Why Unsung?

[Amphissa]

I'm not going to wade into this -- and I have a degree in Philosophy. There have been large treatises written on this issue, most of which conflict. So we are unlikely to resolve it here.

I'll simply offer my way out of this dilemma.

When I hear someone assert that X is a better composer than Y, or that this symphony is better than another, I immediately attach "in my opinion" or "in my judgment" as a preface to the assertion. Because in the end, people differ about the things they like or dislike, approve of or not, admire or disdain.

And simply compiling votes of those with marginal knowledge as to the relative standing of composers or ranking their works is meaningless. There is no comfort in accurate measurement of the irrelevant.

However .... that does not mean that all judgments are entirely subjective. Some people, due to their training, experience and unique talents, are more able to make knowledgeable judgments than those who are less expert.

As an example, I personally do not enjoy listening to the music of Draeseke. To me it is barren territory. However, my education, expertise and career has not been in the field of music. I am well aware that some others, who are much more knowledgeable about music than I, admire and enjoy his music.

If those people, whose judgments I respect, say he is a good composer, I accept that. But it doesn't change the fact that I do not enjoy listening to his music. And it does not mean that I would accept that he is a "better" composer than Brahms or Rachmaninoff -- only that he is a composer that some knowledgeable experts recognize as a good composer.

In all things, if we aspire to truth, it is our responsibility to make our best judgments based on existing evidence -- but since no one can be expert in everything, we must at some point accept the judgment of those most knowledgable as having more weight than just our personal "best guess".

On the other hand, if someone asserts that a given piece of music is "more beautiful" than another, well, that is a different issue entirely, because as research has revealed, notions of beauty, attractiveness, and other qualities vary significantly from culture to culture, era to era, location to location. This is the aspect of music that I think is truly difficult to quantify or discern in any objective way. Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder.

Experts can quantify all the physiological, chemical, biological, structural, and performance measures of a woman and if they say "this woman is a superb example of woman," I will accept their analysis. However, if they assert "she's beautiful," well, I am likely to have my own opinion about that, and I will consider my own opinion just as valid as theirs..

[eschiss1]

Speaking as someone who's at least put some time into studying what people over the centuries have had to say and argued one way or the other about moral and aesthetic judgments (good, bad, ...) etc. etc. (back when I was considering philosophy as a concentration) -- to suggest that it is an obvious and settled fact that the whole matter is in one way or another subjective seems facile. It is also, however, especially when moral philosophy is dragged in tangentially, way out of the scope of this board, I'd be the first to agree.

[Gauk]

I think the problem here is that people are making the old mistake of confusing "I like this" and "this is good". It is an objective truth that, in terms of taste, a fine burgundy is better than lemonade. That is provable - there is complexity and subtlety in the wine that is lacking in the soft drink. However, you may prefer lemonade, and that's fine. That is your taste, and on a hot day it may be that anyone will prefer the lemonade. But you cannot elevate the lemonade to the same status as the burgundy and say it's all subjective.

In music, of course some works are objectively better than others. Find a good musicologist's analysis of a Bruckner symphony, and see all the subtle twists that go to making up the overall experience (and they matter to your experience whether you specifically notice them in listening or not). Now, try to construct the same analysis for a salon waltz. You can't - it's entirely superficial. This is as close as may be to a proof that the one is better than the other.

You may not like Bruckner. You make like salon music. That's your subjective opinion to which you are 100% entitled. A good critic, however, should be able to disentangle value judgements from whether he likes the music or not, and it is quite possible to recognise a work as a work of genius while thoroughly disliking it.

Sadly, there are not many critics who can rise above assuming that anything not already famous can't be good.

[Mark Thomas]

I'm not really into all this philosophical stuff, which is why I have avoided posting in this thread so far, but I must say that the two posts today from Amphissa and Gauk express my own, sometimes contradictory, views much more eloquently and straightforwardly than I could ever hope to do. So I'll shut up now, but with thanks to the two of them.

[Josh]

I think the problem here is that people are making the old mistake of confusing "I like this" and "this is good". It is an objective truth that, in terms of taste, a fine burgundy is better than lemonade. That is provable - there is complexity and subtlety in the wine that is lacking in the soft drink. However, you may prefer lemonade, and that's fine. That is your taste, and on a hot day it may be that anyone will prefer the lemonade. But you cannot elevate the lemonade to the same status as the burgundy and say it's all subjective.

But everything you list just involves complexity.  Complexity is not objectively BETTER than simplicity.  Nothing that you said there proves anything is objectively better than anything else, you're just stating that a given Brucker symphony is better than some unidentified salon waltz because it has "subtle twists" (your opinion).  Why isn't brevity in music "better"?  Why isn't simplicity in music "better"?

And yes, yes I can say that a lemonade is better than a fine burgundy, since there's nothing whatsoever objective in the statement one way or another.  If it's objectively better, then a computer with no feeling and no taste buds would be capable, using some kind of mathematical formula or something, to prove beyond all argument that it is so, since objectivity doesn't require (or account for) taste: it deals purely with factual reality.  I'd also like to see how a tribe of people which has never encountered alcohol or lemons would react to blindly sampling both.  What if they have a discussion and decide that, clearly, it is an objective fact that the drink with alcohol in it is inferior, and seem to think it's just blatantly obvious that this is so?  If it's objective, then surely a majority should not draw a factually incorrect conclusion based on tasting each?  But I'd bet, based on initial reactions many have to alcohol, such a result would be very possible, no matter how fine the burgundy is.

But as you well know, Humans can't and will never be capable of proving good or bad, better or worse (which means they are not objective concepts, by definition).  Or, if it is objective, then I have to ask by which science or method this objectivity will be proven, and by what formula.  Mathematics? Physics?  What is the absolute, exact mathematical formula for "good"?

[Alan Howe]

The answer, Josh, lies in this sort of thinking - which you evidently reject:

<<According to the ethical objectivist, the truth or falsity of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons. This view holds that moral propositions are analogous to propositions about chemistry, biology, or history: they describe (or fail to describe) a mind-independent reality. When they describe it accurately, they are true—no matter what anyone believes, hopes, wishes, or feels. When they fail to describe this mind-independent moral reality, they are false—no matter what anyone believes, hopes, wishes, or feels...

Anyway, I think this particular part of the discussion is played out and all we're doing is re-stating our views.

Let's now return to the topic and consider the factors that might explain why certain composers have remained unsung. For example: Draeseke. His idiom is personal and therefore recognisable, his music intensely memorable, his craftsmanship second-to-none - and yet his name has made barely a ripple in musical history. Reasons? His music is undoubtedly 'difficult', often extremely serious. He founded no school and had no major benefactor, although he had many prominent pupils and his works were performed under famous conductors such as Nikisch, von Bülow, Reiner and Böhm. Of course, he was a professor at the Dresden Conservatory, so he may have been seen primarily as a teacher. These may be some of the reasons why he has remained unsung. Another may be the fact that the Nazis co-opted him as one of their national icons, but that was hardly Draeseke's fault...

Can anybody suggest another composer and the reasons why he/she has remained unsung?

[eschiss1]

Your description of Draeseke reminded me a bit of the later-generation Ewald Straesser (1867-1933) (taken up by several of the same conductors and also Furtwängler and others, professor at a different conservatory, composer of some 6 symphonies, a few concertos (some lost?), 5 string quartets (all of the quartets can be heard @ IMSLP), a piano quintet, trio, violin sonata, etc. - though all that seems to be commercially available, I believe (so far?), is his clarinet quintet, and that only on a new release - it may be a good sign that his first two symphonies have been reissued in score by Musikproduktion Höflich very recently...) - also usually very serious (though there are some funny, and I do think deliberately funny, moments, in e.g. the scherzo-ish movements of his string quartets...) - sometimes very serious and affecting and deeply felt, as with the finale of his 4th string quartet - but I admit I tend to remember moments like those (and that ending, especially the close of the aforementioned finale, is very strong stuff) more than his melodic invention, on the whole, as yet; but that may change with more exposure than I've had so far.  But I'm not meaning to be disingenuous; it does occur to me that this would be a good time to return to his music, the moreso as I've now been reminded several times very recently...

[Mark Thomas]

Picking up on Alan's point, I don't think that much is to be gained from any more contributions to the philosophical side of this debate, as we are in danger of just getting restatements of previous positions.

Can we instead concentrate, as he has in his example of Draeseke and Eric has with Ewald Sträßer, on exploring why individual composers have remained unsung, when arguably they deserve more recognition?

I'll pitch in with Raff: Hugely popular for twenty-odd years in the third quarter of the 19th century, he was at the same time during his lifetime dogged by accusations of inconsistent quality and lack of self-criticism. His large catalogue was cited as proof of this, although more than half of it comprises small piano works, and his oeuvre of larger pieces is no more extensive than Dvorak's for instance. His reputation collapsed with his death and he suffered not the indifference of being forgotten, but the indignity of being reviled as the epitome of a lazy composer, lacking in inspiration. Raff's major works are certainly variable in quality, there's no point in denying that, but that very variability means that, although some pieces don't deserve modern repertoire status, many others arguably do.

Many composers' reputations take a big dip when they die, but they subsequently revive. Why didn't Raff's? I think it was a combination of factors: 1. He had always been a controversial figure, accused from the outset of being too prolific. 2. Despite his being the director of a prestigious conservatory, he actively discouraged the establishment of a "school of Raff". So, although he was very influential on many of his contemporariness, that influence didn't further his own reputation. 3. He actively disparaged "nationalist" music, just at the time when it became popular with audiences.  4. He deliberately dissociated himself from both the Liszt/Wagner camp and the conservative/Brahms camp, with the result that he was disliked and distrusted by both. All of these "political" factors militated against Raff's posthumous reputation amongst critics and his fellow musicians. Add to this that he was most famous amongst concert goers for a series of programme symphonies, which was a seriously old-fashioned looking genre by the turn of the 20th century, and you have a "perfect storm" which sank his reputation to such a degree that he became a byword for incompetence. Once accorded this status, he continued to be unthinkingly reviled by several generations of critics who had never heard a note of his music. This inherited, deep-seated and uninformed bias is a huge obstacle to overcome for anyone hoping to restore Raff's reputation.

[Amphissa]

I am no scholar, so it may be that many of the explanations provided by Mark regarding Raff and by Alan regarding Draeseke, are true and sufficient.

However, I think there are examples of composers reviled and denigrated by critics, academe, and other composers, yet their work continued to be performed with great success and with great audience approval.

The most obvious example of a composer surviving the currents of antipathy is, of course, Rachmaninoff. With the rise of modernism, he was condemned by critics, scholars, academics and other composers. Yet his music continued to be played because audiences loved it.

So I think it is not enough to say that a composer's music was tossed aside primarily because of political and critical reasons.

I will make the bold assertion that great music and great composers survive the tides of fashion, the disparagement of critics and the political intrigues of academe.

I will make the further bold assertion that, if music cannot find its audience, it will falter. Perhaps not disappear, but be of marginal success.

Now, as to Draeseke -- I can accept that Draeseke was a fine craftsman, because knowledgeable people say that he was and I have no reason to doubt it. However, when I listen to a Draeseke symphony, my attention is not so much on experiencing the music. I find no joy, no passion, no aesthetic beauty in it. I am not transported into a magical musical world.

I am quite aware that others may experience the music of Draeseke much differently. Those for whom the technical aspects of composition are integral to the their listening experience probably appreciate his music in a very different way than I can possibly do. I am a mere amateur.

And yet, I am probably more like audience listeners in that way. And I would propose that Draeseke's music, however well crafted and admirable, lacked certain qualities that audiences want. Can the average classical music listener enjoy or become drawn into the music?

I've done no tests, but perhaps Draeseke's music just lacked (and still lacks) the right audience. But if the idea is that audiences must be educated as to the structure and workings of the music in order that they can better appreciate it -- well, that was the argument of the modernists trying to explain to us why we should listen to serial composers rather than Rachmaninoff.

I am surely not criticizing the music of Draeseke, and most certainly am not questioning those who enjoy his music. But I profess that, despite trying for years, I am unable to enjoy just sitting down and listening to music composed by him.

Is that the only reason his music is not played more? Maybe the reasons listed by Alan are the most important explanations.

[John 514tga]

Picking up on Alan's point, I don't think that much is to be gained from any more contributions to the philosophical side of this debate, as we are in danger of just getting restatements of previous positions.  Can we instead concentrate, as he has in his example of Draeseke and Eric has with Ewald Sträßer, on exploring why individual composers have remained unsung, when arguably they deserve more recognition?

Oh, hear, hear!  This is not the first time an interesting topic has been hijacked to serve as the soap box for one person's metaphysical sophistry, but let's work together to ensure it is the last.

Regarding the matter at hand, there are a number possible reasons why composers deserving of more recognition remain unsung.  Among these are

1. Stubborness:  Some art lovers adhere to abstract rules for judging art.  I have a friend who used to judge all American art as bad.  If he liked something that turned out to be by an American, he would say, "On second thought, this work shows typical weaknesses of American art that blah blah..." and proceed to recant his position.  I have another friend who dislikes compositions that were withheld from publication.  Thus, Rachmaninoff's First Symphony is unworthy of performance because it was withheld from publication.  That Mendelssohn's First Symphony was published while the Fourth was withheld does not sway him. 

It may be that some otherwise intelligent people reject unsung works because they are unsung.  Period.

2. Babies and Bath Water:  Unsung composers, on average, tend to have more chaff than wheat.  It could be that people are too lazy to separate their deserving works from their undeserving ones.  Of course, many noted composers are noted for only a handful of pieces.  The unplayed balance is sometimes deservedly ignored and sometimes sadly neglected.

3. Repertory Inertia: The repertory may have its own life cycle, just as a civilization does.  People seem to influence it, but this may be an illusion.  We say that Mahler was revived by Bruno Walter and Leonard Bernstein, but the latter could do nothing to revive Goldmark and has done little to sustain Nielsen.  Barenboim championed Furtwangler to no effect, while Jarvi has failed to revive anyone, despite years of advocacy through recordings and adventuresome programming at the helm of the Detroit Symphony.  We who are older have watched Sibelius and Hindemith come and go, the Franck Symphony and Grieg Concerto slowly disappear, and the Schumann Violin Concerto become, against all odds, part of the repertory. 

The repertory, then, has cycles that defy the influence of any one person or group of persons.  If Draeseke's time every comes, it will happen of its own accord.

[eschiss1]

I hadn't noticed Sibelius or Hindemith "go". Or Nielsen. Comparatively speaking (to 1944 when Sibelius could be mentioned in a movie (as a plot point even), and an "all-Sibelius" concert posited, and the moment be unruffled, well, compared to that,-- yes.) but nowhere near "go", even by all that much really. One of the first orchestral concerts I heard when I was really getting into classical music (... hrm, then again, ok, 1987 was awhile ago) had the Helios overture... but the next-to-last concert I attended (I unusually went to 2 in close succession late last year...) had Hindemith (and Strauss, and Rachmaninoff...) in it. (Ok, true, it was the 50th anniversary of his death last year.)

[John 514tga]

I hadn't noticed Sibelius or Hindemith "go". Or Nielsen.

Point taken.   But I'll stand by the Franck Symphony and Grieg Concerto.  Not vanish, just diminish.  But all beside the point, which is: sometimes popular things start to disappear for no reason, while other things emerge, all absent a change in critical opinion.

[eschiss1]

No argument there from me, anyway.

[sdtom]

I found this conversation to be very stimulating and thought provoking for me and also way out of the realm of the small amount of knowledge that I have. I believe that today a lot of it has to do with marketing. Hollywood composers which I do know a bit about are much the same way. People with little experience can rave on and on about Herrmann's "Psycho" and how it is the ultimate film score. It is good don't get me wrong. Hugo Friedhofer who wrote the greatest film score in my opinion "The Best Years Of Our Lives" is relatively unknown or an unsung while Herrmann is a sung. The same has been said about Brahms and Raff in this discussion.
Tom

[Josh]

I would like to nominate the sole known symphony of Ignaz Moscheles as an added candidate for discussion here.  People on this very board know virtually infinitely more than I do about music, and I not only respect, but almost depend on their opinions for my Romantic-era musical purchases!  Robert Schumann certainly couldn't be given less credit.  So why am I filled with a similar feeling when listening to the symphony of Moscheles as to what I experience when listening to the Symphony #3 Eroica of Beethoven?  Don't take this wrong: though the #3 and #8 are my "least favourite" of Beethoven's symphonies, they are still both probably at the least near my all-time favourite symphonies list, which is why to this day I feel Beethoven might be the greatest - by average- symphonist in my estimation.  Did Schumann's fairly negative review damage this late-Classical/early-Romantic symphony?  I'm not making a stand on this, just pointing out that the first time I listened to it, I had no idea Schumann even knew of its existence, and I feel in tremendous love with it.  I was honestly stunned to read translations of Schumann's reviews.  Did this have lasting impact on the reputation of Moscheles?  Maybe?  Schumann seemed in general favourable toward his other music.  Did that have a positive impact?  If so, that seems to have faded.  But Schumann surely is considered by the general experts as "great" as a composer... and he seems to have had a high opinion of Moscheles' music in general...  but now not even a single piece of Moscheles seems to be held in high regard!  Was his opinion worth anything?  And if so, how much?  And if not, why not?