A plea for greater discrimination

[matesic]

Don't get me wrong (one of my least favourite sayings..), I do sympathise with and share most of the aims of UC, but I also like to stimulate debate. In spite of the fact that the "big" classical music scene is increasingly dominated by high-profile populist performers of over-performed repertoire, in the realm of recorded music it is undoubtedly the case that we have access to a wider range of obscure repertoire than ever before. So maybe not quite so much grumbling about neglected long-dead geniuses who inexplicably have never had money thrown at them for the gratification of a few old codgers with jaded palettes?

I'm just as curious as the next man about the vast amount of music written in the last 400 years that never (or hardly ever) gets publicly aired, but time is precious. There are many days when I relish the prospect of getting acquainted with the OK-to-middling music of another unsung, but it isn't all wonderful stuff and there are plenty more days when I want to refresh and deepen my appreciation of true masterpieces. With too much emphasis on the obscure, isn't there a danger that musical refinement gives way to a kind of gluttony? What I find lacking in this otherwise admirable forum is any marked degree of quality discrimination between composers of widely differing degrees of competence, inspiration and originality. So how about a 10-point scale for each?

[thalbergmad]

There are many days when I relish the prospect of getting acquainted with the OK-to-middling music of another unsung, but it isn't all wonderful stuff and there are plenty more days when I want to refresh and deepen my appreciation of true masterpieces.

I relish the prospect of getting acquainted with the "masterpieces" of another unsung and this forum has shown that they exist. I spent the first 30 odd years of my life with masterpieces from the popular repertoire and I have to admit that I would not cross the road to hear an umpteenth recording of a Beethoven sonata.

Perhaps the difference between the greats and the unsungs is a matter of percentages. One might say that 98% of Chopin is genius, but only 20% for Gernsheim and 0% for Schumann.

We are all going to have different opinions and I think a rating system could start off WW3 even amongst us gentlefolk.

Thal

[matesic]

I'd love to get a shortlist of Thal's unsung masterpieces. But surely when we cease to respond to pieces the rest of the world finds great, the fault and the loss is all ours. I'd practically reverse the percentages for Chopin and Schumann, so my "palette" is clearly as jaded as his. Maybe I'll try some Prussian Blue tonight. 

[thalbergmad]

But surely when we cease to respond to pieces the rest of the world finds great, the fault and the loss is all ours.

I would not be so snobbish as to suggest that perhaps some pieces the rest of the World finds great is because they do not know any better, but to not stray outside of the "regular" repertoire rather narrows ones experiences.

Interestingly, Andrei Gavrilov was describing his love affair with Tchaikovsky PC1 on Facebook, but admitted that he had never heard Bortkiewicz PC1.

Surely, one would have to be certifiable to prefer the more famous work.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

there are plenty more days when I want to refresh and deepen my appreciation of true masterpieces.

You differ from me in this respect as I actively avoid true masterpieces from the popular repertoire.

Take the Chopin Ballade No.1 for instance. It has been descended upon by the pianistic universe like vultures around a carcass, to the extent that to my ears it is now just bones with nothing of interest. I loved the work as a youth, but I have now heard it so many times, I cannot last longer than the first few measures.

I feel the same way about many popular masterpieces and have no intention of listening to another "Waldstein" trotted out by the latest note perfect but boring 12 year old sensation, that has been belched out of a conveyor belt music school. Not only is the popular repertoire contracting, but musically, pianistic standards in my opinion is at low and if I do have to suffer a "Waldstein", it would be by Lupu or Arrau.

I keep myself in reasonable pianistic shape and can honestly say I would rather play Thalberg than Liszt & Herz than Chopin.

Thal

[Alan Howe]

Surely, one would have to be certifiable to prefer the more famous work.

Well, I do - and the men in white coats haven't come for me yet. Of course, there's still time, but I reckon they're more likely to be visiting any person who would make such a pronouncement...

[jerfilm]

In some respects it reminds me a little of so called popular music.  You hear it repeatedly for week and eventually you get tired of hearing it.  However, thirty years later, you hear someone bringing it back and it brings back fond memories. 

Jerry

[BFerrell]

I have not listened to anything pre-1890 in many years. OK, Bruckner, Berlioz and Beethoven once in a blue moon.
I discover masterpieces constantly but many cannot be discussed here.
I do not have enough time left but for maybe 2 or 3 new (to me) composers per year. Sometimes it's a bust for me and sometimes it's a home-run (Braunfels and Tyberg). I just do not have enough life left to waste any time. Fortunately I spent most of my life becoming intimately familiar with most tonal 20th Century British, Finns and Americans, some Soviet composers and a few French and Italians and Danes. Once I fall for a composer I buy everything I can find and price is no object.
That's how I've chosen to do it for the past 50 years.

[Alan Howe]

Bottom line for me: there will be no ten-point scales here. Much preferable with regard to any unfamiliar music are reasoned argument, careful description and persuasive advocacy. And let's leave aside musical snobbery too. There's room for everything - even the less good (or downright trivial) can be enjoyed for what it is.

[matesic]

So far we have only one nomination for an unsung masterpiece. I just listened to Bortkiewitz PC1 on Youtube and enjoyed it, although perhaps not for all the right reasons. I can't help agreeing with his entry in New Grove that he "mastered the skills of the past without adding anything personal or original". Not words anyone would use of Tchaikovsky in the context of PC1, like it or loathe it. I'm sure performing artists approach such pieces with a completely different mindset from the rest of us. After all, they have a career to make.

I love Jerry's assessment of "so called popular music". To misquote Lady Bracknell, I'm happy to say I've never heard any "popular music".

[giles.enders]

I look at things differently, I have recordings of about  600 different classical and romantic piano concertos, I have lost count of the number of live performances I have attended.  The top 10 of my favorites, although changing in order, has largely remained the same over the years.  I get immense pleasure listening to many of the others, some because they are performed well or there are particular parts which appeal to me.  Then there is always the excitement of hearing something for the first time.  even if it is a disappointment.  To just have a plate of ones favorite food day in day out would become boring and the same goes for classical music.  It is the search and finding something I haven't heard before which I enjoy, that for me is what makes all the unsungs such a pleasure.

[Paul Barasi]

reasoned argument, careful description and persuasive advocacy.

That's kinda wot I like but there's not a lot of it here and the little there is doesn't draw much response by way of appreciation or debate. I wonder why. Is it hard to do? Possibly. Is it valuable? Yes. Ratings don't convey much meaning but sharing a narrative of what it is that you like about a work does. Music can and should be described. Music is language; communication; emotion: for which our brains are wired and by which they are stimulated.  One of the fascinating aspects of music is that in the concert hall the audience has a collective experience but people also have personal individual experiences. The music isn't heard the same by everyone. Surely, to know how others hear and respond to a piece of music can open up opportunities to hear more, whether in something we already know or expand our range of compositions.

So I commend a descriptive approach as something that should be part of posting here, although I hold out little hope of it happening.

[Alan Howe]

I have lost count of the number of times I have asked contributors to justify their opinions with reasons. Mere assertions of likes and dislikes are next to useless - and extremely boring - without any form of justification being offered. Of course, it takes time, effort and some knowledge of the wider repertoire to post more than an opinion...

[jerfilm]

This is just me, of course.  But when I was young (and I do have vague recollections of those times when the retrieval mechanism is working properly......) and I only had the means to collect the "masterpieces", I listened to them over and over.  Fine in itself, but I discovered how unflexible I was when we wouild go to a concert and the interpretation didn't sound "right" - IE wasn't played like my recording.  Which might have been one of the reasons I started delving into the unsung jungle.

I digress.  Age has apparently dimmed those interpretive memories and now I look forward to, yes, even hope that, this director and this orchestra will have something new and interesting to say about the work.  The one thing I avoid is digging out my old favorite recording and listening to it before heading to the concert hall.

Example I think I mentioned in another post last winter.   Hearing a perhaps a little quirky in terms of tempos and dynamics, performance of the Grieg PC.  Had me in tears.  Would never have happened 50 years ago.

Moral of the story again, I think, is that overexposure is not a good thing.......   At least not for me.

Jerry

[Amphissa]

Back to the original post, I appreciate your conundrum. I also have too little time left on this earth to waste listening to music I do not enjoy. And I have too little money to waste on recordings that are a shot in the dark.

However, it's really difficult to rate or grade music. Sure, a person can put a grade on a composition, recording, performance or all three. But what does it tell others? Only that this is your assessment based on your personal subjective opinion.

We've had repeated discussions here on UC over the years about quite a few specific composers. One thing that is clear -- there are those who really like certain composers and others who dislike those same composers. It is as true of unsungs as it is of the most recognized composers. There is no consensus.

So how informative would the grade of one person be? You would still need to know what other composers the person liked and disliked in order to create a context. If I rated a particular work a 7 on a 10 point scale, how would you know whether you would like it? Maybe you and I have very different tastes.

A grading scale is basically just a shorthand method for saying "I like it this much." So I concur with Alan. Justification, description, and comparison (when relevant) to other works or composers, would be of greater benefit to others than a grading scale.