The Unfamiliarity of Unsung Music

[Alan Howe]

This may seem a pretty obvious thing to say, but the problem with unsung music is its very unfamiliarity. And this brings with it another problem, especially for music commentators and reviewers - but also for all listeners - i.e. that of the demand for instant critical assessment of the music concerned. With familiar repertoire the point at issue is not assessment of the music, but of the interpretation enshrined in the recording; however, with unsung repertoire its very unfamiliarity requires a much longer process of assimilation and assessment - which makes life very difficult for reviewers who simply don't have the time to undergo this process, The result, of course, is the sort of dismissive nonsense we often read in magazines, online, etc.

All of this seems pretty obvious, as I said. But it clearly applies to all of us - myself included, of course. And so what I have taken to doing is making copies of recordings for car use only and playing them there every day on my regular, routine journeys (but only when I'm alone!). This, I have found, is an ideal way not of doing any form of detailed assessment of a piece of music (I do need to drive from a to b safely!), but of getting the music into my subconscious and absorbing it at that level. In other words, repeated listening is of immense value when you don't know a piece of music - and if it can bear repetition in this manner it's probably a good piece!

My current companion in the car is Emilie Mayer's 4th Symphony, but this isn't the place to go into that wonderful music. Suffice it to say that, for me at least, regular listening and re-listening has been an important and opinion-forming (even opinion-changing) experience.

[Richard Moss]

Alan,

You raise a very interesting pint in your note about the possibility of one's opinion (on an unsung - or rather to the individual I's suggest a previously unknown) piece of music changing (after a few listenings, maybe). 

I'd be interested in how many members genuinely change their initial opinion from liking to not (or vice versa).  I usually find that if I don't like a piece, then even a further one or two attempts to listen don't really change that initial feeling.  Conversely, if I choose to listen more than that, it's because the music pleases me when I listen to it.  It's not a conscious choice, merely (I guess) a subliminal response to pleasure or lack of it.

Even though I'm not well-informed about content, keys, structure or similarities to other works like yourself and other senior members, I'm sure they are not key factors in the basic emotion of liking a piece (but clearly help, I'm sure, in understanding the piece - not the same thing as liking, methinks??)

Do other members find they might actually change their basic liking or otherwise of a newly heard piece??


Best wishes

Richard

[Alan Howe]

Repeated listening has greatly increased my regard for the unsung symphonic repertoire of the nineteenth century in particular. In almost all cases I can think of, the process has made much clearer a composer's own distinctive sound world and personality. It has also stopped me thinking of unsung composers in terms of other, sung composers - in other words I have found myself thinking in terms of a much broader development of the symphony than that which is generally put forward in text books, magazines, etc.

[petershott@btinternet.com]

I'm with you all the way on these points, Alan.

However I'd slightly modify your position. In my view, it is necessary to submit oneself to a couple of 'casual listenings' before sitting down to some 'serious hearing' with ANY piece of music. The reason why we don't appear to have to undertake this two-stage process with 'sung' music is that we already have a basic familiarity with it (from our early years, at school, encountering it either in part or whole from a radio broadcast, or even 'background' music in a play, film, or even TV advertisement). It is that initial acquaintance which enables us to get a grasp of the overall 'geography' of a piece, and which in turn makes possible a concentrated 'listen' and in turn to be able to make a reasonable critical judgment on whether a particular performance is any good (i.e. whether it does justice to the piece).

With an 'unsung' work we don't possess that background and therefore have to acquire a grasp of its 'geography' or 'sound-world' before a more concentrated listen. For example, if I go to a concert and hear a new piece by a contemporary composer (and I don't mean an outlandish one!) then although I might be struck by, say, the texture of the sounds, I'm probably not going to make much headway with the piece for I don't yet really know what to 'do' with the sounds impacting on my ears.

Maybe I'm in unduly convoluted mode! A simpler case might make the point clear. When I was at school and encountering Shakespeare's plays, I couldn't make much sense of a performance unless I'd previously read the play (or seen it adapted for a film). My very first encounter with Hamlet was being taken to Stratford when I was about 14. I confess I just couldn't readily follow what was going on: I didn't know who the characters were, the outlines of the plot, why a ghost appeared, or just why Ophelia started acting peculiar!

I also confess that, 50 years later, I had a very similar experience when listening to Rufinatscha for the very first time. The issue of the Chandos CD had been preceded by a whole trail of excited comments in this forum and elsewhere, and the result was that I was itching to hear the thing. So I peeled off the cellophane from the new CD, sat down, wiggled about in the chair to make sure there weren't going to be any uncomfortable pressure points on the nether regions, cleared the throat, disconnected the phone, emptied the mind of all previous thoughts, and, with full concentration at the ready, finally pressed the 'play' button. And what happened? I became almost bewildered by what seemed a long, meandering ramble lasting about 50 minutes with a few 'good bits' along the way. I got quite lost in it.

And the reason for that is quite simple - I hadn't prepared myself for listening to the symphony 'properly' by, for example, hearing it in the background whilst I ironed the shirts, painted the ceiling, washed the dishes, or engaged in some other mundane activity. Unlike you, Alan, I couldn't listen to a new unsung piece whilst driving the car. I seem to have a pair of ears that, whenever any piece of music is encountered, immediately surrender to it. The ears, so to speak, 'lock onto' the sound. For good or ill, my mind is such that there is simply no alternative but to listen to it intently and to block out everything else. If I drove and listened, I know I'd jolly well quite forget to steer and promptly go straight through a brick wall, or be found racing up the motorway in 1st gear! That's why 'pop' music really irritates me deeply - I can't ignore it or choose not to listen to it. Instead that inane noise drives into my skull and makes me thoroughly uncomfortable. I've been known to storm out of public places in a proper stink because the noise causes real anguish.

Apologies - I've rambled far away from your points!

[mbhaub]

Now, think how listeners before our modern era felt: they would have one - and usually only one - chance to assimilate and understand a work. There were no recordings and if you wanted to hear a symphony more than once, it may have entailed getting the piano reduction and playing from that. In our time we have the luxury to hear and re-hear music - known and unknown - over and over, and most of the time in different performances. For a 19th c listener, getting to know the Raff 3rd while driving or ironing wasn't an option. And composers knew it: they had to make a good impression from the get go. If you missed your chance, your music may go to the dust bin. If you were a conductor who could get your music performed more often it helped. But the listener didn't have too much time to decide if he likes or dislikes a music. I would like to think that audience members of yesteryear were smarter than those today. Was there a time when they really bought pocket scores to study? When I read books like Goepp I'm awed by the harmonic analysis and everything else. How many people today can understand any of it? Goepp even addresses the issue of music worthy of being in the repertoire and the junk.

So yes, it takes time and repeated listening sometime to "get it". Even among the greats there are more than a few who I didn't "get" for a long time: Elgar, Sibelius, even Brahms.  I struggled with Mahler for a long time, too. But others, Tchaikovsky, most of the Russians, Raff, Dvorak, Liszt, even Franck, came easy. 

[semloh]

Yes, I agree. The unfamiliarity of UCs can be awkward in terms of assessing their work, and there's no substitute for repeated listening in order to develop an appreciation of their, or any composer's, music. Alongside that, some compositions can have an immediate impact (good or bad!), and often no amount of repeated listening will alter that initial impression. The appeal of the Kallinikov symphonies, for example, or Borodin's string quartets, is pretty obvious at first hearing.

I don't get too worried about identifying a 'distinctive voice' among our UCs. For me, it's not a guarantee of quality, nor its absence a sign of inferiority. Most composers sound like someone else at some stage anyway, and that is to be expected - it's hard for a composer to develop totally insulated from, or unaffected by, the work of others, and initially at least there will be some degree of shared musical language.

As for changes in one's appreciation of certain compositions... I can give a couple of personal examples which don't involve UCs, but may be worth citing here just to illustrate the point. As some forum members know, I loathe most orchestral Tchaikovsky (yes, honestly and truly I do); as a teenager I delighted in the ballet music, but as the years have gone by I have found it all increasingly annoying, and now I can not bear to listen to it. In the reverse direction - Brahms! In my 20s and 30s, I had an allergic reaction to his orchestral and chamber music - I could pick it out simply because of the physical nausea it invoked. But by my 40s I came to love his music unreservedly. So, yes, I think we can change our estimation/appreciation of music quite dramatically over time.

[Peter1953]

It has been very interesting to read the posts of this thread. It is also my experience that repeated listenings are important to fully appreciate UC music, in fact all classical music.

I need to listen concentrated in order to judge a certain piece of music, so it is not possible to do that while driving in my car. It is too busy on the roads of my little overpopulated country. I always listen to (background) music in my car, but most of the times I don't even know what I was listening to. Classical music is something for me at home. Difficult, more complex classical music asks concentrated listening. As soon as it becomes noisy my wife leaves the room. And not rarely I force myself to keep on listening. But I am happy to do so, because I think the composer deserves it and I will at least give it a try to understand and appreciate the piece.
It happens that the first time I listen to an unknown work by an UC I feel immediately attracted to the music. Also after repeated listenings. Then I usually like to explore all his/her music (Rufinatscha for example). Some music needs more repeated listenings before I fully appreciate it (Draeseke is an example). But the reverse also happens. I have quite some music that I began to dislike after repeated listenings (Wetz is one of them).

I take the time and 'trouble' to listen to UC. I buy the CD's, not seldom because of what I've read on the forum. And then an UC becomes sung to me personally. But how is that for classical music lovers who are not aware of the existence of so many UCs? Those who like to visit a concert but are rarely surprised by a piece from an UC? Or only go to a concert if very sung music is on the program? How about those who only listen to the radio? Or buy CD's from famous composers because their music is full of memorable tunes? Or because music by the sungs can be found on broadcasted Top Hundred lists? And what is the influence of money? Is there a difference if a radio station plays Beethoven's Third instead of Röntgen's Third? If so, what and why? Money again?

I still think (in fact, understand) that music by UCs is something for a minority of classical music lovers (and we are the happy few!). But there are UCs who absolutely deserve to be placed next to the great and famous composers. Raff is definitely one of them.

[petershott@btinternet.com]

I always think a wise man is one without unchanging dogmatic views, tastes and preferences, and who has no difficulty in changing their mind. Nonetheless I'd love to draw you out a little, Semloh, and ask whether you can account for your changed view of Brahms. No problem with Tchaikovsky: others may howl but I find his music (chamber as well as orchestral) appeals largely to the senses, and once we've got over the physical exhilaration it can bring, there's not much of enduring subtlety to satisfy the mind.

But Brahms? Maybe I'm dogmatic here, but to me he's just about the most satisfying composer I've ever encountered - the chamber and piano music especially. I simply can't understand anyone not responding to the music! I've loved the stuff from a few months after my conception, and would be incapable of any other response.

Thus I'm intrigued: by what sort of process have you moved from physical nausea (wow!) to an unreserved love? Maybe that's a personal question which you'd prefer not to answer in public, but, struth, that is some change!

And "I've loved the stuff from a few months after my conception" - eh? Have I finally gone quite gaga? Maybe not! My parents possessed a very grand Steinway from the first day of their marriage, and my father played it most evenings. According to family legend when my mother heard Beethoven then without fail I'd be be kicking, sometimes quite violently, in the womb. Schubert, Schumann and Chopin brought about absolute stillness (was this contentment or boredom?). But Brahms? Apparently, and utterly invariably, I'd be jumping about in sheer joy. How about that?!

[semloh]

But Brahms? ..... by what sort of process have you moved from physical nausea (wow!) to an unreserved love? Maybe that's a personal question which you'd prefer not to answer in public, but, struth, that is some change!

And "I've loved the stuff from a few months after my conception" - eh? Have I finally gone quite gaga? Maybe not! ...............

I don't want to stray from the topic, Peter, but my change re Brahms began with a specific occasion when I inadvertently found myself listening to the 3rd symphony on BBC Radio 3 - I just suddenly found myself utterly seduced (or I "got it" as Judge Judy says!). As to early exposure to music, my father used to play 78s of Beethoven symphonies to me when I was a baby, but of course that simply means we were growing up in a home where classical music was available and acceptable (which it wasn't in most homes at that time).

As an example of an unfamiliar work with immediate appeal, I've just been listening to the Piano Concerto by Pabst - a very odd, eclectic work, which calls for some more careful listening. Forum members are probably familiar with it.

I think expectations, or lack thereof, play a part here. I have a clear expectation of the type of listening experience I am embarking upon when I about to listen to a Mozart piano concerto, but when the concerto is by an UC the only guide I might have is the date. I recall those all too rare occasions when such expectations have been confounded - notably, my first encounter with Gottschalk!

The unfamiliarity of Unsung music places the listener in a position of uncertainty, in which their predisposition to evaluate the music in a certain way no longer applies. BBC Radio 3 used to have a programme in which the music was unannounced - "The Unknowing Ear" or "The Innocent Ear" or some such - which I thought was fascinating because it freed one's response from all expectations. I recently had this happen here in Aus. whilst cooking breakfast!    I suddenly became aware of the music on the radio and muttered something about inane rubbish by some talentless composer, subsequently to discover that it was Mozart. Had I known in advance that I was about to hear something by my beloved Mozart, I suspect my reaction may have been different! 

[eschiss1]

That would have been "The Innocent Ear", hosted by a certain Robert Wilfred Levick Simpson, I believe. A late friend of mine enthused about it a lot. From what I've heard about it, he did so with reason. (Edit: about it. Haven't yet heard excerpts of the program itself.)

[semloh]

Yes, that's the one, Eric! It was a good way of getting people to listen without prejudice. 

[Gauk]

I hope no-one minds me resurrecting older threads, but this subject has been on my mind since reading the more recent thread on Rubinstein 4. It has always struck me that in any performance of unfamiliar music, if it sounds bad, the temptation is to blame the composer. This is just as true historically with premieres as it is with critics reviewing modern recordings of unfamiliar repertoire. Think of Rachmaninov's 1st symphony - if any of the critics present had had the perspicacity to record that the performance was terrible, musical history might have been different. And I have witnessed the same think first-hand with a premiere of a piece that was poorly performed through inadequate rehearsal, and the composer got the blame.

It takes real insight to see at one hearing that a piece's merits are obscured by a poor performance, if one has no other performance against which to compare it. Perhaps it is particularly difficult with orchestral music compared, say, to opera, where bad singing is clearly bad singing, usually.

I'm afraid, also, that a lot of professional critics don't have this skill. I suspect that many music critics subconsciously go through a process of reasoning something like this:

- Is this piece good?
- I don't know; is the composer famous at all?
- No.
- OK, if his music were good he would be famous, so this piece can't be good.

[petershott@btinternet.com]

'Resurrecting old threads'.....well, yes. But endlessly repeating what has been said before? No - because I think you've given a new perspective to the issues discussed.

I think you're spot on right, and express the point in lucid terms. I'll be interested to read subsequent posts - and I'm sure they'll be forthcoming!

[JimL]

I hope no-one minds me resurrecting older threads, but this subject has been on my mind since reading the more recent thread on Rubinstein 4. It has always struck me that in any performance of unfamiliar music, if it sounds bad, the temptation is to blame the composer. This is just as true historically with premieres as it is with critics reviewing modern recordings of unfamiliar repertoire. Think of Rachmaninov's 1st symphony - if any of the critics present had had the perspicacity to record that the performance was terrible, musical history might have been different. And I have witnessed the same think first-hand with a premiere of a piece that was poorly performed through inadequate rehearsal, and the composer got the blame.

It takes real insight to see at one hearing that a piece's merits are obscured by a poor performance, if one has no other performance against which to compare it. Perhaps it is particularly difficult with orchestral music compared, say, to opera, where bad singing is clearly bad singing, usually.

I'm afraid, also, that a lot of professional critics don't have this skill. I suspect that many music critics subconsciously go through a process of reasoning something like this:

- Is this piece good?
- I don't know; is the composer famous at all?
- No.
- OK, if his music were good he would be famous, so this piece can't be good.

I want to borrow most of this last paragraph for a FB status.  May I?

[Amphissa]

I was not exposed to classical music when young and never had any systematic introduction to classical music in my entire life. I had no formal training with an instrument. I never attended a concert of classical music until I was well into my 20s, and did not start listening to classical music as my primary musical interest until the mid-1990s.

The distinction between sung and unsung was really meaningless to me. Sure, I knew the names of Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms. But I really wasn't particularly familiar with their music, because I had never listened to it. Other than the 1812 Overture (gasp!), the opening notes of Beethoven's 5th, the Ode to Joy, the Nutcracker and Peter and the Wolf (haha), I was a novice. The only composer I actually had in my album collection as of the early 90s was Rachmaninoff. I had his 2nd and 3rd piano concertos and his first two symphonies. That was it.

As a result, as I staggered blindly into the world of classical music, every piece of music has received the same fair chance with me over the years, no matter the name of the composer. They were all unsung to me. And frankly, I discovered that a famous name was irrelevant to me. There were some sungs that I did not like from the beginning and have never developed a kinship with. Similarly, there are some unsungs I just don't enjoy, period. And of course, there are some composers I have been wowed by, sung and unsung.

Unlike many here who are extremely knowledgeable about music, I cannot read music (and don't care to learn), and do not listen to music analytically. Music is, for me, an entirely experiential thing. So the idea of a couple of light exposures before serious listening makes no sense for me. The music either resonates with me or it doesn't. And that applies to sungs as well as unsungs.

BTW, I loved Brahms from the first notes of the first symphony. But I have gotten into discussion group tussles with knowledgeable people who detest Brahms. There are those who adore Mozart, whereas I personallyfind his music superficial and boring. Luckily, there is so much music out there, we can all find music we enjoy.