to classical music. I mean, what if everyone recommends a newbie to Bach, and the newbie in question doesn't like his music. With everyone demanding him/her to start with Bach, the newbie might give up, thinking he/she will have nothing to enjoy in the world of classical music. People need to do the research themselves to find out what composers they connect most closely with. So, those of you who say that if you don't particularly care for the Baroque and Classical "greats", you aren't a "true" classical music fan-let me tell you that you are WRONG.
Do you have reading comprehension issues?
I think the problem here is we are not meaning the same things when we are using terminology. We are not using objective measures, but personal ones. What is a second or third tier composer? How does one decide boundries between tiers? What does underrated mean? What are the measures for someone being underrated or overrated for that matter? Etc... Until we try to tackle that, this discussion will just continue in circles except for the most general of comments. Of course, I highly doubt that we could agree on those measures, but it would at least help structure the discussion (and lead to understanding).
Kyjo:
Nobody is saying that you can't listen to other music before listening to the three B's and co. - what people are saying, though, is that your recommending of other music is going to be thought of as more reliable if you know the 'standards' - in the case of 20th century music, knowledge of Strauss, Stravinsky, Schönberg, Sibelius, Scriabin, Shostakovich, and some other composers (name beginning with S or not) is of course necessary before one can have any basis to tell that a certain composer ought to be more famous.
Quote from: Philo the Harbinger on October 03, 2013, 11:58:39 AM
Do you have reading comprehension issues?
Do you have immaturity issues?
Quote from: kyjo on October 03, 2013, 12:04:01 PM
Do you have immaturity issues?
So yes. I'll leave you to your windmills.
Quote from: North Star on October 03, 2013, 12:03:13 PM
Kyjo:
Nobody is saying that you can't listen to other music before listening to the three B's and co. - what people are saying, though, is that your recommending of other music is going to be thought of as more reliable if you know the 'standards' - in the case of 20th century music, knowledge of Strauss, Stravinsky, Schönberg, Sibelius, Scriabin, Shostakovich, and some other composers (name beginning with S or not) is of course necessary before one can have any basis to tell that a certain composer ought to be more famous.
Karlo, I agree that the masters of the 20th century should be explored prior to the "unsungs", but there's no harm in mixing it up a bit. For example, one doesn't have to listen to Shostakovich's entire output before trying out an "unsung".
An interesting sidenote:
" The Haydn/Bach comparison is one I think about a lot. Of course, Bach stands alone in musical history, but what Bach was to counterpoint, Haydn was to rhetoric...."
I explored many "obscure" composer in the beginning and only now I am exploring many well known composers. I listened to Bruhns' cantatas 10 years before Beethoven's piano sonatas. :D
I don't know why we should stick to Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms or Haydn if we find our listening pleasures elsewhere.
Quote from: kyjo on October 03, 2013, 12:07:35 PM
Karlo, I agree that the masters of the 20th century should be explored prior to the "unsungs", but there's no harm in mixing it up a bit. For example, one doesn't have to listen to Shostakovich's entire output before trying out an "unsung".
And some knowledge of the earlier masters, too. You can't appreciate Berg's VC as much without knowing Bach, for example.
Quote from: kyjo on October 03, 2013, 11:50:07 AM
Whoever said you have to be thoroughly grounded in Bach, Beethoven, Mozart et al before you can listen to other music-let me just say that is complete and utter bullshit. There's no "one way" into classical music. Classical music can be approached from a variety of angles. It's not "wrong" to start with 19th or 20th century music if you are new to classical music.
Quote from: kyjo on October 03, 2013, 12:07:35 PM
Karlo, I agree that the masters of the 20th century should be explored prior to the "unsungs", but there's no harm in mixing it up a bit. For example, one doesn't have to listen to Shostakovich's entire output before trying out an "unsung".
There's a contradiction here.
Post #1: it's okay to start listening to classical music with any composer! No need to start with the basics.
Post #2: Start with the some of the big hits before exploring the unsungs.
Actually, now I am getting ticked off. There are dozens and dozens of underrated/unsung/half-baked/whatever composers that I would take over composers generally considered to be part of the main canon. Some examples include Stravinsky and Ligeti, two composers, who if you struck from the history books, would not cause a dent in my opinion. Why do I have to agree with someone that he is a great composer? Did Stravinsky have a great impact on the history of music - yes he did (so if great means historically important, I guess I am contradicting myself). Is he a composer that uses melodies and sound in a way that remotely interests me? No. he isn't. Is his music good in my opinion? No, it isn't particuarly (with some exceptions). But who cares?!? Why is there a need that we all agree on this?
Of course, without some agreed basis for discussion, this is all meaningless. So let me give you mine (seriously, but also sarcastically): melody, melody, melody. I recently asked San Antonio why he liked a Feldmen piece and the answer had to do with texture and combination of sounds. Well, I can't say these are of much interest to me, at least right now (just as he may not be as interested in melody). But at least I have a reference for the music. He is right - the piece had exactly those qualities, so no wonder I didn't like it. The same with Rite of Spring. Texture, rhythm, etc. - all important for that piece. But where is the melody? Not a song you can exactly sing, is it? Maybe this is why I like operetta and light music so much. On the other hand, it doesn't damage my listening to Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Wagner, Edward German, or a host of other composers.
Rant over.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 03, 2013, 12:39:00 PM
Actually, now I am getting ticked off. There are dozens and dozens of underrated/unsung/half-baked/whatever composers that I would take over composers generally considered to be part of the main canon. Some examples include Stravinsky and Ligeti, two composers, who if you struck from the history books, would not cause a dent in my opinion. Why do I have to agree with someone that he is a great composer? Did Stravinsky have a great impact on the history of music - yes he did (so if great means historically important, I guess I am contradicting myself). Is he a composer that uses melodies and sound in a way that remotely interests me? No. he isn't. Is his music good in my opinion? No, it isn't particuarly (with some exceptions). But who cares?!? Why is there a need that we all agree on this?
Of course, without some agreed basis for discussion, this is all meaningless. So let me give you mine (seriously, but also sarcastically): melody, melody, melody. I recently asked San Antonio why he liked a Feldmen piece and the answer had to do with texture and combination of sounds. Well, I can't say these are of much interest to me, at least right now (just as he may not be as interested in melody). But at least I have a reference for the music. He is right - the piece had exactly those qualities, so no wonder I didn't like it. The same with Rite of Spring. Texture, rhythm, etc. - all important for that piece. But where is the melody? Not a song you can exactly sing, is it? Maybe this is why I like operetta and light music so much. On the other hand, it doesn't damage my listening to Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Wagner, Edward German, or a host of other composers.
Rant over.
There is
a lot of melody in
Le sacre du printemps...
Bartók mentioned it in a lecture or some such, too, on folk music, and how many of the melodies are based on Lithuanian (IIRC) folk music.
There is no need to agree on this, of course. But it's helpful that we know how you feel about Stravinsky if we read your writings on other composers. We have context.
Quote from: North Star on October 03, 2013, 12:46:48 PMBartók mentioned it in a lecture or some such, too, on folk music, and how many of the melodies are based on Lithuanian (IIRC) folk music.
There is no need to agree on this, of course. But it's helpful that we know how you feel about Stravinsky if we read your writings on other composers. We have context.
It also has something to do with the way it is performed. It seems to be trendy to make the Rite as brutal as possible. Recently I listened to Karajan's often derided 1960's recording and it was fascinated. Under fluffy's hand the piece sounded a lot like Petrushka, and melody was more evident (not as much emphasis on slashing and banging).
Quote from: North Star on October 03, 2013, 12:03:13 PM
Kyjo:
Nobody is saying that you can't listen to other music before listening to the three B's and co. - what people are saying, though, is that your recommending of other music is going to be thought of as more reliable if you know the 'standards'
Exactly. It's called perspective.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 03, 2013, 12:39:00 PMThe same with Rite of Spring. Texture, rhythm, etc. - all important for that piece. But where is the melody? Not a song you can exactly sing, is it?
I can sing (badly) huge hunks of it from memory. Melody is there. It even starts with a memorable tune: the bassoon solo. It's actually easier than singing most of the Ring :D
Sarge
Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 03, 2013, 12:39:00 PM
Actually, now I am getting ticked off. There are dozens and dozens of underrated/unsung/half-baked/whatever composers that I would take over composers generally considered to be part of the main canon. Some examples include Stravinsky and Ligeti, two composers, who if you struck from the history books, would not cause a dent in my opinion. Why do I have to agree with someone that he is a great composer? Did Stravinsky have a great impact on the history of music - yes he did (so if great means historically important, I guess I am contradicting myself). Is he a composer that uses melodies and sound in a way that remotely interests me? No. he isn't. Is his music good in my opinion? No, it isn't particuarly (with some exceptions). But who cares?!? Why is there a need that we all agree on this?
If "melody" is your criterion, do you know the Symphony of Psalms? The Rake's Progress?
Quote from: North Star on October 03, 2013, 12:03:13 PM
Kyjo:
Nobody is saying that you can't listen to other music before listening to the three B's and co. - what people are saying, though, is that your recommending of other music is going to be thought of as more reliable if you know the 'standards' - in the case of 20th century music, knowledge of Strauss, Stravinsky, Schönberg, Sibelius, Scriabin, Shostakovich, and some other composers (name beginning with S or not) is of course necessary before one can have any basis to tell that a certain composer ought to be more famous.
Well said. Classical music is a historically aware art form. The great composers of the 20th century and the not-so-great (unsung, underrated, whatever you want to call them) were very aware of the 'great' music that was written before them and reacted to it. How can can a person who doesn't bother with Bach appreciate Shostakovich's 24 preludes and fugues, which both pay tribute to and brashly violate Bach's idiom. How can a person who doesn't bother with Mozart understand why late Stravinsky is described as "neoclassical." How can a person who doesn't bother with Bach recognize the way Martinu created a "concerto grosso" based on modern techniques? How can a person who does not bother with Haydn appreciate that Shostakovich's symphony No 9 is a deranged version of Haydn's technique, or that Debussy's non-functional harmony is a conscious repudiation of the technique of the 19th century German school, as descended from Beethoven? How can someone who is unaware of Couperin understand the source of Ravel's inspiration?
Maybe you're incapable of suffering the three B's and the other members of the classical canon, and maybe you enjoy 20th century music without them. But if you aren't aware of the canon you are missing a lot, and your opinions will be a lot less interesting than those of a person with more knowledge.
Quote from: kyjo on October 03, 2013, 11:50:07 AM
Whoever said you have to be thoroughly grounded in Bach, Beethoven, Mozart et al before you can listen to other music-let me just say that is complete and utter bullshit. There's no "one way" into classical music. Classical music can be approached from a variety of angles. It's not "wrong" to start with 19th or 20th century music if you are new to classical music. I mean, what if everyone recommends a newbie to Bach, and the newbie in question doesn't like his music. With everyone demanding him/her to start with Bach, the newbie might give up, thinking he/she will have nothing to enjoy in the world of classical music. People need to do the research themselves to find out what composers they connect most closely with. So, those of you who say that if you don't particularly care for the Baroque and Classical "greats", you aren't a "true" classical music fan-let me tell you that you are WRONG.
Since I infer that in Kyle's mind I am one of the primary villains here, let me say first that this is an excellent example of a straw man argument – that is, an attack on your opponent for a position he or she never held. North Star above got it right: "Nobody is saying that you can't listen to other music before listening to the three B's and co. - what people are saying, though, is that your recommending of other music is going to be thought of as more reliable if you know the 'standards.'" That's a very different point.
But there is no syllabus or sequence one must go through before one finds the music that interests one; learning music is often as not a random and messy process: you hear about a piece, or you find it in a store, or hear about it on the radio, or you go to a concert, etc. I remember when I was a kid of 16 (which was about 1964!) going into an LP store (yes, that was we had back then) and seeing Robert Craft's 4-disc set of the complete Webern, and thinking I had to buy that because it would be fun to acquire the complete music of some composer. I didn't know Webern from Adam, but the purchase sparked an interest. Most people do in fact start with the 19th century, which remains the most popular period, and if I were teaching music history I would do the same – starting from the more immediately enjoyable work of Beethoven, Dvorak, Brahms, and Tchaikovsky, and then expanding both backwards in time to the Renaissance and Baroque, and forward to the contemporary (instead of the usual chronological sequence as taught in conservatories). Neither history nor repertoire needs to be learned in any fixed order.
I'm sure no one here doubts your devotion to the music you most love either. It doesn't matter to me one iota if you never hear a Bach cantata or Mozart opera. Lots of people never do. Some years back here we had a particularly nasty, sociopathic old coot, now deceased, who posted variously as Word Maestro and Iago, real name Mel Merkel, and whose claim to fame was his contempt for the music of Mozart, especially the operas. (I was told in confidence however that he once confessed he had never actually heard any of them. Didn't matter, of course, he still didn't like them.) You didn't tussle with Iago because he was, as I say, a particularly nasty sort, but I was mightily amused when he once admitted despite himself that he caught an unknown piece on the radio he very much liked, and found it was by Mozart. Sure, like what you like, dislike what you dislike, but I hope you keep yourself open, because someday you might find that what you don't like now eventually speaks to you.
You were the one, after all, who testily attacked "Annie" by telling her "You need to step out of your little comfort zone of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart and see what riches and variety the classical music world has to offer." And yet your own list of favorite composers includes no one before about 1870, by your own admission you have no interest in opera, you seem to have little experience with chamber music, and most of the music you care for seems to be neo-Romantic orchestral work from the 20th century. So maybe it's you who could stand to step out of your comfort zone and discover the riches and variety of Italian Renaissance madrigals, Beethoven quartets, and the operas of Wagner and Berg. With the understanding that if you prefer to stay in your own little comfort zone, that's of course your prerogative.
Knowledge being dropped.
Quote from: North Star on October 03, 2013, 12:03:13 PM
Kyjo:
Nobody is saying that you can't listen to other music before listening to the three B's and co. - what people are saying, though, is that your recommending of other music is going to be thought of as more reliable if you know the 'standards' -
Maybe so, but my primary problem with Kyjo's reliability relates to all the relatively obscure composers and works he gives praise to.
Quote from: Sammy on October 03, 2013, 05:40:23 PM
Maybe so, but my primary problem with Kyjo's reliability relates to all the relatively obscure composers and works he gives praise to.
In the sense that it's a bit like going to the cheese shop and having the guy at the counter telling you that every single cheese in the store is delicious and underrated and remarkable?
Quote from: Brian on October 03, 2013, 05:45:52 PM
In the sense that it's a bit like going to the cheese shop and having the guy at the counter telling you that every single cheese in the store is delicious and underrated and remarkable?
That is part of the problem
If I want to give a piece new to me a proper hearing, I'm going to assume that it won't be giving up all its secrets easily. So the last thing I want to do is to give a work one fairly superficial listening and then make up my mind about it -- what I want is to give it multiple in-depth listens while in a receptive frame of mind and with as few interruptions as possible.
Now I don't know about other people here, but I don't actually have a massive amount of time available for doing this. I've got other hobbies and interests, I've got people to spend time with, and I spend 40 hours a week working. So if I see a list of 20-30 pieces all mentioned without any specific reasons quoted, I'm probably just going to skim-read it and then forget. On the other hand, if I see a short list posted with reasons that I find compelling (or one posted by someone like Luke who I know has quite similar tastes to me) I'm far more likely to make a mental note to track down the works in question.
Quote from: Scarpia on October 03, 2013, 05:25:14 PM
Well said. Classical music is a historically aware art form. The great composers of the 20th century and the not-so-great (unsung, underrated, whatever you want to call them) were very aware of the 'great' music that was written before them and reacted to it. How can can a person who doesn't bother with Bach appreciate Shostakovich's 24 preludes and fugues, which both pay tribute to and brashly violate Bach's idiom. How can a person who doesn't bother with Mozart understand why late Stravinsky is described as "neoclassical." How can a person who doesn't bother with Bach recognize the way Martinu created a "concerto grosso" based on modern techniques? How can a person who does not bother with Haydn appreciate that Shostakovich's symphony No 9 is a deranged version of Haydn's technique, or that Debussy's non-functional harmony is a conscious repudiation of the technique of the 19th century German school, as descended from Beethoven? How can someone who is unaware of Couperin understand the source of Ravel's inspiration?
Maybe you're incapable of suffering the three B's and the other members of the classical canon, and maybe you enjoy 20th century music without them. But if you aren't aware of the canon you are missing a lot, and your opinions will be a lot less interesting than those of a person with more knowledge.
Certainly. This echoes and clarifies the concepts from Gadamer and T.S. Eliot referred to earlier. I would expand to say that all arts are "historically aware." Consider just for one example how Manet's "Execution of the Emperor Maximilian" from 1867 echoes Goya's "The Third of May 1808" from 1814. Musical examples could be multiplied indefinitely. Kyle I believe likes Bruckner; does he recognize the indebtedness of the slow movement of the Bruckner 7th to some of the huge adagios of Beethoven's last period, like the 9th symphony and the A minor quartet? Bruckner wrote this into the music, and though of course one can listen without awareness of its predecessors, the work acquires a sense of historical context and continuity when one knows its predecessors.
Q. Do you have to be thoroughly grounded in The Big Classics (Beethoven, Bach, etc.) before you listen to anything else?
Certainly not. Everybody starts somewhere. This isn't a music theory class, this is life, and we get to listen to what we want.
Q. Do you have to be thoroughly grounded in The Big Classics before you can fully appreciate anything else?
Sort of. Depends. Certainly it would be hard to argue that knowledge of Beethoven would help you understand Tallis. I also think that, for example, teaching yourself Mozart to be a better listener to Boulez might not be a great use of your time. But in many cases, this is definitely so. Scarpia mentioned some of them: Shostakovich's Ninth is far more interesting if you know Haydn; Shostakovich's Preludes and Fugues are more interesting if you know Bach; Ravel's La valse is arguably more interesting if you've heard Weber's Invitation to the Dance and some stuff by Johann Strauss Jr. If you don't know Rimsky-Korsakov, you're arguably gonna suck at understanding Stravinsky's ballets, and you're certainly not gonna recognize the quotes and outright plagiarisms.
I'm no saint. I listened to Shostakovich's 24 Preludes and Fugues before listening to Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier. And hell, I loved Shosty's 24 P&Fs before ever hearing more than 5-6 of Bach's. There's no shame in that. But I can't pretend to be an expert in the Shosty works. For now, I'm just a guy who likes them a lot. Maybe someday, after spending time with Bach, I will understand Shosty better.
Q. Is listening to The Big Classics more about understanding the music intellectually, or enjoying it better?
It's probably more the former, but it's both. You enjoy understanding connections between music the same way you enjoy, say, seeing a movie get mentioned on Saturday Night Live.
Q. Wait, can you explain this all using movie analogies?
Sure can!
A lot of folks love recent comedies like Anchorman, There's Something About Mary, Rango, Airplane!. Not all of them understand the influence of a classic comedy that influenced all of them: 1968's The Producers.
The Producers looks kinda tame now, since it's been turned into a docile musical, but it busted down all the rules of comedy at the time. Release was restricted to NYC and LA because the subject matter was so inflammatory. Audiences were left bamboozled. My father caught it on TV a few years later, as a teenager, and his reaction was, "what the hell is going on?"
Until The Producers, there had never been a movie in which a character seduced little old ladies and stole their money. There had never been a movie in which a man appeared covered in bird poop. There had been few so blatant gay jokes. There had never been a movie with farts! According to IMDb, only seven movies tagged "sexual fantasy" were made before 1968, and none of them were funny. And, between the end of World War II and that year, only one film, Dr. Strangelove, had made fun of the Nazis. Certainly none had featured a dancing Adolf Hitler.
Do you have to watch the movie because it's historically important? Probably. It would make you a better student of the movies that followed, like Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which outright stole the line "It's only a flesh wound." But there's a better reason to watch The Producers: it's really f*cking funny.
Q. Okay, maybe an analogy wasn't the best idea.
Almost every romantic, late romantic, neo-romantic, and post-romantic symphony originates with Beethoven's Third. At some point, if you're interested in big, personal-but-universal, idiosyncratic symphonies, you've got to hear Beethoven's Third. And if you want to understand the next 150 years of music, you've got to understand Beethoven's Third.
Q. But I don't have to LIKE it.
Heck no you don't. You don't have to like anything; it's a free country. But the point is this: you don't need to know the Big Classics. But if you don't really understand them, you'll never really understand any of the music they inspired. There will be hidden nuggets of cool stuff that is never unlocked for you. And if you don't like them, that sets your taste against the majority of listeners. Doesn't mean you're wrong.
Q. Why can't I just listen to Martinu's concerti grossi without ever hearing Vivaldi's or Corelli's or any of those other old dead guys'?
You can. Go for it. But it's like reading a murder mystery up until the guy dies and then skipping to the last page to find out who did it. You get the end product, but only in part. And it's not as fun!
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 03, 2013, 06:08:10 PMKyle I believe likes Bruckner; does he recognize the indebtedness of the slow movement to some of the huge adagios of Beethoven's last period, like the 9th symphony and the A minor quartet? Bruckner wrote this into the music, and though of course one can listen to the Bruckner without awareness of its predecessors, the work acquires a sense of historical context and continuity when one knows its predecessors.
Curse you for saying it better than I did in about 20% of the word count.
Quote from: Brian on October 03, 2013, 05:45:52 PM
In the sense that it's a bit like going to the cheese shop and having the guy at the counter telling you that every single cheese in the store is delicious and underrated and remarkable?
Exactly.
There's also, I think, a sense in which all music is a game of expectations: setting them up, then either fulfilling or denying them, and, naturally, these expectations are culturally conditioned, not absolute.
Obviously it's going to enhance appreciation of the work if you know what direction(s) the composer is pointing you in. Indeed, I suspect one reason many people seem to take far less to Mozart or Haydn than to the late Romantics is that the average concertgoer these days is likely to be less aware of the predominant musical topoi of the late 18th century than those of 100 years later.
Which isn't to say that one can't appreciate music without being able to spot these sleights of hand: great music works on so many levels that missing a few (as we all do) still leaves so much.
Quote from: Brian on October 03, 2013, 06:15:49 PM
Curse you for saying it better than I did in about 20% of the word count.
Not at all, BGR. That inspired use of an epistrophe ("Almost every . . . originates with Beethoven's Third, etc.") irresistibly reminds me of Irwin's speech opening Act Two of Alan Bennett's "The History Boys," to the point where I wonder if it was a deliberate allusion:
"If you want to learn about Stalin study Henry VIII. If you want to learn about Mrs. Thatcher study Henry VIII. If you want to learn about Hollywood study Henry VIII."
Quote from: edward on October 03, 2013, 06:28:38 PM
There's also, I think, a sense in which all music is a game of expectations: setting them up, then either fulfilling or denying them, and, naturally, these expectations are culturally conditioned, not absolute.
GREAT point.
Quote from: edward on October 03, 2013, 06:28:38 PM
Indeed, I suspect one reason many people seem to take far less to Mozart or Haydn than to the late Romantics is that the average concertgoer these days is likely to be less aware of the predominant musical topoi of the late 18th century than those of 100 years later.
Yet ANOTHER great point. Certainly it took me a lot longer, because it took years and years for me to figure out what exactly was so daring or edgy in Mozart or Haydn.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 03, 2013, 06:31:35 PM
Not at all, BGR. That inspired use of an epistrophe ("Almost every . . . originates with Beethoven's Third, etc.") irresistibly reminds me of Irwin's speech opening Act Two of Alan Bennett's "The History Boys," to the point where I wonder if it was a deliberate allusion:
Hate to disappoint but not only is it not "The History Boys," but I had to look up the word "epistrophe"! Having now seen it defined, I recognize one of my all-time 2 or 3 favorite rhetorical devices, and one I've used a lot over the years.
A maybe more famous example:
Hourly joys be still upon you!
Juno sings her blessings on you. [. . .]
Scarcity and want shall shun you,
Ceres' blessing so is on you.
— Shakespeare, The Tempest (4.1.108-109; 116-17)
Quote from: Brian on October 03, 2013, 05:45:52 PM
In the sense that it's a bit like going to the cheese shop and having the guy at the counter telling you that every single cheese in the store is delicious and underrated and remarkable?
Yes, in that sense it is like going to the
Teavana shop in any American Shopping Mall. :)
Quote from: Brian on October 03, 2013, 06:37:01 PM
Hate to disappoint but not only is it not "The History Boys," but I had to look up the word "epistrophe"! Having now seen it defined, I recognize one of my all-time 2 or 3 favorite rhetorical devices, and one I've used a lot over the years.
Of course! Had you been educated in Shakespeare's time, or even Lincoln's, all kinds of rhetorical devices of this kind would have been drummed into you daily ("of the people, by the people, for the people"). Long ago when I was still teaching college English, I taught a lesson on some of these, and I would still do so, as they do a lot to create a mature writing style. My favorite is anadiplosis, which is really tricky to do well.
We're certainly getting far from underrated composers, aren't we?
Well to return to my earlier sidenote is Haydn underrated compared to Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven?
Sforzando - man that's a good one. This also reminds me of the way you chose your username - my confession that I didn't know what Sforzando means. Maybe it's the way of education these days, but I seem to have intuited a lot of concepts in life without ever knowing what they're called.
Quote from: Philo the Harbinger on October 03, 2013, 07:03:06 PM
Well to return to my earlier sidenote is Haydn underrated compared to Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven?
I think I would say yes! And the reason is that the other three are revered almost as gods, untouchable, in some way "Perfect", while Haydn does not receive the same treatment. In a way, that
helps Haydn, because treating the other three as statues is doing them a disservice. Treating Haydn as a cheery guy who just had a fun time writing incredibly good music professionally without psychoses, poverty, or Divine Intervention - well, that's no disservice at all, unless it leads certain people to think less of his art.
Quote from: Brian on October 03, 2013, 07:06:54 PM
Sforzando - man that's a good one. This also reminds me of the way you chose your username - my confession that I didn't know what Sforzando means. Maybe it's the way of education these days, but I seem to have intuited a lot of concepts in life without ever knowing what they're called.
I think I would say yes! And the reason is that the other three are revered almost as gods, untouchable, in some way "Perfect", while Haydn does not receive the same treatment. In a way, that helps Haydn, because treating the other three as statues is doing them a disservice. Treating Haydn as a cheery guy who just had a fun time writing incredibly good music professionally without psychoses, poverty, or Divine Intervention - well, that's no disservice at all, unless it leads certain people to think less of his art.
Maybe Bach, Mozart, Beethoven are revered as gods in popular culture, but I don't see that as a particularly interesting distinction. Among people who are truly interested and knowledgeable about classical music, I think Haydn gets his due. My own view is that Haydn clearly did more to create the style we think of as classical, but Mozart imbued it with an undefinable magic that Haydn didn't quite achieve. I find it pointless to try to decide which is "better."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 03, 2013, 04:37:08 PM
If "melody" is your criterion, do you know the Symphony of Psalms? The Rake's Progress?
The first not so much, but the second I know very well and is one of those exceptions I mentioned. Excellent piece.
Quote from: Brian on October 03, 2013, 05:45:52 PM
In the sense that it's a bit like going to the cheese shop and having the guy at the counter telling you that every single cheese in the store is delicious and underrated and remarkable?
I love this analogy a lot, but your conclusion is off. In fact, every one of those cheeses is delicious. Whether you like one of them depends on your tastes. And the salesperson will try to guide you according to his/her tastes and/or general experience of others (feedback). It's more or less the same in music.
Quote from: Scarpia on October 03, 2013, 07:11:36 PM
Maybe Bach, Mozart, Beethoven are revered as gods in popular culture, but I don't see that as a particularly interesting distinction. Among people who are truly interested and knowledgeable about classical music, I think Haydn gets his due. My own view is that Haydn clearly did more to create the style we think of as classical, but Mozart imbued it with an undefinable magic that Haydn didn't quite achieve. I find it pointless to try to decide which is "better."
Haydn music is magic, but he is not considered as god so interpreters don't feel obligated to play his works as if they were the most striking events in the history of mankind (the way I think every piece of music should be played). In his later works there is a great amount of wit, inventiveness or scholarship so they can appeal to us played as they are written (the way I think no piece of music should be played), but his earlier works are woven with pure magic (similar to this of Schubert and of Chopin codas but even more primal) and without revealing this they seems only mediocre. And only when we understand how great he was from the very beginning we can really appreciate how great he was at the end of his career.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 03, 2013, 08:50:08 PM
I love this analogy a lot, but your conclusion is off. In fact, every one of those cheeses is delicious.
Better that the conclusion than the cheese is off.
Quote from: edward on October 03, 2013, 05:58:23 PM
If I want to give a piece new to me a proper hearing, I'm going to assume that it won't be giving up all its secrets easily. So the last thing I want to do is to give a work one fairly superficial listening and then make up my mind about it -- what I want is to give it multiple in-depth listens while in a receptive frame of mind and with as few interruptions as possible.
I'm curious about this. What are the criteria to earn multiple in-depth listens? How do you (or do you) try to make an assessment of "I don't get this" vs. "I dislike this"? To avoid alienating anybody, let's say the music is a pretty poor, uninventive Haydn knock-off, like Joseph Woelfl's string quartets*. What do you listen for, how do you set about evaluating the music's worth, when do you give up?
Hope I'm not coming off rude; I think this is really interesting.
*of course, this being GMG, we do have a Woelfl fan in the house (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,3920.msg266982.html#msg266982)
Good topic/question.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 04, 2013, 04:59:47 AM
I would not decribe myself a fan, but I detest this kind of comment. The man may not measure up in your estimation, but he was a decent enough composer for his music to have lasted until now in order that some, yes, rude, poster on an Internet forum could denigrate him. It smacks of thinking of composers as products and not people.
Sorry, but I really don't like that kind of comment.
>:(
Well let's assume for the sake of argument that there is a poor work of music. Doesn't matter whose. Call it the Symphony by Joe Fakeperson, and again, assume for argument that it is not good. How are you supposed to describe the Symphony by Joe Fakeperson? Are you supposed to censor your opinion of it because it would hurt Mr. Fakeperson's feelings? If a record label records the symphony, does its mere survival justify it? Should anyone criticizing it leave open (as I did!) the possibility that others will like it?
Like my last post, not trying to be rude, but sincerely curious, because your reply seems to indicate that there's really no good way to discuss poor art. To me that's a shame because without the ability to recognize bad art we wouldn't recognize good art.
Quote from: Brian on October 04, 2013, 04:43:06 AM
I'm curious about this. What are the criteria to earn multiple in-depth listens? How do you (or do you) try to make an assessment of "I don't get this" vs. "I dislike this"? To avoid alienating anybody, let's say the music is a pretty poor, uninventive Haydn knock-off, like Joseph Woelfl's string quartets*. What do you listen for, how do you set about evaluating the music's worth, when do you give up?
Hope I'm not coming off rude; I think this is really interesting.
*of course, this being GMG, we do have a Woelfl fan in the house (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,3920.msg266982.html#msg266982)
For me, I think it's almost more the case that, by default, I'm hoping that a work merits multiple in-depth listens. Reasons not to proceed with them would be most likely a judgement call (partially informed by my past listening experience) on my part that the music lacks invention and/or is poorly written, and that it appears to contain little that would be likely to change my judgement with future listens.
Past experience exploring new music has shown me that the works that have stuck with me for years have often been ones that, if I'd been forced to rush into judgement on after one listening, would probably not have earned a particularly favourable review (off the top of my head, examples would include Beethoven's op 127 quartet and the
Missa solemnis, Carter's Concerto for Orchestra and Piano Concerto, the Brahms symphonies, a lot of Stravinsky, the Berg
Kammerkonzert, Debussy's
Jeux, Prokofiev's 7th symphony and so on). This, of course, isn't to say that there aren't many works I've liked straight away and still find powerful and stimulating (Mahler's 9th, Haydn's late quartets, Boulez's
Le marteau sans maitre and the late Beethoven sonatas, to name a few).
But essentially (and this is where the Copland quote in my signature comes in), I want to feel that if I'm going to dismiss a work, I know why I'm doing it.
Quote from: Scarpia on October 03, 2013, 07:11:36 PM
Maybe Bach, Mozart, Beethoven are revered as gods in popular culture, but I don't see that as a particularly interesting distinction. Among people who are truly interested and knowledgeable about classical music, I think Haydn gets his due. My own view is that Haydn clearly did more to create the style we think of as classical, but Mozart imbued it with an undefinable magic that Haydn didn't quite achieve. I find it pointless to try to decide which is "better."
I don't think, at least when it comes to this sort of discussion, that one is striving to rank them in some sort of order. Although, to return to Gadamer and Eliot, we all obviously have some sort of ordering that we think is the most accurate representation. The reason I inquire about Haydn is that there seem to be two camps. There are those that would agree with you, that the Romanticism of Mozart makes him more 'worthy' of note, but I've been coming across more and more literature that seem to assert that placing Bach and Haydn together isn't as crazy as it might seem, especially when it comes to rhetoric and the construction of his string quartets.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 04, 2013, 06:29:16 AM
The rest are not underrated, IMO.
Richard Nanes is underrated?
Quote from: edward on October 03, 2013, 05:58:23 PM
That is part of the problem
If I want to give a piece new to me a proper hearing, I'm going to assume that it won't be giving up all its secrets easily. So the last thing I want to do is to give a work one fairly superficial listening and then make up my mind about it -- what I want is to give it multiple in-depth listens while in a receptive frame of mind and with as few interruptions as possible.
Now I don't know about other people here, but I don't actually have a massive amount of time available for doing this. I've got other hobbies and interests, I've got people to spend time with, and I spend 40 hours a week working. So if I see a list of 20-30 pieces all mentioned without any specific reasons quoted, I'm probably just going to skim-read it and then forget. On the other hand, if I see a short list posted with reasons that I find compelling (or one posted by someone like Luke who I know has quite similar tastes to me) I'm far more likely to make a mental note to track down the works in question.
Same here Edward. Depending on the week I work 40-60 hours, and I split my free time between walking my dog, reading novels, watching movies and listening to music (occasionally photography and origami as well). That leaves me with only a few hours a week for music listening. On top of those time constraints I like the major composers more than the "underrated" ones so I end up spending very little each week with non-canon music. That doesn't make me a snob! I just don't spend several hours a day listening to music like some of the other posters here.
Quote from: Brian on October 04, 2013, 04:43:06 AM
I'm curious about this. What are the criteria to earn multiple in-depth listens? How do you (or do you) try to make an assessment of "I don't get this" vs. "I dislike this"? To avoid alienating anybody, let's say the music is a pretty poor, uninventive Haydn knock-off, like Joseph Woelfl's string quartets*. What do you listen for, how do you set about evaluating the music's worth, when do you give up?
I don't think I owe anything to the composer or his/her music. I am under no obligation to give any music a "fair" hearing. Sometimes I listen to an unfamiliar piece of music and think, "I don't get it, but there seems to be something there, it's worth another listen." Other times, I think, "this is crap, what does the composer think is good about this?" In the latter case, there are no subsequent listens. Perhaps it would be injudicious of me to proclaim the music to be worthless after a cursory listen, but I see no reason to subject myself to it again.
An example, Panufnik's Symphony No 8. Just listened to it (Boston Symphony, Ozawa). The back cover has the following quote from Fanfare Magazine, "Absolutely the finest orchestral recording ever heard in any format." Huh? Personally, I'd put it in the bottom 0.1%, and I hope if I ever come across this disc again I remember not to listen to it. I've mentally put Panufnik on the list of composers never to listen to again. But, presumably there are people sent into transports of ecstasy by this stuff.
[asin]B0000666BF[/asin]
Quote from: Scarpia on October 04, 2013, 07:13:12 AM
The back cover has the following quote from Fanfare Magazin, "Absolutely the finest orchestral recording ever heard in any format."
Hyperbole like this - whatever the facts of it - is why I've stopped listening to (reading) musical journalists.
Quote from: Brian on October 04, 2013, 04:43:06 AM...let's say the music is a pretty poor, uninventive Haydn knock-off, like Joseph Woelfl's string quartets
That's the kind of comment that makes me hit the buy button at Amazon :D
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 04, 2013, 07:17:05 AM
That's the kind of comment that makes me hit the buy button at Amazon :D
That, or a 1 star rating from that cretin, "Santa Fe Listener."
Quote from: sanantonio on October 04, 2013, 06:29:16 AM
I think trying to find objective criteria is a dodgy enterprise, and I fall back on the test of time as the best arbiter of greatness.
If the test of time is not purely
objective, it is a workable amalgam of subjective and objective.
Quote from: The new erato on October 04, 2013, 07:16:37 AM
Hyperbole like this - whatever the facts of it - is why I've stopped listening to (reading) musical journalists.
I mean . . . who can
write that sort of thing? What are they thinking?
Quote from: karlhenning on October 04, 2013, 07:22:01 AM
I mean . . . who can write that sort of thing?
Lots of them.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 04, 2013, 07:22:01 AM
What are they thinking?
You don't need to think to write.
Quote from: Scarpia on October 04, 2013, 07:13:12 AM
An example, Panufnik's Symphony No 8. Just listened to it (Boston Symphony, Ozawa). The back cover has the following quote from Fanfare Magazine, "Absolutely the finest orchestral recording ever heard in any format." Huh? Personally, I'd put it in the bottom 0.1% . . . .
I'm surprised you rate it so high.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 04, 2013, 07:21:21 AM
If the test of time is not purely objective, it is a workable amalgam of subjective and objective.
Just don't fall into the trap of thinking that even a trace amount of subjectivity takes away all objectivity. I agree with SA. If generations after a composer has passed away there are people interested in performing and/or listening to that composer, there must be something to his or her music.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 04, 2013, 07:35:50 AM
I would agree, but I think the objective qualities are mostly intangible and difficult to identify or measure.
Indeed.
Quote from: DavidW on October 04, 2013, 07:42:16 AM
Just don't fall into the trap of thinking that even a trace amount of subjectivity takes away all objectivity.
Exactly!
Quote from: karlhenning on October 04, 2013, 07:44:00 AM
Indeed.
Exactly!
The English profs at my school hate it when students think that all opinions are equal because they are not facts! :D The students then suffer when their essays are torn apart for not having logical, well supported arguments. Those silly billies! ;D
Quote from: DavidW on October 04, 2013, 07:42:16 AM
Just don't fall into the trap of thinking that even a trace amount of subjectivity takes away all objectivity. I agree with SA. If generations after a composer has passed away there are people interested in performing and/or listening to that composer, there must be something to his or her music.
To relate the practical at hand to the theoretical in this case; Wölfl is first and foremost a composer for the piano. I think in this case that recording his string quartets, which are not only far less interesting than his piano works, but in this instance are not well-performed either, should not be a cause to condemn him overall. He was a friend and contemporary of Beethoven who had a high respect for his pianism, something that was a pretty rare commodity! Perhaps that is the key to dealing with the less famous; take the trouble to find out what they were good at and listen to that. Even the greats wrote some clunkers that people don't listen to more than once, but you don't judge Beethoven by
Der Glorreiche Augenblick, so why judge Wölfl by his string quartets? Just a thought...
8)
Right . . . condemn Chopin for an average cello sonata, will you?
Quote from: karlhenning on October 04, 2013, 08:09:21 AM
Right . . . condemn Chopin for an average cello sonata, will you?
:o The Cello Sonata is one of the best things he wrote, IMO.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 04, 2013, 08:06:44 AM
To relate the practical at hand to the theoretical in this case; Wölfl is first and foremost a composer for the piano. I think in this case that recording his string quartets, which are not only far less interesting than his piano works, but in this instance are not well-performed either, should not be a cause to condemn him overall. He was a friend and contemporary of Beethoven who had a high respect for his pianism, something that was a pretty rare commodity! Perhaps that is the key to dealing with the less famous; take the trouble to find out what they were good at and listen to that. Even the greats wrote some clunkers that people don't listen to more than once, but you don't judge Beethoven by Der Glorreiche Augenblick, so why judge Wölfl by his string quartets? Just a thought...
Definitely guilty here: this is the first thing I've heard by Woelfl, and I hope I didn't sound like condemning his entire output rather than just the works at hand. If he's a pianist first, that would explain some of the difficulties of the string quartets. Incidentally, I wasn't listening to the CD Jens heard, or the quartets he heard, but a new release of three world-premiere-recording quartets by none other than the Quatuor Mosaiques! No flaws with the performance (except maybe they weren't convinced either).
Anyway, I like the way you think.
By the way, the German essay in the booklet (Paladino is an Austrian label) says "Woelfl," which confused me because I thought it should be Wölfl. Looking online, it was Wölfl... wonder why an Austrian label would omit the umlaut in the original German...
Quote from: The new erato on October 04, 2013, 07:16:37 AM
Hyperbole like this - whatever the facts of it - is why I've stopped listening to (reading) musical journalists.
Just last night I was reviewing Zinman's Schubert and wrote something like "This CD is in the unenviable and hard-to-write-about position of being very good, but no better than a dozen other very good recent recordings." There are a lot of reasons journalists rarely say stuff like that. It's hard to write, it's a sucky clip for your portfolio, it sounds dull, it can be construed as damning (I had to then write something like "I really did like it!"), and the reader can often be left thinking something like, "Well why the heck did I read that then?" Everything is stacked against you. And another thing too: I've resolved to be honest about things like this, but saying "it's not great but it's pretty darn good" is getting really freaking boring.
Quote from: Brian on October 04, 2013, 08:38:02 AM
Definitely guilty here: this is the first thing I've heard by Woelfl, and I hope I didn't sound like condemning his entire output rather than just the works at hand. If he's a pianist first, that would explain some of the difficulties of the string quartets. Incidentally, I wasn't listening to the CD Jens heard, or the quartets he heard, but a new release of three world-premiere-recording quartets by none other than the Quatuor Mosaiques! No flaws with the performance (except maybe they weren't convinced either).
Anyway, I like the way you think.
By the way, the German essay in the booklet (Paladino is an Austrian label) says "Woelfl," which confused me because I thought it should be Wölfl. Looking online, it was Wölfl... wonder why an Austrian label would omit the umlaut in the original German...
Just last night I was reviewing Zinman's Schubert and wrote something like "This CD is in the unenviable and hard-to-write-about position of being very good, but no better than a dozen other very good recent recordings." There are a lot of reasons journalists rarely say stuff like that. It's hard to write, it's a sucky clip for your portfolio, it sounds dull, it can be construed as damning (I had to then write something like "I really did like it!"), and the reader can often be left thinking something like, "Well why the heck did I read that then?" Everything is stacked against you. And another thing too: I've resolved to be honest about things like this, but saying "it's not great but it's pretty darn good" is getting really freaking boring.
Brian,
Ah, the Mosaiques is it? Haven't heard it anyway, thought it might have been the Authentic SQ.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51DVvfye7xL.jpg)
This is a good representation of Wölfl's work. I quite like this disk, it may not be the greatest piano sonatas ever written, but that crown has already been taken. :) It is a fairer representation of his ability anyway. :)
If that was a translation into English, I have seen this before, the Austrians are aware that English speakers are afraid of accents, so when they translate something they go the whole hog. 'Woe...' is exactly how 'Wö...' translates.
I would hate to be a reviewer. If that sort of situation
didn't make you uncomfortable, then you would have slid down to the level of Hurwitz and not even be worth kicking. So I'm glad you are. :)
8)
Quote from: Brian on October 04, 2013, 08:38:02 AMJust last night I was reviewing Zinman's Schubert and wrote something like "This CD is in the unenviable and hard-to-write-about position of being very good, but no better than a dozen other very good recent recordings." There are a lot of reasons journalists rarely say stuff like that. It's hard to write, it's a sucky clip for your portfolio, it sounds dull, it can be construed as damning (I had to then write something like "I really did like it!"), and the reader can often be left thinking something like, "Well why the heck did I read that then?" Everything is stacked against you. And another thing too: I've resolved to be honest about things like this, but saying "it's not great but it's pretty darn good" is getting really freaking boring.
"This CD is in the unenviable and hard-to-write-about position of being very good, but no better than a dozen other very good recent recordings," is a useless statement, and not just because it doesn't look good in your portfolio. Whether the recording is "as good" or "better than" another recording is subjective and applies to you. There is no one-dimensional axis of goodness on which it is useful to rank recordings. A useful review would have described various more-or-less objective characteristics of the recording (dry or reverberant sound, priminant or recessed brass, winds, strings, percussion, fast or slow, agressive or smooth articulation, historically aware or self-indulgent, etc. Maybe you did this as well. I find the "why the heck did I read that then" sentiment is the most common result of reading any review of music.
Quote from: Scarpia on October 04, 2013, 10:18:32 AMMaybe you did this as well
Well yeah. I was quoting from memory 20 words out of 400ish...
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 04, 2013, 10:03:57 AM
Brian,
This is a good representation of Wölfl's work. I quite like this disk, it may not be the greatest piano sonatas ever written, but that crown has already been taken. :) It is a fairer representation of his ability anyway. :)
If that was a translation into English, I have seen this before, the Austrians are aware that English speakers are afraid of accents, so when they translate something they go the whole hog. 'Woe...' is exactly how 'Wö...' translates.
Thanks for that CD recommendation! I will give it a try. And I meant that it said "Woelfl," no umlauts,
in the original German text! Very weird :o
Well, maybe that's right . . . is Goethe without an umlaut correct?
(Though, if our Gurn types Wölfl, I suppose he hath reason.)
Quote from: Brian on October 04, 2013, 10:22:33 AM
Well yeah. I was quoting from memory 20 words out of 400ish...
Fair enough. The last time I decided on which recording to get based on reviews, I was trying to decide between the Karajan, BPO or Solti CSO recording of Beethoven's ninth.
I picked this one:
(http://img.cdandlp.com/2012/07/imgL/115488991.jpg)
It was a new release at the time. :-[
Quote from: Brian on October 04, 2013, 10:23:19 AM
And I meant that it said "Woelfl," no umlauts, in the original German text! Very weird :o
:-[ Oops. Well, hell, there is no accounting for that! :)
8)
Quote from: karlhenning on October 04, 2013, 10:26:38 AM
Well, maybe that's right . . . is Goethe without an umlaut correct?
(Though, if our Gurn types Wölfl, I suppose he hath reason.)
It is that way 90% of the time. You're right though, I am hard pressed to recall a Göthe.... ???
8)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 04, 2013, 10:38:15 AM
I agree 100%. I rarely pay attention to reviews unless they are of the "this is a new recording" and one by a composer I am interested in. I ignore the reviewer's opinion and am only interested in the fact that they reported a new recording.
Or, in other facts which the review may bring to light, the reviewer's opinion set aside.
Pécou. Probably the only interesting contemporary composer. At least for me.
There are no underrated composers, there are only composers that are known, all whom are rated correctly, and unknown composers, who have no rating at all but for the most part are unknown for a reason.
Quote from: Purusha on August 16, 2015, 11:11:53 AM
There are no underrated composers, there are only composers that are known, all whom are rated correctly, and unknown composers, who have no rating at all but for the most part are unknown for a reason.
Yes but the point is that the reason a composer is unknown may have nothing to do with the quality of his/her music. There are certainly unknown composers who ought to be known. When I was young, both Satie and Scriabin were unknown.