Originality

[eschiss1]

"a song that has the same music for every stanza, cannot be said to be a great work" - given the examples of Nielsen's Sommersang and Sondheim's "You Must Meet My Wife" (ok, _almost_ strophic...) I'm not sure I can agree.

Regriba- ok, sorry, you beat me to that... though I subjectively prefer my (somewhat earlier) example, still, I adore the best of Nielsen's songs (now I've been introduced to them, a decade or so ago).

[Ilja]

Ros - I only count 4 objective elements there - is number 5 rhythm?

What makes a good composer is of course their skill in manipulating those elements to create an interesting, enthralling, exciting and/or beautiful work of art. To coin a phrase, their power of invention within convention. I do believe that when it comes to distinguishing the great composers from the good, posterity has got it just about right. Having examined and played a great many neglected string quartets over the last few years, I'm disappointed to have to say I found none that in my view deserve regular inclusion amongst the blessed canon of 100 or so.

But "posterity" has rarely been a constant, and neither has its "judgment". A 19th-century audience used different criteria from a 20th-century one for a number of reasons: experience, innovation and education, to name only three. That does not mean that either was "right" or "wrong", just that the parameters of what constituted a "worthy inclusion" in the canon shifted.


Qualitative judgments are heavily influenced by time-bound aesthetic and social ideas: to a nineteenth-century audience, program music could be "better" or "worse" than absolute music, and scores of people in various period would tell you that women were inherently unsuited to be composers. Both of these ideas still heavily influence our ideas about music. Do we have a "better" view of what makes good music because our regarding those issues are different? And therefore, are we more entitled to qualitatively judge music?


Also, the importance of manipulation in the form of education, marketing, and "evangelization" has played an important role . Simply put, when you have generations of people telling each other that (for instance) Brahms is brilliant for whatever reason, then Brahms gets to encapsulate "quality" itself, thus creating a circle of self-affirmation that we cannot be immune to.


The problem, in my view, is not that we see any unsung composers as "lesser" ones, but rather that a combination of factors has made the idea of what is "good" entirely exclusive and unmovable. One can seriously question to which degree the endless repetition of the classical canon in the concert hall still constitutes art.

[eschiss1]

For myself I'm well aware that British reviews in the very early 20th century of eg Brahms' 2nd cello sonata were quite scathing about Brahms' piano doublings (as I am even now about Dvorak's excessive use of them in his 2nd piano quintet, or even Bloch's in his, despite rating those composers in general) - but some of us reach opinions- even high opinions- of composers (even repertoire works and composers) - more despite rather than because of the consensus in their favor, via a different route and favoring different qualities.
(Incidentally.)

[Alan Howe]

I think we all understand where you're coming from, Adriano. To have been in the forefront of the battle to perform and record unsung music must have left some deep scars. I for one am grateful that you have persisted in your quest for all these years. Thank you!

[Gareth Vaughan]

I strongly echo Alan's sentiments.

[adriano]

Alan and Gareth, you both made my day - infinite thanks! 
I see this chapter has, in the meantime, been enriched by some very interesting contributions, bravo to all of you!

[Alan Howe]

Made all the richer by the experience of an artist who has actually achieved what many of us could hardly dream of. Again, thanks to Adriano.

[JimL]

As for Rossini's influence on Schubert - Rossini visited Vienna in the early 1820s, as I recall. Schubert composed 2 overtures in the 'Italian Style' and his 6th Symphony around that time that contain some passages with some vaguely Rossinian qualities. That's about the extent of Rossini's "influence" on Schubert.

[adriano]

The Oxford Dictionary explains the term of "original" as: "novel, inventive, creative, firsthand, unique, imaginative, unusual, underived, ingenious, fresh, eccentric, nonconformist, individualistic - just to quote definitions which could be applied to musical pieces. This means that such pieces have not necessarily to be conform to "Conservatory" rules or elements like harmony, counterpoint, structure, colour - or to excel in it. Take Charles Ives and Erik Satie as the most famous examples. These two composers had given me -  meany years ago - the courage to quit the (Zurich) Conservatory in protestation and continue to explore music on my own. In those years, only Haydn, Beethoven and Mozart were taken as models; even Bruckner and Mahler were questioned. I noticed that was a totally different world of what was happening in concerts or being released on LPs - and I was shocked. I still curse my professors today. Funny enough, my piano teacher's name was "Steinbrecher" - which can be stranslated as "stone breaker"... In 1966 or 1967 I had given, at the University Club, audiovisual presentations on Ives and on Tchaikovsky. Can you imagine the scandal? A member of the Conservatory's Direction heard about his and I was called to explain why I was misusing what I was learning in such a way. Tchaikovsky was even considered as inferior and "feminine"! The term "Conservatory" (see Oxford Dictionary) is (was) very much apporpriate for such institutions. In the meantime, many such institutions have changed it into "High School of Music", "Music University" etc., to perhaps get rid of negative "greenhouse" reputation. And it was also in those years that I was first confronted with musicologists and critics... One among them (a musicologist acting as critic - or viceversa) still lives, acts and hates me today; he (erroneously) considers himself as the discoverer of Joachim Raff and mobbed my in a most primitive way after I had issued (in 1977) the world premiere LP with Raff's Piano Quintet on my own label. So you see how I became a "Don Quixote of special composers". That's the term I was using then for the "unsung" ones.

[matesic]

I've recently moved into a new area so I checked out the web site of the local community orchestra. I was impressed to find their next concert includes not only Bruckner's Overture in G minor but Bruch's Symphony No.3, neither of which I know. Having quit my last orchestra partly owing to their increasingly conservative (audience-friendly) programming, I feel very much inclined to give this lot a try.

Unfortunately, although I love Bruckner to death and can't wait to play the Overture I'm not a big fan of Max Bruch. However his symphonies have been highly praised on this site so I listened to a couple of recordings of the third. I don't think it's too contentious to suggest that none of the OED's definitions of "original" seem terribly apt! "Pleasant" and "mellifluous" are about the kindest terms that occur to me, "formulaic" one of the most damning. My attention certainly wandered frequently and one or more manifestations of "originality" would certainly have helped keep me focused.

Brave and praiseworthy programming for sure, but is Bruch 3 a wise choice if few of the audience are likely to sit up in their seats, feel their temples start to pulsate or go home humming Bruch's themes? Maybe they prefer to be left in a state of semi-attentive trance? Anyway, I'll see if they want me for the violins or violas and maybe my prejudices can be turned around.

[Alan Howe]

Bruch 3 is certainly not the sort of music one would think of in connection with the epithet 'original', so I think it's a mistake to do so. The work should be enjoyed on its own terms; I'm sure the audience will take to it it if they approach it in this manner. Personally, I love it for Bruch's continual flow of melodies and generous, open-hearted romanticism.

[Alan Howe]

...and if you don't know the absolutely magnificent performances of all Bruch's symphonies conducted by James Conlon (sonorously recorded and rather more generous in feel than Masur), then snap them up! They're ridiculously cheap - and the orchestra sounds like the Berlin Phil, they're that good!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bruch-Symphonies-Concerto-2-pianos/dp/B001TNYP3A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1528561866&sr=8-1&keywords=bruch+conlon

[adriano]

One of Bruch's most beautiful (and I would even say "original") compositions is his set of eight pieces for clarinet, viola and piano, op. 83. I had the honour of being introduced to them by the great Karl Leister, whom I met in in Riva del Garda, Italy, in the 1980s. I had to record his concert with my newly bought SONY PCM machine, but had later handed over all my tapes to the Festival Manager - who died in the meantime.
Of these eight pieces there is a wonderful Erato recording of 1990 (re-issued on a bargain series), also containing Bruch's short Concerto for clarinet, viola and orchestra, op. 88 - another unsung piece which deserves to be rediscovered. The eight pieces have also been recorded by RCA and by Cypres (the latter also containing the Concertino). But I also like his Piano Quintet very much (on Hyperion and on cpo). So don't be too hard condemning this composer before knowing his chamber music!
His oratorios "Moses" and "Das Lied von der Glocke" are, in my opinion, quite boring.
Just look at what you can get at Amazon.de for 18 Euros:
https://www.amazon.de/Streichoktett-Streichquintett-Klavierquintett-Ensemble-Hoelscher/dp/B00000IMG6/ref=sr_1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1528607895&sr=1-2&keywords=max+bruch+klavierquintett

[matesic]

I did perform a couple of Bruch's 8 pieces a number of years ago and I agree they're most enjoyable with some unusual (original?) sonorities. Likewise the string octet, but the string quartets didn't make a very favourable impression. Most of his violin and orchestra repertoire also seems rather bland and forgettable, apart from the charming Scottish Fantasy and one concerto I wish I could forget.

In sum, I think Bruch makes an excellent example of a highly proficient composer who makes all the right, comfortable noises (I might call it "bathtub music"...) but whose reputation will always be limited by lack of precisely those qualities that make up "originality".

[Alan Howe]

That doesn't bother me a bit. I love his generosity of spirit - especially as exemplified in the three symphonies and VC3, which is greatly underrated. If you go looking for originality in Bruch, you won't find it - except, of course, that no-one else could have written his music (discuss!) When I've had enough of Brahms' dark corners, sometimes it's nice for the ear to be caressed a little more. And I never get tired of VC1. What a piece that is.