Many composers regarded as ultra-modern firebrands in their youth quite rapidly found themselves overtaken by new musical fashions and settled down into somewhat 'cosy' roles later on in life as figures of The Establishment - examples who spring immediately to mind are Richard Strauss, Granville Bantock, William Walton and Arthur Bliss.
Which composers retained their modernist status to the end of their lives (excluding those who died young) - I think that Beethoven and Stravinsky qualify, but are there any amongst the unsungs? ???
Among the sungs Copland also qualifies. Of course, his earlier stuff is much more popular than his late, 12-tone music.
I would reply Michael Tippett (but: he is unsung? Is he within the boundaries of the forum)?
Elliott Carter is still composing "difficult" music well into his second century.
I suspect Berlioz was also still considered dangerously radical at the time he died, considering how long it took his reputation to recover.
Interesting subject. It's hard to think of an unsung enfant terrible who stayed terrible. The 'taste makers' in classical music love "e.t."s, so being one is a good way to get sung. Berlioz is a good example, even the worst pieces get played and recorded (the Symphonie funebre et triomphale is my personal least favorite.) Unsungs tend to be folks of a more conservative cut, the kind who don't raise a fuss and attract less notice. Then there are the mellowing effects of age, which can be seen in once-advanced fellows like Spohr.
I would argue that changing your style all the time, even into old age (see Copland) is artificial, and undesirable since (I was always taught) the ideal in art was to find your personal style and, while developing and maturing, stay with it. Most people do not change radically once they reach maturity and the demand that once a composer has developed his/her style he/she should be expected to change it every ten years to keep up with the times is a peculiar modern mania.
David[/tt
Draeseke was certainly regarded as an enfant terrible in his early days, being known as "der Recke" (the Warrior); however, towards the end of his life he penned the essay "Die Konfusion in der Musik" (Confusion in Music) which warns of the excesses of younger composers (such as Strauss, Reger and Schillings).
Nevertheless, Draeseke's symphony No.4, written at the end of his life, is remarkably modern-sounding...
Schoenberg, but who cares.
;D
re Schoenberg- no, I'd say the opposite was the case. (organ variations, suite for strings, revised chamber symphony no.2, new composers - even before WW2- deciding he was old news... and I say this as someone who, unlike 99.44% of the people on this forum, does like a lot of his music.)
Although consigned to the minority of 0.66% such distinguished company I have!
At mention of Schoenberg (I join the small band noted above) I thought of Joseph Matthias Hauer who was his "rival" for founding dodecaphonism, marginalized but radical and apparently wrote something every day of his last years using his own twelve-tone theory, some of his zwolftonspielen are identified by date rather than opus number. Though I think he was not only "unsung" but so arcane he was almost "unremembered", yet his music seems very listenable to me. I am not a musicologist or any other kind of "ologist"....but here it goes: I KNOW WHAT I LIKE!
Quote from: petershott@btinternet.com on Monday 14 March 2011, 20:24
Although consigned to the minority of 0.66% such distinguished company I have!
Who's probably better at math than you. You mean 0.56%.
well, I was a math student once. But not, however, better at arithmetic- I failed to notice the solecism. Ow. ;)
Peter's error, Eric. Not yours! ;)