'Instanding' - a Hans Keller neologism

[Alan Howe]

Here's an interesting debate...

Although this was about Boccherini who lies beyond the boundaries of UC's remit, nevertheless I'd be interested to find out whether his argument has merit regarding composers that we regularly discuss here:

<<The Austrian-born British writer Hans Keller, never a man to avoid a neologism that deserved to be invented, once memorably referred to Boccherini as an "instanding" composer. To some extent, of course, Keller was being fair: Boccherini was not one of the chaps who stood the history of music on its head. But though he rarely touches the depths of the soul, his music is always faultlessly crafted, and, more to the point, it usually sounds like no one else: Boccherini was his own man.>>
https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10168.0;attach=74109   (opens pdf)

So, for example, with regard to the recently uploaded realisation of Albert Becker's Symphony in G minor, would Keller's observation apply - and if it did, would it matter?

[John Boyer]

I have never heard of Albert Becker, so I would not know if his music "usually sounds like no one else", that he "was his own man".  I would venture, however, that Raff is such a composer.  He does have his own signature. 

As for whether this matters, there are no easy answers. History seems to prize originality and easy identifiability. In that sense, it would matter. I like composers who have their own sound, but on the other hand I don't dislike composers who sound very much like others. It's one thing to sound like another composer, for example, to immediately remind one of Dvorak, but it's quite another if one just sounds generic, say, to sound just like mid 19th century German music but nothing more than that.  The latter is usually dull stuff. 

[Mark Thomas]

John is pretty much on the button. Certainly I'd nominate Raff as a potential "Instander" but he isn't an actual one, of course, because of his relative obscurity still. Amongst well known romantic composers I guess I'd nominate perhaps Rimsky-Korsakov, Bruch and Elgar for starters. None of them revolutionaries, all of them immaculate craftsmen whose work is, generally, immediately identifiable. It would be a difficult job to make a case for Becker until we can hear more of his music. The only other works of his I know are a Concertstück and Scherzo for violin and orchestra. Both have the same characteristics as the Symphony: a strong sense of rhythm, a certain unexpected way with harmony and sometimes a quirky turn of melody, but they sound like standard 19th-century German fare and so I suspect would be indistinguishable from, say, Rheinberger or Gouvy to choose a couple of Unsungs with a substantial discography.

[Alan Howe]

My guess is that the essence of 'Instanding-ness' (to extend Keller's neologism) is that the music concerned doesn't really stand out from the crowd. (If this is the case, by the way, then Elgar and R-K don't fit because their music is readily identifiable, whereas Bruch is quite clearly working from within a general tradition of mainstream German conservative romanticism.)

Now, I have a problem with that. I actually prefer to judge a composition on its own terms rather than making comparisons all the time. So, did Albert Becker's symphony stand musical history on its head? No, of course not. But is it a worthwhile composition on its own terms? Well, why not? Its themes are memorable (I can hear them 'in my head' after just a couple of listens) and it holds my attention throughout in a way that, for example, the majority of Rubinstein's long-winded symphonies do not.

So, if Becker and others are 'instanding' composers, do I care? No! Why? Because I enjoy the music as being well-composed, employing memorable material and adding up to a satisfying whole. There's a lot to be said for good 'standard fare'   

[John Boyer]

My guess is that the essence of 'Instanding-ness' (to extend Keller's neologism) is that the music concerned doesn't really stand out from the crowd.

I see now I was confusing Martin Anderson's defense of Boccherini with Keller's condemnation of him.  Keller says Boccherini is undistinguished ("instanding"), while Anderson grants him unique qualities. 

[Mark Thomas]

Yes, and I quite misunderstood the point too, now. Oh dear, I should have bothered to read Martin's original review.

[Alan Howe]

And here's the point: Anderson disagrees with Keller - in other words, it's all a matter of opinion, even when faced with the same evidence. So, let's not simply 'fold' under the weight of a Kellerian critique and his clever neologism. Let's have the courage to defend what we hear and like - the very raison d'être of this website!

[FBerwald]

Would the sadly ignored Rufinatscha qualify as an 'instanding' composer?

[Alan Howe]

Well, as I said, it's a matter of opinion. For me, Rufinatscha is an 'outstanding' composer because his music is clearly his own and is of fine quality. In addition, his music has been recorded, in one instance by major independent label - Chandos. But feel free to disagree! Just don't dismiss him using a made-up adjective without any form of justification to back it up.

Personally, I think Keller's neologism is a provocation because one person's 'instanding' (which is just an opinion) may not be another's; and simply to dismiss a composition in this way may simply be evidence of laziness, ignorance or prejudice.

To give an example: I have been fascinated for years by the so-called 'Dahlhaus Gap', i.e. the notion promulgated on flimsy evidence by the musicologist of that name that there were no significant symphonies written between Schumann 4 and Brahms 1, i.e. in the quarter-century between roughly 1850 and 1876. In other words, that all we have in that period is a series of 'instanding symphonies', to quote the head of a certain classical label known to us. Of course, a number of these have been recorded in recent years and found to be of enormous interest and appeal and others have been unearthed and realised electronically by our friend Reverie and given a warm reception here and online. Finally, musicologist Chris Fifield has actually done the research in his book 'The German Symphony between Beethoven and Brahms' and proved that Dahlhaus' dead zone was actually full of life.

I rest my case.

[Mark Thomas]

To be honest with you, now that I understand what Keller is implying by his smug invention of "instanding", I'm perfectly happy to ignore it. It's just a smart-sounding way of justifying ignorant or lazy prejudice and I've no time for it.

[Alan Howe]

I feel exactly the same.

[John Boyer]

I've just been doing a bit more reading about Hans Keller, and the more I read the less I like about him. He appears to have been the type who struck provocative poses for no other reason than to garner the attention that iconoclasts invariably attract.

In short, he was the Anglo-Austrian equivalent of B. H. Haggin.