Unsung Composers

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.

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 :-)

Adriano is exactly, exactly correct!

QuoteUnheard 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.

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

Agreed - 100%, Mark.

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

A few random comments:

Quote from: ignaceii on Friday 30 October 2015, 21:29
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).

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.

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.

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.

QuoteI'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...

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

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

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.

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

"Honneger"?
(Honegger wrote quite a lot of good music, imho, of which Pacific 231 isn't even especially representative (now if you'd insulted his lovely Delights of Basel 4th symphony, that'd be fighting... nah. but still. :) )- but I'll leave it at that.)

I think this discussion goes to show how fluid a term "great" is. All we can do is try to define it and then convince others that our definition is the right one. Throughout history, some people have been much more successful at this project than others--and all for a variety of different reasons (economic, philosophical, social, etc.).

Americans hated Brahms's First Symphony for a long time after its 1877 U.S. premiere. Yet here it stands as a "masterwork"--the piece is no different, only the people playing it and listening to it.

And, for what it's worth, I agree 100% that Draeseke's Third is could easily replace a lot of warhorses without anyone noticing their absence.

QuoteAnd, for what it's worth, I agree 100% that Draeseke's Third is could easily replace a lot of warhorses without anyone noticing their absence.

Coming from a scholar, it's worth a lot!

I'm an American and I'm not too fond out Brahms's first (despite an enjoyable big tune in the fourth movement). Hmmm....

Yet Raff's 5th? I can 'feel' that one.

I'm not going to waste my time any more debating the relative merits of the great and the unsung, the fairness or unfairness of it all. We have discussed this topic, or variations on it, umpteen times over the years, and it's an illusion to think that a consensus could be reached or, in some way, an impartial or objective assessment of a composer's worth could be achieved. The world isn't fair in any respect and we shouldn't expect the tiny world of art music to be any different. We are where we are, and that means that for the foreseeable future the major orchestras of the world are locked into a cycle of decline - spiralling costs and dwindling audiences constricting ever further their repertoire.

Personally, though, I'm rather upbeat because this doesn't seem to be so in every musical sphere. In recent years opera houses appear to have become more open-minded, rather than less, and the new generation of chamber ensembles and instrumentalists seem happier to take risks. What cheers me most of all, though, is the recording scene across all genres of art music from instrumental to opera. Here, the collapse of the majors, coupled with advances in technology and that more adventurous spirit amongst the younger generation of performers, has led to a golden age in the expansion of the recorded repertoire. I would never have believed when this site's predecessor was cranked up around the turn of the millennium that the unsung recorded repertoire would be where it is now. It is quite phenomenal.

Whether it is sustainable, I don't know. If the economics of live concert making continue to be so challenging, will that have a knock on effect on the recording scene? It's true that there's nothing like the live experience. I imagine that the move away from people participating in it towards enjoying music as a solo experience is yet another aspect of the growth of the cult of the individual in western society, but personally I love the ability I now have to hear music which I never thought I'd hear, even if it is only in the comfort of my own home (or car, or on a train, or whilst flying off somewhere, or in a hotel when I get to that somewhere...). There are other ways of seeing live performances: my wife and I revel in the opportunity of seeing live opera at The Met eight or nine times a year. We'd love to be able to be at the Lincoln Center itself, of course, but instead have to settle for the Cineworld multiplex in Cheltenham, UK. It's not only the Met that does this, nor are simulcast opportunities restricted to opera. It's not the same as being there, of course, but it's a pretty good second best and it's still supporting live music making.

Rather than bemoaning the situation and simply consuming the efforts of others, enthusiasts like us can and should do more to promote music we believe in, to right injustices which we feel have been done. I've done my best to help at least one unsung composer's music get recorded and performed, and that inevitably involves putting one's money where one's mouth is. I know I'm not alone here in doing that, but there is always more which could be done. Onward and upward!

Hear hear, Mark! Simply buying recordings of the music we want to hear is a way to advocate for the unsung. If the major American orchestras choose not listen to those dollars (or pounds, or euros), then so be it.

Yes, Mark we should hold together - and keep on loving and hoping  :P
And not forget that Mahler once was quite unsung too - compared to what is being done with him today.

I think I know whose opinions I trust. Most of them are members of this forum!

Let's keep on exchanging information and opinions, etc. - and who knows where we'll be and what we'll know in another ten years...

I think that this is a fine thread and very beneficial to me. I'm going to spend more time talking about the under appreciated Glazunov. Right now I'm listening to his eighth symphony a fine work.

As in my other thread. The question remains. Who got out on top as the leading composers and why ?
The same question goes for soloists. I am certain that many better musicians are left unspoken or disrespected in favor of some bunch of marketing wise better suited ones.
Volodos at least remains a champ, even after a sabbatical year.
Myaskovsky can easily be programmed, cheered by Shostakovitch. Nobody cares or knows.
Except for the labels CPO, Naxos, even Brilliant... So greatful we have them and alot of lesser known but good german radio sponsored orchestras. Otherwise we would not know either.

"The same question goes for soloists. I am certain that many better musicians are left unspoken or disrespected in favor of some bunch of marketing wise better suited ones."

Boy is that the truth. I will concede that some of the top conductors have a certain something that lesser maestros bring, but there are many not-so-well known ones that are absolutely brilliant and can make music soar. Same with orchestras. I've heard Mahler played just as well in Tucson as in New York.

Soloists are really annoying. Nowadays it seems that to be a star performer you must be photogenic, young, fit. You have to look good and sexy on a cd insert. I've heard my share of legendary performers who today wouldn't fit the mould of modern marketing.

I agree with Mark's standpoint. Personally, I have always been fascinated by the vagaries of taste, and still enjoy trying to understand why they arise but, yes, why some composers/compositions are regarded as mainstream (sung) and others not (unsung), and what and who falls into these categories, is ground we have covered many times here on UC. There are a host of factors (e.g. musicological, sociological, psychological, political, geographical) that bring about such distinctions, of course, and we all have our views as to which factors are most important and which are most influential. I am sure we all agree, however, that it is not always the quality of the music that consigns works to obscurity or establishes its familiarity.

After over 60 years of listening to music of all kinds, nothing surprises me as to what people will praise, criticize or dismiss!  :o

You forgot one important factor in how the distinction sung/unsung occurs:  Gender.  There doesn't seem to be even one sung woman composer in the 19th century and even in the twentieth they are extremely rare.

No, didn't forget gender - I only gave examples. We have discussed women composers many times here and I don't think anyone would disagree that gender is a major issue. I think the rising prominence of women composers in our own time is a very healthy sign, but that's outside the remit of UC.

Radio Klassik Austria (https://radioklassik.at/) has a night program consisting primarily of works by female composers this evening, btw (from Beach's Gaelic Symphony at midnight CET to Clara Schumann's lieder Op.23 at 2:47 am, 6 works in all, one by a modern composer (Zwilich), the others by Pejacevic, Smyth and Farrenc (her 3rd symphony, before the Schumann)).

(As to Brahms, I wonder how many of his detractors have heard a note of his chamber music (e.g. the two string sextets and the four quintets) and choral works, aside from that German Requiem (or even that, nowadays)- but I, too, digress.)

QuoteAs to Brahms, I wonder how many of his detractors have heard a note of his chamber music

Didn't Wagner consider Brahms' orchestral music to be essentially chamber music writ large?

??? I see this line mentioned a few places, but no source in Wagner's writings (or of someone who knew him)... hrm. Still, haven't really looked yet...

Ah, seems to come from a 1879 Wagner essay "On the application of music to [the] drama" (English translation of title), according to a 2006 book containing a discussion of the essay. Ok- sorry 'bout...

Two things, though...
(1) The same 2006 book claims (uniquely, except - hopefully? :) - for the 1879 essay itself, which I'll try to find) that Wagner was referring to Brahms' (figurative) school, not just to Brahms, symphonically speaking.* (Though the date is suggestive, and the discussion at that point in the book has to do with Wagner's intentions, the why of the title, etc.)
(2) Brahms wrote at least one orchestral work that wasn't like a chamber work writ large, it was a chamber work writ large, though I don't know if Wagner knew that...

*Yes, yes, I know, some of whom began composing symphonies before they ever met Brahms. Unfortunately, I'm guessing Wagner mentioned Gernsheim, Herzogenberg or others by name in this essay, or at least Wagner scholars might have taken some interest in them, as see piano-and-lieder recordings of people slightly associated with Wagner (admittedly, in person) in recent years...

The question, though, is what Wagner was trying to say...

Wagner is indeed suggesting that Brahms's symphonies (and those by others) are overblown chamber music. Here he is in the midst of describing the history of symphonic music:

"The said symphonic compositions of our newest school—let us call it the Romantic-classical—are distinguished from the wild-stock of our so-called Programme-music not only by the regretted absence of a programme, but in especial by a certain clammy cast of melody which its creators have transplanted from their heretofore retiring "Chamber-music." To the "Chamber," in fact, one had withdrawn. Alas! not to the homely room where Beethoven once poured into the ears of few and breathless friends all that Unutterable he kept for understanding here alone, instead of in the ample hall-space where he spoke in none but plastic masses to the Folk, to all mankind: in this hallowed "chamber" silence long had reigned; for one now must hear the master's so-called "last" Quartets and Sonatas either badly, as men played them, or not at all—till the way at last was shewn by certain outlawed renegades, and one learnt what that chamber-music really said. No, those had already moved their chamber to the concert-hall: what had previously been dressed as Quintets and the like, was now served up as Symphony: little chips of melody, like an infusion of hay and old tea-leaves, with nothing to tell you what you are swallowing but the label "Best"; and all for the acquired taste of World-ache."

(From the William Ashton Ellis translation, bold added to emphasize the point at hand)

Quote from: Alan Howe on Monday 16 November 2015, 22:36
The question, though, is what Wagner was trying to say...

Ha! Always the challenge.

Quotelittle chips of melody

Therein lies a clue, methinks. Wagner's soundscape was that of unendliche Melodie, not 'little chips'...

Quote from: Alan Howe on Monday 16 November 2015, 22:46

Quotelittle chips of melody

Therein lies a clue, methinks. Wagner's soundscape was that of unendliche Melodie, not 'little chips'...

Exactly. My sense, too, is that he's referring to pervasive motivic development.

Not too surprisingly, a few decades later (if not sooner) you get music that manages to sound like it takes from both (imho) (see: openings of e.g. Magnard's 2nd symphony, Enesco's 3rd symphony, other works, I think... germinating motives but also very very much the twistiness and long-breathedness of endless melody...)

I've often thought that it would be an interesting task to trace the influence of Wagner's concept of unending melos on composers of symphonies. But it's probably already been done...

Bruckner certainly comes to mind. As do Damrosch and Cliffe.

(Edit) d'Indy?...

Yup. Franck?

I can't help making the point that the translation of "unendliche Melodie" ought to be infinite melody, not endless melody; endless is only another word for boring, which I doubt Wagner had in mind.
Anyway every melody ends at some point, Wagner's as well as anybody else's.

Here's an explanation of Wagner's thinking:
http://www.learnclassical.com/the-courses/wagner/wagner-5-endless-melody/ (http://www.learnclassical.com/the-courses/wagner/wagner-5-endless-melody/)
So, my question was how this thinking worked itself out among composers of symphonies...

...just been listening to Scriabin 3. Very much in thrall to Wagner, I'd've thought.

The main fast first movement theme of Franck's symphony sounds -very- motivic and short-breathed to me (and an unconvincing fast version of the slow introduction- or vice versa?...) - which is why in my opinion his symphony in D minor doesn't make it in to the modified/evolved thread :D

Thanks for the Wagner link.  It matches my recollection quite well.  To me the seductive power of Wagner's music stems more from the harmony and even the instrumentation than from the melody (and Tristan is mostly and justly famous for its harmony).
Anyhow since the concept is so closely linked to the need of "Musiktheater" it is hard to describe what feature you'd expect in a symphony with "unendliche Melodie" (and I insist that "endless" is a bad choice of words for what Wagner had in mind) as the symphony has no choice but to find the drama within the music.

Quotesince the concept is so closely linked to the need of "Musiktheater" it is hard to describe what feature you'd expect in a symphony with "unendliche Melodie"

Well, probably some sort of programme for a start  - which would turn a piece of abstract music into a drama.