Who says who is an unsung composer and who says he is a sung

[ignaceii]

Hello,

Throughout the history of western music a certain number of composers have been elected to carry the crown of western music.
To begin with, my own flamish school of polyphonists , Josquin DuPrez, Ockeghem...
Majority agrees on Bach, Beethoven.
But stil by what standards.
A common mistake to my opinion is the Haydn calling Papa, while it was Mozart who called CPE Bach our Papa.
Haydn is a father and a carrier of the crown, CPE Bach to less fortune.
Many leftovers were really ont the frontier but not recognised.
I still wonder, what kind of jury elected these crown carriers ?
The output of Raff, Onslow is ravashing but unknown.
Wich judge decided these were not to be played in public ?
Which jury set us up with a perpetuum mobile of repertoire we begin to vomit, in a rude sense.
Guillaume Lekeu, young died, but what a genius. Fellow man too.
Nobody knows.
Classical music is ill-defined and butchered in favor of some excellencies.
Classical music in a way is fake, cause it bows for the glory of the economy, and does not serve the arts as it should do.

[adriano]

This has mostly to do with professional musicians, who are lazy and do not always want to study new pieces. Sometimes, unsung programs require more concentration and longer rehearsals. Big conductors prefer knowing a few repertoire works by heart and make big money with these, instead of spending extra time to study less-known scores, which may be performed but a couple of times anway. Big stars have not always the time for such specials, they must jet around, as planned by their agents. That's why, mostly, unsung composers are approached by authentic, intellectual music lovers, or less-known musicians, 2nd class orchestras and, last but not least, idealistic record companies. But audiences too are lazy; they want to relisten their Beetovens and Mozarts over and over again, because in their head they hum the themes they know already and feel well at the same time. Unheard music is not a matter of great masses because it requires a different listening attitude, more concentration: it's not a real realaxation.
That is why I too, as a conductor, was never allowed to find a way to the podium. Why should I perform Beethown and Mozart whilst hundreds of others do the same and their audiences just listen to them to compare this or that interpretation with the ones by other stars, or with the Karajan CDs they have at home? Music should be perceived anew at each performance - this both from a conductor's and from a listener's point of view.
And, finally, the whole msuic business, saying what is sung or unsung, has to do with money.
Another aspect may be that some arrogant or stupid musicologists defined - in the past already - what's good or not, and its readers believed it - and its successors regurgitated the same nonsense they wrote...
I hope not to be too confusing in my statement :-)

[minacciosa]

Adriano is exactly, exactly correct!

[Alan Howe]

Unheard music...it's not a real relaxation

I personally never really listen to music for relaxation purposes; I want to engage with it intellectually, emotionally, etc. That's why I value so highly the discovery of music I don't know - because it demands effort to get to grips with something unfamiliar. And the joy lies in the effort involved.

[Mark Thomas]

I can only add to the chorus of agreement with Adriano's post. He is correct in every respect.

[Alan Howe]

Agreed - 100%, Mark.

[Double-A]

This is a question I have wanted to ask myself for some time.  Thanks for putting it out there!

A few random comments:

A common mistake to my opinion is the Haydn calling Papa, while it was Mozart who called CPE Bach our Papa.

This one is on Schumann, one of his two unforgivable journalistic sins (isn't the word "Papa"--if not applied to one's own father--inherently disrespectful, also in the Mozart/CPE Bach quote?).

To Adriano's list of reasons:  I have some objections:  About the lazy musicians:  Orchestra musicians may or may not be lazy (they come in both flavors in my experience), but they do not get to choose the repertoire, not even in amateur orchestras.  So no blame on them (and in my experience they complain more often about having to play the same music over and over than about having to learn new pieces).  Big name soloists (none of them are lazy) on the other hand are as much about competition as about music:  They have to perform to an insane schedule in order to be and stay big names.  They have little time to learn new music.  Better give the local concertmaster the opportunity IMHO. 

Which brings me to the "second rate orchestras".  I am somewhat allergic to this term--it occurs too often.  We ought to get away from our focus on perfection, i.e. technical perfection, the only measurable kind (this is also true for the "sound" of recordings).  In a successful performance things happen below the surface of the music and grab the listener's attention, the occasional intonation insecurity or other mishap becomes unimportant in this situation.  And this effect happens often also with second and even lower rated performers.  I have heard absolutely spellbinding performances from ad hoc quartets made up of no name professionals (or only local fame in some cases).  I am all for second rate and amateur orchestras doing unsung music (I used to be a member of the "Akademisches Orchester" in Zürich.  It is different now, but in those days unsung music was the bulk of what we played).

[adriano]

Thanks Double-A :-)
Of course, my opinion is a personal one. At least you agree with me on artists' often insane schedules. But, still, I know a lot of lazy stars, who just enjoy letting themselves go, by being directed by their agents, and who moan as soon as they are asked to perform something unusual. The term "second rate orchestra" is not my own, it just comes from many reviews I myself get on recordings with the two orchestras I conduct. I certainly have no reason to call them like this, but in the general revierwers and concert agent's opinion, they are classified like this.

[Amphissa]

I'll have to agree with Double-A on this point. Orchestra musicians do not normally select the music to be programmed during a season. The music director usually makes those decisions. Soloists typically have several current options they are prepared to perform on the current tour, but the music director chooses soloists and which pieces the orchestra will perform. Whether the music is already in the library can also influence decisions, as cost can be an issue, which is another strike against unsungs on the orchestral programs.

In contrast, musicians typically do decide what music will be played in small ensemble concerts and solo recitals. Typically, one or more familiar pieces will be played, but we very often hear chamber music and solo pieces by composers whose orchestral music almost never get played. Orchestra musicians often play in chamber music ensembles or attend summer festivals where they have an opportunity to perform music outside the standard repertoire.

[MartinH]

I think there's an important idea missing here: for the past 50 (60?) years orchestras all over the world, both first- and second-rate have been stuck in a musical museum. The bulk of their repertoire comes from the 1700 - 1930 era - give or take some years. Look at the material suitable for discussion on this site! Am I wrong in thinking that 150 years ago most of the music that you would encounter was new? So from the point of view of a lot of conductors, managers, players, etc. if you're going to play old music why not cherry pick and play the best of the lot? Are there some gems among the lesser-known music? Of course. But as a performer myself (in those second and third rate orchestras) there's something else involved that is not quantifiable. When you play a known masterwork like the Brahms 1st you know that this is a masterpiece. You feel it in your bones. The greatness is overwhelming. Compare that to playing something like the Kalinnikov 2nd - enjoyable clearly, fun to listen to, but playing it you don't have the same feeling about it. Brahms is fun to play even though it is quite difficult. Kalinnikov isn't as rewarding. Conducting has the same issue. Whether we like it or not, the composers and the works that have been deemed Immortal Classics have good reason for being there. The forgotten composers, the unsung, had their chance, and in some cases had their short period of fame - and then fell from grace for good reason. I'll always sing the praises of certain works by Raff, Rubinstein, Schmidt, Kalinnikov, Stanford, etc. But it's naive to think that any of these composers are the equal of Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorak, Schumann and have been neglected without justification.

I pity the poor modern composers who never, or rarely, have their music played. How can they ever get a foothold if no one gives them a chance. But seldom does modern music have that same quality of Brahms. It's not fun to play, or frankly to listen to. I played a concert two weeks ago of all contemporary music: Route 66 by Daugherty, Short Ride in a Fast Machine by Adams, Pacific 231 by Honneger, The Foundry by Mosolov (ugh!), and similar music. There's not a single piece we played that I liked, that I enjoyed practicing for, that I enjoyed playing. The best thing on the concert, the one the audience liked the best, was The Typewriter by Leroy Anderson!

If there is a group of composers I really feel sorry about, it those who were working at a time when thanks to radio and the phonograph, pop music was taking over and their completely worthy and often great music was never really given a chance to get a foothold in concert halls. Composers who could stand alongside the masters: Vaughan Williams is my first candidate. But Bax, Alfven, Atterberg suffered the same fate.

[Alan Howe]

I'll always sing the praises of certain works by Raff, Rubinstein, Schmidt, Kalinnikov, Stanford, etc. But it's naive to think that any of these composers are the equal of Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorak, Schumann and have been neglected without justification.

Well, I'm naïve, then. Raff (e.g. Piano Quintet, Op.107) and Schmidt (e.g. Symphony No.4) certainly wrote music of a stature fully equal to that of Brahms, Dvorak or Schumann (Beethoven IMHO is hors-concours). And to mention, for example, Rubinstein in the same breath as Raff is simply not sustainable any more based on the recorded evidence we now have.

Furthermore, I'd put a select bunch of other compositions in the same category, e.g. Rufinatscha's 4th Symphony (formerly No.5), Draeseke's 3rd and Wilhelm Berger's 2nd. So, I simply don't accept your premise, Martin...

[thalbergmad]

I accept that many of our unsungs wrote works of similar stature to those of the established greats, but perhaps it is a question of percentages if a composer is recognised or neglected.

I think that Henselts piano concerto can stand alongside any of the romantics, whilst he also penned a considerable amount of banality. The greats seem to have a much higher success rate.

Thal

[Alan Howe]

I firmly believe that, for example, Draeseke's 'masterpiece count' is phenomenally high.

[Double-A]

I do believe though that thalbergmad has a point.  Say Viotti:  The a-minor concerto is truly great, everything else I have seen or heard of his is mediocre.  Bruch is a little along the same lines though not quite as extreme:  His famous VC is sung for a reason, many other of his pieces deserve to be unsung IMHO, no matter how much the anecdote says is irritated him.

I have been trying to find arguments / hypotheses about this question in the forum, since I am not clear about it myself.  Maybe a new thread is in order if somebody feels up to writing a more substantial kick off post than I feel I can contribute.

[sdtom]

In my opinion it all comes down to money. How can you go wrong with offering Beethoven's 7th, Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto, and a Mendelssohn overture to open the program. You get a name violin soloist and a sellout will happen. As good as Raff is he can't compete with that.
Tom