Why Unsung?

[regriba]

I think a factor in this is also that the perception of a "masterpiece" has changed. Up to the beginning of the 20th century, it was still quite common for a critic to criticize a new work mainly for "lack of melody". The composer's mastery of symphonic form could be seen as relatively less important. Fx. after the first performance of a Nielsen symphony (I forget which), a leading Copenhagen critic wrote that he considered "The MerryWidow" superior to the new work because at least it contained melody (which, by implication, Nielsen's work didn't)

An example of this change is also seen in the critical reaction to Swedish composers Wilhelm Peterson-Berger and Wilhelm Stehammar. When P-B's first symphony was premiered in 1903, the critics praised the work to the skies for its elevating, noble melodies. At the same time, Wilhelm Stenhammar was criticized for writing dry, academic music. However, when Peterson-Berger's fourth symphony came out in 1930, it was written off as a mere collection of pleasant tunes, and the composer's lack of formal mastery was emphasized. Admiration for Stenhammar had risen correspondingly and he was now regarded as Sweden's foremost late-romantic composer. All this is documented fascinatingly in Bo Wallner's massive 3-volume biography of Stenhammar. Wallner also quotes a leading Swedish critic, writing about the premiere of a Grieg violin sonata, as saying something on the lines of, "Who cares about form when a composer of genius lets his imagination flow freely?"

At the same time, I think the critics, or at least "arbiters of taste", got more influence on concert programmes as funding of orchestras, opera houses etc. was increasingly taken over by public finances. To justify this, concerts took on a more "educational" aspect, becoming part of a kind of "general public enlightenment", like libraries etc. This again meant that more attention was paid to whether the music played at concerts was "educational", "healty" etc. After all, who could justify spending tax-payers' money on mere collections of pleasant tunes?

And isn't this idea of pleasantness but no more one of the charges most often levelled at the kind of music often discussed here even today? Wasn't that the gist of critical reaction to Järvi's recording of Raff's second?

[Mark Thomas]

That's a fascinating insight, regriba, which I can see would be relevant in many cases including, as you point out, Raff. It doesn't explain the case of Draeseke, of course.

[John 514tga]

It's been ages since I listened to anything by Moscheles, though I recall it to be pleasant listening.  Alas, I have never heard his symphony, but to the question as to how much Schumann influenced its reputation, I would hazard a guess that the fate of the that symphony is independent of Schumann's opinion.

Schumann had good taste is music, but he liked many things that are utterly utterly unknown today.  If glowing reviews from Schumann did nothing for Burgmuller, I don't think his disapproval sank Moscheles's symphony.  More likely it sank with Moscheles reputation, independent of Schumann's opinion or its actual quality.

Schumann's criteria for evaluating music, though, make his recommendations worth investigating.  His judgements nicely balance technical criteria (analysis of structure, chord progression, counterpoint, etc.) and those less concrete criteria that are so central to the arts.

But don't let Schumann's negative review influence you too much.  It's one piece of evidence, but it's hardly the final word.  With the jury system that governs art evaluation -- the consensus of connoisseurs -- it may be worth seeing what other reliable judges thought.  Mendelssohn, perhaps? 

[Amphissa]

Here is another example.

No less than the titanic Toscanini championed the works of Martucci, playing his music in concert, on radio broadcasts, and recordings. He was included on the final concert program conducted by Mahler in NY. And Muti has taken up the gauntlet to champion his work, making recordings and playing his music in concert around the world. There are dozens of recordings, including coupling with sungs like Respighi, even Schumann and Wagner.

Yet he is stolidly entrenched in the ranks of the unsungs as far as the core repertoire and listening audience is concerned. Is it because he did not write enough music? Are his works unimaginative, unappealing, politically incorrect, overly derivative?

Is he simply forgotten because not everyone can be remembered?

And does that go hand in hand with the reality of concert programming -- to fill the seats, one must program familiar names?

[eschiss1]

"stolidly entrenched"? ow. Not actually an adverb I associate with his music, myself. (Did you mean solidly?)

[mbhaub]

I think in Toscanini's case, his carrying the torch for Martucci was more for personal and national pride more than anything else. He eventually dropped Martucci (and Raff, too) and alas, never recorded any. I've tried, and tried, to get a handle on Martucci - all of the ASV recordings, but it never really captivated me. In comparison, it was easy to hear why compatriot Respighi was so much more popular.

I want to also address something that came up earlier regarding Sibelius, but this also applies to Bruckner and some others. Acceptance of some composers is also a geographical issue. Bruckner has never taken off in most of the US. In some pockets, Cincinnati & Minneapolis come to mind, they were played often, but only when the conductor running the show was attuned to those composers. In Phoenix we had a wonderful German conductor who unfortunately passed away too early, but while he was here, he brought several Bruckner symphonies. Since he died - none. Sibelius is in the same boat. While Salonon was in LA they got a lot of great Sibelius, but now that Dudamel is running the show, not so much, and I don't thinks it's going to get any better any time soon. In the rest of the US, when you get Sibelius at all, it's usually symphonies 2, 5 maybe 7, Finlandia, the violin concerto and not much else. Elgar faces the same problem. WE're getting the first symphony shortly, but it's been 20 years since it's last outing. In the meanwhile, we've had Enigma a zillion times.

[eschiss1]

I may have run out of nomination pebbles, but I'm thinking too/now/..., not whether Albéric Magnard will find his way back near the repertoire (... right.), but whether he'll find his way to it. (I hope so, it's true. Unfortunately, I've missed some opportunities to hear live performances of his symphonies etc. in New York City. Busoni wasn't just helping out a friend, I'm quite sure, when he programmed Magnard's 3rd symphony in 1905- while orchestrally not the most sparkly work - there are places, as my late friend Colin pointed out to me, where the instrumentation is just plain austere - but from the mysterious chorale of the opening through the capricious Danses - I'm giving any advocacy for the 3rd movement a pass, though (ok, ok... ) ( ) (well, it's not bad. But I am disappointed by it.) - to the finale which at first promises to sparkle before (convincingly - not, I think, like all that motivic work in Franck's symphony...) finding its way back to the opening chorale - it's really quite a good listen, I think, and his 4th symphony better still. (Most people here are fairly familiar with his music anyway, I know...)
(There's also a few performances of his piano and wind quintet on YouTube, btw.)

(I always figure though, when it comes to a piece of music's hopes, that when it gains an unsolicited "oh, who's that?" from the people I'm playing it for or someone just in the house - that's a good sign in itself (Magnard's 3rd, in this case, awhile back; the reaction was from my musically very literate father who, however, is used to my bringing all sorts of music of very variable quality with me on my visits... (image of cat dragging in score sheets and CDs))

[semloh]

This has been a challenging thread to follow - my thanks to all for some stimulating ideas.

There has been discussion previously on the forum as to the diverse reasons for the neglect of some composers and some compositions. In an age with an insatiable appetite for the new, I find it difficult to offer any plausible explanation for music lovers' obsession with the familiar, but I am sure it has something to do with the postmodern nature of western societies and the need for familiar 'anchor points' that reassure us that the world is still the one we know and in which we feel comfortable. Mozart's piano concertos, Brahms' symphonies and the Trout Quintet are the safety nets that stop us from falling into psychological confusion in the face of the chaos and infinite possibilities of 21st Century life.... or something like that!!

[Gauk]

Perhaps asking why Draseske remains a marginal figure is asking the wrong question. Consider instead, how was it that, say, Brahms found an entrenched place in the repertoire? One can posit that there is some breakthrough that propels a composer from their initial obscurity into a position of lasting fame. In that case, the answer to the question of Draeske is that the breakthrough never happened. And in Martucci's case, the advocacy of Toscanini was not breakthrough enough.

All composers start out "unsung". Most stay that way. And what propels a change in status may be something as simple as good luck.

[chill319]

Saying 2+2=4 is an objective statement.
Saying 4 is better than two is subjective.

This is a philosophically important discussion. Therefore, forgive the directness, but it's important not to confuse the amazing and elegant world of tautology that is mathematics with the worlds of aesthetics and ethics, which are in no way tautological because they include the element of choice.

One might respond that that was exactly the point. To which another can respond, read Kant. "The starry sky above and the moral law within..."

[chill319]

Perhaps asking why Draseske remains a marginal figure is asking the wrong question.

After puzzling over this for years, I still can't understand why Draeseke remains a marginal figure, regardless of who is currently less marginal (be that composer Sousa, for example, or Rubinstein, or Brahms, or whoever). In other words, it hasn't been hard to explain why various other composers are themselves not marginal (or as marginal), but the persistent "glass ceiling" that Draeseke hits makes no sense to me. He's not the greatest composer, but he's an A-list composer, unlike any other, with a rich musical vocabulary, a superb technique, emotional impact, and a lot to say.

[semloh]

I think composers like Draeseke simply don't offer enough that the public regard as new or different. The general appetite for the familiar on one hand, and the dramatically different on the other, accords no place for most of our UCs because they fall between the two. Why bother with an Unsung Composer when there are so many comfortable, familiar, reassuring, great and established composers? Unless they are offering a totally new or instantly attractive listening experience they stand little chance. Modern audiences, I believe, generally seek out the familiar, while a minority seek out the dramatically different. On both counts, composers such as Draeseke lose out.

In Australia, we are hearing a lot of the music that accompanies video games (notably the music for the Final Fantasy series), and it is becoming very popular on the classical radio station. It's rather like film music - sweeping Rachmaninovian symphonic themes, Mahlerian spikiness, and sweet melodies, juxtaposed with contemporary electronics. It seems to be offering the best of both worlds - the familiar and the new - without being too 'challenging'.

[Gauk]

Why bother with an Unsung Composer when there are so many comfortable, familiar, reassuring, great and established composers? Unless they are offering a totally new or instantly attractive listening experience they stand little chance.

I disagree - there are plenty of composers absent from the concert hall who DO offer "a totally new or instantly attractive listening experience", and I'm sure many here will be quick with examples. Lack of originality is not the issue.

[Mark Thomas]

The ears of many of us here are "fine tuned" to be aware of the differences in style between individual composers and to us many UCs are of course instantly recognisable. But I think that Semloh's point, with which I agree, is that to many less immersed in this world than we are, there isn't much to distinguish, say, the experience of listening to Dvorak from listening to Tchaikovsky, or to separate Beethoven from Brahms, or Strauss from Mahler. In that broad context, many prominent UCs (if that isn't an oxymoron) lose their individuality.