THE Most Unsung Composer (but undeservedly so!)

[Paul Barasi]

As a little girl said: "Memory is the thing I forget with" – I can't remember seeing 'The Most Unsung Composer' as a topic in its own right here, and if so, then this is a serious omission.

Now, this new opportunity isn't for flagging up composers whose work isn't very good but those who really are worthy of being heard in the concert hall and on CD but haven't very much if at all, nor did they ever have their day, either.

[Alan Howe]

My vote would probably go to Ernst Rudorff (1840-1916):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Rudorff
Close behind would be Reinhold Becker (1842-1924):
http://www.adorf-vogtland.de/inhalte/adorf/_inhalt/fr_tour/musik/musiker/becker/r_becker (in German)
Both were probably well-known in their day, though.

[semloh]

My first thought is that the answer is "all the composers we discuss on UC whose names do not appear in any edition of Grove."  I suspect it includes many non-European and women composers (the relevant threads on UC include long lists of utterly neglected women composers, who could be singled out in response to your post).

[Gauk]

Actually, this was more or less the subject of this thread:

http://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,4297.0.html

[eschiss1]

however, which of those (or another, from another country) meet the two conditions of the opening post in the thread?... (or three, if one adds implicitly that their floruit-period was not after 1915-or-so.) I have trouble, at the moment, surprisingly, thinking of a composer who was and remains obscure but whose music I know to be very good. Hugo Kauder was and remains obscure but I know too little about his music to say whether he deserves revival (a little has been recorded now but I haven't yet heard it; I have heard one concerto, which sounds good, and I've seen one quartet in score.) Kauder's too recent, though (sorry, wasn't thinking.)

Though I first heard of Rufinatscha for the first time on this forum, I will guess that he had enough of a reputation not to qualify either I see that so did Beliczay (though in his case I have not yet heard a note even of the one existing recording.) I don't know if Gustav Jenner did during his lifetime, or Urspruch either...

[BFerrell]

How about some unsung composers who deserve to be unknown???  THAT would be interesting.

[Alan Howe]

How about some unsung composers who deserve be unknown???  THAT would be interesting.

No, let's not go there. Far too divisive...

[Gauk]

however, which of those (or another, from another country) meet the two conditions of the opening post in the thread?... (or three, if one adds implicitly that their floruit-period was not after 1915-or-so.) I have trouble, at the moment, surprisingly, thinking of a composer who was and remains obscure but whose music I know to be very good.

Well, again I would nominate Louis Thirion, who appears in no edition of Groves AFAIK, has no Wikipedia page, and I can find no music by him except this really excellent symphony, which indicates considerable talent.

As for unknown composers who deserve to be unknown, their name is legion. Their works have never been publicly performed and never will be.

[eschiss1]

Hrm... yes, unfortunately the only Louis Thirion who has a Wikipedia page is his son (I think), the science-fiction author. The composer does have some works uploaded at IMSLP, and I found a - well... three line micro-semi-mini-hemi-demi-semi-biographylet of a sort here (born in Baccarat, 1879; student of Ropartz, taught piano and organ at the conservatoire at Nancy), but... yes. (Hopefully some useful information elsewhere at least. SACEM?...)

Never will be, Gauk? I think you overestimate peoples' taste. There are very well-known and well-admired composers who deserve complete obscurity, but... eh... never mind.

[Gauk]

Never will be, Gauk? I think you overestimate peoples' taste. There are very well-known and well-admired composers who deserve complete obscurity, but... eh... never mind.

Think of all the compositions by amateurs and students that will never see the light of day.

Actually, I think if a composer is "well-admired", it cannot be that they deserve complete obscurity, or no-one would admire them. It's like the paradox of interesting numbers. All numbers are interesting; if some numbers were uninteresting, the lowest of them would the lowest uninteresting number, which is interesting.

[eschiss1]

actually, those syllogisms are not alike, in that the latter is a syllogism/tautology (my ex-math student training kicking in, ah well), and the other is -- well -- a repetition of your previous claim. But getting back to the thread...

the most likely candidates might be people who were
(1)excellent composers,
(2)famous,
(3)but not famous as composers (in their day),
(4)not famous as composers now (and ready for revival).

(2) might include people famous for - well, any number of non-music-writing reasons- not just music-related (e.g. performance, analysis, music history-writing (how is that string quintet- yes, there is one- by Sibelius' first biographer, Erik Furuhjelm), conducting, etc. but perhaps composing mathematicians ;^) or explorers or ... - again, if their output is stunning enough and they were not (at all? well? I don't quite understand the bounding parameters, peeps) known for composing, well, that's what's being asked.

[Gauk]

actually, those syllogisms are not alike, in that the latter is a syllogism/tautology (my ex-math student training kicking in, ah well), and the other is -- well -- a repetition of your previous claim. But getting back to the thread...

They are not absolutely alike. My compositions have been compared to Mozart! ("Gauk's compositions are awful compared to Mozart".)