The Unfamiliarity of Unsung Music

[John H White]

Around 1949, the BBC broadcast a performance of Raff's Lenore Symphony and I was able to carry the tune of the march in my head for around 40 years before I managed to acquire an LP of the work, so that, when I did get to hear symphony again, at least some of it wasn't unfamiliar to me. having whistled and hummed it for so many years.
On another track; I can remember a time in the 1940s when both Bruckner and Mahler were almost completely unheard of in the UK. Then someone from the recently instituted BBC 3rd Programme had the bright idea of putting on a complete series of the Mahler symphonies. Following on the success of that project, a lady wrote in to the Radio Times suggesting they did the same for the Bruckner symphonies and so the following year we were able to hear the the complete Bruckner cycle, minus the Study Symphony and No "0", which were probably still unknown even to the BBC. These broadcasts obviously stimulated interest in these 2 composers and within a few years LP records of their symphonic music were apearing in the record shops.' followed by occasional live performances by various British orchestras so that today neither of these two composers can be regarded in the UK as unsung.
  Cheers,
        John.

[Peter1953]

Last Sunday I heard Janine Jansen play the solo part of Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto. And while listening I was thinking, suppose Raff or Rubinstein, or any other less sung romantic composer, had written this masterpiece. I guess he had become world famous for eternity. After the break Brahms's First was performed. I know, of course, it's all my very personal taste. But which unsung symphony can match with Brahms's First?
The great, sung composers were capable of writing not only very memorable tunes, but simply unforgettable music. IMHO that's the main reason why they became and stayed so famous and beloved. Or is this statement far too simple?

[kolaboy]

Well... "memorable" and "unforgettable" are subjective terms. I find Arne's "Sweetest Bard" to be both... yet I'm the only one (that I know) who is aware of it.

[Alan Howe]

I know, of course, it's all my very personal taste. But which unsung symphony can match with Brahms's First?

Draeseke 3 without a doubt in terms of scale and ambition. Raff 4 in terms of utter perfection of instrumentation, form and memorability. Rufinatscha 4 or 5 (formerly 5 or 6) in terms of sheer grandeur. These, for me, are the three unsung nineteenth-century symphonists whose best works belong in the pantheon along with that great masterpiece, Brahms 1.

[Ilja]

Last Sunday I heard Janine Jansen play the solo part of Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto. And while listening I was thinking, suppose Raff or Rubinstein, or any other less sung romantic composer, had written this masterpiece. I guess he had become world famous for eternity. After the break Brahms's First was performed. I know, of course, it's all my very personal taste. But which unsung symphony can match with Brahms's First?
The great, sung composers were capable of writing not only very memorable tunes, but simply unforgettable music. IMHO that's the main reason why they became and stayed so famous and beloved. Or is this statement far too simple?

Yes, I think it is, and allow me to name two reasons - although there are more.

The first is that the 'judgment from history' ("if it's forgotten, it probably deserved to be") argument is easily countered with historical argument. Simply said: the chances of survival for pieces of music weren't the same everywhere. Remember that recorded music didn't show up until the latest years of the 19th century. Most of the time, your composition, if it reached a concert venue at all, would have one shot at getting remembered. If you weren't at least somewhat famous, its chances of survival diminised further. And if the venue happened to be outside Germany or Austria, it was worse still. If you were a brilliant composer but happened to live outside a major musical centre, it might happen that simply would not find an audience. Gernsheim is a good case in point: a great talent, but one who spent a major part of his career outside the musical centre, in Rotterdam (and much of the rest in a provincial backwater in Germany).

Secondly, don't underestimate the way in which the human mind 'canonizes' information. Brahms' symphonies a deeply ingrained part of our musical heritage for most of us from an early age, through a plethora of media. Therefore, much of that music begins to sound self-evident because it is so familiar to us. It does not *always* mean that the music has great intrinsic merit. And, more importantly, it means that we have to take much more effort to 'get' the patterns of something that is new and unfamiliar.

[eschiss1]

Is Gernsheim that good an example? The list of performances of his works outside of Rotterdam during his lifetime and soon after is actually pretty impressive. (Cello concerto premiered in Eisenach in 1907, and given its British premiere by Pablo Casals in 1909; Waldmeisters Brautfart op13 given in Cologne in 1868; piano concerto given (premiered?) in Basle in 1868 (composer, pianist); 4th symphony given Mainz, 1896; Divertimento op53 commissioned by a group in New York City and premiered by them winter of 1888-89; String Quintet no.1 op.9 given Cologne, 1867; first piano quartet op6 premiered(?) Leipzig 1865 (2nd in Köln 1870, 3rd in Bonn 1883) etc. ... (see Boston Symphony program notes p1022 et seq.) (Oh o k, Cologne is the "provincial backwater" of which you speak, where he taught from 1865-1874. Sorry, had never thought of Köln as a provincial backwater of any kind at all...)

[semloh]

The great, sung composers were capable of writing not only very memorable tunes, but simply unforgettable music. IMHO that's the main reason why they became and stayed so famous and beloved. Or is this statement far too simple?

Yes, I think it is, and allow me to name two reasons - although there are more.......

I agree totally with your observations, Ilja.

I am also reminded of a popular and influential paperback which appeared - in the late 60s I think - called The Myth of the Meritocracy. I think we have discussed this quite often on UC, and not only is it clear that the claim that 'the cream always rises to the top' is false, but also that such a claim as it applies to music is almost impossible to state precisely. Concepts such as 'beloved' and 'famous' (and 'popular') can mean so many different things, and are no guarantee of 'quality' - which is itself difficult to define.

Regarding 'canonization', I would add that what we regard so positively today (part of the cultural canon) may in due course be cast aside, and vice-versa. This is an example of the social construction of musical taste, of course, a process which is perhaps more obvious in relation to 'popular' music, but does become apparent in light of the history of classical music and the periods of neglect, if not not outright rejection, of composers whom we take for granted today as being among the 'immortals' (and vice-versa of course!).

Hopefully, someone who knows more about it than me will reply to Eric's interesting rejoinder about Gernsheim. 

[eschiss1]

I was probably not entirely on target, so I also await the reply reasonably impartially in hopes perhaps of mutual clarification...

[JimL]

I think that a lot of composers who might have had their popularity, canonization, familiarity, etc. continued uninterrupted to this day were dealt severe setbacks by the Nazis because they were Jews.  Gernsheim, Brüll, etc. can probably be numbered among them.  Remember that before the war, there was a marked increase in anti-Semitism worldwide, including here in the States.

[John H White]

I would like to add to Alan's list of Unsung symphonies matching Brahms's No1, Franz Lachner's prize winning 5th Symphony. In my opinion, Lachner's symphonies form the link between Beethoven/Schubert on the one hand and Bruckner/Brahms on the other. Interestingly, Lachner was a great friend of Schubert in his younger days and later on offered to conduct a performance of Bruckner's "Study Symphony".
     Cheers,
          John.

[Alan Howe]

Personally, I wouldn't put Lachner 5 in the same league, but it's an important work.

[eschiss1]

I will admit I was very impressed with Lachner 6 in the synthesized performance (I apologize, I know I've said this too often). I keep thinking it's a work that in a good "real" performance could indeed "hold its head high" without special pleading, but yes, that's subjective!

[Gauk]

Around 1949, the BBC broadcast a performance of Raff's Lenore Symphony and I was able to carry the tune of the march in my head for around 40 years before I managed to acquire an LP of the work, so that, when I did get to hear symphony again, at least some of it wasn't unfamiliar to me. having whistled and hummed it for so many years.

You know, it is decades since I last heard Raff 5 (I don't have a recording), and all I had to do was read that paragraph and the tune popped into my head ...

[Ilja]

I think that a lot of composers who might have had their popularity, canonization, familiarity, etc. continued uninterrupted to this day were dealt severe setbacks by the Nazis because they were Jews.  Gernsheim, Brüll, etc. can probably be numbered among them.  Remember that before the war, there was a marked increase in anti-Semitism worldwide, including here in the States.

I'm not that convinced, actually. Gernsheim and Brüll's fame had eroded a fair deal by the 1930s anyway; and Mendelssohn's (probably the most significant composer excised from nazi Germany's concert halls) work has remained popular despite the best effort of the national socialists. That isn't to say that antisemitism didn't play a role, but I rather doubt the long-lasting effect of nazi culture policy was that significant. To me, the big tragedy is the lives and careers of working composers that were cut short - which ironically appears to have contributed to the dominance of dodecaphonism and serialism in 'art music' after the war.

[John H White]

I'm surprised, Eschiss, at your enthusiasm for my synthetic performance of Lachner's 6th Symphony. Personally, I was rather disappointed with it, especially the opening movement which I didn't consider a patch on the corresponding movements of Nos. 5 & 8. However, as I transcribed it into Sibelius software, it seemed to gradually improve from movement to movement, the rollicking finale being well up to scratch. I suspect that its unevenness was the main factor in one of our forum member's decision to drop it from the programme of the concert he was conducting 2 or 3 years ago.
   Cheers,
        John.