Admitting the Unsung to the Pantheon...

[Alan Howe]

In any event, the phrase "composers of the first rank" is not very meaningful, because it is such a subjective one unless one chooses to have it defined as those whose pieces are in the concert repertoire.

And yet we all operate as if we agree that they exist and know who they are. Would anyone disagree, for example, that Beethoven is such a composer?

[thalbergmad]

Never in UC history has more effort been put into the question than the answer.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Would anyone disagree, for example, that Beethoven is such a composer?

John Field.

Sorry, couldn't resist it.

Thal

[Alan Howe]

John Field.

Actually, although Field disliked Beethoven's piano music (it was like 'Germanic dishcloth'), he admired the older composer's chamber and orchestral music.

Sorry, couldn't resist giving the full picture. 

[semloh]

Unless we take global recognition to be one of the criteria we must employ, who we think unsung and sung - and who moving from one to the other - will depend in part on where we live. I think it fair to claim that here in Australia, for example, Peter Sculthorpe and Elena Kats-Chernin enjoy more recognition, air-time, concert-time, and acclaim than, say, Raff or Fibich.

It's quite a challenge to look beyond one's immediate context and assess the global picture. I'd have to rely on what I can find on the internet, and mostly on CD releases. On that basis, I'd go along with Atterberg and Stanford, maybe Fibish and Raff. So many seem to be knocking on the door - Gernsheim, Lyatoshinsky, Medtner, Braga-Santos, Lachner, Melartin, Langgaard - while others seem to have found a secure place on the doorstep, as it were - Parry, Brian, Halvorsen, Svendsen, Alfven, Stenhammar.

These are just my quick off-the-cuff assessments, and I know others will disgree...

[kolaboy]

John Field.

Actually, although Field disliked Beethoven's piano music (it was like 'Germanic dishcloth'), he admired the older composer's chamber and orchestral music.

Sorry, couldn't resist giving the full picture. 

He was probably drunk (couldn't resist giving the fullest possible picture).

[JollyRoger]

Roentgen was perhaps too prolific for us to have a focus on his masterworks?
try symphonies 3,8 and 15 at least..

[Alan Howe]

He was probably drunk (couldn't resist giving the fullest possible picture).

Drunk? Probably a rather blurred picture, then. 

[Gauk]

one could throw in Stanford and Fibich - to name but two.

I'd already thrown in Stanford.

If it means "composers of the first rank", then I'm afraid I think the answer is none. Those named are good composers of the second rank, but not of the stature of, say, Mahler.

I don't agree. I believe there are composers of the first rank among the unsung. And for all his marvellous music, Mahler - like Bruckner - is essentially a one-genre composer. He is much more limited in terms of all-round compositional achievement than, say, Dvorak or Brahms among established names. In another generation today's Mahler hype may have blown itself out and we may be able to assess him more objectively.

On a personal note, when I first started investigating forgotten music, I corresponded with the late Dr Alan Krueck whose knowledge of the unsung repertoire was - and probably remains - unmatched. Interestingly, he had come to the conclusion that there are greats among the unsung.

OK, I'll see your Stanford and raise you a Weingartner and a Reznicek.

As to Mahler writing in only one genre, we have had this discussion in a previous thread re Chopin. Same with Wagner, but what elevates both Mahler and Wagner to the first rank is their originality, and the profundity with which they explore the human soul through music, something which, frankly, you won't find in Raff, Reinecke et al.

I do agree that there are truly great composers amongst those whose music is neglected, but those that I think fit the description are not romantics according to the definition used here. One of them, in fact, has steadily made progress into the pantheon just over the last twenty years, before which he was unheard of and unperformed outside his native land.

If I had to name a strictly romantic composer who was definitely knocking at the door of greatness, I would nominate Franz Schmidt, for his chamber music as well as his orchestral output. I find in his music an intellectual satisfaction I don't find in Raff, much as I like Raff's music.

[Alan Howe]

Quote from Gauk Today at 19:20
<<but what elevates both Mahler and Wagner to the first rank is their originality, and the profundity with which they explore the human soul through music, something which, frankly, you won't find in Raff>>

Ah, but why should this be the sole criterion by which composers are admitted to the pantheon? The more classically-minded composers (more interested, perhaps, in form than pure self-expression) offer satisfaction of a less visceral, more intellectual kind. I derive as much pleasure from the terseness, elegance and form-consciousness of, for example, Raff 4 as I do from anything by Wagner or Mahler. So, I'm in fundamental disagreement with your premise, I'm afraid.

[saxtromba]

I see a couple of problems here, ones which need to be addressed before any plausible answer can be given to the initial question.

1) What counts as enough knowledge of a composer's music for a proper assessment?  Alan Howe's first post suggests "overall oeuvre" as a fair basis.  I'd agree, but then I note that Draeseke and Rufinatscha are listed and Rubinstein is not.  Knowing Alan Howe's dislike of Rubinstein, I'm unsurprised that he would think him ineligible for admission to the pantheon, but then the question seems to drift toward purely personal taste, not actual judgment.  After all, the amount of Rubinstein's music available for listening is both numerically and proportionally greater than that of either of these composers.

I'd suggest that a basic criterion would be that we can hear at least 50% of a composer's work in at least three-quarters of the major areas of composition in which they have worked (solo instrumental, chamber, orchestral, choral, opera, etc.).  The fewer areas in which a composer has worked, the higher the proportion of music which ought to be known should be.

2) What counts toward pantheonic status?  Surely it's not simply popularity or number of recordings; if it were, Rubinstein's 'Melody in F' would rank among the great pieces for piano solo.  It does not.  Therefore popularity is not enough.  Along similar lines, Mark Thomas suggests that

the phrase "composers of the first rank" is not very meaningful, because it is such a subjective one unless one chooses to have it defined as those whose pieces are in the concert repertoire.

This, if true, is even more problematic, since it basically denies the very idea that there is good or bad music beyond personal taste, and therefore lands us back at popularity without even allowing the possibility of truth or error in judgment.  The pantheon would be purely arbitrary, and there would be no reason whatsoever for allowing anyone in or taking anyone out.  All anyone could do is insist and hope that enough others agreed.  This may be the way things often work, but it would seem to contradict the very idea that one needs to have heard anything at all by a given composer.  Why?  Because if all opinions are of equal value, then an opinion based on hearsay is, by definition, equal to one based on careful consideration of scores and recordings.

I would support something akin to what Gauk has already suggested:

the profundity with which they explore the human soul through music.

This needs considerable fleshing out, since the nature of that profundity (instrumental and contrapuntal technique, structural complexity, melodic richness, etc.) needs to be made much clearer, but surely there is something important about the human expressivity of a composer's work.  If there isn't, why listen to music at all?  The mistake some people seem to make here is the double assumption that, a) there is only one actual criterion; and, b) that two composers could not both deserve pantheonic status if their style and content are vastly different (Mozart vs, Mahler, say).  But aesthetic appreciation is not a matter of scientific analysis, at least not purely; there will always be room for dispute.  The real question is whether or not one can adduce reasons for one's assessment, reasons grounded in the music itself.  The more one can do so, the more plausible one's argument in favor of (or against) so-and-so deserving to be in the pantheon will be.  The less one can do so, the less reason there is for anyone else to care what one's tastes are.  And this brings us back to the initial question and the reason why it's important: if we don't have enough of a sample of someone's work, we haven't got the evidence we ourselves need to make our own case.  After all, someone who knew only Wellington's Victory and the 'Rondo a Capriccioso' would hardly be in a position to reach a plausible or fair assessment of Beethoven....

[JollyRoger]

Possibly one of the requirements of the Pantheon should be the composing of more than just a handful of good works.
It was the mention of the highly prolilific Raff that gave me that thought, he must have dedicated his entire being to the creation of music. Rest assured that all prolifics do not necesssarily create great music, but it does show dedication to the cause. And even tho Kurt Atterburg had another full-time occupation, he would certainly be deserving of entry, he was also quite prolific and his music is grand. Although not a household name, he may no longer be considered unsung.

[petershott@btinternet.com]

Sorry - but I've got no idea at all what "the profundity with they explore the human soul through music" means. And how is that notion applicable to a musical composition? Sounds to me a bit of mumbo-jumbo. I'm not aware of myself as having something called a 'soul'. Are you? I would have thought a composer's work gets elevated to the pantheon on account of its musical qualities, and anything else is metaphor.

[JollyRoger]

Sorry - but I've got no idea at all what "the profundity with they explore the human soul through music" means. And how is that notion applicable to a musical composition? Sounds to me a bit of mumbo-jumbo. I'm not aware of myself as having something called a 'soul'. Are you? I would have thought a composer's work gets elevated to the pantheon on account of its musical qualities, and anything else is metaphor.

Peter - was this abrasive response necessary? Someone who thinks they have a soul and perhaps an ultimate accountability for their behavior has every right to believe that. While you are quite knowledgable about music, your abrasive retorts are a chilling factor for any reasoned dialogue.

[Mark Thomas]

I'm sorry, but I'm giving up on this thread. It is clearly going to go nowhere, the debate is going around in circles and occasionally getting tetchy as people buttons get pressed. It's not for me.